Blount-Ayala

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
R. Battle

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av R. Battle » 22 apr 2006 08:00:54

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

<snip>
It would be interesting to know of North American
natives who went to England in the 17th century who have documented
descendants there (as opposed to known mixed descents in North America).
snip


While slightly OT here, it would also be interesting to see a list of the
"known mixed descents" you mentioned. We have lists of royally-descended
immigrants, but I haven't seen any such lists of accepted colonial-era
"gateways" into the Native community (just isolated disproofs of
long-cherished Amerindian connections).

-Robert Battle

Gjest

Re: Ahnentafel for Sir Baldwin de Freville, of Tamworth, Sta

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2006 08:02:08

Douglas Richardson schrieb:

Dear Michael ~

You have the order of Baldwin de Freville's marriages reversed. He
married (1st) after 10 May 1231 Lucy de Scalers, daughter and heiress
of Richard de Scalers, by whom he had a son and heir, Richard. Lucy
was living in 1245. He married (2nd) shortly after 10 July 1253 Maud
Giffard, daughter of Hugh Giffard, of Boyton, Wiltshire, by whom he had
sons, Baldwin, Knt., and Alexander, Knt. Baldwin de Freville died
shortly before 8 Feb. 1257. His widow, Maud, married William d'Evreux,
Knt., of Holme Lacy, Herefordshire, by whom she had further issue.
William d'Evreux was slain at the Battle of Evesham 4 August 1265.
Lady Maud d'Evreux acquired a one sixth-interest in the barony of
Tarrington, Herefordshire from her Cormeilles cousin, Thomas de Solers,
who died in 1272. In 1286 Godfrey Giffard, Bishop of Worcester,
granted Maud d'Evreux and Sibyl, her daughter, an acre of land in the
field of Wyston, which after their deaths should go to the prioress and
nuns of Wyston. Maud died 20 August 1297.

Many thanks, Douglas. That's a significant correction to the
traditional pedigree for the Frevilles.

Regards

Michael

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2006 08:09:01

In a message dated 4/21/2006 10:03:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

All of this is documented in the text as to source and origin, with
references.
Sincerely,
Ray


Then quote the book Ray, otherwise all of this is simply worthless rambling.
If some tribe had a crucified god named "jusus" or whatever you said, I'm
sure at least one of the other people on this list would have heard of it.
Personally I was an anthropology minor in college and nothing even remotely
similar to this came up.
And the fact, that only one person, one book, has ever mentioned it, is
significant, don't you think Ray? As in, maybe this guy, even if he *says*
this, took certain liberties with his material?
The only way to convince a skeptic is not to continue to wave your hands
and paraphrase, but to get right into the sources and quote them.
Will Johnson

norenxaq

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av norenxaq » 22 apr 2006 08:50:02

lostcooper@yahoo.com wrote:

I know I'm going to regret jumping into this idiocy, but virtually
every account about a "white god" or about Native people identifying
Europeans, however briefly, as "gods" is always based on the accounts
of the Europeans themselves.


How likely is it that the native american concept of the great spirit
was based on or influenced by christian beliefs?

Gjest

Re: Father of John, Stephen, Christopher and Bartholomew Hal

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2006 09:47:02

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

In a message dated 4/21/06 2:37:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

There was also a sister, Mildred, who married (licence dated 1547)
Thomas Docwra, MP, of Putteridge, Herts (1518-1602), named in John
Hales's will, and another son, also John - the eldest son, according to
the one source which names him - who died without issue, possibly in
infancy.

Is this then the Thomas, son of John Docwra and Ann St George ?
and is Mildren then the mother of Ralph Docwra d 1628 ?

Will

Your identification is spot on.

Michael

Are any of these related to the London merchant William Dockwra who set up a

Penny Post for London and its suburbs in 1680 (ceased in 1682 after he lost
a case for infringing the Crown monopoly of postal rights)

cheers

Simon

Gjest

Re: Father of John, Stephen, Christopher and Bartholomew Hal

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2006 09:49:12

fairthorne@breathe.com schrieb:

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

WJhonson@aol.com schrieb:

mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

There was also a sister, Mildred, who married (licence dated 1547)
Thomas Docwra, MP, of Putteridge, Herts (1518-1602), named in John
Hales's will, and another son, also John - the eldest son, according to
the one source which names him - who died without issue, possibly in
infancy.

Is this then the Thomas, son of John Docwra and Ann St George ?
and is Mildred then the mother of Ralph Docwra d 1628 ?

Will

Your identification is spot on.

Are any of these related to the London merchant William Dockwra who set up a
Penny Post for London and its suburbs in 1680 (ceased in 1682 after he lost
a case for infringing the Crown monopoly of postal rights)

Indeed, the same family, although William of the Penny Post's exact
position is not clear. He was the son of John Docwra, of St Olave
Jewry, London, an armourer, who will was proved at the PCC in 1650. As
you may know, William had a number of children, and some of his
descendants intermarried with the descendants of Thomas Docwra of
Putteridge, so there was apparently ongoing contact between the
branches. It has been suggested that William descended from the senior
branch, who remained in Cumberland for longer than the junior branch to
which Thomas belonged. If anyone is interested, I could start a new
thread on the Docwras.

Michael

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 22 apr 2006 12:42:54

In article
<Pine.A41.4.64.0604212357001.167018@dante73.u.washington.edu>,
"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

snip
It would be interesting to know of North American
natives who went to England in the 17th century who have documented
descendants there (as opposed to known mixed descents in North America).
snip

While slightly OT here, it would also be interesting to see a list of the
"known mixed descents" you mentioned. We have lists of royally-descended
immigrants, but I haven't seen any such lists of accepted colonial-era
"gateways" into the Native community (just isolated disproofs of
long-cherished Amerindian connections).

This is an interesting question. In New England, the most common
scenario for it is in the North, through the example of the neighboring
French-Quebecois metis communities (see Colin G. Calloway, _New Worlds
for All: Indians, Europeans and the Remaking of Early America_ [Johns
Hopkins, 1997]). I think documented native American marriages or
descents into the colonial English population on the coast or in
Southern New England are rarer than in Quebec, and I assume rarer still
in the South. Can people bring up examples?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

John Brandon

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av John Brandon » 22 apr 2006 16:10:14

Heather Locklear is a (remote) descendant of some mixed Native- and
African-American people near Lumberton, N.C. (the Lumbee tribe). I
think Locklear is a fairly common surname near Lumberton.

I've been told that people surnamed Chavis (quite common here in S.C.)
are of mixed white-Native descent.

Mark B

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Mark B » 22 apr 2006 17:25:02

--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net>
wrote:

<snip>

I think documented native American
marriages or
descents into the colonial English population on the
coast or in
Southern New England are rarer than in Quebec, and I
assume rarer still
in the South. Can people bring up examples?

Sorry this is getting a little further off topic, but
why would you assume that colonial marriages between
Indians and Englishmen (the only examples I'm aware of
are of men taking Indian brides) would be
exceptionally rare in the South? You may well be
right--I'm wondering what your line of reasoning is.

I'm curious because the first example that came to my
mind was James Logan Colbert who joined the Chickasaw
Nation (whose territory included parts of modern
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee) in the 1730s and
took at least three Indian brides. His descendants
were influential tribal leaders. In fact, I believe
that by the time of removal (granted, well after the
colonial period) many Choctaws and Chickasaws were of
mixed heritage. They had to decide whether they wanted
to remain in their homes as members of white society
or move with their tribes to Oklahoma. Perhaps the
Colberts and their like don't count, as they are
examples of whites assimilating into Indian culture
rather than vice versa. I'm don't know whether James
Logan Colbert has any modern descendants.

Best regards,
Mark Briscoe

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Douglas Richardson

Re: Ahnentafel for Sir Baldwin de Freville, of Tamworth, Sta

Legg inn av Douglas Richardson » 22 apr 2006 19:25:33

Dear Michael ~

You're quite welcome. I'm glad that you found the information helpful.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Website: http://www.royalancestry. net

mjcar@btinternet.com wrote:

< Many thanks, Douglas. That's a significant correction to the
< traditional pedigree for the Frevilles.
<
< Regards
<
< Michael

Gjest

Re: Sir Giles Wroughton's family

Legg inn av Gjest » 22 apr 2006 19:42:02

In a message dated 4/22/2006 7:52:16 AM Pacific Standard Time,
starbuck95@hotmail.com writes:

Mr. Robert1 Gibbes of New England was a descendant of these people in
some fashion ...


I believe the will of Dorothy (Wroughton) who married Upton and then
Shirley, mentions a nephew Robert Gibbes. Do you have more details on his dates, so
I can see if he fits this person?

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 22 apr 2006 20:12:05

In article <1145718614.897182.95420@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Heather Locklear is a (remote) descendant of some mixed Native- and
African-American people near Lumberton, N.C. (the Lumbee tribe). I
think Locklear is a fairly common surname near Lumberton.

I've been told that people surnamed Chavis (quite common here in S.C.)
are of mixed white-Native descent.

Right. See Wikipedia on 'Lumbee'.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Nathaniel Taylor

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 22 apr 2006 20:12:35

In article <20060422152422.91625.qmail@web52713.mail.yahoo.com>,
mygenlists@yahoo.com (Mark B) wrote:


--- Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net
wrote:

snip

I think documented native American
marriages or
descents into the colonial English population on the
coast or in
Southern New England are rarer than in Quebec, and I
assume rarer still
in the South. Can people bring up examples?

Sorry this is getting a little further off topic, but
why would you assume that colonial marriages between
Indians and Englishmen (the only examples I'm aware of
are of men taking Indian brides) would be
exceptionally rare in the South? You may well be
right--I'm wondering what your line of reasoning is.

I'm curious because the first example that came to my
mind was James Logan Colbert who joined the Chickasaw
Nation (whose territory included parts of modern
Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee) in the 1730s and
took at least three Indian brides. His descendants
were influential tribal leaders. In fact, I believe
that by the time of removal (granted, well after the
colonial period) many Choctaws and Chickasaws were of
mixed heritage. They had to decide whether they wanted
to remain in their homes as members of white society
or move with their tribes to Oklahoma. Perhaps the
Colberts and their like don't count, as they are
examples of whites assimilating into Indian culture
rather than vice versa. I'm don't know whether James
Logan Colbert has any modern descendants.

Well, I think you're right to have called me on this. I was thinking
only of natives being assimilated into the European colonial population,
not the other way around. My reasoning was simply extrapolation from
the (not supportible by me) assumption that southern European
society--or at least its upper echelons--was readier (than in the North)
to brand intermarried persons as 'other', casting them into the broad
and inconsistent category which became the 'free persons of color' of
the 1790 Federal census. But I believe this is a preconception based on
the old stereotypes differentiating practical New England rural culture
from stratified, pretentious southern society, which is itself a useless
stereotype. Mea culpa.

Both in the North and the South, white Europeans lived in societies
which were much more diverse than the traditional genealogical blinkers
would admit. Examples of intermarriage, especially of native Americans
who married *into* the classic 'white' lines of descent talked about so
much here (as well as the other way around, as your Colbert example
shows), might help us assess any difference there may have been between
North and South, and would at any rate give genealogists a more diverse
and more accurate sense of these colonial societies.

Malinda Maynor Lowery, a Harvard AB and UNC PhD of Lumbee descent, has
recently joined the history faculty at Harvard. She has written some
interesting things on our evolved discourse of native identity, and has
criticised the recent genealogical literature (by DeMarce and others)
for using the label 'tri-racial isolates', which (though DeMarce likely
did not intend this) do seem to perpetuate discredited ways of labeling
ethnicity. See the Wikipedia entry on the Lumbee tribe, of which she
may have written some.

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Vickie Elam White

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Vickie Elam White » 22 apr 2006 21:43:16

Lt-Col. John West (son of Gov. John West) had a son, Capt. John West, ca
1656 with "Queen" Cockacoeske. She was a Pamunkey and a descendant of
Opechancanough (Powhatan's younger brother). Source: Pocahontas's People,
The Powhatan Indians of Virginia Through Four Centuries by Helen C. Rountree
(Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1990), pg. 112 etc.

John Basse married a Nansemond named Elizabeth in 1638. A picture of their
family bible and the relevant marriage info is in the book cited above, pg.
85.

Also, although I don't have the source handy, Rev. John Waugh evidently had
two sons, Joseph b. ca 1659 and John Jr. b. ca 1661, by a woman whose
surname was Meese. She was at least half Patawomack. Supposedly Rev. Waugh
considered their relationship an actual marriage, but the church and/or his
family did not. Waugh had to "put aside" the woman and later married a white
woman by whom he had three sons. Interestingly, Waugh left his mixed sons
over 2,000 acres of land in 1700, and the oldest son by the second wife
divided their father's estate equally among *all* of Waugh's five sons.


Vickie Elam White


"Nathaniel Taylor" <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:nathanieltaylor-4C2577.07425622042006@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article
Pine.A41.4.64.0604212357001.167018@dant ... ington.edu>,
"R. Battle" <battle@u.washington.edu> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

snip
It would be interesting to know of North American
natives who went to England in the 17th century who have documented
descendants there (as opposed to known mixed descents in North
America).
snip

While slightly OT here, it would also be interesting to see a list of
the
"known mixed descents" you mentioned. We have lists of
royally-descended
immigrants, but I haven't seen any such lists of accepted colonial-era
"gateways" into the Native community (just isolated disproofs of
long-cherished Amerindian connections).

This is an interesting question. In New England, the most common
scenario for it is in the North, through the example of the neighboring
French-Quebecois metis communities (see Colin G. Calloway, _New Worlds
for All: Indians, Europeans and the Remaking of Early America_ [Johns
Hopkins, 1997]). I think documented native American marriages or
descents into the colonial English population on the coast or in
Southern New England are rarer than in Quebec, and I assume rarer still
in the South. Can people bring up examples?

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 22 apr 2006 22:34:03

Nathaniel Taylor wrote:
In article <1145718614.897182.95420@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote:

Heather Locklear is a (remote) descendant of some mixed Native- and
African-American people near Lumberton, N.C. (the Lumbee tribe). I
think Locklear is a fairly common surname near Lumberton.

I've been told that people surnamed Chavis (quite common here in S.C.)
are of mixed white-Native descent.

Right. See Wikipedia on 'Lumbee'.

But with care - it is hardly the balanced presentation that Wiki prides
itself on. I note that the author(s) dismissed some high quality
genealogical work showing a tri-racial origin as valueless because,
well, what do genealogists know about censuses anyhow? They then
proceed to throw out the entire concept underlying Tri-Racial
communities as eugenic revisionism.

taf

Hal Bradley

OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Hal Bradley » 22 apr 2006 22:35:11

Will Rogers, of "I never met a man I didn't like" fame, has Native American
ancestry through his Vann line. The Vann's married into the Cherokee Nation.
If I remember correctly, Joseph Vann married Wah-Li, who was baptized with
the name Mary. Joseph eventually became a tribal chieftan. When the
Cherokees were forced into the Trail of Tears march, the Cherokees with
mixed blood were allowed to remain in the Carolinas. Anyway, it is another
example of intermarriage between Native Americans and white settlers in the
South.

Hal Bradley


-----Original Message-----
From: R. Battle [mailto:battle@u.washington.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:01 AM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?


On Sat, 22 Apr 2006, Nathaniel Taylor wrote:

snip
It would be interesting to know of North American
natives who went to England in the 17th century who have documented
descendants there (as opposed to known mixed descents in
North America).
snip

While slightly OT here, it would also be interesting to see a
list of the
"known mixed descents" you mentioned. We have lists of
royally-descended
immigrants, but I haven't seen any such lists of accepted
colonial-era
"gateways" into the Native community (just isolated disproofs of
long-cherished Amerindian connections).

-Robert Battle

Jeffery A. Duvall

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Jeffery A. Duvall » 23 apr 2006 00:46:27

Although it hasn't received much publicity, a group of descendants of the
Patawomeck Indians -- most of whom seem to be descended from the offspring
of a marriage between a daughter of the last weroance (chief) of the
Patawomeck tribe, Wahanganoche (d. ca. 1661/62), and an Englishman named
Bryant -- have been trying to gain official recognition, from the state of
Virginia, as a tribe for about a decade now.

The individuals involved are all descended from a group of English families
who lived in Stafford County, Virginia in the 17th and 18th centuries, and
married descendants of the last chief of the Patawomecks. To be honest, my
impression is that there seems to have been, a great deal of inter-marriage
between this small group of families in the 18th century, as well marriages
to families descended from other local Virginia tribes in the 19th and early
20th centuries. In at least some cases, it appears (again, to me) that this
helped maintain at least some sense of an Indian identity in otherwise
outwardly appearing Anglo-American families.

Perhaps not so surprisingly, most of the current members of the
reconstituted "tribe" -- as part of the process to gain official recognition
from Virginia's State Indian Council, they've had to organize a tribe, elect
a tribal council, a chief, and a tribal historian, among other things -- are
still residents of Virginia. There are, however, at least a few members
who've been able to document their descent from the families involved, but
whose ancestors left the region one or even two hundred years ago.

Helen C. Rountree, considered (I think it's safe to say) to be among the
preminent authorities on the Powhatan Indians (and the Patawomecks were
affiliated with the Powhatan Confederacy, while their chiefs were members of
Powhatan's own family), alluded to this cluster of Stafford County families
in her *Pocahontas's People* (1990). At the time she interviewed a couple
of individuals on the subject (in the 1970s), however, she concluded that
while these Stafford County (VA) families all had an oral tradition of being
descended from the local Indians there was no agreement on two which tribe
they were descended from, let along a specific individual.

A few years ago, however, the tribal historian wrote me that Dr. Rountrees'
sources (in the '70s) were not the most knowledgable and that she was now
convinced enough by both his, and other's, research into the ancestry of the
Stafford County families that she was offering her assistance in gaining
recognition for the tribe from the State Indian Council, just as she had for
descendants of both the Nansemond and the Monacan Tribes.

The last I heard there were over 400 members of the tribe, and while they
have yet to gain state reognition they are still working toward that goal.

Among those Stafford County families descended from Wahanganoche are the
Newtons (and yes, much to my personal dismay, "not that there's anything
wrong with that" or with him I suppose, Wayne Newton is indeed a fellow
descendant), Foleys, Elkins, Greens, Bryants, Monteiths, Owens, etc.

Jeff Duvall
Indy

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 03:03:52

Dear Nate, Will, John, Todd and others,
I have a couple
of Massachusetts ladies with at least rumored Amerindian ancestry, these
being Jane Sandusky, wife of the emigrant Steven Flanders , though there is also
the possibly She was the daughter of a Quebec resident Philippe Sainte- Estees
.. The couple did name a son Philip according to the Flanders family from
England to America, which discusses Jane`s orgins at length without arriving at a
definite conclusion. Steven Flanders was a surprisingly powerful individual as
far as non-Church members went in Amesbury / Salisbury, Massachusetts. He had
surveyor`s implements and apparently very good at it.
The second apparent Amerindian woman was Margaret, wife of
Gabriel Whelden and mother of Giles Hopkins` wife Catherine and variously
called Margeret Oquina, Margaret Diquina, Margaret Quodaquina and Margaret
Weeks in several Ancestry World Tree databases, some of which claim at the same
time that Catherine was born between 1615- 1618 at Arnold, Notts, England.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 04:54:04

In a message dated 4/22/06 2:37:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

<< I note that the author(s) dismissed some high quality genealogical work
showing a tri-racial origin as valueless because, well, what do genealogists
know about censuses anyhow? >>

Well, you, or anyone, can go into the wiki and simply change it.
Will Johnson

norenxaq

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av norenxaq » 23 apr 2006 05:10:58

WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 4/22/06 2:37:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
farmerie@interfold.com writes:

I note that the author(s) dismissed some high quality genealogical work
showing a tri-racial origin as valueless because, well, what do genealogists
know about censuses anyhow?

Well, you, or anyone, can go into the wiki and simply change it.
Will Johnson



hence its near uselessness as a source

Gjest

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 06:04:31

Although you did not address the question to me...the difference lies
in the cultures from Europe, specifically France & Spain versus
England. The French intentionally took Native wives in order to become
part of good trapping families and profit from the fur trade; in the
process, many of them assimilated to the Native way of life. The Metis
are the classic example of this but not the only example. The Spanish
intentionally married Native women in part because of a cultural belief
(Roman in origin, perhaps?) that "race-mixing" tended to bring out the
best of each. They were also concerned with creating a Native and mixed
population of devout Catholic laborers who would be loyal (and
profitable) to the Crown. The English were quite the opposite. They had
a cultural belief that "race-mixing" created "mongrels" who represented
the worst of both groups. As soon as Pocahontas & John Rolfe left for
England, the colonies enacted anti-miscegenation legislation. This does
not mean, of course, that such liaisons did not continue to occur - but
it became a punishable crime. The English also became obsessed with
skin color - perhaps more so than cultural or religious differences.
They had developed myths of their own "purity" (contrary to historical
fact) and, as in a caste society, regarded "race mixing" as pollution.
It is also of note that the English launched the most aggressive wars
of extermination, brought the custom of using human scalps as trophies
for bounties, and began the germ-warfare program represented by the
giving of blankets as "gifts" that were contaminated with smallpox &
other infectious diseases to which the Native people had no immunity.
Obviously, the occupation of any country by a foreign power is brutal &
to emphasize the extremes to which the English went is NOT to say that
the Spanish & French occupiers did not also commit atrocities. And, as
well, there were atrocities committed upon all of the European groups
by Native people. The one thing all groups had in common was their
humanity - the best of it and the worst of it. But when Native people
today, especially in the north, look at the colonial period - they
recall the French in the friendliest terms (notable exception: the
Blackrobes). For these reasons, there is some probability that a
mixed-blood person during that time period would not have been English.
That said, the *possibility" is always there. Best, Bronwen

Merilyn Pedrick

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Merilyn Pedrick » 23 apr 2006 09:18:02

The British did the same in Australia with the aborigines. At the time of
the First Fleet in 1788, Governor Philip had a very respectful attitude to
the native people, but his feelings weren't shared by many of his
compatriots. There were hunting parties, massacres, intentional germ
warfare.
Inevitably over time there was racial mixing, and many of the white people
thought that eventually the black would be bred out of the race. It went so
far more recently, that children in the outback who were more fair-skinned
were taken from their families and became what is now called "The stolen
generation". The idea was to take them to institutions (often religious) to
be educated to a certain level and trained to be compliant servants. This
has led to much heartbreak recently, when records having been released, the
stolen generation try to reunite with their families, only to find that
their mother died two years ago, or the families can't be traced.
Some aboriginal people have made good and defend the practice, but most
yearn for the families they lost.
Best wishes
Merilyn Pedrick

-------Original Message-------

From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
Date: 04/23/06 14:37:45
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Although you did not address the question to me...the difference lies
in the cultures from Europe, specifically France & Spain versus
England. The French intentionally took Native wives in order to become
part of good trapping families and profit from the fur trade; in the
process, many of them assimilated to the Native way of life. The Metis
are the classic example of this but not the only example. The Spanish
intentionally married Native women in part because of a cultural belief
(Roman in origin, perhaps?) that "race-mixing" tended to bring out the
best of each. They were also concerned with creating a Native and mixed
population of devout Catholic laborers who would be loyal (and
profitable) to the Crown. The English were quite the opposite. They had
a cultural belief that "race-mixing" created "mongrels" who represented
the worst of both groups. As soon as Pocahontas & John Rolfe left for
England, the colonies enacted anti-miscegenation legislation. This does
not mean, of course, that such liaisons did not continue to occur - but
it became a punishable crime. The English also became obsessed with
skin color - perhaps more so than cultural or religious differences.
They had developed myths of their own "purity" (contrary to historical
fact) and, as in a caste society, regarded "race mixing" as pollution.
It is also of note that the English launched the most aggressive wars
of extermination, brought the custom of using human scalps as trophies
for bounties, and began the germ-warfare program represented by the
giving of blankets as "gifts" that were contaminated with smallpox &
other infectious diseases to which the Native people had no immunity.
Obviously, the occupation of any country by a foreign power is brutal &
to emphasize the extremes to which the English went is NOT to say that
the Spanish & French occupiers did not also commit atrocities. And, as
well, there were atrocities committed upon all of the European groups
by Native people. The one thing all groups had in common was their
humanity - the best of it and the worst of it. But when Native people
today, especially in the north, look at the colonial period - they
recall the French in the friendliest terms (notable exception: the
Blackrobes). For these reasons, there is some probability that a
mixed-blood person during that time period would not have been English.
That said, the *possibility" is always there. Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: 25 October 1415, near Agincourt Castle ( OT)

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 15:17:02

Dear James D Allen,
Given the political climate immediately
following September 11, 2001, I wouldn`t rule out the possibily of the President
manning the controls of an aircraft. It is interesting to note that Saudi
Arabia`s present King , `Abdallah led a squadron into battle in 1991 againest the
Iraqis during the First Gulf War and that HRH Prince Andrew prior to his
marriage and creation as Duke of York flew a fighter in the Faklands. The last
ruling British monarch to lead an army into battle was King George II (unsure of
the exact date).
Sincerely,
James W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 20:07:27

Will Rogers used to bill himself as "The Cherokee Kid"...The great
amount of "race mixing" among the Cherokees in the South was part of
what past Tribal Chairwoman Wilma Mankiller has called "The Great
Cherokee Assimilation Experiment". As a sovereign nation surrounded by
non-Native settlers, the Cherokees (especially in Georgia) adopted some
degree of European culture in the mistaken belief that their
differences were the basis of hostility from settlers. This included
outward appearance, attendance at Christian churches, settlement
patterns, style of housing, and, for those wealthy enough to do it, the
keeping of slaves who were predominantly African or mixed
Native-African. When the Trail of Tears occurred, many of the slaves
and non-Native family members went with them, although they could have
remained in Georgia. The decision as to whether or not to go to Indian
Territory (where Will Rogers' ancestors were) was a matter of virtual
civil war in the Cherokee Nation. However, the mixed-bloods were the
ones who wanted to stay (as in the Chief, John Ross, who was more Scot
than Cherokee). The fullbloods were more anxious to go to Indian
Territory in the hope of maintaining a Cherokee way of life where the
European settlers would not be around them (as in Elias BOudinot and
Stand Watie, brothers; Stand Watie also became a Brigadier General in
the Confederate Army and was noteworthy as the last General to
surrender after Appomattox). The Eastern Cherokees in North Carolina
mostly represent people who simply escaped notice and, in the 20th
century, were federally recognized by the US (meaning the US
acknowledged a government-to-government relationship with them). The
Cherokees are unusual in the number of "racially mixed" marriages they
had. The other Five Civilized Tribes also did this to a greater degree
than other Indian nations (Chickasaw, CHoctaw, Creek & Seminole), but
the Cherokees lead the pack. Other Indians in the country, especially
in the west, unfairly joke about the vast number of people who appear
"white" but say they are Cherokee. I say "unfairly" because many of
these people are telling the truth but it does not make the Cherokees
less "Indian" or less sovereign than other tribes.

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 20:24:07

This post helps illustrate one of the points that can be made regarding
the original question: the identity of an American-born woman in the
very early 17th century who later died and was buried in England. The
question arose, if I understand it correctly, because of the place of
her birth and the fact that there was no surname was given. That, of
course, was the common practice in regard to the servant class. The
examples brought up in the above post of James Cummings and others
serve to show that intermarriage was probably rare and concerned the
family members of high-ranking Native people within their own
governments. Examples that are brought up mostly have individual names
and circumstances; they do not concern people who were likely to end up
as servants in English households. There were indentured servants and
their children in the colonies at that time, most of whom were British.
There were also some people of African ancestry who were indentured
servants (not slaves). It seems to me that if this woman had been
Native, the statement would not simply say that she was "born" in the
colony, but would specifically say that she was aboriginal. That would
have been enough of a novelty in England to have merited mention. On a
slightly different subject, I wonder if people like Tisquantum
(Squanto) left descendants in Europe? He crossed the Atlantic at least
six times during his lifetime and lived in more than one European
country. I wonder if anyone claims descent from him. I am still trying
to find the results of Jack Forbes' research. Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 20:30:27

Yes - and of course we know the story of Truganinny in Tasmania. As
brutal as other colonists (all colonists?) were, the English were
unique in their approach. Some of what you describe was depicted in the
movie "The Rabbit Fence" which is a real tearjerker but with a
feel-good redemption at the end when the girls succeed in their journey
and we see the faces of the real elders they have become today. When I
talk about the brutality of the English, I include some of my own
ancestors who kept slaves in the British West Indies and used
destructive water cannons to mine for gold in California. Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 21:01:24

The concept of the 'Great Spirit' is not so much a Native tradition as
it is a translator's assumption. Native people are more likely to refer
to "the Creator" and to understand that different cultures will see the
Creator differently. When Christian missionaries first contacted Native
people in the Americas and told them the Biblical creation account, the
Native people by and large said "that is an interesting and wonderful
account. We believe that you are speaking of your creation. Now let us
tell you about ours". Also, when people point to the European-derived
government and call it the "great white father", they are using a term
that was coined by George Washington in addressing the Native people.
It may have been in response to the colonists' impression of Native
government - that leaders are like parents in that they protect you,
make sure you have what you need to survive, organize life activities
to benefit you, etc. But this did not extend to seeing a foreign leader
as the "father" of a Native group. That, too, was in the European
imagination.

Gjest

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 21:40:03

Dear Chris,
Actually, the term Miss didn`t exist until the nineteenth
century, so Mrs. "Mistress" was the title of respect for unmarried women not
daughters of a Earl or someone of higher rank who were Lady (given name,
surname). married women could be Goodwife

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 21:54:02

In a message dated 4/23/2006 12:15:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

The decision as to whether or not to go to Indian
Territory (where Will Rogers' ancestors were) was a matter of virtual
civil war in the Cherokee Nation.



However, there were a fair number of completely "white" squatters in the
Indian territory as well. This led, to sometimes several generations later,
people claiming to be "part Cherokee" and seeking inclusion based on their
ancestors having lived in Indian territory since 1840 or whatever. When in fact,
those people simply came to the territory as traders or squatters or
land-lease type subsistence farmers, or whatever.
And now today we have to convince those two or forty descendents, that
their ancestors weren't Cherokee at all.
So this is the flipside of what you are saying.
Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Gjest » 23 apr 2006 21:55:03

In a message dated 4/23/2006 12:39:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:

married women could be Goodwife


Shortened to "Goody", leading some newly-minted genealogists to think this
was a proper name instead of a title.
Will Johnson

Peter

Re: 25 October 1415, near Agincourt Castle ( OT)

Legg inn av Peter » 23 apr 2006 22:23:46

Prince Andrew flew a helicopter not a fighter.

Peter

<Jwc1870@aol.com> wrote in message news:3d7.3b27ca.317cd7bf@aol.com...
Dear James D Allen,
Given the political climate immediately
following September 11, 2001, I wouldn`t rule out the possibily of the
President
manning the controls of an aircraft. It is interesting to note that Saudi
Arabia`s present King , `Abdallah led a squadron into battle in 1991
againest the
Iraqis during the First Gulf War and that HRH Prince Andrew prior to his
marriage and creation as Duke of York flew a fighter in the Faklands. The
last
ruling British monarch to lead an army into battle was King George II
(unsure of
the exact date).
Sincerely,
James
W
Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA

norenxaq

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av norenxaq » 23 apr 2006 22:36:02

I wonder if people like Tisquantum
(Squanto) left descendants in Europe?


he has no known descendants in america or europe

Leo van de Pas

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 23 apr 2006 23:47:01

Dear Will,

Can you be more precise. How does one become a Cherokee? Could they have
been adopted into the clan? Which, I think, would make them fully fledged
Cherokee and if then their descendants for several generations remain part
of the Cherokee world, wouldn't that give them the same rights as Cherokees
born Cherokees? However, if they only were squatters and not part of the
Cherokee world that seems a different matter.

Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?


In a message dated 4/23/2006 12:15:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

The decision as to whether or not to go to Indian
Territory (where Will Rogers' ancestors were) was a matter of virtual
civil war in the Cherokee Nation.



However, there were a fair number of completely "white" squatters in the
Indian territory as well. This led, to sometimes several generations
later,
people claiming to be "part Cherokee" and seeking inclusion based on
their
ancestors having lived in Indian territory since 1840 or whatever. When
in fact,
those people simply came to the territory as traders or squatters or
land-lease type subsistence farmers, or whatever.
And now today we have to convince those two or forty descendents, that
their ancestors weren't Cherokee at all.
So this is the flipside of what you are saying.
Will Johnson


Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 01:44:34

In a message dated 4/23/2006 2:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Can you be more precise. How does one become a Cherokee? Could they have
been adopted into the clan? Which, I think, would make them fully fledged
Cherokee and if then their descendants for several generations remain part
of the Cherokee world, wouldn't that give them the same rights as Cherokees
born Cherokees? However, if they only were squatters and not part of the
Cherokee world that seems a different matter.


You have to understand that the US government, albeit belatedly, gave things
to the Cherokee. So in similar fashion to other free givaways, there were
people lining up to claim their prize, who didn't really deserve it.

Now in addition to that, you have the drift of legends which turn "... my
father came to Indian territory in 1842" into "... my father came on the Trail
of Tears to Indian territory" and finally into ".. my father was an Indian".

Then, since the "father" in question, was a squatter or a trader in the
Cherokee Nation section, then he was automatically a Cherokee by legend. Once
the amatuer genealogist has incontroverible proof that the father was not in
fact a Cherokee, then the legend gets attached to his wife whoever she was or
wasn't.

When faced with the requirement to prove this connection however, the
amateur genealogist insists that "the records were burned" or "they didn't keep
records back then" both of which are mostly false.

I cannot tell you how many (all) of the clients I've picked up who have
ancestors from Oklahoma or Arkansas, insist that they have an Indian (almost
always a woman, almost always a Cherokee) in their direct ancestry. Even when
faced with documents, where the Cherokee Nation investigated the claim and
dismissed it, they will still insist that it's true. It's very difficult to
remove preconceptions of this type.

Will Johnson

Leo van de Pas

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 24 apr 2006 01:52:02

Dear Will,

I suppose the most famous faker/claimant of Indian ancestry was Sir Winston
Churchill. I believe he 'may' have been convinced or simply used it for
political advantage.

With family stories (I think) you always have to be careful as there could
be a grain of truth, or the circumstances are slightly different. I was
tracing a West Australian family and repeatedly was told "two brothers came
out to Australia but one returned to England".
In the end I found a nephew who had worked on a ship and on his last journey
came to Australia and spend some time with his uncle and then returned. This
was the closest I could find to the story. I have all information about the
migrants brothers and sisters.

In Australia is published a most fascinating book "My Place" about a woman
who grew up close to her grandmother. The grandmother had told her she
originated from India, explaining her skin colour. She insisted and insisted
she was Indian, but in the long run had to admit she was Aboriginal It is
sad that for the sake of protection origins are denied, or origins claimed
for the sake of financial advantage.

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England?


In a message dated 4/23/2006 2:46:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:

Can you be more precise. How does one become a Cherokee? Could they have
been adopted into the clan? Which, I think, would make them fully fledged
Cherokee and if then their descendants for several generations remain part
of the Cherokee world, wouldn't that give them the same rights as
Cherokees
born Cherokees? However, if they only were squatters and not part of the
Cherokee world that seems a different matter.


You have to understand that the US government, albeit belatedly, gave
things
to the Cherokee. So in similar fashion to other free givaways, there
were
people lining up to claim their prize, who didn't really deserve it.

Now in addition to that, you have the drift of legends which turn "... my
father came to Indian territory in 1842" into "... my father came on the
Trail
of Tears to Indian territory" and finally into ".. my father was an
Indian".

Then, since the "father" in question, was a squatter or a trader in the
Cherokee Nation section, then he was automatically a Cherokee by legend.
Once
the amatuer genealogist has incontroverible proof that the father was not
in
fact a Cherokee, then the legend gets attached to his wife whoever she was
or
wasn't.

When faced with the requirement to prove this connection however, the
amateur genealogist insists that "the records were burned" or "they didn't
keep
records back then" both of which are mostly false.

I cannot tell you how many (all) of the clients I've picked up who have
ancestors from Oklahoma or Arkansas, insist that they have an Indian
(almost
always a woman, almost always a Cherokee) in their direct ancestry. Even
when
faced with documents, where the Cherokee Nation investigated the claim
and
dismissed it, they will still insist that it's true. It's very difficult
to
remove preconceptions of this type.

Will Johnson


RAY Montgomery

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 24 apr 2006 06:04:02

Dear lost cooper el al;
There is only one small problem with your concept of the european influence!
These events according to the text and document happened many many hundred
years before the europeans came to the america's. These events happened
approximately the time that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would
have happened in the area of Isreal.
I will have to go and buy the book again, as I gave mine to a girl freind
that wanted to read it.
Best wishes all,
Sincerely,
Ray






From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'
Date: 23 Apr 2006 13:01:24 -0700

The concept of the 'Great Spirit' is not so much a Native tradition as
it is a translator's assumption. Native people are more likely to refer
to "the Creator" and to understand that different cultures will see the
Creator differently. When Christian missionaries first contacted Native
people in the Americas and told them the Biblical creation account, the
Native people by and large said "that is an interesting and wonderful
account. We believe that you are speaking of your creation. Now let us
tell you about ours". Also, when people point to the European-derived
government and call it the "great white father", they are using a term
that was coined by George Washington in addressing the Native people.
It may have been in response to the colonists' impression of Native
government - that leaders are like parents in that they protect you,
make sure you have what you need to survive, organize life activities
to benefit you, etc. But this did not extend to seeing a foreign leader
as the "father" of a Native group. That, too, was in the European
imagination.

norenxaq

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av norenxaq » 24 apr 2006 06:44:01

RAY Montgomery wrote:

Dear lost cooper el al;
There is only one small problem with your concept of the european
influence!
These events according to the text and document happened many many
hundred years before the europeans came to the america's.

based on the opinion of one author who was european and saw things with
that bias. oral tradition is the only source of history prior to contact
in north america leading one to consider any claimed texts to be false

Gjest

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 07:11:02

In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:07:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cmccraw@swbell.net writes:

The only point of similarity I found between Velikovsky and Rohl is that
both place the Exodus at around -1450 just BEFORE the invasion of the Hyksos -
V. says the relevant Pharaoh was Thom or Thoum;


Which, theory, is not believed by any credible scholar of Egypt. Why? Lack
of evidence would be number one.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 07:14:02

In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:03:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

These events happened
approximately the time that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ would
have happened in the area of Isreal.


Some, single, pseudo-anthropologist, is telling you this, and you accept it
without any rational skepticism. Instead of merely believing it, why don't
you do your own, independent, research to confirm it?

Can you name any other anthropologist, among the hundreds that have existed,
who agrees with this book? Can you actually quote from the book, just one
time? That's all I ask, one single quote.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 07:36:58

Lack of evidence? The books I read deal with facts, evidence and
interpretations, just like any other credible scholar. The difference
is that Rohl shows to clearly where in the past those respectable
scholars went wrong and where their ego's were to big to admit faults
and misinterpretations. The books I read show logical conclusions on
the basis of the presented material. And is Rohl not a scholar too in
his own right?

If his theory was just fried air why has is become clear on the
websites that deal with the Revised Chronology that in fact very little
is known and very much is assumed in the past. Much has been swept
under the carpet because it did not fit at the time. Why would a
different point of view then be not helpfull in critically and
thruthfully reviewing past asumptions. Put them to 'a test of time', so
to speak. Sience can only benefit. Rohl does not stand alone. I'm
astonished how many History scholars and students have been warmed by
the new possibilities that the revised Chronology gives them to
re-interpretate the puzzeling and conflicting existing 'evidence'.

So all what credible scholars do is sell us assumptions woven into a
fabric and they tell us that that's the truth. Rohl is a modern day
Sherlock Holmes who reviews the facts and comes with deductions of his
own.

Rohl offers nice reading but who is to say that his reconstructions are
of lesser value than credible scholars. Nobody has been able yet to
produce a time machine to go back and check what's right and wrong.

Hans Vogels


WJhonson@aol.com schreef:

In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:07:29 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cmccraw@swbell.net writes:

The only point of similarity I found between Velikovsky and Rohl is that
both place the Exodus at around -1450 just BEFORE the invasion of the Hyksos -
V. says the relevant Pharaoh was Thom or Thoum;


Which, theory, is not believed by any credible scholar of Egypt. Why? Lack
of evidence would be number one.

Will Johnson

Todd A. Farmerie

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Todd A. Farmerie » 24 apr 2006 07:44:58

volucris@chello.nl wrote:
Lack of evidence? The books I read deal with facts, evidence and
interpretations, just like any other credible scholar. The difference
is that Rohl shows to clearly where in the past those respectable
scholars went wrong and where their ego's were to big to admit faults
and misinterpretations.

I always loved this - every other scholar who has studied the question
at hand has been wrong and I am right, and the problem is _their_ egos.

I am still waiting for the medieval genealogical content in this thread,
and the Jesus thread that I presume spawned it.

taf

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 07:56:18

You are still mistaken about the concept of a "white god" for whom the
Native people in the Americas waited. In the case with which I am most
familiar, Hopi, the same claim is made about the Spanish being mistaken
for the prophesied white god who would return to the people. The
problem is that the word used traditionally meant "opalescent" or
"shining", not white. Finally, why assume that the historical Jesus was
"white"? Chances are that he was as dark as many Native Americans! I do
not believe that he would have been identified as "white" by anyone. -
Bronwen

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 08:00:37

Yes, this was especially true after the "sooners" land rush. That was a
matter of outright fraud. It would be a huge genealogical task to try
to untangle everyone.

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 08:06:22

Mostly I agree but with one quibble: the US was not "giving things" to
the Cherokees or any other Indians. Then, as now, the federal
government has a formalized treaty-based trust obligation to protect
the interests of the Native people and provide whatever forms of
payment were agreed to in the treaties. This is no more a matter of a
"giveaway" than the payments you make to a car dealer. Best, Bronwen

Gjest

Re: Herald Red Field Black Eagle and Crescent

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 08:33:02

I want to also point out that the crescent with arms pointing upward was
evidently a symbol of the moon. In the "Remains of the Gnostics" by King, he
illustrates a few engraved gems like this, which show the moon and various
other things.

It's interesting that, Plutarch records a legend that the moon was the
origin of the "animal soul" and took it back when it's owner died. So perhaps the
"boat" carrying the soul to the moon was the same as the moon itself. That
would make a certain kind of sense.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 08:46:02

In a message dated 4/23/2006 11:37:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
volucris@chello.nl writes:

The books I read deal with facts, evidence and
interpretations, just like any other credible scholar. The difference
is that Rohl shows to clearly where in the past those respectable
scholars went wrong


Doubtful. It's easy to take a handful of facts and weave a nice story,
while ignoring the other facts that don't support that view. If the book is so
full of facts, then quote it. Or better yet, go to the appropriate wikipedia
pages, and add your information. We'll see how quickly or not the theories
take hold.
It's easy to say there are facts that support a view, as long as those
facts aren't stated.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 09:09:02

I have just read a synopsis of Rohl's argument, and I do now, remember
seeing a special on PBS about his new chronology.

An overreliance on "proving the chronology" of the Bible, esp. around this
period, completely ignores the fact that the chronology of the Bible from this
period is contradictory.

In particular, there is no way to allow the descendents of Jacob to be in
Egypt for the 400 odd years they were supposed to be, and yet allow
short-chain-descents to Moses and the other Exodus emigrants. In addition, both
short-chain and long-chain descents are made to exist side-by-side in the period of
the Judges which is impossible.

And there is no evidence of a million Israelites living in the Eqyptian
delta in 1400 BC or 1200 BC for that matter. And the Bible states quite clearly
that the Exodus was during the time of Rameses.

These are just a few problems.

There is far too much juggling, ignoring, and waving hands about to satisfy
me. Rohl wants to accept that Solomon built his temple 480 years after the
Exodus, without comprehending that this a stylized number representing 12
generations of 40 years, and does not mean a literal span of 480 solar years.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 24 apr 2006 09:13:02

In a message dated 4/24/2006 12:07:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lostcooper@yahoo.com writes:

Mostly I agree but with one quibble: the US was not "giving things" to
the Cherokees or any other Indians.


If a person could prove they were an Indian then they did indeed *get*
something that they didn't have before. You can argue that the treaties were
actually *trades*, but that was as a whole. The people applying for inclusion in
the tribe weren't giving up land in Carolina or anywhere else, they were
asking to be included in order to get the benefit that came with being able to
live on the reservation land, plus the payments.
Will Johnson

joe

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av joe » 24 apr 2006 16:14:39

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Nate, Will, John, Todd and others,
I have a couple
of Massachusetts ladies with at least rumored Amerindian ancestry, these
being Jane Sandusky, wife of the emigrant Steven Flanders , though there is also
the possibly She was the daughter of a Quebec resident Philippe Sainte- Estees

I've never heard this claim. A google search comes up empty for that
name altogether.
What is the source and evidence of this claim to a Quebec resident?

Thanks
Joe C.

joe

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av joe » 24 apr 2006 16:14:40

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Nate, Will, John, Todd and others,
I have a couple
of Massachusetts ladies with at least rumored Amerindian ancestry, these
being Jane Sandusky, wife of the emigrant Steven Flanders , though there is also
the possibly She was the daughter of a Quebec resident Philippe Sainte- Estees

I've never heard this claim. A google search comes up empty for that
name altogether.
What is the source and evidence of this claim to a Quebec resident?

Thanks
Joe C.

norenxaq

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av norenxaq » 24 apr 2006 17:32:01

And the Bible states quite clearly
that the Exodus was during the time of Rameses.





what is this based on?


if it is clear, why do people try to date it earlier?

Nathaniel Taylor

OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)

Legg inn av Nathaniel Taylor » 24 apr 2006 18:06:31

In article <BAY111-F3194F13845DFAAF9BCE0E99DBE0@phx.gbl>,
montereng1@hotmail.com ("RAY Montgomery") wrote:

I personally liked rohl's thoughts on .... I have not ever
seen a rebuttal. Does one exist? ...

This points to several of the principal reasons for the persistence of
fringe theories (in genealogy or elsewhere).

1. A fringe theory--especially if publication on it refers consistently
to the theory or its proponent as an underdog or maverick, unappreciated
or suppressed or excluded by the established experts--appeals to our
romantic desire to support the outsider, the guy done brown by the
establishment.

2. Often the theory will have suggested itself to its author through
some kind of pleasing aesthetic trait, or resonance with modern
political or religious views, which are irrelevent to the theory's
veracity, but when pointed out to readers may elicit similar pleasure
and strengthen affection for the theory. Written expositions of fringe
theories often dwell on narration of how and why the authors became
excited by the theory, so the reader will build the same attachment.

3. The wackier a fringe theory is, the less likely that it has received
any attention (let alone a dedicated rebuttal) from educated members of
the mainstream of whatever field we're dealing with. Even if the theory
is as tempting as a low-flying blimp on a still day, credentialed folks
in the field have nothing to gain, and a certain amount to lose, by
taking shots.

4a. If a theory does not get a lot of rebutting attention, people will
take it as a sign of its veracity.

4b. If a theory gets a lot of rebutting attention, casual adherents may
wander away; others, especially those drawn to it by point (1), will
close ranks against further challenge to the underdog.

5. If it is conceived carefully, the theory will not come up against
(much) directly contradictory primary evidence, and the lack of a patent
disproof will be taken by many as tantamount to proof, out of a basic
lack of understanding of the logical terrain between theory and
converse, proof and a disproof (we see this all the time on sgm with
genealogical theories). Discussions of implausibilities which do not
involve direct exclusionary evidence will fall on deaf ears to those
already swayed by (1) and/or (2).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

RAY Montgomery

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 24 apr 2006 18:37:01

Was there not like 12 rameses?
I personally liked rohl's thoughts on the Rameses issue. I have not ever
seen a rebuttal. Does one exist?
Ray






From: norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: David Rohl
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 08:31:04 -0700


And the Bible states quite clearly that the Exodus was during the time of
Rameses.





what is this based on?

if it is clear, why do people try to date it earlier?

Chris Phillips

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 24 apr 2006 20:46:47

RAY Montgomery wrote:
Was there not like 12 rameses?
I personally liked rohl's thoughts on the Rameses issue. I have not ever
seen a rebuttal. Does one exist?

There's a website here devoted to countering Rohl's revised chronology in
general:
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html

Chris Phillips

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 24 apr 2006 21:39:02

----- Original Message -----
From: <lostcooper@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 3:56 AM
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'


| Finally, why assume that the historical Jesus was
| "white"? Chances are that he was as dark as many Native Americans! I do
| not believe that he would have been identified as "white" by anyone. -
| Bronwen

Damn It, Bronwen! You caught out Christianity's incipient Eurocentrism. We're white, ergo our god is white. Actually, this isn't just Chrisitianity. All peoples, (with one notable exception - the one that proves the rule?), created their gods in teir own image(s). What else would they have as a blueprint? IF these aboriginal peoples had a 'White' God, (note your point about 'shining'), it would probably have been based on albinos. It has already been pointed-out, (in the literature, not on list), that Quetzalcoatl was luminous/shining. (S)He glows too brightly, and one can't see what the pigmentation.
Still, as Todd pointed out, we haven't seen anything connected to medieval genealogy here. Not even the promised dynastic link.
Ford

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: The David Rohl of many fora

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 24 apr 2006 22:54:26

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:05 AM
Subject: Re: David Rohl


| I have just read a synopsis of Rohl's argument, and I do now, remember
| seeing a special on PBS about his new chronology.
|
| An overreliance on "proving the chronology" of the Bible, esp. around this
| period, completely ignores the fact that the chronology of the Bible from this
| period is contradictory.
|
| In particular, there is no way to allow the descendents of Jacob to be in
| Egypt for the 400 odd years they were supposed to be, and yet allow
| short-chain-descents to Moses and the other Exodus emigrants. In addition, both
| short-chain and long-chain descents are made to exist side-by-side in the period of
| the Judges which is impossible.
|
| And there is no evidence of a million Israelites living in the Eqyptian
| delta in 1400 BC or 1200 BC for that matter. And the Bible states quite clearly
| that the Exodus was during the time of Rameses.
|
| These are just a few problems.
|
| There is far too much juggling, ignoring, and waving hands about to satisfy
| me. Rohl wants to accept that Solomon built his temple 480 years after the
| Exodus, without comprehending that this a stylized number representing 12
| generations of 40 years, and does not mean a literal span of 480 solar years.
|
| Will Johnson

#1. Would have been lunar years.
#2. Moses was Levi's, (Joseph's older brother's), grandson and great-grandson, (his da married his own aunt).
#3. According to that venerable and indisputable, (to some), authority, the Bible, the daughter of Pharaoh who rescued Moses married a member of the tribe of Judah. If she were a generation older than Moses, (even a half-generation), her spouse should have been at most Judah's grandson, not further down the line. AND, placing her in the first or second generation after Joseph, her papa would have been the Pharaoh who favoured Joseph, or his son; who, (being raised with Joseph's sons, Ephraim and Manasseh), would surely have known Joseph. It's just getting chronologically sloppy here!
#4. There just isn't any genealogy, (except this little tangent), in this thread. David Rohl does base a lot of argument on his reconstruction of the genealogies. So why not discuss THAT? But then, that's still not medieval. Why not take it up at GEN-ANCIENT, here at RootsWeb, or the yahoo group Ancient_Genealogy, where it would be more appropriate? I believe Chris Bennett, Christian Settipani
and Don Stone are participants on each.
Sincerely,
Ford

Chris Bennett

Re: The David Rohl of many fora

Legg inn av Chris Bennett » 25 apr 2006 00:05:23

""Ford Mommaerts-Browne"" <FordMommaerts@Cox.net> wrote in message
news:00e001c667da$2b3590a0$5c3afc18@om.cox.net...
----- Original Message -----
snip
#4. There just isn't any genealogy, (except this little tangent), in this
thread. David Rohl does base a lot of argument on his reconstruction of
the genealogies. So why not discuss THAT? But then, that's still not
medieval. Why not take it up at GEN-ANCIENT, here at RootsWeb, or the
yahoo group Ancient_Genealogy, where it would be more appropriate? I
believe Chris Bennett, Christian Settipani
and Don Stone are participants on each.
Sincerely,
Ford


For those interested in this, about 10 years ago I wrote an analysis of
David Rohl's use of genealogies. There are two copies online which you can
access through http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html or at
http://abr.christiananswers.net/docs/te ... fugues.rtf

I also debated the topic with Rohl on the late ANE list in early 2003. You
can find it in the ANE archives, so long as they are still available online,
at https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail ... hread.html.

Chris

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 00:12:02

Dear Joe and others,
The source for the statement , minus the
naming of a given name for Jane`s father is Edith Flanders Dunbar`s " Flanders
family from Europe to America" p 19, Jane, Wyfe of Steven Flanders and recounts
that Jane may have been 1 an Indian woman named Sandusky, 2 an Indian Woman
belonging to a tribe known as Sandusky (no such appears to be known) or 3 a French
woman with a name Sandusky is a corruption of, such as Saint Estrees. It
mentions that several French families lived on the St Lawrence at the time. Note a
modern Micmac Indian family does go by a name very similar to or the same as
Sandusky.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Diane Sheppard

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Diane Sheppard » 25 apr 2006 00:25:25

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:
Dear Joe and others,
The source for the statement , minus the
naming of a given name for Jane`s father is Edith Flanders Dunbar`s " Flanders
family from Europe to America" p 19, Jane, Wyfe of Steven Flanders and recounts
that Jane may have been 1 an Indian woman named Sandusky, 2 an Indian Woman
belonging to a tribe known as Sandusky (no such appears to be known) or 3 a French
woman with a name Sandusky is a corruption of, such as Saint Estrees. It
mentions that several French families lived on the St Lawrence at the time. Note a
modern Micmac Indian family does go by a name very similar to or the same as
Sandusky.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Dear James & Group,
I happen to have a copy of René Jetté's Genealogical Dictionary
(Dictionnaire genealogique de familles du Quebec des origines a 1730) -
one of the "Bibles" of French-Canadian Geneology. There are no
French-Canadian families with the surname Saint Estrees (or anything
close to that), or Sandusky.

Lest anyone think that the Catholic Church did not record the marriages
of French Canadians and Native Americans, I can assure the group that
the marriages were recorded. Whenever the marriage or relationsip
involved a Native-American, the name of the tribe is given if stated in
the parish record, as well as the names of the Native American parents
if known.

Jetté's dictionary (which is based on the actual parish records) lists
all known marriages, as well as the names of children borne as a result
of a non-marital relationship (and the name of the mother or father of
the child).

Hope this helps,

Diane

Gjest

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 00:55:02

In a message dated 4/24/06 8:31:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
norenxaq@san.rr.com writes:

<< >And the Bible states quite clearly
that the Exodus was during the time of Rameses.

what is this based on?


Okay I was a little hyperbolic :)
Actually what it states, is that Pharoah made them "build the storecities...
Pithom and Raamses"

The connection of a city called Raamses with a Pharoah called Rameses, is the
basis for the Pharoah of the Exodus being Rameses.

Will Johnson

John Watson

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av John Watson » 25 apr 2006 01:10:50

Hi Will,

It says " Peter de Bruis the third, of all their land in Sceltun"

I think that it means Peter de Bruis the third, i.e Peter de Brus III.

I may have figured out who Richard the reeve was. In the pedigree of
Brus in John Walker Ord's "History and Antiquities of Cleveland" p 244,
he shows brothers of Peter de Brus I, including Richard and Symon. Sir
Simon de Bruis also witnessed this quitclaim deed.

Possibly this Richard de Brus who would be the great-uncle of the four
sisters, is the one referred to as their uncle in the deed.

Incidentally the same Brus pedigree shows Agnes, the wife of William de
Lancastre III as the daughter of Simon de Brus.

Regards
John
in Kuala Lumpur

Gjest

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 01:14:02

In a message dated 4/22/06 8:07:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

<< Quitclaim by Alice and Helena, Agnes and Hauisia sisters, to Peter de
Bruis the third, of all their land >>

Is this really "the third, of all their land" ?
Or is it
"the third of all their land" ?

Will Johnson

Chris Bennett

Re: The David Rohl of many fora

Legg inn av Chris Bennett » 25 apr 2006 01:17:43

"Chris Bennett" <cjbennett@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:...
snip


For those interested in this, about 10 years ago I wrote an analysis of
David Rohl's use of genealogies. There are two copies online which you
can access through http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html or
at
http://abr.christiananswers.net/docs/te ... fugues.rtf


For some reason this last link is duplicated: it should just read
http://abr.christiananswers.net/docs/temporalfugues.rtf

I also debated the topic with Rohl on the late ANE list in early 2003.
You can find it in the ANE archives, so long as they are still available
online, at
https://listhost.uchicago.edu/pipermail ... hread.html.

Chris



RAY Montgomery

RE: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 25 apr 2006 03:04:02

Excuse me nathanial, but I have studied eqyptoligy for several years.
I am aware of the history of the pharaohs. And other civializations.
I was aware of the problems of dating chronology between these civilizations
before I read rohls book.
And yes there are problems. Very little fits chronolgicaly between the major
kingdoms.
There is quite a bit of evidence fundumental to the bible and its
accompanion texts that is ignored by some circles mainly because it is
pushed by that realm of influence. This ignoring of evidence does not
constitute a valid Chronology.
Ray





From: Nathaniel Taylor <nathanieltaylor@earthlink.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 17:06:31 GMT

In article <BAY111-F3194F13845DFAAF9BCE0E99DBE0@phx.gbl>,
montereng1@hotmail.com ("RAY Montgomery") wrote:

I personally liked rohl's thoughts on .... I have not ever
seen a rebuttal. Does one exist? ...

This points to several of the principal reasons for the persistence of
fringe theories (in genealogy or elsewhere).

1. A fringe theory--especially if publication on it refers consistently
to the theory or its proponent as an underdog or maverick, unappreciated
or suppressed or excluded by the established experts--appeals to our
romantic desire to support the outsider, the guy done brown by the
establishment.

2. Often the theory will have suggested itself to its author through
some kind of pleasing aesthetic trait, or resonance with modern
political or religious views, which are irrelevent to the theory's
veracity, but when pointed out to readers may elicit similar pleasure
and strengthen affection for the theory. Written expositions of fringe
theories often dwell on narration of how and why the authors became
excited by the theory, so the reader will build the same attachment.

3. The wackier a fringe theory is, the less likely that it has received
any attention (let alone a dedicated rebuttal) from educated members of
the mainstream of whatever field we're dealing with. Even if the theory
is as tempting as a low-flying blimp on a still day, credentialed folks
in the field have nothing to gain, and a certain amount to lose, by
taking shots.

4a. If a theory does not get a lot of rebutting attention, people will
take it as a sign of its veracity.

4b. If a theory gets a lot of rebutting attention, casual adherents may
wander away; others, especially those drawn to it by point (1), will
close ranks against further challenge to the underdog.

5. If it is conceived carefully, the theory will not come up against
(much) directly contradictory primary evidence, and the lack of a patent
disproof will be taken by many as tantamount to proof, out of a basic
lack of understanding of the logical terrain between theory and
converse, proof and a disproof (we see this all the time on sgm with
genealogical theories). Discussions of implausibilities which do not
involve direct exclusionary evidence will fall on deaf ears to those
already swayed by (1) and/or (2).

Nat Taylor

a genealogist's sketchbook:
http://home.earthlink.net/~nathanieltaylor/leaves/

RAY Montgomery

Re: David Rohl

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 25 apr 2006 03:07:01

Chris,
Thank you, I will review it.
Ray






From: "Chris Phillips" <cgp@medievalgenealogy.org.uk
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: David Rohl
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:46:47 +0100

RAY Montgomery wrote:
Was there not like 12 rameses?
I personally liked rohl's thoughts on the Rameses issue. I have not ever
seen a rebuttal. Does one exist?

There's a website here devoted to countering Rohl's revised chronology in
general:
http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/Index.html

Chris Phillips


Gjest

Re: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 03:31:02

In a message dated 4/24/06 6:03:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

<< There is quite a bit of evidence fundumental to the bible and its
accompanion texts that is ignored by some circles mainly because it is
pushed by that realm of influence. This ignoring of evidence does not
constitute a valid Chronology. >>

Ray I think you will be hard-pressed to use the Bible to support this
chronology. It states quite clearly that the Temple of Solomon was built 480 years
after the Exodus. That is if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible. So
you merely have to take the date Solomon built the Temple and add 480 years.

Obviously if it were that simple, there would be no problem. But it's not
that simple. You just cannot make the genealogical charts fit into that time
span. Nahshon, the grandfather of David's great-grandfather died *during* the
wandering in the wilderness, and yet five generations later, we have David, and
then his son Solomon. You can't fit six generations into 480 years.

In addition, the children of Jacob sojourned in Egypt for 430 years, and yet
Moses is made the grandson and great-grandson of Levi, which is impossible.
You cannot claim the literal truth of the Bible unless you can that problem.
If the solution is to re-interpret certain passages in less than obvious ways,
then you're into the territory that most theorists are. That not everything
is literal, everything is up for interpretation.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: OT: RE: Burial of Native American woman in 1620s England

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 04:23:42

I am not arguing that the treaties were "trades"; I am saying that they
more resembled the Marshal Plan following WWII. They were ratified
agreements between sovereign nations. The non-Indians who claimed
Indian blood in order to receive treaty-based benefits, especially in
Oklahoma, were attempting to get them fraudulently. In terms of getting
something that they did not have before, the only reason that some of
these non-Indians were successful in their land grabs was because of
the corruption among those in power up and down the line, not because
the system intended it. The tribes had the sole right (as they do now)
to determine who was a member. The US cannot and does not determine
this; several cases have gone to the Supreme Court about this and the
Court has always ruled in favor of the continuing sovereign power of
the tribes to make that decision. The corrupt non-Indian officials at
the lower end of the system in Indian Territory chose to ignore this
and deliberately waved in non-Indians. Also there is only one actual
reservation in Oklahoma and that is Osage on the northern boundary. All
of the other Indian land in Oklahoma is in a unique category of
"historic tribal government regions". There is an incredible amount of
misinformation about the "benefits" of being Indian. - Bronwen

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 04:33:02

O Damn It, Bronwen! You caught out Christianity's incipient
Eurocentrism. We're white, ergo our god is white. Actually, this
isn't just Chrisitianity. All peoples, (with one notable exception -
the one that proves the rule?), created their gods in teir own
image(s). What else would they have as a blueprint?

Just out of curiosity, while I'm "outing" white people, who is the
exception?

RAY Montgomery

Re: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 25 apr 2006 06:55:02

will,
I agree, completely.
I was speaking of other texts that are associated with the bible. The book
of jubilees, midrash and talmud, some of the other writings. I think all of
them have to be taken together.
Ray






From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:29:50 EDT

In a message dated 4/24/06 6:03:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

There is quite a bit of evidence fundumental to the bible and its
accompanion texts that is ignored by some circles mainly because it is
pushed by that realm of influence. This ignoring of evidence does not
constitute a valid Chronology.

Ray I think you will be hard-pressed to use the Bible to support this
chronology. It states quite clearly that the Temple of Solomon was built
480 years
after the Exodus. That is if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible.
So
you merely have to take the date Solomon built the Temple and add 480
years.

Obviously if it were that simple, there would be no problem. But it's not
that simple. You just cannot make the genealogical charts fit into that
time
span. Nahshon, the grandfather of David's great-grandfather died *during*
the
wandering in the wilderness, and yet five generations later, we have David,
and
then his son Solomon. You can't fit six generations into 480 years.

In addition, the children of Jacob sojourned in Egypt for 430 years, and
yet
Moses is made the grandson and great-grandson of Levi, which is impossible.
You cannot claim the literal truth of the Bible unless you can that
problem.
If the solution is to re-interpret certain passages in less than obvious
ways,
then you're into the territory that most theorists are. That not
everything
is literal, everything is up for interpretation.

Will Johnson

RAY Montgomery

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 25 apr 2006 07:14:01

Lost cooper,
Perhaps it is shining, but in the text of the research, it is always white,
and I believe that there are some pictures or drawings that are copied that
show him as white. I am only quoting the text.
Ray





From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'
Date: 23 Apr 2006 23:56:18 -0700

You are still mistaken about the concept of a "white god" for whom the
Native people in the Americas waited. In the case with which I am most
familiar, Hopi, the same claim is made about the Spanish being mistaken
for the prophesied white god who would return to the people. The
problem is that the word used traditionally meant "opalescent" or
"shining", not white. Finally, why assume that the historical Jesus was
"white"? Chances are that he was as dark as many Native Americans! I do
not believe that he would have been identified as "white" by anyone. -
Bronwen

RAY Montgomery

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 25 apr 2006 07:18:01

Will et all,
I will see if I can find a copy of the book, I imagine I can,
But the book has quotes of other works and sources.
I work with the Ute indians, and have asked theim of there legends and they
agree. That is my own personal experiance.
Perhaps you could read it and see that for your self.
Ray




From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 01:13:03 EDT


In a message dated 4/23/2006 9:03:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

These events happened
approximately the time that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
would
have happened in the area of Isreal.


Some, single, pseudo-anthropologist, is telling you this, and you accept it
without any rational skepticism. Instead of merely believing it, why don't
you do your own, independent, research to confirm it?

Can you name any other anthropologist, among the hundreds that have
existed,
who agrees with this book? Can you actually quote from the book, just one
time? That's all I ask, one single quote.

Will Johnson

David Teague

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av David Teague » 25 apr 2006 20:01:14

Yes, He has a face, because He spoke to Moses face to face, as well as a
hand and a backside, because when Moses asked to see His face, YHWH told
Moses that this would be too much for his frail human form to bear.
Therefore, YHWH covered Moses with His cupped hand while He passed by, and
Moses saw the retreating backside of the Deity.

Now, as for _The Jesus Dynasty_ as a book, I speak as one who has actually
read the said tome (and found it quite interesting, BTW, but that is beside
the point), and I can quite conclusively state that there is nothing in the
book that pertains to medieval genealogy.

David Teague


From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:42:23 EDT


In a message dated 4/25/2006 8:25:58 AM Pacific Standard Time,
FordMommaerts@Cox.net writes:

He may or may not have a finger, as the first tablets of the 'decalogue'
were written by His finger; but that's about it.


It also has a "face" as in "you shall not look on the face of God"

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 25 apr 2006 23:55:44

Dear Will, Ford, Bronwen and others,
It has been stated
that Man created his gods in his own image, however , that is not quite the
case. The Egyptians consistently showed the majority of their gods as animal or
plant human hybrids else simply as animals or plants. One rather odd aspect of
their religion from at least the Second Dynasty Ra which evidently meant
'creator' was represented as the sun and given the place of King of the gods. Then
in Dynasty Eleven or Twelve at the latest, We have a god called Amun meaning
"hidden one" and soon took over Ra as Amun -Ra or "hidden one, creator" then in
the late Eighteenth dynasty Amun was replaced by At- en apparently meaning "
One that renews" and was represented by a sun with arms reaching toward his
royal worshippers. So in two of these depictions He is a shining god, in the
case of Amun He sometimes has a solar disk between bull`s horns on his head.
As for a Shining god
depicted as white, consider that in Heraldry white is used to denote argent
(silver), a shining metal.
Also, the Mesopotamian peoples often showed their gods (and kings) as
human-animal hybrids.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA.

Renia

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Renia » 26 apr 2006 00:10:45

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Chris,
Actually, the term Miss didn`t exist until the nineteenth
century, so Mrs. "Mistress" was the title of respect for unmarried women not
daughters of a Earl or someone of higher rank who were Lady (given name,
surname). married women could be Goodwife

It was the title of respect for married women, not unmarried women,
although in earlier periods, it was used for both. Goodwife was the wife
of a landed proprietor.

Tim Powys-Lybbe

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Tim Powys-Lybbe » 26 apr 2006 00:42:06

In message of 26 Apr, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:

Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Chris,
Actually, the term Miss didn`t exist until the nineteenth
century, so Mrs. "Mistress" was the title of respect for unmarried women not
daughters of a Earl or someone of higher rank who were Lady (given name,
surname). married women could be Goodwife

It was the title of respect for married women, not unmarried women,
although in earlier periods, it was used for both. Goodwife was the wife
of a landed proprietor.

I have in my possession a letter written in 1693 to an unmarried lady
and it is addressed clearly to: Madam.


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe                                          tim@powys.org
             For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Renia

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Renia » 26 apr 2006 01:25:46

Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote:

In message of 26 Apr, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:


Dear Chris,
Actually, the term Miss didn`t exist until the nineteenth
century, so Mrs. "Mistress" was the title of respect for unmarried women not
daughters of a Earl or someone of higher rank who were Lady (given name,
surname). married women could be Goodwife

It was the title of respect for married women, not unmarried women,
although in earlier periods, it was used for both. Goodwife was the wife
of a landed proprietor.


I have in my possession a letter written in 1693 to an unmarried lady
and it is addressed clearly to: Madam.

And?

John Watson

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av John Watson » 26 apr 2006 01:26:08

Hi Will,

Since I have no access to the original, I can only guess that what it
said originally was something like "Petrus de Bruis tertius de totam
terrae ejusdiem in Sceltun" (my Latin is a little rusty these days).

Are you always this pedantic?

Regards,

John

Gjest

Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 01:47:43

In a message dated 4/25/06 8:08:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mjcar@btinternet.com writes:

<< > "The foresaid John Berkely of Bradley, younger brother of the said
Richd Berkeley of Stoke, by Katharine his wife daughter of Sr Richard
Deverox, lord Ferrars, had issue James Berkeley of Bradley, who by
Joyce his wife daughter of Mr Pettit had issue John, Brice, Joyce, jane
and Anne."

The problem with this is that there was no Richard Deverox who was lord
Ferrars. So I assumed he was referring to the Richard who dvp
as son of the Walter Devereux who was Viscount Hereford and thus had
Ferrers as a junior title which his son Richard might have used as a
courtesy title in the lifetime of his father.

A further problem here is that Viscount's sons may not use courtesy
titles (other than the style "Honourable"). >>


After John Devereux died abt 7 May 1501, who then was Lord Ferrers?

John Brandon

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av John Brandon » 26 apr 2006 01:47:59

What the awful Tim is implying here, I think, is that one would think
'Madam' could only apply to a married lady, but this was addressed to a
spinster. She must have been of very high rank/ exalted qualities (?
beauty) to deserve 'Madam' rather than mere 'Mistress.'

Gjest

Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 02:12:22

On this page in Leo's great database
http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php ... 7&tree=LEO

we see that Sir James Stump of Malmesbury is the great-grandson of this John
Berkeley and Catherine Devereux couple.

And there, like the only source Tim posted, her father is called Richard
Devereux. Only this James Stump died in 1563, putting Katherine at least a
hundred years earlier.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 02:43:35

In a message dated 4/25/06 4:12:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, WJhonson@aol.com
writes:

<< And there, like the only source Tim posted, her father is called Richard
Devereux. Only this James Stump died in 1563, putting Katherine at least a
hundred years earlier. >>

Delete "only" and replace with "other", which is what I intended but
evidently had a brain-stroke.

Will Johnson

Tony Hoskins

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name - "Goodwif

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 26 apr 2006 03:07:56

In 17th century English America the title "goodwife" clearly presupposed
fairly ordinary social status - certainly not a title indicative of a
woman of the rank of the wife of a landed proprietor.

Tony Hoskins

Tim Powys-Lybbe <tim@powys.org> 04/25/06 04:42PM
In message of 26 Apr, Renia <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:


Jwc1870@aol.com wrote:

Dear Chris,
Actually, the term Miss didn`t exist until the
nineteenth
century, so Mrs. "Mistress" was the title of respect for unmarried
women not
daughters of a Earl or someone of higher rank who were Lady (given
name,
surname). married women could be Goodwife

It was the title of respect for married women, not unmarried women,
although in earlier periods, it was used for both. Goodwife was the
wife
of a landed proprietor.

I have in my possession a letter written in 1693 to an unmarried lady
and it is addressed clearly to: Madam.


--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org

For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Gjest

Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 03:20:13

Dear Will,
John Devereux, 2nd Baron Ferrers of Chartley who died 1501
was succeeded by his son Walter Devereux died 1588, later 1st Viscount Hereford.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA

Source: Stirnet Genealogy ( Ferrers1)

Gjest

Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 03:27:45

In a message dated 4/25/06 5:20:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

<< John Devereux, 2nd Baron Ferrers of Chartley who died 1501
was succeeded by his son Walter Devereux died 1588, later 1st Viscount
Hereford. >>

So far I haven't located a document where Walter is called Lord Ferrers
before 1525/6. So that's a fairly large 25 year gap.
Will

Tony Hoskins

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Tony Hoskins » 26 apr 2006 04:03:43

Tim's reference to an unmarried lady addressed as "Madam" is surely a
sign indicative of social status a shade (or so) above "Mistress". In
any case, by the 1690s les mots de politesses in England were y and
large more refined and subtly attuned than in America; although, I can
cite the odd reference to high-born ladies in Virginia so designated.
Rare, though.

Tony Hoskins

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> 04/25/06 05:47PM
What the awful Tim is implying here, I think, is that one would think

'Madam' could only apply to a married lady, but this was addressed to
a
spinster. She must have been of very high rank/ exalted qualities (?
beauty) to deserve 'Madam' rather than mere 'Mistress.'


"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> 04/25/06 05:47PM
What the awful Tim is implying here, I think, is that one would think

'Madam' could only apply to a married lady, but this was addressed to
a
spinster. She must have been of very high rank/ exalted qualities (?
beauty) to deserve 'Madam' rather than mere 'Mistress.'

John Higgins

Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux

Legg inn av John Higgins » 26 apr 2006 04:08:26

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: John Berkeley / Katherine Devereux


In a message dated 4/25/06 5:20:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com
writes:

John Devereux, 2nd Baron Ferrers of Chartley who died
1501
was succeeded by his son Walter Devereux died 1588, later 1st Viscount
Hereford.

So far I haven't located a document where Walter is called Lord Ferrers
before 1525/6. So that's a fairly large 25 year gap.
Will



The article on Ferrers in CP vol. 5 has references to a number of items
where Walter is referred to as Lord Ferrers before 1525.

And he died in 1558, not 1588...

Gjest

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 04:12:12

In a message dated 4/25/06 5:37:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
WatsonJohnM@gmail.com writes:

<< Are you always this pedantic? >>

If pedantic means that I see a vast difference between "Peter the third"
getting land, and "Peter" getting one-third of the land, then yes. I'm this
pedantic.

Will Johnson

Ford Mommaerts-Browne

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Ford Mommaerts-Browne » 26 apr 2006 05:10:04

----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'


| It also has a "face" as in "you shall not look on the face of God"
|

I, ah, stand, (well, sit, actually), corrected, (& duly chastised and shamed).
Ford

Gjest

Re: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 05:53:02

In a message dated 4/24/06 9:54:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

<< The book
of jubilees, midrash and talmud, some of the other writings. I think all of
them have to be taken together.
Ray >>

"Midrash" and "Talmud" are not books, in the sense you're using them, in
comparison to Jubilees.

The Book of Jubilees is similar in size to the "books" of the Bible like
Genesis or Jeremiah.

The Talmud is a much larger compilation of several sources, that were
themselves compiled in ancient times (late Roman era more-or-less). So it's more
like a "Bible" than a book, in this sense. Although the Bible is a "book" people
generally speak of the "books" of the Bible.

Midrash is a technique, not a book. Perhaps you're thinking of Mishnah, which
is part of the Talmud, not a seperate source.

I've read the Talmud and I've read Jubilees. Along with about fifty other
apocryphal and/or pseudepigraphal books purporting to want to be part of the
Bible. (That is, divinely inspired or accurate historical episodes in pre-Roman
Jewish life.)

But Jubilees only presents another set of problems to the chronology, it's
doesn't magically fix anything.

Will Johnson

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 06:25:10

What do you mean "work with"? You mean, like a missionary? How
traditional are the individuals with whom you work? And, of course, you
denied the "Mormon" connection yet look where you are located...(for
the sake of those unfamiliar with the area, the Ute people are located
in northern Colorado, Utah and parts of Nevada..Bronwen

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 06:27:02

Of course, we need to credit the ancients with the ability to use
symbolic speech, metaphor, allegory, etc. Incorporeality works for me.
- Bronwen

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 06:34:46

Many cultures in the world fused human and non-human attributes into
their images of important deities and continue to do so today,
including the Judeo-Christian-Islam cultures (angels have bird wings,
devils have goat's horns & feet, Moses spoke to a burning *bush*,
etc.). Another point to consider regarding the use of "white" is that
it may symbolize many things without having reference to "race" or
"skin color". In my father's culture, members of his clan are said to
descend from Badger, not the burrowing animal down the hill, but BADGER
himself. The same Badger who taught folks in the tropics how to use
quinine, etc. Among the Japanese (among others) white is the color of
death & mourning. The use of the term in the American Southwest and
south through Mexico means "shining" in the sense of an oyster shell,
not the sun. - Bronwen

RAY Montgomery

Re: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 26 apr 2006 07:49:01

Will,
Yes, we are in agreement here.
But, these and other sources, mixed together give some relevence.
but lets drop it shall we, as this is not on topic as ford has pointed out.
Ray






From: WJhonson@aol.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: OT theory of fringe theories (was Re: David Rohl)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 23:09:04 EDT

In a message dated 4/24/06 9:54:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
montereng1@hotmail.com writes:

The book
of jubilees, midrash and talmud, some of the other writings. I think all
of
them have to be taken together.
Ray

"Midrash" and "Talmud" are not books, in the sense you're using them, in
comparison to Jubilees.

The Book of Jubilees is similar in size to the "books" of the Bible like
Genesis or Jeremiah.

The Talmud is a much larger compilation of several sources, that were
themselves compiled in ancient times (late Roman era more-or-less). So
it's more
like a "Bible" than a book, in this sense. Although the Bible is a "book"
people
generally speak of the "books" of the Bible.

Midrash is a technique, not a book. Perhaps you're thinking of Mishnah,
which
is part of the Talmud, not a seperate source.

I've read the Talmud and I've read Jubilees. Along with about fifty other
apocryphal and/or pseudepigraphal books purporting to want to be part of
the
Bible. (That is, divinely inspired or accurate historical episodes in
pre-Roman
Jewish life.)

But Jubilees only presents another set of problems to the chronology, it's
doesn't magically fix anything.

Will Johnson

John Watson

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av John Watson » 26 apr 2006 08:05:18

Dear Will,

You can find the original source that I quoted on Google books. You may
interpret it as you like. I was simply pointing out that the original
was written in Latin and several hundred years before the invention of
the comma. I prefer "Peter the third", but if you want to read it as a
"third of their land" - up to you.

Best wishes,

John

RAY Montgomery

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av RAY Montgomery » 26 apr 2006 08:14:02

excuse me please, Yes I live in utah, and yes I am a member of the church of
jesus christ of latter day saints. These things I have never denighed. And
Yes I work with the ute indians. In investment circles, as friends, at work,
and when I was at school. I have been close with many of them. Very close,
and lived in thier homes.
I have also been involved with the blackfeet, navaho, indian tribes of
northern minnisota and wisconson and polyanean people. The Church of jesus
Christ of latter day saints is the fasted growing Christain religion, why
because the peoples I just mentioned have as there core beliefs the very
legends that we have discussed. Thus said, they accept it readily. There
are more members in south america, and the islands in the pacific ocean than
that live in other parts of the world.
You should read the book, the legends, before you criticize! You have stated
things that are completely contrary to the book, having not read the book or
the text. What I have told you is factual and true.
I have seen the treasure bags of the these tribes, I have talked to their
elders, and I am familiar with the legends.
Please do the same.
Ray






From: lostcooper@yahoo.com
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'
Date: 25 Apr 2006 22:25:10 -0700

What do you mean "work with"? You mean, like a missionary? How
traditional are the individuals with whom you work? And, of course, you
denied the "Mormon" connection yet look where you are located...(for
the sake of those unfamiliar with the area, the Ute people are located
in northern Colorado, Utah and parts of Nevada..Bronwen

Chris Phillips

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 apr 2006 09:23:40

Renia wrote:
This is a modern American fashion and not prevailent in medieval (or
modern) England and Scotland.

I agree it wasn't prevalent, but I have sometimes seen it used where there
was a sequence of men with the same name.

The sentence was ". . . the third of all their land of Scelton (Skelton)
late belonging to Richard the reeve . .

In the YAS account quoted, the "third" is definitely attached to Peter, not
to the land. The difference would be clear in the Latin original, so I think
the assumption has to be that it's Peter III unless the original shows
otherwise.

Chris Phillips

Gjest

Re: Widow Anne Baynton Batt signs her maiden name

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 10:12:50

"Tony Hoskins" wrote:

"John Brandon" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> 04/25/06 05:47PM
What the awful Tim is implying here, I think, is that one would think
'>Madam' could only apply to a married lady, but this was addressed to
a spinster. She must have been of very high rank/ exalted qualities (?
beauty) to deserve 'Madam' rather than mere 'Mistress.'

Tim's reference to an unmarried lady addressed as "Madam" is surely a
sign indicative of social status a shade (or so) above "Mistress". In
any case, by the 1690s les mots de politesses in England were by and
large more refined and subtly attuned than in America

One could be forgiven for thinking that this is still the case,
although I rather suspect that one juvenile poster's bestowal upon
another of the epithet "awful" is more likely an indication of his own
lack of manners.

Until fairly recently in England, "Mrs" was an indication of rank
rather than marital status.

Michael Andrews-Reading

Gjest

Re: The Irrelevant Off Topic 'Jesus Dynasty'

Legg inn av Gjest » 26 apr 2006 10:21:58

"RAY Montgomery" wrote:
excuse me please, Yes I live in utah, and yes I am a member of the church of
jesus christ of latter day saints. These things I have never denighed.

You would be more convincing if you were literate.

I have seen the treasure bags of the these tribes, I have talked to their
elders, and I am familiar with the legends.
Please do the same.

Please take this to a group where it would be relevant - this is a
discussion group for mediaeval genealogy. Thanks.

Renia

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av Renia » 26 apr 2006 10:40:29

Chris Phillips wrote:

Renia wrote:

This is a modern American fashion and not prevailent in medieval (or
modern) England and Scotland.


I agree it wasn't prevalent, but I have sometimes seen it used where there
was a sequence of men with the same name.

I haven't. I've seen senior and junior, and the elder and the younger.


The sentence was ". . . the third of all their land of Scelton (Skelton)
late belonging to Richard the reeve . .


In the YAS account quoted, the "third" is definitely attached to Peter, not
to the land. The difference would be clear in the Latin original, so I think
the assumption has to be that it's Peter III unless the original shows
otherwise.


I disagree with you. The rest of the passage refers to "the half
ploughland". It's THE third, a particular third, not any old third.
Possibly a third of a moiety, for example.

Chris Phillips

Re: de Brus Questions

Legg inn av Chris Phillips » 26 apr 2006 13:18:38

I wrote:
I agree it wasn't prevalent, but I have sometimes seen it used where
there
was a sequence of men with the same name.

Renia replied:
I haven't. I've seen senior and junior, and the elder and the younger.

I see John Ravilious has posted a couple of examples of people being
specified by ordinal numbers.

To add to those, the various Peters de Mauley seem to have been
distinguished in this way. CP refers to a proof of age mentioning Peter "le
quart" (vol. viii, p. 562, note h), and Douglas Richardson has posted here
(19 November 2005) an Access to Archives abstract of a charter mentioning
Peter "de Malo Lacu Sexto".


I wrote:
In the YAS account quoted, the "third" is definitely attached to Peter,
not
to the land. The difference would be clear in the Latin original, so I
think
the assumption has to be that it's Peter III unless the original shows
otherwise.

Renia replied:
I disagree with you. The rest of the passage refers to "the half
ploughland". It's THE third, a particular third, not any old third.
Possibly a third of a moiety, for example.

I meant that the punctuation of the English abstract attaches the "third" to
Peter, not to the land.

Those who think it refers to the land are implying that there is a definite
error in the abstract. Errors can happen, of course, but I don't see that
anyone has produced any evidence that this is an error.

Chris Phillips

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»