GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2003-08 > 1061232928


From: Matthew Harley <>
Subject: Re: An honest question, Re: Annalistic Writing - Ancient Ireland:
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 19:55:28 +0100
References: <010901c356b3$d8772ed0$25a5869f@janeteavhviak4> <20030730173926.27724.00001204@mb-m23.aol.com> <3F3D31A0.4090105@dcn.org> <3F3EA509.DFA047DE@eircom.net> <3F3F0958.6030808@dcn.org> <3F3F62B0.C294BD34@eircom.net> <3F40F6D4.7080701@dcn.org>


"Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." wrote:
> REPLY:
> I consider records that have survived to
> the present day, prior to A.D. 1500,
> (that are "authentic", medieval
> and before), from the standpoint of one
> doing responsible archaeological research.


Could you try English please?


> Like the "archaeological record, that is,
> in situ archaeological material and sites,
> archaeological collections, records and reports,"
> the surviving genealogical record
> "is irreplaceable."

Is is of zero genealogical value if the "record" was
invented hundreds of years after the person is supposed to
have existed, if he/she ever did.


It's simple: Do you believe all the historical references
you find in "authentic" medieval documents?

The problem is that you do, and then try to foist this
nonsense on everybody else!

Matt Harley


This thread: