GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > 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> <email@example.com> <3F3D31A0.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3F3EA509.DFA047DE@eircom.net> <3F3F0958.email@example.com> <3F3F62B0.C294BD34@eircom.net> <3F40F6D4.firstname.lastname@example.org>
"Chris & Tom Tinney, Sr." wrote:
> 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It's simple: Do you believe all the historical references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!
|Re: An honest question, Re: Annalistic Writing - Ancient Ireland: by Matthew Harley <>|