Ansigisel of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia - Sources?

Essais historiques sur les mœurs des François, ou traduction ..., Volum 4

La chroniquc d' Herman raconte, en abrege, les·memes foits sur l'an 635.
Celle de Sigebert en parle mais tres-succinte­-ment a la date de l'an 640 .
On lit dans le meme article de cette chronique: Saint Arnould qui, de Maire du Palais, etoit devenu Eveque de Metz, et d'Eveque, solitaire, meurt.-Son fils Clodulfe devint aussi Eveque de Metz et imita la saintete de son pere. Doda, mere de Clodulfe, retiredTreves, se voua au service de Dieu »

Tor, you seem to misunderstand medieval research entirely.

The Chronicle of Herman was compiled by a monk who died in 1054.

The chronicle of Sigebert was compiled by a monk who died in 1112.

These are not contemporary sources.

there's a lot this guy doesn't seem to understand, Justin.

sjp

What I don't understand is why is it then the present Catholic church of Metz is still listing the genealogy and so are sites like " europeanhistory" and most genealogy sites BUT geni ?

http://www.histoireeurope.fr/RechercheLocution.php?Locutions=Ans%E9...

They are even on jewishgen

Family Tree of the Jewish People
Searching for Surname (phonetically like) : ANSEGESIEL
(only records that refer to “France or Belgium or Luxembourg or Switzerland or Algeria or Morocco or Tunisia”)
2 total matches found
Run on Wed, 01 Aug 2018 06:51:38 -0600

Name Born Married Died Father + Mother Spouse Code Last Update

Anchises (ANSEGISEL) 602 639 678 St. Arnoul METZ + Dode (Clothilde) DE HERISTAL Beggue DE AUSTRASIA 52731 19 May 2012

Duke ANSEGISEL 610 685 Saint Arnulf Heristal, Arnoald XXVII, Senator Saxony Bishop Xxvii Of DeMetz Margrave METZ + Oda Of Saxony DODE DEHERISTAL SWABIA 772107 3 Dec 2017

The genealogies on jewishgen go way before Ansegesiel. Centuries.

Jessica, a better question is why are other sites linking relationships for which there is no evidence or contested evidence?

Justin, don't you think the the priestly elite of today have sources ? Why would they entertain this ?

As for evidence, for centuries, the oral tradition was evidence in itself and wo were menestrel songs. Tell a jew oral stories have no value.

You know what, i think the best is to ask for permission to dig them up and sample bones.

I think that guessing what other people know or don't know is a harmless game but doesn't mean a lot. We're looking for real evidence.

"The Chronicle of Herman was compiled by a monk who died in 1054.

The chronicle of Sigebert was compiled by a monk who died in 1112."

I'm fascinated of those munks, siting in a dark cell, writing, names, years, death, marriages, children, and events, all by them selves and of course with a great help of an abnormal lively fantasy, no contemporary records to look in for help at all, just doing a random fabrication, on and on, and why, just for the fun of it!

At least, in the movies, monks got papers and old books they had to rewrite, swearing in silence over the seemingly never ending growing pile of documents which is constantly brought in by an older guy with a baldness that seems to shine up the room in the dark , but that only happens in the movie, I guess.

Ulf, you've missed the heart of the problem. Again.

No doubt those monks had access to other materials. But we don't know what materials. Some of it was probably good, some was probably bad. Some was probably propaganda, and some was ambiguous and easily misinterpreted.

Only in a fantasy world is every source perfect and true.

It suprises me that you do use Gregory of tour as a (primary) Source for some of Your statement, when he actualle based a lot of his writing from 5 books of Sulspicius Alexander. They did not live at the same time, that means Gregory of Tours did the same as the Munk you talk about (he compiled from 5 books written by Sulspicius Alexander.
As you see below Supicius continued on the work of Ammanius Marcellinus, which means he also compiled some of the work from another person, Just like Gregory.
From Wiki:
Sulpicius Alexander (fl. late fourth century) was a Roman historian of Germanic tribes. His work is lost, but his Historia in at least four books is quoted by Gregory of Tours. It was perhaps a continuation of the Res gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus (which ended in 378 AD) and dealt with events at least until the death of Valentinian II (392 AD). The work of Sulpicius Alexander as extracts in Gregory's Decem Libri Historiarum (II 9) is considered an important source in any discussion of the origin of the Frankish tribes.
From Wiki:
Saint Gregory of Tours (30 November c. 538 – 17 November 594) was a Gallo-Roman historian and Bishop of Tours
All the history you can find is based on what was written befor and some of it is based on contemprary knowledge.
You can not on this background say that everything is fake/false when you accept Gregory’s writings, when they are based on the same premises.
You have to accept one who base his writings on old documents from a man, when you accept the same procedure as oanother you accept.

If you do not accept what another does, for the same reason, it becomes contradictory.

Tor, you are either trolling or you completely misunderstand everything being said.

No one (as far as I know) accepts Gregory of Tours as a primary source. As an important source, yes. As the main source, sure. But not a primary source.

Perhaps this is a problem with your skill in English. These two statements do not mean the same thing:

Gregory of Tours is a primary source. (Primary as distinguished from "secondary")
Gregory of Tours is the primary source. (Primary as in "main").

justin, you have the patience of Job. I would have (and sorta did) bail on this circular argument (in which you are correct). I commend you sir

drsjp

Stephen, it's comments like yours that keep me going. There is no hope -- none whatsoever -- that some folks will ever embrace evidence-based genealogy, but I have to keep trying.

appreciate the complement. i know i cause a few curators to pull their hair out by my merges at time, so i try to respect what you do and not make it any harder.

a complete lack of understanding of sources (language barrier or not) is a recipe for a clusterfk of trees.

sjp

Ok, Justin that's fine, but the issue in my statement is that: Gregory did thesame thing as the monks later (and earlier), that you Accept but not when another person does it, using the same Sources as Gregory (among others). Yousay you do not know where the others use as Sources. Some of them use the same Sources as Gregory, focusig alittle bit different (but still the same Source). The question is why Accept Gregory when you don't Accept others using the sme Sources? Why do you not recognise Sulspicius as Source when Gregory copied his work of 5 books, into his own ?

To Stephen, I see you make some more comments about this and you and Justin makes some of the same arguments about skills in English. I'm sorry to say that it is not my lack of skills in English taht is the problem but actually you skills to understand the essence in whaat I say, something to think about.

Thanks for the input Stephen. I can't do what Justin does over and over.

Tor, we can't accept Sulpicius' books as a source for the simple reason that we don't have them.
Gregory of Tours is a source because we have those books. (although, as with all texts from the manuscript age, the provenance of our copies needs to be studied carefully.)

The fully correct source citation is something like "in the copy of <book name> stored at <museum>, Gregory of Tours claims that Sulpicus said that..." - we often use shorthands like "Gregory of Tours wrote".

This is *a* source. Based on all the information we have about that source, and the amount of information we have from other sources, we can choose to believe what it says or not to believe it.

In this particular case, what Justin seems to be saying is that a source writing 500 years after the event he gives witness on (and not saying where he got the info from) and a source writing within a century as the event he gives witness on (and saying who he's quoting) has very different levels of credibility.

It's not that one is a source and one is not a source. It is that one is a much more credible source than the other.

I understand what Your argument is, and that is ok but when you use Gregory as a Source, becouse you have the books, then it is ok to us him. The five first Chapters in Gregorys book is a copy of five books from Sulpicius (wich you say you do not have) still you can use Gregory as a Source even if you do not have anything to back it up (as you say). When there are others that claim the same as Gregory based on other books or documents, you can't Accept them. Where is the Logic common sence to this statemet. If I don't have any Sources to show for the writings of Gregory and others refer to the same as Gregory, why is Gregory more reliable than the others, as you say in Your statement no one has the books (actually not correct, because about 30-33 of the books Sulpicius wrote still exist). The other books that we refer to, are eccepted from others (who also are genealogists) but not Geni.
Some curators have said that i'm just trolling, live in a fantasy and so on, that is not any intetion for me, I'm just asking why Geni don't Accept, genealogy lines which others do, With the argument that we do not have the books, that is the Whole point, if someone claims a decendant line you can't just use an argument that, we do not know about it or we do not have the books, because if you should reject a decendant line you should be able to prove that the line is wrong or false, not just make staement that this is false 'cause we don't know about it. To reasearch for decendant lines is sometimes to find People that we didn't know about, that is reasearch and you may agree or disagree of those lines but you can't prove them wrong.

> you may agree or disagree of those lines but you can't prove them wrong.

This is the heart of our disagreement. You want to change the rules.

Modern genealogy is evidence-based. One of the key ideas is that the burden of proof is on the person proposing a connection. You think that should be flopped the other way. You think the burden of proof should be on the person who doubts a connection.

That would be an interesting way of exploring the sources, but it wouldn't be good genealogy.

No, I don't try to change any rules, I'm just saying, you can't use the argument that one Source is more credible than another, when the one you say is credible is based on something that you don't have (Sulpicius). Then all the Sources that use the same information is just as credible as Gregory. You can't use one Source (wich you can't find proof to) and say others are false when they use the same Source as Gregory (and then you say it's false or not reliable). This is contriadictory. Or not plausible.I'm not disagreeing just for reason to disagree.
As you say modern genealogy is evidence-based, but where is the evidence when it comes to Gregory, when he copied someone else and 5 of those books are gone, this makes no evidence just belief that it's true. You can't use Things that are gone as proof just to make an argument. That is what you say to others.
You also say that it's so long time beetween the writings, ok but you and other curators use Settipani (among oyhers) who wrote his books 15-1600 years after it happened using other Sources to document what he says, when we refer to booka that are written 12-1300 years after thevent using the same Sources to document the books it's false.
That is the problem here.

Tor, do you have a source in mind that actually claims to cite Sulpicius, or are you just building up a straw man?

I'll leave it to Justin to state whether Settipani's sources are checkable or not.

Tor, this is indeed a straw-man argument. It's not as complicated as you claim.

Gregory of Tours is a primary source for things that he knew from his own experience. He's a secondary source for things he got from other people. Indeed. That's the definition of primary and secondary sources. Not hard.

Gregory of Tours is probably a reliable source for things near his own time. There is no way to know whether he is a reliable source for things beyond his own time. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

In other words, there is not a single rule that you can apply to everything he wrote. He's probably not absolutely right about everything and he's probably not absolutely wrong about everything. That shouldn't be hard to understand.

You must ask yourself -- do you really believe that Gregory's account of the creation of the world has the same credibility as his account of events that took place while he was bishop of Tours? If you are not prepared to make that leap, you have already begun to understand the idea that not everything he wrote has the same level of credibility.

Then the same is true of Sulpicius. Primary source for events in his own time, and probably reliable for them. Secondary source for things he's only heard about, and no way to know whether he is reliable.

We know Gregory used Sulpicius because he tells us so, and he tells us some of what he got from Sulpicius. But he also says Sulpicius does not name their first king, then he tells us some stories he got from Sulpicius. No connected genealogy, just a few names of leaders. There's no indication from Gregory that Sulpicius had any more than that.

These are the names that later generations used to create a pedigree extending back 1500 years to the kings of Troy.

In the end, Gregory starts his connected history with Childeric, son of Merovech. He brushes off Merovech's ancestry with a short statement that "Certain authorities assert that king Merovech, whose son was Childeric, was of the family of Chlogio." Gregory had mentioned this Clogio a few sentences earlier as a king who had seized the city of Cambrai and land as far as the Somme from the Romans.

This is all relatively straightforward, but somehow you're turning it into an elaborate game where you're spinning elaborate conspiracy theories about the sources being mishandled.

Tor,

This is one of your sillier arguments. You say:

> you and other curators use Settipani (among oyhers) who wrote his books 15-1600 years after it happened using other Sources to document what he says, when we refer to booka that are written 12-1300 years after thevent using the same Sources to document the books it's false. That is the problem here.

First, the curators are not using Settipani. We did, years ago, when there was a particular type of dispute. Not now. (I've told you this several times. You don't seem to listen.)

Second, no one has ever said we should not use secondary sources. (You're describing secondary sources.) What we're saying is that if you're using secondary sources, make sure they cite the primary sources. If there's a debate, it will always be settled by reference to primary sources. (I've told you that, too. You don't seem to listen.)

> whether Settipani's sources are checkable or not.

Interesting question. I would class Settipani as "academic opinion". He is working beyond the sources, using onomastic and contextual evidence to speculate. (And, he's quite clear his ideas are speculative. He wouldn't be having a nervous breakdown if Geni curators don't think his theories are the gospel truth.)

His basic idea is that there is a continuity of elites, for example between the Ancient and Medieval worlds. For example, that the elites of Roman Gaul were interconnected genealogically with early early Frankish kings. He's not arguing genealogic continuity or inheritance per se. Rather, he's arguing that the gaps in the surviving records don't equate to a gap in the culture.

I see, have you red: Merovingian Kingdom 400-751, here is a quote from that book:
"Since Gregory's account of the Franks in the late Fifth Century revolves around kings, there is a dislocation between his summary of the evidence provided by earlier Roman historians, and his account for the establishment of long-haired kings after the imigration from Pannonia. Had Gregory read Ammianus Marcellius, who does talk of a frankish king called Mallobaudes, he would have been less troubled by the apperent absence of kings in the Sources."

As you see from this book and others (refered to earlier in this discussion), there are more that can justifie the line before Clovis, just as the books also give the line of Arnoul of Metz and his wife including Doda.

As you can see from this Gregory made a lot of assumptions and some true documentation of his local area.