Paul Murtaugh in his book "Your Irish Coats-OF-Arms", published 1959, writes on page 2, "...for it was from his own genealogies that each man of the tribe, poor as well as rich, held the charter of his civil state, his right of property in the cantrel in which he was born, the soil of which was occupied by one family or clan, and in which no one lawfully possessed any portion of the soil if he was not of the same race with the chief." (Quote taken the Irish historian O'Donovan) The following scan is taken from this book showing just one page of the many that are drawn. There are no JONES surnames listed in the many Irish surnames given among the pages.
The text is somewhat difficult to utilize by its unusual structure and indexes. The "Red Hand" symbol has its own unique story among the Irish.
Some three decades later, another text titled "Clans and Families of Ireland, The Heritage and Heraldry of Irish Clans and Families" by John Grenham, states on page 122 under the surname JONES: "Jones is an extremely common surname in England and Wales, one of the wide range of names derived from the personal name 'John'. It is a patronymic, coming from the genitive form 'John's'. Its widespread popularity in Wales is due to the form adopted in the Welsh translation of the Authorized Version of the Bible, IOAN, phonetically close to the modern surname. In Ireland it is quite widespread, coming among the two hundred most frequent names, and is understandably most closely associated with areas where English influence was strongest." No arms are given for any Jones family. How about that, no Jones given in 1959 but, in 1993 in Ireland "...it is quite widespread...". Has to be more to this story!
ReplyDeleteA reference back to "Your Irish Coats-Of-Arms" by Paul Murtaugh, 1959, writes on page 6; "While the Irish family groups are often called clans, they were different from the Scottish clans. 'Sept' is a better word to describe the Irish practice. The Irish sept was not, for example, so rigidly organized as the Scottish clan. One of the Chief Heralds of Ireland, Edward MacLysaght, defines the Irish sept simply as 'a group of persons who . . . bore a common surname and inhabited the same locality' ". The Irish Clan (Sept) system it is written.
ReplyDeleteAnother point of discussion comes out of a book by Sir Iain Moncreiffe, titled "The Highland Clans", 1967. He writes on page 30, "Younger sons were settled within the appanage that formed the clan territory. Their children in turn settled there, and thus the clan took roots. For the word 'clan' simply means 'children', and originally each clan was made up only of the immediate descendants of the man after whom it was named." Hum...simply means children. Any Gaelic speaking folks out there check this meaning?
ReplyDeleteAn early Welsh text published in 1846 titled "Heraldic Visitations of Wales and part of the Marches" by Lewys Dwnn, states in his introduction (Vol. I): "The Welshmen's Pedigree was his title-deed, by which he claimed his birth-right in the country. Every one was obliged to show his descent through nine generations in order to be acknowledged a free native, and by which right he claimed his portion of land in the community." Wow...nine generations! Who would think of such a thing today?
ReplyDeleteDr. Eduard Meyer, University of Berlin, in his "Chapter I. Land and People" ca. 1902 writes "...the full meaning of the old adage that blood is thicker than water." Hum... an old adage, wonder how many cultures share this thought? His writing is from one of the best sources of chronology leading down the hallways of time. Have used this collection of texts almost every day for years! It is titled "The Historians' History of The World" in 25 volumes, "The Encyclopaedia Britannica Company", published 1904.
ReplyDeleteIn his book, Thomas J. Wertenbaker (1922) writes "History is baffling in its complexity. The human mind instinctively strives for simplicity, endeavors to reproduce all things to set rules, to discover the basic principles upon which all action is based." Hum...all action is based? On what you say? What say you?
ReplyDelete[This statement is taken from page 12 of this book titled "The Planters of Colonial Virginia" published 1922, by Princeton University Press.]
An interesting statement is given on page 21, of the 18th volume of "The Historians' History Of The World" by Williams as written,
ReplyDelete"History is little more than a record of the miseries inflicted on the many by the passions of the few."
This was written in the chapter titled "The History Of England - Pre-Historic And Roman Britain" (p.1-p.640) by a group of Editors listed on the page just before page 1. The publication was before 1904. See any changes out there among the many?
Starting their thoughts on the history of the world (written by historians), they begin the following on page 1, of volume 1:
ReplyDelete"Broadly speaking the historians of all recorded ages seem to have had the same general aims. They appear always to seek either to glorify someone or somebody, or to entertain and instruct their readers."
Hum ... the same general aims? Who were these guys from 1907? Let's see now, from my analysis. Eight folks were from the University of Berlin. This was followed by three from the University of Budapest, two from Oxford University and, two from the School of Oriental Languages, Paris. The remaining Universities had one individual each, i.e., Chicago, Paris, Vienna, Gottingen, Strasburg, Graz, Harvard, Columbia, Zabern, and Louisiana State University. The college of France and, Bryn Mawr College were listed as well as Drew Theological Seminary and Royal Asiatic Society. Whew ... what a list of educators' centers of thought! Would guess, they all had the same general aims in 1907.