Asa Ulfsdatter (new research)

[JR Olsen]

^{Lars L, I forgot to clarify something.}

 

^{As for the debate on the 1419 diploma. You fooled nobody. I gave you examples of the involvement of the specific men to explain why these men would be related to Arnstein Ulfson. As usual, you failed to comprehend the basics. I do understand that it could be due to the English language. Perhaps you do not grasp that language as well as you believe. By the way, I know what the 1419 diploma entailed. The men speaking on Arnstein's character. I would use the word canonize, but you may take it out of context.}

 

^{As I stated to Are G, it is time to put this thread to rest.}

 

^{For those wanting this thread locked, say so now or forever be responsible to the continuation. (you know you are as bored with it as I am)}

[Harry Aronsen]

Mr Olsen

 

Can you answer this simple question: Who are you? Why do you not wish to identify yourself?

[Olaf Larsen]

Hvem skjuler seg bak navnet JR Olsen?

 

I have a proven track record in genealogy

 

Nei, det er tvilsomt. Gjentatte søk med forskjellig vinkling til genealogi eller forsking, gir ingen treff for publikasjoner eller omtale av forskingresultater for personer med det navnet, heller ikke med tillegg av mellomnavnet Richard, som ble brukt i et innlegg.

 

Som tidligere mangeårig representant i et tilsettingsutvalg på Universitetet i Oslo, vil jeg bemerke at et av de punktene som alle kandidater til en stilling ønsker å ha med på en CV, er antall søk med treff på henvisninger til egne arbeider. Forutsetningene for det er selfølgelig å få med sitt eget navn på avhandlinger og publikasjoner, og der er spesielt amerikanske forskere ytterst påpasselige med at det skjer, selv om det bare handler om marginale bidrag til en publikasjon. Dette er ingen stillingssøknad, men det faktum at denne debatten initieres av en person som ikke bruker sitt eget navn, underbygger langt på vei riktigheten i flere innlegg som stiller spørsmål ved JR Olsens faglige bakgrunn.

[Lars.O.Wangensteen]

"Olsen", som han nok ikke heter, ble medlem på dette forumet 2 februar 2011. Å skifte visningsnavn er enkelt.

[Are S. Gustavsen]

"J R Olsen"

 

In #71 you are admitting that you only skim the content of certain postings in this discussion. This makes me curious as to whether or not you are actually reading the actual content of the primary sources randomly referred to in this discussion.

 

Katarina Ulvsdotter mentioned 1426 has come up as a turning point to the side issue of discussing Ulv Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter. Here comes the predicament: Even though the letters on the Forsvik estate (1410, 1426 etc) establishes Cecilia Jonsdotter as being Katarina's mother, there doesn't seem to be any single source that positively identifies Ulv Holmgeirsson as being Katarinas father.  

 

However, it is possible to make such a deduction based on an analysis, discussion and utilization of the actual content of the 1426 letter that mentions Katarina. Well, only in conjunction with another letter, which also needs to be loacted.

 

If you would be so kind to point out exactly which part of the 1426 letter that will enable us to arrive at Ulv Holmgeirsson being Katariana's father, you would then reduce our suspicion of you not being able to read and understand text from the 15th century. According to yourself (#69, no. 15), you are able of "locating information that others could not locate." In this case it is a matter of locating information that I already know exists and you should be able find given your stated abilities.

 

So the challenge for you is to find this piece of information in the 1426 letter and then use that information to locate a second letter that will be needed in order to make the argument that in turn will establish Ulv Holmgeirsson as Katarinas father. Why would this be important to you, you may ask?

 

Well, simply put: If you fail at performing this relatively simple task (I just presented) of credibly connecting Katarina Ulvsdotter and Ulv Holmgeirsson, when pointed in the right direction and given access to all the needed source documents, how then would you be able to reach credible results where such guidance and/or source availability is not present at all?

 

Sincerely,

 

Are

Endret April 22, 2014 av Are S. Gustavsen

[Christian Arentz]

#80

 

A Quick seach for more diplomas reveals à lot on Katarina Ulfsdotter. Hopefully, 20 nos Will appear hère for a while:

 

http://sok.riksarkivet.se/?Sokord=Katarina+Ulfsdotter&page=1&FacettFilter=register_facet%2524Brev%252FSDHK+(medeltidsbrev)%253A&FacettState=&f=True

[JR Olsen]

Are G, now I know that you are foolish.

 

I do not have to waste my time insulting your intelligence. You are doing a great job of that yourself.

 

Why do you believe that I have to prove myself to you? I will not prove myself to you or anyone else. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

 

You are nothing to me, but a waste of time.

 

You neglected to find the information on Katarina Ulfsdatter. That alone speaks loudly about your lack of qualifications. Now, you want me to perform the research for you. The more you post here, the more potential customers you are losing.

 

Anyone ever make a drinking horn? Any tips?

[Are S. Gustavsen]

"J R Olsen" # 82,

 

No one is neglecting anything here. On the contrary. All of a sudden your initial discussion on Asa Ulvsdotter happens to make for a great learning opportunity.

 

Regarding my question/challenge, I just happened to start with you, as you seem to be a quite fitting candidate for the learning exercise that came out of the new focus on Ulv Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdotter. Initially we thought that you actually had real new research on Asa Ulvsdotter. When we learned that this was not the case, this discussion has repurposed itself to be a discussion where we actually can accomplish two things at one and the same time: (1) demonstrate (in English) how and why your research approach should not be followed by anyone, and (2) guide the readers in how medieval genealogy really should be done.

 

You see, some of us have a background doing real research for some decades, including Mr. Loberg and myself, to mention two obvious ones. There are also others. That means that we are fully capable of sharing some insight on how to deal with more complex matters. One good example would be the question/challenge I posted in # 80. This question/challenge may prove to be an excellent example on showing the scientific steps for how one may establish actual knowledge concerning a presumed father-daughter relationship.

 

Since you are unwilling, perhaps unable, to find and share the answer to this question, I propose the question to be an open challenge to anyone that may want to have a go at it. Let me give one more clue. The answer does not lie in the Swedish summary to the mentioned letter of May 20th 1426, but rather in the text itself. Hence the text must be transliterated in order to find the piece of information needed to proceed with this task.

 

So stay tuned, I'll be back with more clues if the task seems too difficult.

 

Sincerely,

 

Are

Endret April 23, 2014 av Are S. Gustavsen

[Lars Løberg]

^{Lars L, I forgot to clarify something.}

 

^{As for the debate on the 1419 diploma. You fooled nobody. I gave you examples of the involvement of the specific men to explain why these men would be related to Arnstein Ulfson. As usual, you failed to comprehend the basics. I do understand that it could be due to the English language. Perhaps you do not grasp that language as well as you believe. By the way, I know what the 1419 diploma entailed. The men speaking on Arnstein's character. I would use the word canonize, but you may take it out of context.}

 

I thank "JR" for finally revealing a bit of how he interprets Medieval documents. It was rather obvious also from the way you tried to (mis-)calculate Annsteins age that this was how you had interpreted the 1419 diploma. But, alas, your interpretation is neither in legal nor in religious terms correct. If your interpretation had been correct, if this had been a case of a legal transfer of real estate from Annstein's heirs/relatives to the Holly Church to the benefit of his soul, then you could have reasonably well also argued that the same Annstein was relativvely recently deceased, thus, at least giving you an approximate death year to calculate his possible age. That was what you did in numbers in the debate in the NSF forum, a debate you ran away from when challenged by Sigmund as to how on Earth you could come to such a conclusion based on this diploma.

 

Such transfers of real estate to the Church was normally done to fullfill a death bed wish from the deceased if no written will existed or by his or her relatives in the early stages of settling the Estate. We do have examples of such gifts being given also years after the death, though that is relatively rare. However, since that is not the legal context of the 1419 diploma, it cannot be used as an argument of how long Annstein lived. On the contrary, the legal context tells us that he must have been dead for years allready when the diploma was set up. In theory, he could have been dead for decades when the 1419 diploma was set up. But since we assume that the Annstein is the same as the one mentioned alive in 1407, then he must have died after 1407.

 

You have so far said nothing at all about how the men in the 1419 diploma may have been related to Annstein. All you have claimed is that "Obviously, there was a relationship between Oluf Thorsteinson and Arnstein Ulfson mentioned in 1419. Do we need to degrade ourselves by explaining the obvious relationship?" I think it is about time that you really do degrade yourself that much. As you obviously have misinterpreted the 1419 diploma, you have also most likely misunderstood whatever the diploma possibly can tell about such a relationship. A relationship must have existed, one way or the other, but it is certainly not an easy task to sort out how that relationship may have been, based on the kind of documentation given.

 

We have two more sources mentioning Annstein Ulvsson alive, both filling the gap between 1363 and 1407. But since you know each and every Scandinavian source by hearth, I take it that I don't have to refer you to those two documents.

 

Now, as you have documented to all of us that you do misinterpret Medieval documents, how are we to believe that you do any better with other diplomas? Medieval genealogy is complicated. If you're not particularly meticulous with your interpretations, you will easily go wrong. You have now proven to us that you're not meticulous with your sources, thus, the validity of your so called research has been severly damaged. Your only way of rebuilding that is by writing a scientific article and then allow fellow researchers to comment on your work. That is how the rest of us work. That is how we build credability. But that is also how we learn ourselves. You have a long way to go. You're not even a beginner in this field. But that does not say that you can't improve yourself. But in order to do that, you must follow the rules.

[Arkivverket - Anette Skogseth Clausen]

I am closing this topic for further discussion. The last pages of entries are mostly filled with personal attacks instead of a serious debate.