Being new to this forum, I’m not certain whether anyone has posted the following link before or not; but as it is a very good collection of photos of Early American heraldic monuments, I thought it would be of interest to some of the other forum members:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnncox/sets/72157606107237661/with/5456961195/
Most of these monuments are found in several Revolutionary War era cemeteries located in and around Charlotte, N.C.; an area that came to be heavily settled by Ulster-Scots Presbyterians in the decade before the American Revolution. The coat of arms that I myself bear is found on one such monument in this area, marking the grave of my 4th great grandfather’s younger brother who died without issue in 1785. According to the records of the September session of the Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina court minutes, my 4th great grandfather was appointed administrator over the estate of his younger brother, who had died intestate, and therefore was likely responsible for having the monument bearing the coat of arms erected:
http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical records/ThomasAkinstomb.jpg
http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical records/ThomasAkinsback.jpg
Caledonian;87685 wrote:
Being new to this forum, I’m not certain whether anyone has posted the following link before or not; but as it is a very good collection of photos of Early American heraldic monuments, I thought it would be of interest to some of the other forum members:
<snip>
The alleged Akins armorial tombstone(s) and associated documentary "evidence" have been extensively discussed on rec.heraldry if anyone cares to search that forum under "Akins of that Ilk", they will realise there are major caveats to accepting any of that poster’s claims. I venture to suggest that they need not be discussed here.
Derek Howard;87686 wrote:
The alleged Akins armorial tombstone(s) and associated documentary "evidence" have been extensively discussed on rec.heraldry if anyone cares to search that forum under "Akins of that Ilk", they will realise there are major caveats to accepting any of that poster’s claims. I venture to suggest that they need not be discussed here.
Should anyone have any questions regarding the authenticity of the heraldic monument associated with my Akins ancestors, I would refer them to a book published in 1978 entitled "A History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978" published by Craftsman Printing and Publishing House, Charlotte, N.C. The book contains illustrations of the Akins coat of arms as well as a number of other coats of arms found on monuments in the church cemetery:
http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical records/steele_creek_01.jpg
An interpretation of the symbolism behind the arms can be found at:
The tombstone of Thomas Akins is listed in our roll of early American arms as follows:
Akins, Thomas (d. Mecklenburg Co, NC, 1785)A lion rampant, issuant from dexter an arm grasping a battle-ax [tinctures not indicated].Tombstone at Steele Creek Presbyterian Church; arms probably devised by the stonecarver.
This is a factual description of a coat of arms that actually exists. As Derek Howard observes, none of the rest of this is worth the time of serious people.
Joseph McMillan;87688 wrote:
The tombstone of Thomas Akins is listed in our roll of early American arms as follows:
Akins, Thomas (d. Mecklenburg Co, NC, 1785)A lion rampant, issuant from dexter an arm grasping a battle-ax [tinctures not indicated].Tombstone at Steele Creek Presbyterian Church; arms probably devised by the stonecarver.
This is a factual description of a coat of arms that actually exists. As Derek Howard observes, none of the rest of this is worth the time of serious people.
The above discription should read: issuant from sinister rather than "dexter" as stated above, since the arm is issuant from the sinister side of the shield. You might want to correct that.
I do agree with you however that much of what has been discussed on rec.heraldry regarding these arms is much ado about nothing; which begs the question why Derek Howard would bother to bring it up in the first place???
as a member of this society, i find it offensive that this imposter would use the MB of AHS to further, yet again, his lame attempts legitimize his delusional idea of being a Scottish Chief (one wonders if his racist rants are around the corner as well). while i am not a fan of some of Mr. Sean Murphy’s arrogance and at times obnoxious behavior towards heraldry and legitimate chiefs/chieftains i have found his work to be, on the whole, worthwhile for those unsuspecting heraldry and clan chief/chieftain observers to prevent them from falling into any supportive role for this imposter. to read clearly the modus operandi of this imposter and how he uses different heraldry and genealogy venues to further his delusions please visit here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/akins.html
so, i ask are we obligated, as a society, to allow such tripe to be posted on our MB? i would hope not. and i would hope that the mods here would recognize the actions of this poster for what they are—an attempt to use AHS to legitimize his delusions—and remove it all from public view if our laws of governance allow it. if not, then, so be it. i just don’t like it is all.
Caledonian;87689 wrote:
The above discription should read: issuant from sinister rather than "dexter" as stated above, since the arm is issuant from the sinister side of the shield. You might want to correct that.
Done.
The Steele Creek tombstones—and the other stones by the same family of carvers in other cemeteries in the Charlotte area—are real. But the arms are largely made up by the stonecarver. That doesn’t necessarily make the arms less real, although one would want to know whether the families of the people buried beneath those stones actually used the arms carved on them. I doubt, for example, that Andrew Bigham actually used the arms shown on his tombstone, which are those of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or that the lady buried beneath the royal arms of Portugal (on a stone not illustrated in this thread) actually claimed to be a member of the House of Braganza.
Donnchadh;87690 wrote:
as a member of this society, i find it offensive that this imposter would use the MB of AHS to further, yet again, his lame attempts legitimize his delusional idea of being a Scottish Chief. while i am not a fan of some of Mr. Sean Murphy’s arrogance and at times obnoxious behavior towards heraldry and legitimate chiefs/chieftains i have found his work to be, on the whole, worthwhile for those unsuspecting heraldry and clan chief/chieftain observers to prevent them from falling into any supportive role for this imposter. to read clearly the modus operandi of this imposter and how he uses different heraldry and genealogy venues to further his delusions please visit here: http://homepage.eircom.net/~seanjmurphy/chiefs/akins.html
i would hope that the mods here would read this page and recognize the actions of this poster for what they are—an attempt to use AHS to legitimize his delusions—and remove it all from public view.
I think perhaps your remarks are largely the result of a common misconception that, although widely held, is quite baseless in its origin; a discussion of these issues can be found at: http://clanakinsassociation.weebly.com/clan-facts.html
Over the centuries a great many myths surrounding Scottish clans have arisen, due in no small part to the "Romantic-Revival" of Scottish culture that began with the publication of James MacPherson’s Ossian, less than two decades after the clans were defeated in the last Jacobite uprising in 1746. Although reduced to a mainly ceremonial status, Scottish nostalgia and sentiment for the clans fueled a continuing interest which had led to the development of many customs and traditions that have since become an integral part of our Scottish cultural heritage. Although it is often wrongly assumed that these customs developed naturally over the course of many centuries, many of them originated in the first decades of the 19th century while others first came to light during the Victorian era that followed shortly thereafter.
The word clan comes from the Gaelic term clann, meaning "descendants" or "offspring." Within the context of Scottish culture, clans were historically considered to be any group composed of extended family claiming descent from a common ancestor. The fact that clans are found in the Lowlands as well as the Highlands is made clear in an Act of Parliament of 1587 for the quieting and keeping in obedience of the disordered subjects, inhabitants of the borders, highlands and isles, which was directed at "the captains, chiefs and chieftains of all clans, as well on the highlands as on the borders, and the principals of the branches of the said clans….which clans dwell upon the lands of diverse landlords and depend upon the directions of the said captains, chiefs and chieftains (by pretence of blood or place of their dwelling).” Thus the word clan is used to describe both Highland and Lowland families. As Sir Crispin Agnew of Lochnaw put it, the "belief that clans are Highland and families are Lowland….is really a development of the Victorian era."
While the Lord Lyon is the foremost authority and arbiter in matters pertaining to the legal possession and use of coats of arms in Scotland, he has no power to determine the status of Clan Chiefship. This is made clear in the Introduction to the Law of Scotland, 9th edition, 1987, p. 25, where we read: “The Lord Lyon King of Arms has jurisdiction, subject to appeal to the Court of Session and the House of Lords, in questions of heraldry, and the right to bear arms. (Hunter v. Weston (1882) 9 R 492, Mackenzie v. Mackenzie (1920) S.C. 764, affd. 1922 S.C. (H.L.) 39.) He has no jurisdiction to determine rights of precedence (Royal College of Surgeons v. Royal College of Physicians, 1911 S.C. 1054.), nor to decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship. (Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938 S.L.T. 49; and see 1941 S.C. 613.)” This was determined in part by the case of Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, in which Lord Wark stated: “I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan….The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law. It was decided in the case College of Surgeons of Edinburgh v. College of Physicians of Edinburgh (1911 S.C. 1054), that Lyon has no jurisdiction except as is conferred by statute, or is vouched by the authority of an Institutional writer, or by continuous and accepted practice of the Lyon Court….in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms….But it is a different thing altogether to say that in a case of dispute Lyon has jurisdiction to determine and declare who is chief. For that no precedent has been cited to us. In my opinion, it is outwith his jurisdiction to decide because (1) at best it is a question merely of social status or precedence; (2) this social status is not one recognised by law; and (3) and, most important of all, it depends, not upon any principle of law of succession which can be applied by a Court of Law, but upon recognition by the clan itself. Like your Lordship, I am at a loss to understand how any determination or decree of Lyon ever could impose upon a clan a head which it did not desire to acknowledge.”
Joseph McMillan;87691 wrote:
Done.
The Steele Creek tombstones—and the other stones by the same family of carvers in other cemeteries in the Charlotte area—are real. But the arms are largely made up by the stonecarver. That doesn’t necessarily make the arms less real, although one would want to know whether the families of the people buried beneath those stones actually used the arms carved on them. I doubt, for example, that Andrew Bigham actually used the arms shown on his tombstone, which are those of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or that the lady buried beneath the royal arms of Portugal (on a stone not illustrated in this thread) actually claimed to be a member of the House of Braganza.
Most of the tombstones in queston were in fact carved by the Bigham family of tombstone carvers who came to Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina from Pennsylvania. I do know that in the case of my McCorkle ancestors, the gravestones of both my 5th great grandfather, Stephen McCorkle, as well as that of his wife Anne (Forbes) McCorkle, and their daughter Violet, located in nearby Ebenezer Presbyterian Church cemetery at Rock Hill, S.C., all bear the same identical coat of arms:
http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical records/StephenMcCorklegrave.jpg
http://i1038.photobucket.com/albums/a470/the_scotsman1745/Genealogical records/AnneForbesMcCorkle.jpg
The fact that the tombstones of both my 5th great grandparents as well as their daughter all bear the same coat of arms suggest that this particular arms was indeed used by the family as their coat of arms, and was not simply a random design arbitrarily chosen by the tombstone maker himself.
i hardly need a lecture from the likes of you on what is a clan in either the Irish or Scottish context (or any other facet of nomenclature)—especially from someone who believes that the various Celtic people have a different origin than they do in order to promote neo-Nazi propaganda that you promote and long to be a part of but can’t given your ethnicity—or on heraldry as it’s been my passion and study since the mid 90s for the former and since early to mid 00s for the later. it is rather odd that you are in that state of mind that everyone else is wrong and you are right…if your racist comments—-from your own posts—weren’t a part of your overall make up i’d feel pity for you. as it is, i feel nothing but contempt for you disgrace the very institution of Scottish Clan Chiefs as well as the related subjects of nomenclature and heraldry. this is my last correspondence with you or anyone of your misleading and racist ilk.
Donnchadh;87694 wrote:
i hardly need a lecture from the likes of you on what is a clan in either the Irish or Scottish context (or any other facet of nomenclature)—especially from someone who believes that the various Celtic people have a different origin than they do in order to promote neo-Nazi propaganda that you promote and long to be a part of but can’t given your ethnicity—or on heraldry as it’s been my passion and study since the mid 90s for the former and since early to mid 00s for the later. it is rather odd that you are in that state of mind that everyone else is wrong and you are right…if your racist comments—-from your own posts—weren’t a part of your overall make up i’d feel pity for you. as it is, i feel nothing but contempt for you disgrace the very institution of Scottish Clan Chiefs as well as the related subjects of nomenclature and heraldry. this is my last correspondence with you or anyone of your misleading and racist ilk.
I have always held a great deal of respect for and pride in my ancestry, be it from my Scots, Irish, Welsh or English ancestors; and it it from this sense of pride and respect that my desire to preserve and maintain the integrity of my bloodline through future generations is derived. This history behind these various ethnic groups goes back many thousands of years and extends far beyond the boundaries of the countries that have come to be associated with each ethnic group.
The original Scots were not native to the country now called Scotland (which did not exist until the High Middle Ages), but were a tribe of Gaels who inhabited the north of Ireland. These Gaels or Scotti, as they were known to the Romans, eventually established an outpost colony called Dalriada in what is now Argyllshire around the year 500 A.D. About 350 years later, Kenneth MacAlpine, a descendant of both the royal lines of the Irish Scots of Dalriada and of the Picts (who were descendants of the native Britons that inhabited the non-Romanized northern third of Britain) united both tribes to form the Kingdom of Alba, which would eventually become known as "Scotland" several centuries later. At one time Ireland was referred to (in Latin) as Scotia after the Gaels or Scotti. When the Scotti emigrated to the northern third of Britain, that part of Britain came to be known as Scotia Minor while Ireland was known as Scotia Major.
These Irish Scots, together with the Picts and some Viking admixture, became the ancestors of the Highlanders. The Lowland Scots were descended mainly from the native Celtic Britons and Picts together with a bit of admixture from the Angles who came to Britain from Germany during the Dark Ages and settled in Bernicia (Northumbria). The majority of the population of Britain however is descended from the native Celtic Britons, a people who the Germanic Anglo-Saxons referred to as Welas meaning "strangers", from which the modern words Welsh and Wales are derived. The Britons of Ystrad Clud, Rheged, and Goddodin, which were located in the Scottish Lowlands were ethnically and culturally the same people who are known as the Welsh today, though in Scotland they became the ancestors of the Lowland Scots.
The Gaels who first came to Ireland from the European continent by way of Spain were of Scythian origin. Scythia was a vast region that in ancient times encompassed much of Eastern Europe including present day Ukraine and the Caucasus. The Scythians were known by many names: Scyths, Sacae, Skuthes, Skuda, Scoloti, etc. (meaning "archers") and from them the Gaelic tribe known as the Scotti or Scots is descended. It was in that part of Scythia, located along the current Polish-Ukranian border, that the ancient province of Galicia is found. Galicia was the original homeland of the Gallic people, who were the earliest ancestors of the Gauls of Europe, and the Gaels of Ireland and Scotland. This history is recalled in the words of the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath, addressed to the Pope in 1320:
“Most Holy Father and Lord, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread renown. They journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage tribes, but nowhere could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. Thence they came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to their home in the west where they still live today. The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts; and, as the historians of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all bondage ever since."
The "chronicles and books of the ancients" referred to in the Declaration are undoubtedly the annals contained in the medieval Irish text known as the Lebor Gabala Erenn (Book of the Conquest of Ireland), which describes how the Gaels originated in Scythia and made their way across Europe until they at long last reached Ireland, their prophesied destination:
“Now Feinius had two sons: Nenual, [one of the two] whom he left in the princedom of Scythia behind him; Nel, the other son, at the Tower was he born. Now he was a master of all the languages; wherefore one came [to summon him] from Pharaoh, in order to learn the multiplicity of languages from him. But Feinius came out of Asia to Scythia, whence he had gone for the building of the Tower; so that he died in the princedom of Scythia, at the end of forty years, and passed on the chieftainship to his son, Nenual. At the end of forty two years after the building of the Tower, Ninus son of Belus took the kingship of the world…..Now that is the time when Gaedel Glas (from whom are the Gaels descended), was born…...Now Sru son of Esru son of Gaedel, he it is who was chieftain for the Gaels who went out of Egypt after Pharaoh was drowned with his host in the Red Sea of Israel: Seven hundred and seventy years from the Flood till then. Four hundred and forty years from that time in which Pharaoh was drowned, and after Sru son of Esru came out of Egypt, till the time when the sons of Mil came into Ireland.….Forty and Four ships’ companies strong went Sru out of Egypt. There were twenty-four wedded couples and three hirelings for every ship. Sru and his son Eber Scot, they were the chieftains of the expedition. It is then that Nenual son of Baath, son of Nenual, son of Feinius Farsaid, prince of Scythia, died; and Sru also died immediately after reaching Scythia….Eber Scot took by force the kingship of Scythia from the progeny of Nenual, till he fell at the hands of Noemius son of Nenual…..For that reason was the seed of Gael driven forth upon the sea, to wit Agnomain and Lamfhind his son, so that they were seven years on the sea, skirting the world on the north side. More than can be reckoned are the hardships which they suffered….they had three ships with a coupling between them, that none of them should move away from the rest. They had three chieftains after the death of Agnomain on the surface of the great Caspian Sea, Lamfhind and Allot and Caicher the druid….It is Caicher who spoke to them,….Caicher the druid said: Rise, said he, we shall not rest until we reach Ireland. What place is that ‘Ireland’ said Lamfhind son of Agnomain. Further than Scythia is it, said Caicher. It is not ourselves who shall reach it, but our children, at the end of three hundred years from today….Thereafter they settled in the Macotic Marshes…..It is that Brath who came out of the Marshes along the Torrian Sea to Crete and to Sicily. They reached Spain thereafter. They took Spain by force…..Four ships’ companies strong came the Gael to Spain: in every ship fourteen wedded couples and seven unwed hirelings…..Brath had a good son named Breogan, by whom was built the Tower and the city - Braganza was the city’s name. From Breogan’s Tower it was that Ireland was seen; an evening of a day of winter Ith son of Breogan saw it.”
The Scythian origin of the Scots is also recorded in the text known as Chronica de Origine Antiquorum Pictorum (The Pictish Chronicle), which is based on an earlier work, dating to the 7th century, entitled Etymologiae by Isidore of Seville, who wrote: “The race of the Picts has a name derived from the appearance of their bodies. These are played upon by a needle working with small pricks and by the squeezed-out sap of a native plant, so that they bear the resultant marks according to the personal rank of the individual, their painted limbs being tattooed to show their high birth. The Scots, now incorrectly referred to as Irishmen, are really Scotti, because they originated from the land of the Scythians…..It is a well known fact that the Britons arrived in Britain during the third Age of Man (the time between Abraham and David), while the Scotti, that is the Scots, migrated into Scotia or Ireland during the fourth Age of Man (the time between David and Daniel). The Scythian people are born with white hair due to the everlasting snow; and the colour of their hair gives name to the people, and thus they are called Albani: From this people both Scots and Picts descend. Their eyes are so brightly coloured that they are able to see better by night than by day. The Albani people were also neighbours with the Amazones. The Scythian territory was once so large that it reached from India in the east, through the marshland of Meotidas (the Sea of Azov), till the borders of Germania.”
The Picts were simply non-Romanised Britons, as the Romans didn’t conquer the entire island of Britain, they ended up building a coast to coast fortification (Hadrian’s Wall) to separate Romanised Britain from the non-Romanised Britons living in the northern third of the island of Britain. Because the Britons living north of Hadrian’s Wall were not under Roman control, they retained their own indigenous native Celtic culture and language, whereas the Britons living south of Hadrian’s wall were more influenced by Roman ways and manners. The names Briton and Britain themselves come from the Celtic words Prytani and Prydain, which the Britons used to refer to themselves and their island. These words are derived from the Celtic root word Pryd, meaning "to mark" or "draw" and refer to the native Briton practice of painting or tattooing their skin with designs using a dye or ink obtained from the woad plant which produces a blue color; a trait described by Herod of Antioch in the 3rd century A.D., who wrote: "The Britons incise on their bodies coloured pictures of animals, of which they are very proud." So the Britons (or Prytani, as they called themselves in their own language) were the "painted" or "tattooed people". This is something Julius Caesar himself remarked about in his journals when he invaded Britain in 54 B.C.: "The mainland of Britain is inhabited by a people who claim to be indigenous to the island, on the coast live the immigrant Belgae, who crossed over for war and pillage, but settled to cultivate the land…Those living inland do not sow grain but live on milk and meat and wear clothes of animal hides. All Britons paint their skin with woad which makes them blue and more terrifying to confront in battle."
The immigrant Belgae, mentioned by Caesar as having settled on the coast of Britain, were a group of Gallic tribes which included the Cimbri, who had formerly inhabited the Himmerland in the Jutland peninsula of Denmark, prior to the occupation of that region by the Germanic Danes The Greek historian Plutarch mentions the Cimbri in his Life of Gaius Marius (written in 75 A.D.), describing the Cimbri as "Galloscythians" who had migrated westward and were known to the Greeks as "Cimmerians", describing their homeland in the darkest and remotest location "extending into the interior [of Europe] as far as the Hercynian forest….and from this region, the people, anciently called Cimmerii, and afterwards by an easy change, Cimbri." Somewhat earlier, in about 60 B.C., Diodorus Siculus wrote: "the valour of these people [the Britons] and their….ways have been famed abroad. Some men say that it was they who in ancient times overran all of Asia [Minor] and were called "Cimmerians" - time having corrupted the word into the name "Cimbrians" [Brythonic: "Cymru"] as they are now called." The Cimbri, or Cymric tribes as they were known in Britain, were descendants of the ancient Cimmerians who originally inhabited what is now the Crimea on the northern shores of the Black Sea bordering Scythia, until they were scattered after generations of intramural struggles for rulership with competing Scythian tribes; not unlike the events described in the Lebor Gabala Erenn.
While the Britons living in the southern two-thirds of Britain became more "civilized" under Roman military rule and adopted Roman ways and manners, the Britons living in the northern third of the island beyond Roman control retained their own native Celtic customs and practices, which included tattooing their skin with woad. Thus by the end of the third century AD, the Romans began to refer to the Britons living in the northern third of the island as the "Picti" or Picts (from the Latin word Pictus, meaning "painted"). The term Pict first appears in a in a verse praising the emperor Constantius Chlorus written by the Roman orator Eumenius in 297 AD; while in 416 A.D. the Roman poet Claudian wrote: "This legion, set to guard the furthest Britons, curbs the savage Scot and studies the designs marked with iron on the face of the dying Pict". Thus it is not the country of Scotland that makes its native inhabitants Scots, but rather it is the Scots themselves who, by inhabiting the northern third of Britain, made the country that came to be called Scotland "Scottish."
I am locking this thread pending further review by the moderators. HLB