GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-06 > 0992774714


From: Francisco Antonio Doria <>
Subject: Re: Muslim/Christian descents in Early-Medieval Spain
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 07:45:14 -0300 (ART)
In-Reply-To: <3B2C1F7F.124B1CBB@interfold.com>



Thanks for your detailed comments. I'll print them out
now and take them with me to Sao Paulo, where I'll
spend the week far from my books. (You'll hear from
me, possibly, but just brief comments.)

I'll ponder what you've said, but I dispute your
conclusion, and, *to ascertain the identification I
made*

- Do you speak - I mean speak, not just read, because
I know that you read it without much trouble - do you
speak Portuguese? If so, with which accent? Portuguese
or Brazilian?

- Have you seen for yourself the Lorvão documents in
Herculano's collection? Or just those that I posted
here? (I can post them again, if needed, but only next
weekend.)

chico

--- "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
escreveu: > Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
> >
> > --- "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
> > escreveu: >
> > >
> > > 5. Abunazar Lovesendes (de Maya) son of
> Lovesendo, a
> > > back-door
> > > associate of the Leonese royalty, by Ortiga,
> > > descendant of
> > > Ummayad Abd Allah.
> > >
> > > Recent attempt to salvage/reconstruct
> traditional
> > > Maya descent. Based on appearance of some of
> the
> > > relevant names in contemporary documents, and
> some
> > > hypotheses regarding how the tradition may have
> > > become corrupted from the events which
> (hypothetically)
> > > served as its basis.
> >
> > 1) Conjecture is *mine*.
>
> Yes, I know.
>
> > 2) You, hum, compress too much my argument. I'll
> > repeat it:
>
> I compressed everybody's arguments. I really do not
> have time to
> write an entire book on each (any) of them, nor do I
> intend to
> right now.
>
> > 1st step: *There is a genealogy*, very possibly
> dated
> > from the 13th century,
>
> In other words, three centuries after the fact.
>
> > that follows traditional Muslim
> > forms (a nasab) and that relates Ortega to Aboail.
>
> That is one interpretation. I am not convinced that
> "cadaocada"
> (sorry, I am not on my home computer, so I cannot
> insert all of
> the diacriticals) can be equated with Zahadon ibn
> Zadan (or ibn
> Zayd). (A patronymic is clearly assigned to
> Albonazar, but it is
> less clear that "cada" is intended as the patronym
> for "cadao".)
> Likewise, I would not expect a traditional muslim
> lineage to read
> in the non-linear manner "Ortiga, daughter of
> Zahadon, son of
> Zadan, Ortiga being great-granddaughter of Abd
> 'Allah". The link
> in the last generation, theoretically the most
> important in the
> descent, would generally be explained explicitly -
> that Zadan was
> son of Abd 'Allah, or that he had married the
> daughter. In this
> form, the two statements seem divorced from each
> other, perhaps
> representing a direct statement of the (thought to
> be) known
> paternity, followed by statement of a more vague
> descent from Abd
> 'Allah.
>
> > 2nd step: We find at Lorvão *exact* namesakes of
> those
> > people in the nasab.
>
> Of ONE name, representing (you argue) two
> individuals found in
> the "nasab", plus the king (Ramiro) who you have
> ejected from
> it. (In some of your older posts, you seem to
> prefer Zayd/Cid as
> the equivalent of "cada". Have you abandonned this
> interpretation?)
>
> > 3rd step: the chronology surprisingly matches the
> time
> > span in the genealogy.
>
> In this small sample, there are (IIRC) four
> appearances of a
> Zahadon, representing at least two individuals,
> living at the
> right time, but wrong place. Since, of all the
> people named we
> only have good chronological data for the one who
> doesn't belong,
> all we can really say is that, give or take a
> generation, the
> name Zahadon is not uncommon (at least common enough
> to have two
> people of this name appear in the same document) in
> at least one
> mozarabic (not muslim, another strike against
> matching these
> people with the tradition) context at the time.
>
> > This is as far as I can go. There are here no
> > conjectures based on onomastics,
>
> Not in what you have just presented, but elsewhere
> you have
> mentioned several times the appearance of Ummayad
> names in these
> Lorvao documents, and of arab (but likewise mozarab)
> names in the
> Maya, supporting a descent.
>
> > dubious links and so
> > on. On the contrary: we actually have a genealogy
> > which is as old as most Ummayad descents, and we
> can
> > find homonymous people at Lorvão in an environment
> > with all the historical people mentioned in the
> > Miragaia legend.
>
> There are two definitively historical inividuals
> (ones for whom
> there is no question about their identity) in the
> Miragaia. One
> of them is Ramiro II. It should hardly be
> surprising that he
> would be found in these Lorvao documents (after all,
> he was the
> king at the time - oh, and by the way, one of the
> documents, I
> think, is corrupted in reporting the royal
> witnesses). The other
> is "Aboazar Ramirez", the historical Abunazar
> Lovesendez. He is
> not found in these Lorvao documents, nor is he
> placed
> geographically in the same area, and his patronymic
> (derived from
> other documentary evidence presented by Mattoso)
> proves the
> Miragaia wrong as to his paternity. Again, the only
> one that can
> definitively be identified with someone in the
> documents is the
> man that we know doesn't belong in an authentic
> Miragaia
> precursor (or at least in such a precursor that
> includes Abunazar
> Lovesendes).
>
> There is no evidence of Albonazar or his sister
> Ortiga herself,
> either associating with Ramiro or particularly with
> Lovesendo
> (who himself is represented in the historical
> record solely by a
> patronymic), nor that either (any) of the Zahadons
> in the Lorvao
> documents represent the father of the
> great-granddaughter of King
> Abuail" of the Miragaia, that any of the Lorvao
> Zahadons link
> specifically to Lovesendo or to the Ummayads, that
> by "King
> Abuail" the legend intends the Ummayad Abd 'Allah
> rather than the
> Banu Qasi of the same name, as suggested by Kelley,
> or someone
> else entirely . . . I could go on.
>
> Basically, we have a tradition that, as it survives,
> is
> unquestionably wrong at its most critical and
> explicit point - in
> showing the Maya founder as son of Ramiro II. While
> one could
> explain this away by arguing that Ramiro had been
> inserted into a
> valid descent, the only evidence you seem to have
> for this is the
> appearance of the name Zahadon in a document of
> Ramiro's reign.
>
> Doria hypothesis:
>
> (origonal) (corruption) (final)
>
> Zahadon Zahadon
> | |
> Ortiga=(Lovesendo) <====Ramiro II
> Ortiga=Ramiro II
> ||
>
=== message truncated ===


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! GeoCities
Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home page no Yahoo! GeoCites. É fácil e grátis!
http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/

This thread: