GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-09 > 0999771826


From: Francisco Antonio Doria <>
Subject: Re: fraudulent genealogies
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 07:23:46 -0300 (ART)
In-Reply-To: <20010906092942.32739.qmail@web20101.mail.yahoo.com>



PS:

1) I've corrected the subject line.

2) I also agree that the banu Qasi line is riddled
with doubts. But - *looks* sensible.

chico

--- Francisco Antonio Doria <>
escreveu: >
> I've been quite busy of late, and so I couldn't even
> post the thing I have on Lovesenda and Loveredo in
> the
> Coimbra region, 10th-11th century. But my original
> argument is demographical: take a look at any
> complete
> Ummayad chart of descent in Spain. It is
> demographically impossible that they simply went
> away... And it is known that these weren't the only
> Ummayads there; there were several sidelines.
>
> Now, second step: you must look in the right
> direction. That's what I'm trying to do - very
> slowly,
> in my spare time. This isn't the End of Atlantis;
> the
> earth hasn't opened up and swallowed all extant
> evidence for the Ummaya descent...
>
> chico
>
> --- "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
> escreveu: > Ford Mommaerts-Meulemans-Browne wrote:
> > >
> > > An article, 'A Suggested Moslem Descent for
> > Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor
> > > of Castile', by Prof. Charles J. Jacobs,
> _Spanish
> > Genealogical Helper_, #19,
> > > pp. 343-346, (The Augustan Society, 1974), maybe
> > of interest. It deals with
> > > the very problematical banu Qasi, but does
> > illustrate how documents &
> > > records were doctored to further this desire.
> > There is a peripheral lesson
> > > here as to documentation being the be-all &
> > end-all of genealogical
> > > research, (NOT that it should be thrown out with
> > the bath-water).
> >
> > If this is the article I think it is, then it is a
> > bad example.
> > Unfortunately, in this particular study, the
> author
> > accepts a
> > pair of undocumented and self-contradictory
> > statements made
> > without supporting documentation in a secondary
> > source. A
> > reading of the probable primary source renders the
> > entire
> > analysis moot, as it shows that the statement of
> > relationship
> > refers to an entirely different individual than
> the
> > one Jacobs
> > spends so much time discussing.
> >
> >
> > Specifically, Jacobs addresses an ambiguity on the
> > Roda Codex,
> > and argues that the wife often assigned to Raymond
> I
> > of Pallars
> > was actually wife of his son Isarno. In so
> > concluding, he was
> > agreeing in every detail with the earlier analysis
> > of Jose
> > Lacarra, so there was nothing new here.
> >
> > The next step of his argument is to turn to
> > Levi-Provencal's
> > History of Muslim Spain, where in the text author
> > specifically
> > calls Raymond I of Pallars the brother-in-law of
> > Muhammad ibn
> > Lubb ibn Qasi, while in a chart he shows
> Muhammed's
> > brother
> > Mutarrif to have had a daughter who married
> Raymond.
> > Of the
> > primary sources cited by the author, none provide
> > this
> > relationship. In spite of this, Jacobs takes
> these
> > conflicting
> > statements, and concludes that Raymond I married
> the
> > sister or
> > neice of Muhammed, and since Raymond's can
> nolonger
> > be assigned
> > another wife (because of the correct
> interpretation
> > of the Roda
> > Codex), therefor this Bint Qasi must be the mother
> > of Bernard I
> > and ancestress of the later Spanish kings.
> >
> > Setting aside the argumentfrom ignorance (we know
> of
> > no other
> > wife, so it must be this one) and the leaps of
> faith
> > (knowing
> > that they are brothers-in-law must mean that "my
> > ancestor"
> > married the sister of the other guy, giving me the
> > muslim
> > descent, rather than the other guy marrying my
> aunt;
> > even though
> > Levi-Provencal doesn't cite his source, and gives
> > two conflicting
> > versions, that is no particular reason not to
> claim
> > this highly
> > desirable muslim descent), there is a fatal flaw
> > with the entire
> > thing. I have located a (and I suspect the only)
> > primary
> > chronicle source for such a relationship. It
> > reports that
> > Raymond of Pallars killed his brother-in-law
> > Muhammed ibn Lubb.
> > This would at first appear to prove the connection
> > (although not
> > direction) given by Levi-Provencal, but not so
> fast.
> > The entry
> > describes events long after both Raymond I and
> > Muhammed I had
> > died, and can only refer to Raymond II (or perhaps
> > "ibn Raymond",
> > a son of Raymond I) and Muhammed II. If this is
> the
> > case, then
> > we can no longer use the process of elimination
> (the
> > Count had no
> > other wives), because these generations are well
> > described in the
> > Roda Codex, but likewise, if Count of Pallars,
> this
> > would not be
> > the line that gave rise to the Spanish Kings,
> which
> > branch only
> > held Ribagorza.
> >
> > In other words, the critical assumptions made by
> > Jacobs are
> > groundless, and directly conflict with the primary
> > record. I
> > hope that this is not being explained away by a
> > claim of
> > doctoring.
> >
> > taf
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! GeoCities
> Tenha seu lugar na Web. Construa hoje mesmo sua home
> page no Yahoo! GeoCities. É fácil e grátis!
> http://br.geocities.yahoo.com/
>

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

This thread: