Auria, wife of Fortun Garces, King of Navarre
taf
The other night I happened to be going over some odds and ends, and
came across the subject of much speculation, Auria, queen of Navarre.
As a refresher, she appears in one and only one historical record, the
Codice de Roda, which states that king Fortun married Oria, daughter
of _____ (left blank in the manuscript).
Given this paucity of evidence, one might be surprised to find her so
widely and unambiguously stated to have been daughter of Lubb ibn Musa
ibn Qasi. The reason for this, as has been discussed here before, is
two-fold: first, the name Auria has only been found among the Basque
ruling classes in the pedigree of the Banu Qasi, where we find Auria
bint Muza ibn Qasi, sister of Lubb, marrying an otherwise obscure
prince Garcia, who was killed in battle in 859. It would be
reasonable to hypothesize a woman named Auria having a niece named
Auria. Second, . . . well, let's face it. Second is that people
really want to trace to anything unusual, such as jew, muslims,
pagans, etc. . . . . really _really_, and so given any number of
options, guess which they will pick. The second reason need not be
addressed (genealogy is a process, not a goal).
As to the first, the name Auria is neither an arab nor specifically a
muladi name, but is of latin origin, and can be found centuries
earlier in at least one convent. While it is accurate that this name
is not known elsewhere among the families of the Basque princes, this
is drawing conclusions from an extremely small sample. I am only
aware of two documents with any reliability that name any Basque women
at the time (one beign the Banu Qasi pedigree, which only names Auria,
the other the Codice de Roda, which for the same and surrounding
generations give us just three additional names, one of which is used
twice. The interpretation that the name is unique to the Banu Qasi
has been made from this data, but I would suggest that it is just as
(in)valid to conlcude from the same data set that 20% of all Basque
women had the name. Without a larger sample of names, it is hard to
support a Banu Qasi-only derivation (Christian Settipani has proposed
three alternative origins for her). I would like to propose a fourth,
but before I do . . . .
Let me amplify this point of Basque naming, since what I feel to be a
misapplication of onomastics has led to all kinds of mischief with
respect to the genealogical reconstructions. Of the earliest three
generations of the major Pamplona principality, we know just four
names. Inigo Arista was son of another Inigo, had a brother Fortun,
and had sons Garcia and Galindo. Given this pattern, a marriage has
been hypothesized between Inigo Arista and one of the two families
known to be using the name Galindo, the two fighting over Aragon. I
have to ask, with such a small number of known names and only one name
in the generation before Arista, how can one possibly conclude that
the name Galindo was just introduced into the family through marriage?
Could not Arista have had a paternal uncle of that name? (or for that
matter could not one of these Galindos have been his paternal uncle?)
I know that it is no fun just to say "there is not enough information
on which to base speculation", but the approach used seems as likely
to result in 'the blind men and the elephant' scenarios as having any
chance at authenticity. And all of this is based on the fact that
there are just these families to consider. Were there no other
families in all of the Basque regions with daughters, that every wife
had to come from one of three families? In fact, we know there were
others. We know that the Jimenez held sway in "another part of the
kingdom" (a relationship perhaps similar to that between Malcolm II
and Macbeth at the time of their visit to Canute), but at this time we
only know the founder Jimeno had sons Inigo and Garcia, but nothing
about siblings or ancestors. There was also that prince Garcia who was
killed in 859, about whom we know nothing else except his marriage to
Auria. Settipani forces him into one of the other families, making him
son of Garcia el Malo, but he may have represented yet another "part"
of the Pyrenees. Again, I ask, given that you don't know if the name
was already in use by the family, and given that you have an account
of the names in use by only a subset of the identified candidate
families, and given that there were certainly other canditate families
yet to be identified, is it really justified to even speculate that
the name was novel and came from a particular other family via
marriage. OK, enough of this rant, back to Auria.
As I said, I would like to suggest another alternative, not instead of
those already proposed, but in addition to (in other words, don't
nobody go and put this in y'all's databases). First, chronology. The
date of Fortun's birth has not been recorded (obviously). What is
known is that he was oldest son of his father, who was acting as
regent in 841, and that he himself was old enough to be captured,
apparently in battle, in 860. He was returned from Cordoba in 880,
and forced into a monastery in 905. His granddaughter, the daughter
of a second marriage of his daughter to his younger brother's son, was
still having children in the 920s, while a greatgrandson was already
reigning in Cordoba in 912. In other words, there is a whole lot of
wiggle room. Still, this last date seems to limit the marriage. For
a great-grandson to be ruling the largest state in the Mediterranean,
one would be hard pressed to place the marriage much later than, say,
870, and I would suggest earlier than that, as the marriage of his
daughter to 'Abdullah ibn Muhammad is likely to have taken place prior
to his return from Cordoba in 980, placing it closer to 860 or even
before. Likewise, I would be hesitant to take it too much earlier, as
one gets the impression that Inigo (or at least his brother, "the
preeminent warrior in the kingdom" several years later) was not
exactly in his dotage when he was paralysed in battle in 841, meaning
that his grandson, even as oldest son of oldest son, could not have
been very old. This then gives us our chronological framework (as it
is).
In terms of our genealogical framework, he was oldest son of the
oldest son of Inigo, and unfortunately, his known kinsmen make for a
very short list. In addition to his father Garcia and grandfather
Inigo, he had a great uncle Fortun, an uncle Galindo and brothers
Velasco and Sancho. His aunt Ausona married Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi,
who was also his great-uncle, being the half-brother of Fortun and
Inigo. He had another aunt who married Garcia el Malo, and had a son
Galindo. He had a sister Oneca married to Aznar Galindez of Aragon.
I have lost my train of thought here, so let's just cut to the chase.
Fortun appears to have been 'of a generation' with Auria bint Musa,
wife of Garcia, k. 859. Likewise, an 860 marriage date falls within
the chronological framework already worked out. Rather than being her
niece, could Fortun's wife have been none other than Auria bint Musa
bint Qasi herself. The argument has in it's favor this general
chronological and genealogical framework: husband and wife would be
first cousins, and avoids the unneccesary multiplication of Aurias.
The biggest point against it is whether the Banu Qasi genealogist, who
so fastidiously reported the marriage of a member of the family to a
prince Garcia who is utterly unknown in the christian sources would
then have failed to record her subsequent marriage to King Fortun.
(One could ad hoc some scenarios, but why bother.) Of course this
last is an argument that bites just as hard into those making her
Auria ibn Lubb ibn Qasi.
taf