Abunázar: summary of the findings
Francisco Antonio Doria
This is a summary of what I've found so far. I've been
going through an old collection of documents mainly
from Lorvão (Laurbanus) monastery near Coimbra
(Portugal) which was published with brief Latin
summaries by Portuguese historian Alexandre Herculano
in 1857. Any major library will have it, and I know of
no recent edition (a pity, really). Its title is:
_Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Diplomata and
Chartae_, I and II. Its contents are usually referred
to by the initials DC plus a code number and a date;
the code number is the document's number.
You'll find there sales of properties, wills, a few
royal decrees. Some of them stem from originals; most
are early copies. There is much discussion about which
of those are false, but there is general agreement
that the bulk of the collection is sound. The texts
are in Latin, pidgin Latin, early Portuguese, early
Spanish.
You'll find there all those people that populate the
early Portuguese genealogies, which again gives some
sort of overall credibility to them - not in detail,
but in the overall picture.
This has been long known, and so you may ask me, why
nobody noticed it before? I think that only quite
recently - probably after Mattoso's publication in
1965 or so of his reconstruction of the early
Portuguese lines - people became aware of the need to
go to those charts and to check them against the
genealogies in the 14th century _Livro de Linhagens_.
Just recall that a brilliant researcher like Armando
de Almeida Fernandes still refers to ``Dom Alboazar
Ramires'' (iicr) in the corresponding entry in the
_Grande Enciclopédia Portuguesa e Brasileira_.
The main things I've found there, from the earliest
charts (c. 870) to 1061:
- There are several references to individual(s) named
Lovesendo/Leodesindo/Neodesindo/Leodesindo ibn Fethe
in major charts (I mean, next to the king).
- There are several references to one Nazeron/Lazeron
ibn Leodesindo, with children, in those charts.
- There is one Malik ibn Abunazar in a 998 chart that
just precedes the much-quoted 999 chart of the
litigation involving Lovesendo Abunazar/Abonazar (this
is how the name is spelled out in the chart).
- There are charts DC 96 (deemed a false by
Herculano), DC 229 (1016), DC 240 (1018 ?), that
essentially deal with the same sale of property to
Lorvão, and which lists several namesakes of the
Ummayad. DC 229 is the one where we find ``Zahadon
``al-Umawi,'' where Umawi is a well-known alternate
form for Ummaya. (The great Ummayad mosque in Damascus
is jaabi' al-amawi/al-umawi.) Next to him appears a
Zahad al-Umawi. (Zahad is ``hermit'' or more likely
``judge.'' Zahadon is a kind of augmentative; cf.
Nazar,actually Násr, as in Gamal Abdel Násser) and
Nazeron.
- There is a confirmant ``gabdella iben zagaz'' that I
identify as abdallah iben zahad. Reason is: initial g
is an 'alif, and so should be the g in zagaz, and
final z stands for spirant dh. Then this individual
could be seen as a gson of Abdallah amir of Córdova,
dec. 912, through Zahad and an unnamed daighter of the
amir.
My conclusions are:
- There was at least one branch of the Ummayad family
at Lorvão; it remained there after the Christian - I
would like to say here, barbaric... - reconquest in
878, kept their high social status and intermarried
with the new élite.
This is undoubtful. Next:
- I also find enough circumstantial evidence in
support of the line to the Ummayad I've long proposed:
[Zaira/Artiga/Ortega] bint Zahadon ibn Zahad ``al
Umawi,'' Zahad being married to a daughter of Abdallah
of Córdova.
This *would ensure* - notice the qualification which I
stress again, would ensure - the kinship between the
old da Maia family and the Ummayad, and so a kinship
to Muhammad, Prophet of Islam.
chico
PS: The book will have several descent charts, from
the Prophet downwards; I am also going to include
steadfast lines to Anglo-American families.
A final comment, which I can't resist:
1 - I am descended through several lines from the Maia
family. So is the vast majority of Portuguese and
Brazilian families.
2 - I have Jewish blood, and so has my wife. I, too,
have Negro - I refuse to use politically correct terms
- blood, which is obvious from my skin color. My
children and gdaughter have a Jewish name among their
surnames, and are proud of that.
3 - What I'm saying here is that it is highly likely
that a huge portion of the Western population is
related to the Prophet of Islam. This has an obvious
symbolic meaning in those troubled times.
(I have no religion.)
_______________________________________________________________________
Busca Yahoo!
O serviço de busca mais completo da Internet. O que você pensar o Yahoo! encontra.
http://br.busca.yahoo.com/
History Writer
your comment about barbarians was inappropriate.
Finding Muslim ancestors for Iberian nobles appears very difficult,
with the notable exception of the de Granada family and their
Lancastre descendants. The de Granada were descended from the
al-Nayar family as well as the al-Nasr ruling family of Granada, and
apparently the Hafsids of Tunisia (can these be traced to Mohammed as
well?).
I am curious about two other Muslim lines. Has any progress been made
on the ancestry of Zayda/Isabel (d. 1106), fourth wife of King Alfonso
VI of Castile. She is believed to have been the daughter-in-law of
King Muhammed II of Seville, and possibly the daughter of the Emir of
Denia. As shown in Turton's chart, Zayda, through her daughter
Sancha, wife of Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara is an ancestor of King Deniz
I of Portugal. Deniz I is the great-grandfather of Isabel of Castile,
wife of Edmund, Duke of York, son of Edward III. Turton alleged that
Zayda's father was the King of Seville, but this appears to have been
dismissed some time ago.
In "A History of Medieval Spain" by Joseph O'Callaghan, on page 345,
O'Callaghan writes that Abu Zayd, Governor of Valencia, and a
descendant of the first Almohad caliph, converted to Christianity
around 1229 and took the name Vincent. Does anyone know what his
family name became and if he left noble descendants?
Best Regards
franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br (=?iso-8859-1?q?Francisco=20Antonio=20Doria?=) wrote in message news:<2003022213142...@web14802.mail.yahoo.com>...
Francisco Antonio Doria
Dear History Writer:
I concentrated on the Abunazar line/hypothesis because
it's the only one where the evidence points towards
some solid connection to the Prophet's family. Every
other line I've seen has some speculative elements in
it, from the banu Qasi connection (which still seems
plausible to me, but quite badly documented) to the
Zayda line and others. At least here in the Abunazar
case I can get hold of documents where I can find
people that sign themselves as members of the Ummayad
family.
On my boutade: please don't be offended, but the
Christians in the 9th century, near Coimbra,
definitely were barbarians when compared to the
Muslims of the Córdova emirate. Theirs was a brilliant
civilization, as you well know, and I don't need to go
further here.
Best, chico
--- History Writer <hbv...@aol.com> escreveu: >
=== message truncated ===
Todd A. Farmerie
> I am curious about two other Muslim lines. Has any progress been made
> on the ancestry of Zayda/Isabel (d. 1106), fourth wife of King Alfonso
> VI of Castile.
Well, the most important question in the whole debate is exactly
this. The only document close to contemporary, a chronicle, says
that Zaida was the king's mistress and mother of Sancho, while
Isabel was his qife, the queen, and mother of Elvira and Sancha.
There is a non-contemporary tomb marker for Zaida that says she
was baptized as Isabel. There is a non-contemporary marker for
'queen' Isabel that calls her daughter of Louis of France. I
have yet to see any convincing argument that Zaida WAS queen
Isabel (I am ambivalent on the fall-back position, that Alfonso
married first queen Isabel, and then married again to his
mistress, Zaida/Isabel). This is critical to the descendants
question.
> She is believed to have been the daughter-in-law of
> King Muhammed II of Seville, and possibly the daughter of the Emir of
> Denia.
A single christian source calls her daughter of Muhammed, a
single muslim one (better informed, it seems to me) calls her
daughter-in-law. While I have seen the speculation several
places that she was daughter of the Emir of Denia, I have never
seen a legitimate source cited for that solution, so I cannot
evaluate it (although the absence of a source is never a positive
recommendation).
> As shown in Turton's chart, Zayda, through her daughter
> Sancha, wife of Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara is an ancestor of King Deniz
> I of Portugal.
Sancha, was only daughter of Zaida IF queen Isabel was Zaida. In
this case, Turton (actually his source) got the two confused, but
may have ended up with the right answer by coincidence. That
being said, King Deniz of Portugal was not a descendant of
Sancha. I have followed her descendants for 5 generations, and
there is only one identifiable descendnat in the generation of
Diniz - Juan Lopez de Haro, a scion of the Counts of Viscaya, who
disappears from historical sources (I have not tried to find him
in more obscure records). That said, there is a descent from
Sancha's sister, Elvira, wife of King Roger of Sicily, the first
English king with the line being Henry VIII, IIRC.
taf
Kevan Barton
Very exciting indeed! Thank you so much for sharing your finds with us.
Cheers,
Kevan
Kevan Barton
The Williams Family
I think that what would help more than anything in tracing Muslim ancestry from early Iberian nobles would be a good, comprehensive volume giving all the early genealogies of the kings, counts, etc. according to modern scholarship. England has the CP, France has Pere Anselme, Germany has the ES but Spain is sadly lacking.
On a different note, do you happen to know the source that claims that Zayda was daughter-in-law of Muhammad II? Thanks!
Sincerely,
Kelsey J. Williams
>
>
> Chico: Thank you for this summary of your research, though I thought
> your comment about barbarians was inappropriate.
>
> Finding Muslim ancestors for Iberian nobles appears very difficult,
> with the notable exception of the de Granada family and their
> Lancastre descendants. The de Granada were descended from the
> al-Nayar family as well as the al-Nasr ruling family of Granada, and
> apparently the Hafsids of Tunisia (can these be traced to Mohammed as
> well?).
>
> I am curious about two other Muslim lines. Has any progress been made
> on the ancestry of Zayda/Isabel (d. 1106), fourth wife of King Alfonso
> VI of Castile. She is believed to have been the daughter-in-law of
> King Muhammed II of Seville, and possibly the daughter of the Emir of
> Denia. As shown in Turton's chart, Zayda, through her daughter
> Sancha, wife of Rodrigo Gonzalez de Lara is an ancestor of King Deniz
Nathaniel Taylor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
[re: descents from Isabel, perhaps identical to Zaida:]
>... there is a descent from
>Sancha's sister, Elvira, wife of King Roger of Sicily, the first
>English king with the line being Henry VIII, IIRC.
Todd, I have pulled out of google a post of yours tracing this line from
Sicily to Elizabeth Woodville (she has such interesting lines):
>1.Alfonso VI m. Isabel, perhaps identical to Zaida
>2.Elvira Alfonso m. Roger II, King of Sicily
>3.Roger of Apulia (had by mistress) Bianca de Lecce
>4.Tancred, King of Sicily m. Sibilla di Medania
>5.Elvira of Sicily m.1 Walter III, Count of Brienne
>6.Walter IV,Count of Brienne and Jaffa m. Maria of Cyprus (Lusignan)
>7.Hugh, Count of Brienne and Lucce m.1 Isabelle de la Roche
>8.Walter V
>9.Isabel m. d'Enghien
>10.Louis d'Enghien, Count of Brienne m. Jeanne de St. Severino
>11.Margarite d'Enghien, Countess of Brienne m. Jean de Luxebourg, Count
>of St. Pol
>12.Peter de Luxembourg I, Count of St. Pol m. Margaret del Balso
>13.Jacquetta de Luxembourg m. Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers
>14.Elizabeth Woodville m. Edward IV, King of England
Through Eliz. Woodville's other marriage this leads to several
Anglo-American gateways, including (possibly) Thomas Wingfield of
Virginia and (possibly) Thomas Dudley of Mass.
Nat Taylor
Todd A. Farmerie
> In article <3E57FC73...@interfold.com>,
> "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
> [re: descents from Isabel, perhaps identical to Zaida:]
>
>
>>... there is a descent from
>>Sancha's sister, Elvira, wife of King Roger of Sicily, the first
>>English king with the line being Henry VIII, IIRC.
>
>
> Todd, I have pulled out of google a post of yours tracing this line from
> Sicily to Elizabeth Woodville (she has such interesting lines):
>
>
>>1.Alfonso VI m. Isabel, perhaps identical to Zaida
>>2.Elvira Alfonso m. Roger II, King of Sicily
>>3.Roger of Apulia (had by mistress) Bianca de Lecce
>>4.Tancred, King of Sicily m. Sibilla di Medania
>>5.Elvira of Sicily m.1 Walter III, Count of Brienne
>>6.Walter IV,Count of Brienne and Jaffa m. Maria of Cyprus (Lusignan)
>>7.Hugh, Count of Brienne and Lucce m.1 Isabelle de la Roche
>>8.Walter V
>>9.Isabel m. d'Enghien
>>10.Louis d'Enghien, Count of Brienne m. Jeanne de St. Severino
>>11.Margarite d'Enghien, Countess of Brienne m. Jean de Luxebourg, Count
>>of St. Pol
>>12.Peter de Luxembourg I, Count of St. Pol m. Margaret del Balso
>>13.Jacquetta de Luxembourg m. Richard Woodville, Earl Rivers
>>14.Elizabeth Woodville m. Edward IV, King of England
Beware - one of these that I posted at the time had an error in
it pointed out by Bill Reitwiesner (although there was an equally
valid alternative descent). I don't recall if it was this one.
> Through Eliz. Woodville's other marriage this leads to several
> Anglo-American gateways, including (possibly) Thomas Wingfield of
> Virginia and (possibly) Thomas Dudley of Mass.
So IF Thomas Dudley was who he is claimed to be, AND IF Queen
Isabel was Zaida, AND IF Chico is onto something, then Dudley
would descend from both muslim connections being discussed.
taf
Francisco Antonio Doria
In a nutshell: no doubt the Abunázar da Maia family
was of Arab extraction, and no doubt that they were
close (geographically and socially) to the Ummayad
namesakes near Coimbra. HOWEVER the nasab (name with
genealogy) I have dates from the 13th century, even if
I can easily identify the individuals in it to
homonymous in the Coimbra region, and get
circumstantial evidence for it.
chico
--- "Todd A. Farmerie" <farm...@interfold.com>
_______________________________________________________________________
Francisco Antonio Doria
Txs, Kevan. But I must point out that this is
published material that has been available for a
century and more. I'm still wondering why nobody
noticed it (there is no doubt about the authenticity
of crucial chart DC 229).
chico
Thierry Stasser
Spanish), but only a concubine, mother of the king only son Sancho. Zaida
was christened Elisabet , but is not the same person as Alfonso 4th wife, as
made clear by sources:
Chronica Regum, PELAYO, bishop of Oviedo, ed. E SANCHEZ ALONSO, Madrid,
1924, p 86:
Hic (Adefonsus) habuit quinque uxores legitimas...quartam Elisabeth ex qua
genuit Sanciam coniugem comitis Roderici et Geloiram quam duxit Rogerius dux
Siciliae...habuit etiam duas concubinas...posteriorem nomine Ceidam filiam
Abenabeth regis Hispalensis quae baptisata Elisabeth fuit vocata ex qua
genuit Sancium qui obiit in lite de Ocles...
So Zaida was not infanta Sancias's mother and then not the grandmother of
infanta Sancia's 3 daughters by Count Rodrigo Gonzalez
See B REILLY, The Kingdom of Leon Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 1988, pp
234-235 (Zaida) and 296-298 (Elisabeth)
Thierry
William Addams Reitwiesner
It wasn't this one. See <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3677af46.36
415%40news.erols.com&output=gplain> (watch the wrapping). This line
(Brienne -> Enghien -> Luxembourg) appears to be OK.
>
>> Through Eliz. Woodville's other marriage this leads to several
>> Anglo-American gateways, including (possibly) Thomas Wingfield of
>> Virginia and (possibly) Thomas Dudley of Mass.
>
>So IF Thomas Dudley was who he is claimed to be, AND IF Queen
>Isabel was Zaida, AND IF Chico is onto something, then Dudley
>would descend from both muslim connections being discussed.
>
>taf
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
jl
daughter of Alphçonse VI AND Ximena Nunoz (daughter of Muno II Gonzales and
Mayor Rodriguez)
thanks
Todd A. Farmerie
Yes, but that is not who we are talking about. Alfonso had two
daughters with the name Elvira. One, his eldest daughter, by
Ximena, married first Raymond IV of Toulouse and second Count
Fernando Fernandez. Much later he had a daughter Elvira by Queen
Isabel, who married Roger of Sicily.
(It whould be added that the ancestry of Ximena Muńoz you have
given is somewhat speculative, and alternatives have also been
suggested.)
taf
Nathaniel Taylor
Thierry Stasser <thierry...@wanadoo.be> wrote:
>Zaida was not Alfonso VI 4th wife, whose name was Elisabeth (Isabel in
>Spanish), but only a concubine, mother of the king only son Sancho. Zaida
>was christened Elisabet , but is not the same person as Alfonso 4th wife, as
>made clear by sources:
>Chronica Regum, PELAYO, bishop of Oviedo, ed. E SANCHEZ ALONSO, Madrid,
>1924, p 86:
>Hic (Adefonsus) habuit quinque uxores legitimas...quartam Elisabeth ex qua
>genuit Sanciam coniugem comitis Roderici et Geloiram quam duxit Rogerius dux
>Siciliae...habuit etiam duas concubinas...posteriorem nomine Ceidam filiam
>Abenabeth regis Hispalensis quae baptisata Elisabeth fuit vocata ex qua
>genuit Sancium qui obiit in lite de Ocles...
>
>So Zaida was not infanta Sancias's mother and then not the grandmother of
>infanta Sancia's 3 daughters by Count Rodrigo Gonzalez
>
>See B REILLY, The Kingdom of Leon Castilla under King Alfonso VI, 1988, pp
>234-235 (Zaida) and 296-298 (Elisabeth)
There has been a great deal of discussion here in the last six years
about the wives of Alfonso VI (following articles by J.M. Canal
Sanchez-Pagin, Clemente Palencia, and others), and despite Pelayo's
clear distinction, the independent evidence which suggested to Reilly
that there may have been two queens named Elizabeth has kept alive the
idea that the second Elizabeth may have been Zaida. I agree, though,
that the distinction in Pelayo's chronicle seems decisive.
Nat Taylor
Romualdo Saenz Matienzo
1) We have a problem of legal terminology talking of concubines. An
ideological problem.Ans an anachronismo. The church used to call
concubines to the wives not married "in facie ecclesia", thats it
"clandestina desponsatione". But this allso called "secret marriages"
were perfectly legal for the church till Trento.
2) Merovingians, first carolingians and many kings of Leon and
Castilla in the central centuries of the middle age were poligamous.
The last semi-poligamous king of Castilla was Pedro I (d. 1366).
3) in Castilla you can see an evolution of the shape of
"family"/marriage that remembers the punalúa marriage described by
Morgan. In the first middle age, by instance, some of the first
asturian kings were the husbands of the wifes of (all?) their
kingsmen. Something like must been happened in Ireland. But the
g-celts of eire were at the time less evolutionated and following
their matrical estructure of the organization of power probably they
were polyandreus.
Saenz Matienzo
Nathaniel Taylor
>1) We have a problem of legal terminology talking of concubines. An
>ideological problem.Ans an anachronismo. The church used to call
>concubines to the wives not married "in facie ecclesia", thats it
>"clandestina desponsatione". But this allso called "secret marriages"
>were perfectly legal for the church till Trento.
I understand; but here the issue is that Pelayo has distinguished Zaida
bapt. Elizabeth, for whom he uses the term 'concubine', from the 'uxor
legitima' Elizabeth, mother of Elvira (2) and Sancha. However we should
interpret Pelayo's use of the term 'concubine', his testimony still
discourages the conflation of the two Elizabeths.
Nat Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
franciscoa...@yahoo.com.br (Francisco Antonio Doria) wrote:
>This is a summary of what I've found so far. ...
Chico, thank you for these recent summary posts. I'm sorry I could not
turn to them until just now. If I may schematize your entire argument
extremely briefly, it seems to boil down to a few points:
1. the Maia family is served by a legend, surfacing around the time of
the first Livros de linhagens (13th century), which makes them descend
from a union of a king Ramiro of León and a royal Muslim woman
(described variously in the different versions as
great-great-granddaughter of king 'Aboali', or--in an example of title
inflation--daughter of a 'rei' Abencadão [ibn Zahadon]).
2. Charter evidence (the Lorvao charters, etc.) confirms that people
with similar Arabic names to those in the later legends lived in the
appropriate place at the appropriate time (late 10th century), including
names which could be interpreted as explicit reference to Ummayad
descent ('al-Umawi'). These people appear not to match the alleged Maia
progenitors precisely, but can be seen to bea branch of the same family,
branching off from a ninth-century Zahad (Abdallah ibn Zahad, vs.
Zahadon ibn Zahad). Other charter evidence confirm the existence of
people with the same names as the alleged Maia progenitors, but without
as clear indicators of Ummayad filiation in the charters.
3. (one could also point out that there were many known branches of the
Ummayad family around in the 10th century, at least to judge by the
number of claimant families involved in the last, disintegrating
generation of Ummayad rule in the 11th century. Therefore it is not
beyond the realm of possibility that this, and other provincial families
which bore these names, could be closely linked by blood to the ruling
Ummayads.)
4. Therefore it is possible to string the conclusions together to
suggest that the claim of a royal Muslim connection in the later Maia
legend is not implausible, given the suggestive charter evidence, and
may even be accepted as a provisional line, in which the line given by
the Livro de linhagens is fleshed out by deduction of intervening
generations and mapping to the extant Lorvao charters.
One problem that has been raised (by Todd) is that, if one accepts that
the Christian royal connection (Ramiro) in the legend is simply a
fabrication, why can one place faith, selectively, in the other half of
the same legend (the royal Muslim ancestry)? In other words, if one
half of a story appears false (royal Leonese ancestry), must one then
*necessarily* reject the other half of the story (royal Muslim
ancestry)? This is a difficult problem, but I am inclined to remain
open about it.
Your position is now that the charter evidence suggests the plausibility
of the royal Muslim ancestry element sufficiently so that one must not
necessarily reject it.
I would be happier with the discussion of the Lorvao documents, and the
mapping of the names as found in the _Livro de linhagens_ to 'Ummayad'
correct Arabic names, if you could present some analysis of these
Arabic names (Zahad, Abu-Nasr, etc.): how common are they in al-Andalus
in the 10th century? Are these names, when found, assumed by Arabic
historians & genealogists to be exclusively indicative of the Ummayad
dynasty? In other words, can you demonstrate that these were not common
Arabic names in 10th century al-Andalus, therefore lending some weight
to the idea that they suggest an Ummayad connection?
I am sure that this is a clumsy summary and critique, and would welcome
corrections and discussion. In particular, my reading of the longer
dramatic elements of the legend from the Livro de linhagens and the
19th-century commentary, transcribed by Chico, is especially hasty. I
would appreciate a clearer summary of the narrative portions of the
legend.
P.S.: In a related posting on this issue, back in August 2002, you
mention a longer discussion of the whole descent, posted as a pdf file
at your own website:
Unfortunately, this site does not seem accessible right now. Is that an
intermittent problem, or is the site really off line?
Nat Taylor