History of the house of maia in Portugal

[native...@gmail.com]

Hello I want to know if any one could give me any evidence for alboazar lovesendes being related to the umayyad dynasty in Spain I would like to prove that he was related to the and also I would like to know who his mother and father were please use sources thanks for you help.

[taf]

First let me say that you're going about this the wrong way. If you want to determine, and prove, what his true parentage is, wherever that may lead, that is a valid genealogical goal. However, when you decide you want him to have particular ancestors, then set out to make it work, that leads to overly credulous conclusions, begging the question, etc. In short, sloppy genealogy that results in false or insufficiently-supported conclusions. It tends to make the conclusion you desire become the answer, not due to the evidence but in spite of it (or in the absence of it).

As to the actual parentage of Alboazar Lovesendes, what we actually know about his parentage is one thing and one thing only - that his father was named Lovesendo. Full stop. We know this because of the nature of patronymic usage at the time. Lovesendes means, literally, son of Lovesendo. Everything else is guesswork, based on wishful thinking or unjustified attempts to 'fix' a legend from centuries later that incorrectly makes him son of a king.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Thank you for helping me with my question. I know about the legend and I knew lovesendo was his father but on family trees and on wiki it says lovesendo was married to zayda and on the wiki in the refrances tab there was a book written here it is and also the person people who are the authors soon credibly in their research thanks your your feedback on my question.

This is what was in the references and below the refrances I'll include the wiki pages I found this all on if you want to read about the authors thanks.

José João da Conceição Gonçalves Mattoso , Complete Works - 12 vols. Círculo de Leitores, Lisbon, 2002, vol. 8-p. 73.
↑ António de Sousa Lara , Vasco de Bettencourt Faria Machado and University Editora, Royal Ascendences of SAR D. Isabel de Heredia,, 1st Edition, Lisbon, 1999, p. 111.
↑ Royal Ascendences of SAR D. Isabel de Herédia, António de Sousa Lara, Vasco de Bettencourt Faria Machado and Universitária Editora, 1st Edition, Lisbon, 1999. pg. 111.
↑ Nobiliary of the Families of Portugal, Felgueiras Gayo, Carvalhos de Basto, 2nd Edition, Braga, 1989. vol. IV-pg. 376 (Rabbits



Wiki pages.


1. Alboazar lovesendes


https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu-Nazr_Lovesendes


2 lovesendo Ramirez

https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovesendo_Ramires

[taf]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 7:45:04 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Thank you for helping me with my question. I know about the legend and I
> knew lovesendo was his father but on family trees and on wiki it says
> lovesendo was married to zayda and on the wiki in the refrances tab there
> was a book written here it is and also the person people who are the authors
> soon credibly in their research thanks your your feedback on my question.

The version of pt.wiki is entirely made up.

There are a lot of contemporary charters that name Aboazar Lovesendes (spelled about a dozen different ways) and there is no doubt that he existed, nor that he was founder of the Maia. The Mattoso work that is cited is almost certainly a reference to his article on the prominent 10th century landholding families of what would become northern Portugal. He gives a brief description of Aboazar and traces his descendants, but does not address his ancestry, which is unknown beyond his patronymic.

Separately the Miragaia legend told of king Ramiro II of Leon becoming enamored of the sister of local Muslim lord. This led to his betrayal (by his own wife) and rescue by his son Ordoño, with the king subsequently killing his wife (who, by the way, does not have the name of any of his three documented wives). Note that in this earliest form of the legend, absolutely nothing is said of any children of this relationship, nor of the Maia. However, by some time in the 14th century, this legend had evolved enough that Ramiro was said to have had intimate relations with this Muslim princess, now named Ortega, sister of Alboazar Çadançada, a great-grandson of king Abd Allah, and by her became father of Aboazar founder of the Maia. (Gonzalez, in his biography of Ordoño III, reports that an earlier form of the legend actually had Ordoño himself portrayed as son of Ramiro by this exotic woman, but unfortunately he does not identify the version or give a source.) Another innovation would link this legend to a second legend, that of the Siete Infantes de Lara, by giving Aboazar a sister, also named Ortega, who was married to the grandfather of the eponymous Lara princes.

What we see here is typical of these legends. It starts with a relatively simple story, which then starts to accrue characters and relationships. Just as the Arthurian legend would gather in the once-completely-independent continental legend of Gawain, and the northcountry legend of Merlyn the bard, while additional characters bearing the name of then-current families (like Percival) would be added. In this case, a legend about Ramiro would be co-opted by the Maya family to provide a romantic ancestry for their founder, Alboazar. Whether this was done because they were unaware of his true patronymic, or because Lovesendo was odd enough they decided to replace it cannot be determined but what is clear is that this was a late development of a legend that was originally about Ramiro and a Muslim princess. It is thus ironic that attempts to 'fix' the legend often involve removing Ramiro.

So, we have a legend, and we have primary documentation that is completely at odds with that legend. Using careful, critical genealogical evaluation, one would recognize this and dismiss the legend, but that is not what happened (and this is why I wanted to give a warning at the start of this thread). Instead, various scholars have tried to 'fix' the problem, to find a way to allow the desirable parts of the legend to be true, by arbitrarily choosing the parts that would still provide a Muslim descent while ignoring the parts that contradict the historical record.

Let me take an aside and address the names. Why does the pt.wiki call him Abu Nazr Lovesendes? The surviving documentation was written in a Christian context in a millieu of Christian, Muslim and Mozarab. The latter, having lived under Muslim control, had begun using Muslim names, and you even see some Muslim names in entirely Christian context. Thus a Castilian count appears with the nickname Abolmundar (Abu al-Mundir). Aboazar is clearly such a name. Though his patronymic is clearly Visigothic (Leuve- -sind), his given name is Arab in nature, and this marks him as a likely Mozarab. In the original documentation, one form that appears is Abuuazar, but to an uncareful eye, an 'n' might have been misread as a 'u', and this could then have been an error for Abunazar, the typical Arab name Abu Nazr. This is a reasonable hypothesis, though in following it, pt.wiki is representing a pet theory as if it represented scholarly consensus, whereas they should be representing him under his traditional name, then indicating this might be a corruption of the Arab name.

As to Zayda, the supposed mother of Aboazar, that is garbled. As I said above, the developed tradition would involve an unnamed sister of Alboazar Çadançada. The latter has been interpreted as representing Abu Nazr ibn Zahadan ibn Zadan (Abu Nazr, son of Zahadon, son of Zadan -the name Zahadon does appear in local records). However, someone here has followed a different route. Without saying it explicitly, they are equating Çada with the same form as found in Zayda. The original Arabic is Sayyid/Sayyidah, or lord/lady (the same as gave rise to 'el Cid'). As such, it need not be a name at all, Just is an honorific. Thus the girl who caught Ramiro's roaming eye was sister of Abu Nazr, lord. There is no reason to make this her name.

OK, so we have a legend of king Ramiro chasing after some poor Muslim girl who caught his eye, and later the Maia family founder Aboazar got attached to it, yet we know that the Maia founder wasn't really son of Ramiro, so how can we square the circle, so we can have both the royal descent and the Muslim descent, in spite of neither originally applying to the Maia and in spite of the documentation that shows Aboazar was son of someone else entirely?

Well, if we ignore every thing we know about the development of the legend, pick out the part we want and simply ignore all the inconvenient contradictions, we can make it work. The documents say Aboazar was son of Lovesendo, the legend says that Aboazar is son of a Muslim princess, so if we just pretend the whole body of the legend wasn't there, and just cherry-pick this one desired relationship, then taken together these show that Aboazar was son of Lovesendo, and of a Muslim princess.

But wait, we lose our royal descent if we do that. Totally unacceptable, so how can we fix it better? I know, let's hypothesize that somewhere a generation was dropped from the pedigree, that the legend was originally about a love between Lovesendo Ramirez, son of king Ramiro, and a Muslim princess. Aboazar was grandson of Ramiro, not son. What is the documentary basis for this amendment? Sweet FA. It is simply made up as a way to preserve both desired ancestries in the face of a legend incompatible with historical reality. First we remove Ramiro from the legend originally about him, then, because we don't want to lose him, we just arbitrarily attach him to the top.

There is a word for scholarship like this - it is called fiction. Nonetheless, somebody ignorantly or credulously published it in their compilation, so that makes it 'reliable' by Wikipedia standards.

(And let me say, while I am at it, the pt.wiki is terrible with regard to the early genealogical entries - various people have created numerous entries for people who are just names in old pedigrees, and who represent figments of the imagination of whatever genealogist with delusions of competence wanted to flatter themselves, their patrons or the nation. Do not, ever, rely on pt.wiki for early Portuguese noble genealogy.)

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

So he's the son of lovesendo but not of zayda and will we ever know who was his reall mother? And why cant have lovesendo married a Muslim girl? What if the Muslim part is right I have talked to a genealogist named Brent Cruz and he said they don't know about the parents at all but he was of arab descent.

[taf]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 11:21:57 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> So he's the son of lovesendo but not of zayda and will we ever know who was
> his reall mother?

If you mean specifically 'Zayda', that name is the figment of somebody's imagination, their own attempt to make sense of the name given the supposed brother, Alboazar Çadançada, in the fully-elaborated version of the legend that didn't come into existence until 5 centuries after the events it purports to describe. I can see how someone has gotten there, but the name Zaida is entirely without foundation. If you are just using 'Zaida' as a term of convenience for this lover of Ramiro who would later come to be assigned the name Ortega, then still the answer is no. She was lover of Ramiro, and only centuries later did somebody decide to attach Aboazar (Lovesendes) to this legend about Ramiro. There is no reason to suppose there was ever such a historical woman, and even were there one, she was only turned into Aboazar's mother late in the process of myth-building. The only way we will ever know his real mother is if a new document surfaces in which Lovesendo names his wife or Aboazar names his mother, and I find this to be very unlikely.

> And why cant have lovesendo married a Muslim girl?

Well, first of all, it was absolutely forbidden for a Muslim to marry his daughter to a non-believer. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but one known incident so scandalized the peninsula that three centuries later Muslim legal scholars were still citing it as a legal precedent of terrible consequences of not upholding expected standards. That doesn't mean it couldn't have happened, but this is not the way to go about genealogy.

Why couldn't he have married Mozarab? Why couldn't he have married a Jew? Why couldn't he have married an Armenian? Why couldn't he have married a martian? The fact of the matter is that there has never been a single document, nor legend, that states that Lovesendo married a Muslim. There is a legend from very late that says Aboazar was son of a love affair between king Ramiro and a Mulsim, a legend in which the presence of Aboazar is a late innovation to what was originally a tale about Ramiro. Lovesendo only comes into play because he is the historically-documented father of the historical Aboazar. It takes a special kind of wishful thinking to decide that Lovesendo had a Muslim wife because of a legend about king Ramiro having the hots for a Muslim girl.

> What if the Muslim part is right

What if he was really son of the King of Atlantis? What is instead we take the record at face value and recognize that there isn't the slightest basis for such a conclusion, because there was never any suggestion this was the case until in the 1990s some overly-enthusiastic genealogists decided to forego critical thinking in favor of simple 'because I want it to be true' logic. This was never a thing - not a legend, not a tradition, not a mistaken reading of a document, not anything, that Lovesendo had such a wife. It was an invention of modern genealogists, and the only basis they had for this invention is a tradition about someone else entirely, and a deep-seated desire for it to be true.

> I have talked to a genealogist named Brent Cruz and he said they don't know
> about the parents at all but he was of arab descent.

He couldn't possibly know this. Nothing in the historical record says anything about Aboazar having Muslim ancestors, let alone Arab ancestors (note: Muslims in Iberia were mostly native converts, with a healthy number of Berbers and Eastern European slaves - Muslim is not the same as Arab). This looks like a deduction based on his name alone, but Mozarabs living under the Muslims also used some Arabic names, as did the native Iberians who converted, the Muladi. You cannot deduce ethnicity, or even religion, based on a single name.

So, let me throw this back at you. Rather than asking why not, you need to answer the question 'Why?' Why would you think Lovesendo would have married a Muslim wife because of a legend about king Ramiro II being naughty? The burden of proof is not on me to show she wasn't Muslim, it is on those who would have her be so to produce a single piece of evidence to that effect. And there isn't any - it is all just a deep-seated desire for exotic ancestry entirely run amok.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

So the awnser to alboazar being arab is for now a No?

:(

[Paulo Canedo]

Dear Todd, what about Doria's theory about an Idrissid for Lovesendo? It seems plausible to me.

[taf]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 1:38:33 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> So the awnser to alboazar being arab is for now a No?
>
> :(

With his Arabic name and Visigothic patronymic, it pegs him as a Mozarab. Could he, over all of the ancestors in his tree over the preceding two centuries have had an Arab ancestor? Yes, just as anybody in Iberia could have, but genealogy is not about what could be, but what can be shown to have been. As I said before, he could just as well have Jewish ancestry (indeed, he is more likely to have had Jewish ancestry), but what we know is that we haven't the slightest evidence on which to base such speculation.

The Arabs were the elite of Muslim Spain, and they didn't even marry their daughters to non-Arab Muslims (who they treated as second-class citizens in the realm). Likewise, the Koran expressly forbids the marriage of Muslim daughters to non-Muslims. Were such a marriage to take place, it would almost certainly require the groom to convert. In all of Iberia, there are three, perhaps four documented marriages of a Muslim woman to a Christian man prior to the early 12th century, and of these, two of them are accompanied by vitriolic condemnation in sources from centuries later, so such marriages were indeed rare, and they were remembered and condemned.

Marriage 1:
Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi had his nieces, daughters of his brother Lubb, to the sons of Inigo Sanchez (who is otherwise unknown). For allowing this to happen, he is condemned as the Enemy of God by the source that reports the marriage.

Marriage 2 (possible but unlikely):
The same Musa ibn Musa married his daughter Urraca to a prince Garcia, who was then killed fighting with his father-in-law against Garcia Iniguez. He had a son named Musa ibn Garcia, suggesting that this was a case where the groom converted, but the record is too scant to be certain.

Marriage 3:

Urraca, great-great-granddaughter of the same Musa was given as a hostage to Sancho I of Pamplona, and she would convert and marry to Fruela I of Asturias.

Marriage 4:
The widowed daughter-in-law of the Emir of Seville fled the deposition of the ruling family to Castile, where she became love of, and perhaps wife of Alfonso VI. Centuries later, as the Al Andalus state was in danger of being overrun, a legal scholar was asked whether it was the responsibility of Muslims to remain in Iberia and resist the Christian advance. The answer given was that, it was better to flee the peninsula and allow it to be conquered by the Christians than to remain and risk having your daughters and sisters marry Christians, as happened with the daughter-in-law of the Seville ruler. That should give you some indication the degree to which such marriages were anathematized. It doesn't mean they didn't happen, but they were extremely rare, and in the first three of these cases, it involved a native-Iberian Muslim clan, not Arabs.

taf

[taf]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 2:30:23 PM UTC-8, Paulo Canedo wrote:
> Dear Todd, what about Doria's theory about an Idrissid for Lovesendo? It
> seems plausible to me.

His is a perfect example of deciding what the answer should be, then trying to pick out of the data a way for it to be true. He uses name's-the-same identifications and suppositions about certain names being typical of the Idrisids that simply don't have any sound basis. As an example, though there are several people at the time with the name found in the patronymic of this candidate for Lovesendo, he intentionally but arbitrarily selected from among these possible candidates the one whose own patronymic was a name used by the Idrisids (but also used by just about every other Muslim family on the peninsula). On the basis of this he then concluded Alboazar was an Idrisid, but it is a circular argument. One could just as well, with the same data, pick different name's-the-same identities and end up somewhere else entirely.

Or one could accept that the data simply is insufficient to even identify Alboazar's father with anything approaching certainty, and leave it at that.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 12:55:10 PM UTC+11, taf wrote:

> Or one could accept that the data simply is insufficient

<snip>

> and leave it at that.

Could these words be engraved on the ether in some way, as a permanent marker of common sense for genealogists?

Peter Stewart

[native...@gmail.com]

I have a little arab and berber in me around 1% berber and 3% arab where do you think this comes from who are the group's of these people most likely to be my arab and berber ancestor what I mean is what tribes or people group's thanks.

[taf]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 7:21:58 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a little arab and berber in me around 1% berber and 3% arab where do you think this comes from who are the group's of these people most likely to be my arab and berber ancestor what I mean is what tribes or people group's thanks.

I assume this comes from ethnic DNA testing, in which case, 1% and 3% aren't real numbers. 1% or 3% readings are completely meaningless in the standard commercial analyses, and it is a waste of time to try to figure them out because they likely aren't real. Two siblings can be tested and show completely different 'minor contributions'because it is just statistical noise, not rigorous scientific measurements. Your 'Arab' could could reflect actual Arab, or Jewish, or Phonetician, or Carthegian, or any of a number of other things, including just atypical markers that occur in every population at low levels. Same with the 1% Berber. Given that many Berber's have Arab, the 1% Berber could be a false signal indicating both you and they have Arab. For that matter, it could be a representation of the bronze-age backflow that took European genes into North Africa, including among the Berbers - it may be that rather than you being 1% Berber, Berbers are 1% you. It is pointless to speculate as the signals being reported as Arab or Berber could reflect intermixing at any time in the last 30,000 years of human history, and they are overselling it to call it by these modern ethnicities.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

I've took another test before this on family tree the one I previously mentioned as ancestry on family tree dna I got less than one percent west middle East and North African and askinazi Jewish along with South europe and a lot of Spain. In ancestry I got the Arab and berber plus 3% european jewish and 3% italy/Greece and 14 iberian

[taf]

Part of the problem here is that all of these analyses are required to make simplifications. Most importantly, they model modern ethnicities as if they were uniform, but these are themselves mixes of older tribal ethnicities. This can result in the computers spitting out small percentage matches with large error bars, that probably reflect, not small amounts of these modern ethnicities but low-level variation withing the larger reported ethnicities. A recent analysis of Ireland showed it, in effect, to be four distinguishable ethnic groups, while England is such a mix that to report English ethnicity is meaningless, it is a patchwork of about a dozen different strains, many of which are shared by their neighbors. As a result, the simple intra-population variation in Britain could result in a pure Brit equally being representable as, say, 30% Breton, 50% Dutch and 20% Viking.

Are your ancestors really Italian, or does this represent the Ibero-Roman substratum within Iberians? Yet, 'Romans' themselves were a cosmopolitan population that included Greeks, Middle Easterners, and North Africans and others. And Greeks, Middle Easterners and North Africans were themselves mixed populations. This is way too complex to model, let alone in a way that will give a simple customer report, so the models used by the commercial testing companies ignore the problem and use simplified representations of modern ethnicities, and pretend this intra-ethnic complexity doesn't exist. None of these small-percentage results are real.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Are your sure? I know I'm Italian and Greek for a fact also I have a lot of iberian from my new mexico geneology and I think one of those ancestry tests only goes back 500 years but I don't know what test does. Do you know how far both of them go? thanks.

[taf]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 3:09:34 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Are your sure?

That you can't trust any of the ethnicity testing, and particularly the small-percent results? Yes. I am, sure. The testing is reasonably good at continent-of-origin determination: African vs European vs Native American & Asian (which can't be well distinguished) but as I already said, they are forced to produce artificial models of ethnicity to do the ethic testing, and while this frequently gives you the expected results, it also frequently throws out incorrect conclusions.

mtDNA & Y-DNA are unlimited by time. Using autosomal to identify cousins is only good for about 6 generations. It can identify cousinships farther back than that, but may not be able to tell if it is 10 generations or 30 generations, and relationships as close as 10 generations, or closer, may not show up at all. Autosomal for ethnicity doesn't have a limit, per se, except that modern ethnic groups are themselves modern geopolitical constructs much more than they are genetic.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

What about alfonso vi and his Muslim wife

[taf]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 4:50:01 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> What about alfonso vi and his Muslim wife

What about them?

First off, there is no direct evidence that he had a Muslim wife. Both Christaian and Muslim sources are unambiguous about this woman being the mistress of Alfonso and mother of his son Sancho, and nobody questions this. The earliest Christian source reports her as Zaida (which is probably just a confused rendering of Sayyidah - Lady in Arabic), and that she converted and was baptized as Isabella. Separately, the same author reports that Alfonso had a wife named Isabella who was mother of his daughters Sancha and Elvira. Several recent authors have concluded that Zaida/Isabella is identical to Queen Isabella, but others maintain that the two are distinct, and one author suggested that Alfonso married two Isabellas, first the mother of his daughters, and then later his former mistress, Zaida/Isabella. The evidence is a little complex, but a legitimate case can be made that Zaida was mother of Sancha and Elvira, but Elvira marred outside of Iberia, and Sancha's descendants are not as they frequently appear. As best I can tell, only the late-medieval Fromista family can make a legitimate claim to descent from Sancha.

The other issue is 'Zaida''s ancestry, and this is problematic on several levels. There is conflicting information in Christian and Muslim sources, but the most accurate makes her daughter-in-law of the Emir of Seville. That means that we don't know her parentage. Again, people who have let their enthusiasm get the better of them have proposed ways to make her be a member of this royal family, but even were this the case, pedigrees that trace these Emirs of Seville from Muhammad are likely fraudulent. (With descent from Muhammad being considered a prerequisite to rule, there is a long tradition of Islamic usurpers producing a descent from Muhammad that nobody can find any record of prior to their accession. The analogy in the Chistian world is the way the Norwegian viking rulers all invented descents from Harold Fairhair.)

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Francisco said in one of his posts back in I think 1999 on here that it was plausible for Ortega and lovesendo to have had alboazar.

[taf]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 9:08:00 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Francisco said in one of his posts back in I think 1999 on here that it was
> plausible for Ortega and lovesendo to have had alboazar.

And in so doing he let his enthusiasm get the better of his judgment. It is not plausible.

There is no Ortega AND Lovesendo. They never, ever appear together prior to this speculation that began to appear in the 1990s.

We have two completely separate historical/legendary strains. One is about Ramiro becoming enamored of a Muslim teenager and getting himself in trouble over it. Only centuries later did someone decide to make the legend about a local family by making the local lord Aboazar Ramiro's son by this woman. This is the Miragaia legend, and not only does it know nothing of Lovesendo. It doesn't even know anything about Aboazar in ts earliest formulations. It is entirely about Ramiro and his Muslim love (and his wife and his son Ordono), and only much later was it attached to a local lord independent of the fact that lord was not son of Ramiro.

Separately, we have the historical record, which reports that Lovesendo was father of Alboazar, but knows absolutely nothing about Ortiga or Ramiro.

So we have two mutually exclusive versions - one a very late tradition that has made Aboazar son of Ramiro and Ortiga, and a second that makes Alboazar son of Lovesendo. On what possible grounds can you cherry pick Ortiga out of the story of Ramiro's roving eye and, throwing out the protagonist, conclude that Ortiga is the authentic wife of Lovesendo? It is complete fabrication, based on nothing but the desire for there to be a Muslim connection. No, there is absolutely nothing plausible about this, just wishful thinking.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Why was the miragaia written for?

[taf]

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 12:11:53 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Why was the miragaia written for?

Not sure I understand the question, but Miragaia was one of a group of legends that arose in Reconquest medieval Iberia that involved intermixing between Christians and Muslims. Others include the legend of the Siete Infantes and the story of the evil Countess of Castile. Simon Barton has done an extensive study of these legends in his book, _Conquerors, Brides and Concubines: Interfaith Relations and Social Power in Medieval Iberia_ (2015), and concluded that in part they serve as metaphor for the domination of Christians over Muslims.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Has he mentioned alboazar in that book? And is Francisco credible in his work on genealogy?

[taf]

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Has he mentioned alboazar in that book? And is Francisco credible in his work on genealogy?

Barton discusses the Miragaia legend in detail, including the fact that Alboazar was a very late addition to a tradition that was originally about Ramiro.

As to Francisco, he simply let his enthusiasm for the possibility of such a descent overcome appropriate prudence. He was never _not_ going to find a Muslim descent because that is what he set out to do, not to reveal Alboazar's true parentage wherever it led (including the possibility that it led nowhere).

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Here's a bit different question I did a test and it was for my father's y-dna and it's a 12 marker test on familytreedna and one of the results that's was close to the 37 marker was from Turkey indicating my and my father and our dna matches have a turkish ancestor possibly ancieny but was a human homosapian in Turkey from their dna so my question is could I consider myself Turkish? It doesn't show in ethnicity test but it's proven to be a far ancestor or ours should I take the time to learn about Turkish history modern and ancient it seems interesting and could I say I'm part Turkish or have a Turkish ancestor? Thanks.

[Andrew Lancaster]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 7:25:40 AM UTC+1, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Here's a bit different question I did a test and it was for my father's y-dna and it's a 12 marker test on familytreedna and one of the results that's was close to the 37 marker was from Turkey indicating my and my father and our dna matches have a turkish ancestor possibly ancieny but was a human homosapian in Turkey from their dna so my question is could I consider myself Turkish? It doesn't show in ethnicity test but it's proven to be a far ancestor or ours should I take the time to learn about Turkish history modern and ancient it seems interesting and could I say I'm part Turkish or have a Turkish ancestor? Thanks.

There are quite a lot of blogs and specialized forums for genetic genealogy. Some of the members of this forum are members of some of those. They can spend more time on such issues.

A quick answer to your question is of course (I guess you already must realize) no. A 37 marker Y DNA match with someone who lives in Turkey is not particular remarkable for anyone with Mediterranean ancestry in the male line, and it can be explained many different ways. To discuss this further you should consider how close the match is, and you should contact the match and ask about their family tree.

[Francisco Tavares de Almeida]

Not questioning intentions and facts I think this is not entirely fair to Francisco Dória.
Francisco was indeed enthusiastic and published in this newsgroup some hypothesis before he had time to fully investigate. This (these?) discussion about the House of Maia and the Miragaia legend took place shortly before Francisco's wife was diagnosed with cancer - she died after 5 years - and he drastically reduced his activities and stoped posting here so further developments may never be discussed in the newsgroup.
For some time Francisco toyed with the idea of write a book about it and I was deeply interested because I have some lines to the House of Maia and a descent from the Prophet seemed to me much more interesting then the triviality of lines to Charlemagne.
From memory, Ortiga was soon dismissed on chronology basis and the hypothesis of a confusion between both Ramiro I and II was also dismissed. Then Francisco admitted that the legend's root was a royal ancestry of the lords of Maia and Ramiro, beeing the archetype of kings was later added.
But the whole hypothesis was not only based on onomastics. Documents of the Convent of Lorvão showed (to Francisco, I can't evaluate) that Idrissids owned property in the same area later owned by the lords of Maia and it seems safe to dismiss they were sold as that should have let a documental track in the Convent. So Francisco did not pursued Idrissid names randomly as you suggest but because he had a good reason to do it.
After these years it is safe to conclude that Francisco gave up the whole, quite possibly because he didn't found enough evidence.

Kind regards,
Francisco Tavares de Almeida
(Portugal)

[native...@gmail.com]

So is there any good reason for Ortega to be related to the maia

[native...@gmail.com]

Or is there any support AT ALL for it be open minded also no Ramiro

[taf]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> So is there any good reason for Ortega to be related to the maia

As I explained, the legend of Ramiro pursuing the local Muslim princess long predates the attachment of the legend to the Maia, and that attachment required the known father of Alboazar to be excised to be replaces by Ramiro and his lover.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:40:48 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Or is there any support AT ALL for it be open minded also no Ramiro

Alboazar Lovesendes was not son of Ramiro. Full stop.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Is there any support for Ortega without the miragaia without Ramiro just forget all of that for a second is it plausible for lovesendo to have married Ortega leaving that miragaia out of the picture here.

[taf]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 5:53:01 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is there any support for Ortega without the miragaia without Ramiro just forget all of that for a second is it plausible for lovesendo to have married Ortega leaving that miragaia out of the picture here.

Ortega is only known from Miragaia as the target of Ramiro's lust. There is no Ortega without Miragaia. There is nothing plausible about plucking her out of the context of the legend and trying to turn her into a historical individual. You can't 'forget all of' the only source that mentions her, leave it 'out of the picture', and still have any 'her' left to plausibly marry anyone.

taf

[taf]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:21:57 AM UTC-8, Francisco Tavares de Almeida wrote:
> sexta-feira, 26 de Janeiro de 2018 às 05:17:53 UTC, taf escreveu:
> > On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 6:34:24 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > As to Francisco, he simply let his enthusiasm for the possibility of such a descent overcome appropriate prudence. He was never _not_ going to find a Muslim descent because that is what he set out to do, not to reveal Alboazar's true parentage wherever it led (including the possibility that it led nowhere).
> >

> Not questioning intentions and facts I think this is not entirely
> fair to Francisco Dória.

Unfortunately, I don't share your view. Simply put, he set out to find a Muslim descent, and so he did.

> Francisco was indeed enthusiastic and published in this newsgroup some
> hypothesis before he had time to fully investigate. This (these?)
> discussion about the House of Maia and the Miragaia legend took place
> shortly before Francisco's wife was diagnosed with cancer - she died
> after 5 years - and he drastically reduced his activities and stoped
> posting here so further developments may never be discussed in the
> newsgroup.

He would subsequently produce a self-published monograph on the proposed Idrisid descent.

> For some time Francisco toyed with the idea of write a book about it
> and I was deeply interested because I have some lines to the House of
> Maia and a descent from the Prophet seemed to me much more interesting
> then the triviality of lines to Charlemagne.

Unfortunately, it is just this fascination that leeds normal standards to be relaxed when it comes to exotic descents.

> Then Francisco admitted that the legend's root was a royal ancestry of the
> lords of Maia and Ramiro, beeing the archetype of kings was later added.

And here is exactly where he let his enthusism get the better of him. We have what was originally a legend about Ramiro II chasing after a Muslim girl and alienating his wife in the process. It was only subsequently attached to the Maia. To then conclude that this legend was originally about the Maia, that it represents evidence of a tradition of Muslim descent to which Ramiro was later added is turning it on its head.

> But the whole hypothesis was not only based on onomastics. Documents of
> the Convent of Lorvão showed (to Francisco, I can't evaluate) that
> Idrissids owned property in the same area later owned by the lords of
> Maia and it seems safe to dismiss they were sold as that should have
> let a documental track in the Convent.

Yes, Muslims once controled land in the area (note - in the area, not the same land). There is no surprise in this as Muslims once controled all of Iberia bar the far north. That Christian lords would later own land in the same area is the expected consequence of the reconquest.

This is an argument I find particularly troublesome. A similar argument has been made to suggest that a Pamplona nobleman descended from the Banu Qasi, because he owned land in the same region that the Banu Qasi once ruled, and his name and patronymic were names found in the Banu Qasi. The problem is that his name and patronymic were among the most common among the Christian Pamplona lords, and all of the Ebro valley used to be controled by Mulsims and later was controled by Christians. There is no basis for deriving them from the Banu Qasi, other than the desire that it be the case.

With the Maia, the only hint that there might have been Muslim descent is that they later had the Miragaia legend of Ramiro attached to them. Take away this assumption that it was attached to them because they had a Muslim descent and and you have a first known ancestor who by all appearances was a Mozarab holding land that had at one time been held by Muslims, something that is seen across the middle of the penninsula at this time, with no need to posit a Muslim descent.

(And this doesn't even include the problem of the tendency of medieval monasteries to forge early documents in order to provide early precedence to their holdings.)

> So Francisco did not pursued Idrissid names randomly as you suggest but
> because he had a good reason to do it.

Did he though? I would say not. Again, he set out with the flawed concept that the Miragaia legend must have been based on a historical Muslim descent, and he set out to put one together by starting with the two end points and trying to full in the gap, but if this first assumption was flawed, the whole thing is a house of cards. (Even if the initial assumption is correct, it doesn't mean the connections he drew to get from point A to point B are valid.)

> After these years it is safe to conclude that Francisco gave up the whole,
> quite possibly because he didn't found enough evidence.

I am not sure this is the case - he did produce that self-published (print-on-demand) book. Anyhow, even were that the case, he made his thoughts available to other historians, and from them these ideas of the Maia having Muslim descent found their way into print. They are now a 'thing' that will not go away, even if Chico lost faith in them.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

What is your opinion? Do you think the house of the maia is descended from they umayyads?

[taf]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 8:26:46 PM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> What is your opinion? Do you think the house of the maia is descended from they umayyads?

I think there is no good reason to suggest this was the case.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

How much are greeks related to turks? Especially in crete

[taf]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 10:06:17 AM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> How much are greeks related to turks? Especially in crete

Depends on the Greek, depends on the Turk, depends on the Cretan, depends on whether you are using nationality or ethnicity, whether you are talking right now, or 100 years ago or 10,000 years ago. Most importantly, this has nothing to do with the Maia, Portugal (the subject of the thread), or even medieval genealogy (the subject of the group), so it is unclear where you are going with the question.

taf

[native...@gmail.com]

Ok sorry off topic

[native...@gmail.com]

What does alboazar mean? I've tried looking to definitions of origins but in confused.

[taf]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 10:19:51 AM UTC-8, native...@gmail.com wrote:
> What does alboazar mean? I've tried looking to definitions of origins but in confused.

It is a garbled rendition of Arabic unfamiliar to the later Christian historians. There is not universal agreement on what that original form might have been. Usually, the Albo- found in Iberian sources represents the kunya, an Arabic nickname that either literally identifies the person by the name of their child (or line) or uses this terminology metaphorically. It takes the form of Abu _____ (or for women, Umm ____) and means 'father of' (or 'mother of'). Abu Bakr would be the father of Bakr. The early Banu Qasi pedigree includes an Abu Salama, and it has been suggested this is a representation of the origin of the Banu Salama (descendants of Salama) family nested within the Banu Qasi (though the authenticity of this information is debatable, as the Banu Qasi were Muladi - native Iberian - while the Banu Salama were supposed to have been Arab). Metaphorically, Abu Nidal is 'father of the struggle'. An alternative is that Albo- here is a bastardization of Abd al-, 'slave of the' (servant of the), which was usually followed by a nickname for Muhammad, as in Abd al-Hakim, 'servant of the wise [one]'. (There is an added complication when guessing how this might be represented in later Christian sources, because for some but not all following letters [r,s,n,t,sh, etc.], Arabic pronunciation shifts the sound of the 'l' to mimic what follows, and one can transcribe it into Latin characters following either Arabic spelling or pronunciation - Abd al-Rahman vs Abd ar-Rahman.)

Doria has suggested that the original form of Alboazar, via Abouazar where the 'u' was a misread 'n' and hence Abunazar, was Abu Nasr. Nasr need not literally be the name of his son, because in addition to being a personal name, Nasr also means 'victory', making it an appropriate nom de guerre as 'father of victory', while likewise, such kunyas and other nicknames had come into vogue as stand-alone given names among Mozarabs (e.g. Sancha de Ayala had a Mozarab ancestor named Abd al-Aziz ibn Lampader). Another published guess (by Antonio Rei) would make it Abu al-'Asar, 'father of the lineage', but this seems unlikely given that his name is found in contemporary documents, when any lineage would be a thing of the future.

taf