Abunazar: summing it up.
Francisco Antonio Doria
Let me sum it up (before the inevitable storm to come falls upon my head ;-)):
- There was a high-ranking Arab family in the Coimbra region in the late 8th century. Its members bore names like Zahd, Zahan, Zahadon. Some of them were converts to Christianity.
They had to be high-ranking people, as DC 39 (933) is witnessed by Ramiro II and by former Queen Ausenda's son Bermudo - who by the way should be around 14 at that time - as well as by Ximeno Dias and Countess Ilduara, both related to the local *presores*' family.
- If we take into account the 13th century genealogy given in the _Livro de Linhagens_, title 21, they were married into the Ummayads.
More precisely; my conjecture is that one Zahd from that family married a daughter of Abdallah amir of Cordova. This conjecture is supported by the above-mentioned genealogy and by the list of namesakes of the Ummayad amirs of Cordova in DC 58, dated 954. Looks like an affirmation of their relation to the amirs (by then, 954, caliphs) of Cordova.
- Zahadon (whom I take to be the dom Zadão Zada in the genealogy) marries Aragunte Fromariques (modulo the ambiguity in DC 39, dated 933). If we identify father Fromarico to Fromarico *Cendoniz* (< Tedonis) who lived near Braga in 910, that is, up in the north, we can perhaps understand their later move to the region of Oporto.
Tedon and Aragunte (and also Bermudo) are names that appear in the family of count Afonso Betotes (late 9th century), so we may speculate about a relation between Fromarico and the Betotes.
Again there is onomastic evidence (Ausenda, Ermigio) of a relation between the first da Mayas and the family of Hermenegildo Guterres, presor of Coimbra. And, as I've pointed out, there is at least a suggestive judicial dispute between an early 11th century da Maya and people presumably descended from this Fromarico's family - I mean, Froila Cresconis' heirs.
----------
As for the Miragaia legend, I think that it mixes up and expands upon a historical fact, Ramiro's divorce (or repudiation) of Ausenda Guterres after she had born him 4 children, perhaps - why not? - because of adultery with a Mozarab from this family? From another local Arab/Mozarab family? Ausenda is then conflated with countess Ilduara.
I believe (out of onomastics) that Lovesendo ??? was her son. This seems to be the legend's historical nucleus - a plausible reconstruction.
----------
In a nuthsell: I've looked for historical, independent attestation of the characters in the proposed genealogy for the Maya family, and they are all there, from the late 9th to early 10th century, high-ranking nobles of Arab ancestry in the Coimbra region. This seems to be as far as we can go.
I'll later sketch some lines that are descended from those people.
I intend to publish this both in Portugal and in the US. Let's see what the referees say.
===========================================================================
Francisco Antonio Doria
Prix Caumont-La Force 1995
(Conféderation Internationale de Généalogie et d'Héraldique.)
Full member, Brazilian College of Genealogists (CBG)
fad...@rio.com.br
All material posted is copyrighted.
Please refer to the author to quote it.
===========================================================================
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Let me sum it up (before the inevitable storm to come falls upon my head ;-)):
I guess I will take this opportunity to provide a detailed response.
>
> - There was a high-ranking Arab family in the Coimbra region in the late 8th century. Its members bore names like Zahd, Zahan, Zahadon. Some of them were converts to Christianity.
There were high-ranking individuals with arab names. That these
individuals represented a single family, and that that family was arab,
rather than mozarab, can not be determined from the meagre source
material available to us. As an example, in the case of Roderigo
cognomento Abulmundar, this may represent a patronymic rather than
before/after conversion names. If so, he and all of his "brothers" are
removed from the "family", which is left with only Zahadon (or
alternatively, more liberties then must be taken with the trradition).
>
> - If we take into account the 13th century genealogy given in the _Livro de Linhagens_, title 21, they were married into the Ummayads.
This genealogy names an Alboazar, son of a Zadam Zada, who was
great-grandson of the 'Abd-Allah who defeated (Visigoth) King Rodrigo.
Thus it does not suggest marriage into the Ummayads, but descent from a
much earlier 'Abd-Allah.
>
> More precisely; my conjecture is that one Zahd from that family married a daughter of Abdallah amir of Cordova. This conjecture is supported by the above-mentioned genealogy and by the list of namesakes of the Ummayad amirs of Cordova in DC 58, dated 954. Looks like an affirmation of their relation to the amirs (by then, 954, caliphs) of Cordova.
Again, this conjecture requires reassigning the chronology of the
traditional genealogy in order to conclude that it refers to this
family. As to the onomastics, many of the names in question, such as
'Abd-al-Malic, and Abulmundar, appear in unrelated mozarab families, and
it is no more of a stretch to conclude that the other names were
likewise in use among the mozarab families. That two names are also
found in the Ummayads need not imply a relationship.
>
> - Zahadon (whom I take to be the dom Zadão Zada in the genealogy) marries Aragunte Fromariques (modulo the ambiguity in DC 39, dated 933). If we identify father Fromarico to Fromarico *Cendoniz* (< Tedonis) who lived near Braga in 910, that is, up in the north, we can perhaps understand their later move to the region of Oporto.
It is risky drawing such occurances based on single instances of a name.
>
> As for the Miragaia legend, I think that it mixes up and expands upon a historical fact, Ramiro's divorce (or repudiation) of Ausenda Guterres after she had born him 4 children, perhaps - why not? - because of adultery with a Mozarab from this family? From another local Arab/Mozarab family? Ausenda is then conflated with countess Ilduara.
>
> I believe (out of onomastics) that Lovesendo ??? was her son. This seems to be the legend's historical nucleus - a plausible reconstruction.
>
Looking at the legend we have King Ramiro having a child, Aboazar
Ramirez, by the sister of Alboazar, son of Zadan Zada, a descendant of
the 'Abd Allah who was involved in the early conquest of Spain.
Your reconstruction of this tradition has a Abunazar Lovesendez,
paternal grandson of a relationship involving Ramiro's wife and a
mozarab, and whose (undocumented) mother was daughter of a Zahadon,
maternal grandson of a much later 'Abd Allah of Cordoba.
Between these two, the commonality is limited to a couple of names, and
a vague muslim descent. While it is clear that the Aboazar of the
tradition is meant to be Abunazar Lovesendez, the Maya founder, there is
no reason to equate the Zadam of the tradition with the Zahadon of the
contemporary record other than the name itself. We know that there were
others of this name (i.e. the priest), so the identification of this
Zahadon with Zadam needs to be better documented than this. As to 'Abd
Allah, the switch from the ancient one to the more recent one is needed
on chronological grounds, if the "great-grandson" clause is to be
accepted, but in the process it turns what may have been a vague
tradition of a descent from one of the early muslim conquerors into a
specific descent from a much later individual. Such vague claims of
descent from the earlier greats are the stock in trade of the legendary
genealogies (i.e. "a descendant of Cerdic"), and thus would not be out
of place in this context, so it is far from certain that the tradition
has simply misdated the person in question by a couple of hundred years,
rather than using the term great-grandson in an imprecise manner in
relating a standard "descendant of the great conqueror" tradition.
> ----------
>
> In a nuthsell: I've looked for historical, independent attestation of the characters in the proposed genealogy for the Maya family, and they are all there, from the late 9th to early 10th century, high-ranking nobles of Arab ancestry in the Coimbra region. This seems to be as far as we can go.
I would argue that you have found a group of mozarabs with arabic names,
one of which appears to be the same name as appears in the legend. That
such a finding represents independant attestation of that one person,
let alone the whole descent, is not something I would agree with.
My opinion (built in part on that of Rodriguez Fernandez in his
biography of Ordono III), is that the tradition in question first arose
locally to relate how the Kings of Leon superceded the local (moz?)arab
nobility, (Rf even suggests that in the original legend, it was none
other than King Ordono who was portrayed as son of the relationship).
This tradition was later transfered in its entirety to the founder of
the Maya (at a time after his patronymic had been forgotten), as such
incorperating two classic motifs of such foundation pedigrees -
relationship to the royal family and some genealogical link with the
prior owners (similar invented claims can be seen among numerous
anglo-norman families). Even the existance of a Zahadon who can
unambiguously be shown identical with the Zadam Zada of the 13th century
pedigree would not distinguish the correctness of your reconstruction
from mine, some confirmation of your hypothesized marriage of the
daughter of Zahadon to Lovesendo been required. (And yes, I know I am
asking for something that probably no longer exists, if it ever did.
Sorry, but nothing short of this will convince me that there is anything
genealogically salvagable in the tradition.)
taf
Francisco Antonio Doria
> Even the existance of a Zahadon who can
>unambiguously be shown identical with the Zadam Zada of the 13th century
>pedigree
Linguistically, the two names are the same: Zahadon > Zadom or Zadam, with long a after collapsing the aspiration.
>would not distinguish the correctness of your reconstruction
>from mine, some confirmation of your hypothesized marriage of the
>daughter of Zahadon to Lovesendo been required. (And yes, I know I am
>asking for something that probably no longer exists, if it ever did.
>Sorry, but nothing short of this will convince me that there is anything
>genealogically salvagable in the tradition.)
If it existed, it would have been uncovered and published a long time ago. Let me try to clearly define the boundary between your arguments and mine: from the last paragraph I take that you don't accept Gloeckner's reconstruction of the Capetian ancestry, as there is no evidence that Robert of Wormsgau is Robert le Fort (Lévillain even lists a couple of contemporary Roberts, if I correctly recall, in the Nibelung family).
Do you accept it or not?
Chico
Francisco Antonio Doria
Francisco Antonio Doria
>a descendant of
>the 'Abd Allah who was involved in the early conquest of Spain.
The point has to do with the actual wording in the _Livro de Linhagens_. Mattoso's version says `bisneto de rei Aboali' and refers to the conquest. Let me examine this in detail:
1 - Reference to the conquest. I confronted it to an 18th century _nobiliário_, Gayo, who refers to this genealogy at least twice and *never* mentions the `no tempo de Rei Rodrigo.' Mattoso explicitly says that he used manifold sources to establish the text of D. Pedro's lineage book; this looks like a later addition by an uneducated hand, as there was no `King' (amir) Abdallah before the one that appears in the late 9th century. Nobody has made a serious criticism of Gayo's sources, and there were many copies of D. Pedro's book in several 17th and 18th century libraries. I know that Gayo used Torres' lineage book, of which there is a copy in Rio's national library, and Afonso Torres made himself a copy of D. Pedro's book, no longer extant, as far as I know.
If you choose the *single* available Abd Allah, everything falls into place.
2 - `Bisneto de rei Aboali.' Means ggson of King Aboali. Who is the ggson of Abd Allah: Zadam or his son and daughter? Mattoso places a comma so that it looks like it was Zadam himself. But I've again used Gayo, who points at the daughter. Chronology is exact if we accept that later alternative.
Summing it up: there is just *one* Abd Allah, the one who becomes amir in 888. If we go for that one, we're done.
As a comparison: I now transcribe the data on Alboazar Ramires out of Mattoso/D. Pedro:
----------
Este Boazer Ramires casou com dona Elena Godiiz, filha de dom Godinho das Esturas. Ela, com seu marido, fundarom o moesteiro de Sam Nicolau, a que ora chamam Santo Tisso de Riba dąAve, e guardavom-no nas fazenas dom Guter Telez e dom Savarigo Erit e dom Tratosende Torquides. Estes eram seus vassalos, e senhores de boos cavaleiros. Este Aboazer Ramires fez uu filho em esta sa mulher que chamarom
Trastameiro Aboazer
e outro Ermeiro Aboazer.
----------
This more or less fits with our actual knowledge about them. I'll place my comments and corrections between square brackets []:
This Aboazar Ramires [Abunazar Lovesendes] married D. Elena [Unisco] Godins, daughter of Dom Godinho from asturias; founded the monastery of S. Nicolau [?}, that now is called Santo Tirso de Ribadave... This Aboazar [Lovesendes] had two children by his wife, Trastemiro Abuazar and Ermigio Aboazar.
----------
Fit is good, in general.
Let me stress a point: I've tried to see whether there were same-named people in the region where the legend of Miragaia is born. We not only find them, but also find several Miragaia-related characters which are active in the place. I've never expected to find an actual link to the Ummaya in those documents. I'm just collecting circumstantial, indirect, evidence.
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie remarked:
>
> > Even the existance of a Zahadon who can
> >unambiguously be shown identical with the Zadam Zada of the 13th century
> >pedigree
>
> Linguistically, the two names are the same: Zahadon > Zadom or Zadam, with long a after collapsing the aspiration.
That may be the case, but, for example, why can't Zadam Zada be
identical to the priestrather than to this Zahadon. Since there were at
least two people of this name, then it requires more than just finding a
person with the name. There must be some reason for concluding that
this particular person is the one in question.
> >would not distinguish the correctness of your reconstruction
> >from mine, some confirmation of your hypothesized marriage of the
> >daughter of Zahadon to Lovesendo been required. (And yes, I know I am
> >asking for something that probably no longer exists, if it ever did.
> >Sorry, but nothing short of this will convince me that there is anything
> >genealogically salvagable in the tradition.)
>
> If it existed, it would have been uncovered and published a long time ago.
Probably, but one never knows what might turn up in some cartulary.
> Let me try to clearly define the boundary between your arguments and mine: from the last paragraph I take that you don't accept Gloeckner's reconstruction of the Capetian ancestry, as there is no evidence that Robert of Wormsgau is Robert le Fort (Lévillain even lists a couple of contemporary Roberts, if I correctly recall, in the Nibelung family).
>
> Do you accept it or not?
I am not all that familiar with Gloeckner's hypothesis, having only seen
Moriarty's inadequite attempt at summarizing it.
The problem is this. If you had a tradition that said that Aboazar
Lovesendes was son of Lovesendo by a daughter of Zadam, and you found a
Zadam, then I would feel a lot more comfortable with saying that your
information helped to "confirm" the tale (although I would say it
strengthened it, not confirmed it because it offers no independent
confirmation of the relationships).
That is not what you have, though. You have a tale that says Aboazar
was son of King Ramiro by the daughter of Zadam, and you must reject
this portion of the pedigree before you ever start. Having seen that
the tradition has incorporated contemporary people not actually related
in the way shown, then finding a Zahadon no more confirms it than
finding a King Ramiro.
Look at the Ragnar Lothbrok pedigrees. You can find a Lothbrok, and a
Reginald, you can find a Sitrigg and a Ring, you can find a Harald, a
Bjorn, an Ivar, a Halfdan, and a Ubba. There are those (i.e. Alf Smyth)
who still argue that these notices confirm the existance of Ragnar
Lothbrok, but it looks to me like all you have done is find the various
historical fragments that were used by the storytellers to concoct the
legend. That Atila the Hun is a historical figure does not confirm the
reality of Niebelungelied.
Thus, proving that a Zahadon existed (actually at least two) does not
prove that this Zahadon, or any Zahadon, had a daughter who by Lovesendo
was mother of Aboazar. That the tradition (which is the only source for
this relationship at all) is demonstrably inaccurate at the point of the
critical relationship is damning, and it requires more than finding
someone of the same name as appears in the defective tradition to
overcome this flaw.
taf
Francisco Antonio Doria
>Francisco Antonio Doria wrote:
>>
>> Let me sum it up (before the inevitable storm to come falls upon my head
>;-)):
>
>
>I guess I will take this opportunity to provide a detailed response.
>
>>
>> - There was a high-ranking Arab family in the Coimbra region in the late 8th
>century. Its members bore names like Zahd, Zahan, Zahadon. Some of them
>were converts to Christianity.
>
>There were high-ranking individuals with arab names. That these
>individuals represented a single family, and that that family was arab,
>rather than mozarab, can not be determined from the meagre source
>material available to us. As an example, in the case of Roderigo
>cognomento Abulmundar, this may represent a patronymic rather than
>before/after conversion names.
This is not so. Legalese is *very* stable, and we still use the same formula, Rodrigo, cognominado Abulmundar. Rodrigo, also known as Abulmundar. Moreover, Arab patronymics are usually prefixed in these documents by iben.
>If so, he and all of his "brothers" are
>removed from the "family", which is left with only Zahadon (or
>alternatively, more liberties then must be taken with the trradition).
>
>>
>> - If we take into account the 13th century genealogy given in the _Livro de
>Linhagens_, title 21, they were married into the Ummayads.
>
>This genealogy names an Alboazar, son of a Zadam Zada, who was
>great-grandson of the 'Abd-Allah who defeated (Visigoth) King Rodrigo.
>Thus it does not suggest marriage into the Ummayads, but descent from a
>much earlier 'Abd-Allah.
I've already noted that there was no such an Abdallah. There was one Abd al-Malik (name transposed as Habdelmek). There was only one Abdallah `King' of Cordova in the Spanish Ummayad up to the early 10th century.
>
>>
>> More precisely; my conjecture is that one Zahd from that family married a
>daughter of Abdallah amir of Cordova. This conjecture is supported by the
>above-mentioned genealogy and by the list of namesakes of the Ummayad
>amirs of Cordova in DC 58, dated 954. Looks like an affirmation of their
>relation to the amirs (by then, 954, caliphs) of Cordova.
>
>Again, this conjecture requires reassigning the chronology of the
>traditional genealogy in order to conclude that it refers to this
>family. As to the onomastics, many of the names in question, such as
>'Abd-al-Malic, and Abulmundar, appear in unrelated mozarab families, and
>it is no more of a stretch to conclude that the other names were
>likewise in use among the mozarab families. That two names are also
>found in the Ummayads need not imply a relationship.
>
>>
>> - Zahadon (whom I take to be the dom Zad“o Zada in the genealogy) marries
>Aragunte Fromariques (modulo the ambiguity in DC 39, dated 933). If we
>identify father Fromarico to Fromarico *Cendoniz* (< Tedonis) who lived
>near Braga in 910, that is, up in the north, we can perhaps understand
>their later move to the region of Oporto.
>
>
>It is risky drawing such occurances based on single instances of a name.
Not quote so. Cendon < Tendon (due to the confusion between uncial T and C - T is C with a horizontal dash upstairs). Tendon, Tedon is a rare name. It appears in the family of Vímara Peres (Tedon Lucides) and in the Betotes line. Also Aragunte, which seems to have been adopted by Vímara's family from the Betotes. Finally, Fromarico is again very unusual. I know of three Fromaricos: the ancestor (never documented) of the Riba de Vizela clan, Fromarico Moniz - which Mattoso relates to the Ribadouro clan, and which I think is the ancestor of the Vasconcellos, and this one. BTW, what does the name mean? Full of piety? Sound like it.
Finally Cresconio. Again a very rare name. I used this name to identify Froila Cresconiz.
>
>>
>> As for the Miragaia legend, I think that it mixes up and expands upon a
>historical fact, Ramiro's divorce (or repudiation) of Ausenda Guterres
>after she had born him 4 children, perhaps - why not? - because of
>adultery with a Mozarab from this family? From another local Arab/Mozarab
>family? Ausenda is then conflated with countess Ilduara.
>>
>> I believe (out of onomastics) that Lovesendo ??? was her son. This seems to
>be the legend's historical nucleus - a plausible reconstruction.
>>
>
>Looking at the legend we have King Ramiro having a child, Aboazar
>Ramirez, by the sister of Alboazar, son of Zadan Zada, a descendant of
>the 'Abd Allah who was involved in the early conquest of Spain.
>
>Your reconstruction of this tradition has a Abunazar Lovesendez,
>paternal grandson of a relationship involving Ramiro's wife and a
>mozarab,
No, between Ausenda and some unidentified, unspecified character. I conjectured someone from Ero Fernandes' family due to the participial ending -endo, but since there is no evidence at all for those people (their identity was clouded by the Miragaia legend), I don't want to go further here.
>and whose (undocumented) mother was daughter of a Zahadon,
>maternal grandson of a much later 'Abd Allah of Cordoba.
>
>Between these two, the commonality is limited to a couple of names, and
>a vague muslim descent.
Oh Todd, come on, we have two people; we can't have much more in common... More seriously, I've located homonymous of the characters in the traditional genealogy all over the place in Coimbra in the first half of the 10th century. Not just `vague Muslim descent,' or `a couple of names.'
>While it is clear that the Aboazar of the
>tradition is meant to be Abunazar Lovesendez, the Maya founder, there is
>no reason to equate the Zadam of the tradition with the Zahadon of the
>contemporary record other than the name itself. We know that there were
>others of this name (i.e. the priest), so the identification of this
>Zahadon with Zadam needs to be better documented than this.
But how? The legend just mentions a great lord (Dom Zadam). I've tried to pin him down with this identification.
>As to 'Abd
>Allah, the switch from the ancient one
There was no ancient one!
I don't think this construction is tenable. One wouldn't deflate a legend about a King to make it into a legend about an infanzon, a minor nobleman. Legends are inflationary: they start with minor characters and aggrandize them. I have a recent example: there was a rather important character in Bahia in the early 17th century, Baltazar de Aragão, called *o bângala*. He was very wealthy and originated a powerful family. Later 18th century testimonies make him into a `governor of Angola.' Documentary sources show that he wasn't even a minor local mayor; just a captain who once led a bunch of soldiers somewhere in Africa...
>Even the existance of a Zahadon who can
>unambiguously be shown identical with the Zadam Zada of the 13th century
>pedigree would not distinguish the correctness of your reconstruction
>from mine, some confirmation of your hypothesized marriage of the
>daughter of Zahadon to Lovesendo been required. (And yes, I know I am
>asking for something that probably no longer exists, if it ever did.
>Sorry, but nothing short of this will convince me that there is anything
>genealogically salvagable in the tradition.)
>
>taf
Thanks for the criticisms. All the best,
Todd A. Farmerie
>
> Todd A. Farmerie remarked:
>
> >a vague muslim descent.
>
> Oh Todd, come on, we have two people; we can't have much more in common... More seriously, I've located homonymous of the characters in the traditional genealogy all over the place in Coimbra in the first half of the 10th century. Not just `vague Muslim descent,' or `a couple of names.'
You have three people, as far as I can tell. You have Aboazar Ramirez,
who is Abunazar Lovesendes, you have Zadam who you identify with this
Zahadon, and you have Abdallah. All of the other arab names are not in
the traditional genealogy, and finding arabian names "all over the place
in Coimbra" suggests to me that this was the local onomastic usage.
>
> >While it is clear that the Aboazar of the
> >tradition is meant to be Abunazar Lovesendez, the Maya founder, there is
> >no reason to equate the Zadam of the tradition with the Zahadon of the
> >contemporary record other than the name itself. We know that there were
> >others of this name (i.e. the priest), so the identification of this
> >Zahadon with Zadam needs to be better documented than this.
>
> But how? The legend just mentions a great lord (Dom Zadam). I've tried to pin him down with this identification.
A vague legend is a dangerous one, since there is much room for pinning.
> >
> >My opinion (built in part on that of Rodriguez Fernandez in his
> >biography of Ordono III), is that the tradition in question first arose
> >locally to relate how the Kings of Leon superceded the local (moz?)arab
> >nobility, (Rf even suggests that in the original legend, it was none
> >other than King Ordono who was portrayed as son of the relationship).
> >This tradition was later transfered in its entirety to the founder of
> >the Maya (at a time after his patronymic had been forgotten), as such
> >incorperating two classic motifs of such foundation pedigrees -
> >relationship to the royal family and some genealogical link with the
> >prior owners (similar invented claims can be seen among numerous
> >anglo-norman families).
>
> I don't think this construction is tenable. One wouldn't deflate a legend about a King to make it into a legend about an infanzon, a minor nobleman. Legends are inflationary: they start with minor characters and aggrandize them.
This is looking at it from the top down, but I don't think that is the
proper perspective. We are talking about a construct/tradition of the
Maya family. All they could do was trace back to a minor character,
their ancestor Aboazar, but there is this local tradition about King
Ramiro having a kid by the daughter of a muslim lord. By identifying
Aboazar as that child, they are aggrandizing themselves a whole lot.
taf
Francisco Antonio Doria
Todd:
I don't want to make any parallels with what goes on in Ireland or in the sagas. I'm not an expert on those issues and have some doubts that uses from another culture can be transplanted to the situation in mid- to northern Portugal, early 10th century.
I can't give you a documentation for Abunazar's presumed (or legendary) mother, but can show that (besides the inner consistency data of the 13th century genealogy - consistent patronymics, sensible chronology):
a) Nazar is the name of at least two individuals in that region; and
b) The documented children of Abunazar have (among others) names typical of Mendo Guterres' family. (Abu tends to be used in next-generation children, I don't know why. Must ask my local expert on things Arabic...)
(Actually I'm wondering why we get Ermigio for Hermenegildo, instead of Mendo. I still have no idea why it happens.)
c) *If you allow for the rarity of the names Cresconio*, the litigation between Soeiro Mendes `o bom' and Froila Cresconis' heirs is suggestive of a dispute between two branches of the same family.
That is: more or less anticipating your possible objections, i tried to connect those people in Coimbra to the ones more to the north. Not the lady's name in a document, but circumstantial evidence that makes very plausible, I'd venture to say, the relationship.
This is as far as I can go.
Chico