Father of Loup I

[Alexander Golovanov]

Who was father of Loup I (aka Lope,Lupus), Duke of Gascogne.

Manuel Abranches de Soveral gives him as Andeca(d.711), Prince of Basques,
Duke of Cantabria married to Memorana of Franks. But Andeca was also the
name of the last king of Sueves(584-585), son of king Theodemar. Does these
both Andecas were relatives ?

regards,
aeg

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

[Destinie]

The only information I have found, makes Lupus I de Gascogne (b. abt 715),
the son of Hatton de Gascogne.
Hatton was the son of Eudes de Gascogne, duc d'Aquitaine, b. abt 670.
Hatton's brother, Hunald was the father of Waifre de Gascogne who married
Adele, daughter of Lupus I.

This line traces back through Clovis I and the ancient kings of the Franks.

Nancy Belle-Oudry

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Destinie wrote:
>
> The only information I have found, makes Lupus I de Gascogne (b. abt 715),
> the son of Hatton de Gascogne.
> Hatton was the son of Eudes de Gascogne, duc d'Aquitaine, b. abt 670.
> Hatton's brother, Hunald was the father of Waifre de Gascogne who married
> Adele, daughter of Lupus I.
>
> This line traces back through Clovis I and the ancient kings of the Franks.

This line proves erroneous. for example, it would appear Eudes
was actually son of Hatton. There is no Clovis line here.

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Alexander Golovanov wrote:
>
> Who was father of Loup I (aka Lope,Lupus), Duke of Gascogne.
>
> Manuel Abranches de Soveral gives him as Andeca(d.711), Prince of Basques,
> Duke of Cantabria married to Memorana of Franks.

This is almost certainly false, as Cantabria was a Visigoth
entity, and based on his name and title, Loup wsn't. This looks
like one of those frequent inventions to link to Clovis and kins
(hence Memorana _of Franks_). As far as I know, Loup is of
unknown origin.

taf

[Alexander Golovanov]

Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:

>This line proves erroneous. for example, it would appear Eudes
>was actually son of Hatton. There is no Clovis line here.
>

Can anyone comment the line below, please?

Charibert II - King of Aquitaine(629-632) had issue:

1.Childeric - Duke of Aquitaine(631-637)

2.Boggis - Duke of Aquitaine and Gascogne(637-688)

2.1.Eudes I the Grand - Duke of Aquitaine and Gascogne(688-710)

2.1.1.Eudes II - Duke of Aquitaine and Gascogne(710-735)

2.1.1.1.Hunald - Duke of Aquitaine and Gascogne(735-745)

2.1.1.1.1.Waifre - Duke of Aquitaine and Gascogne(745-768)

2.1.1.1.1.1.Adalric - Duke of Gascogne(?-812)

2.1.1.1.1.1.1.Centulle

2.1.1.1.1.2.Lupus II - Duke of Gascogne(768-778/779)

2.1.1.1.1.2.1.Semen (Ximeno) - Duke of Gascogne(812-816)

2.1.1.1.1.2.2.Sanche I - Duke of Gascogne(778-812)

2.1.1.1.1.2.3.Centule(d.812)

2.1.1.1.1.2.4.Donat - Cte de Bueil

2.1.1.1.1.3.Eneco de Navarre

2.1.1.1.1.4.Hunald II [Sources: "Fredegarii cont.", ch. 131-135; "Annales
Laurissenses", anno 767, 768]

2.1.1.1.1.5.son; may be father of Gerard I(d.841) - Ct of Auvergne and
Poitiers, Duke of Aquitaine, and Centulle I - Vcte de Bearn(819-ca.845)
[but I also found their alternate ancestries]

2.1.1.1.1.6.Windrigizille - Ct of Marches of Gascogne

2.1.1.2.Hatton

2.1.1.3.Remistan

2.1.1.3.1.Adalgaire

2.1.1.3.2.Mansion I(d.765), Cte

2.1.1.3.2.1.Adeleric - Ct of Gascogne

2.1.1.3.2.1.1.Mansion II - Ct of Bigorre

2.1.1.3.2.1.1.1.Faquilo; m.Donat Loup, Ct of Bigorre

2.1.1.3.2.2.Chorson (Torsion,Torson) - Ct of Toulouse(778-790)

2.1.1.4.Lampade (Lampagie); m.Othman Ibn Abu-Nusa [Was this person a Moslem
ruler of Cerdanya, mentioned by the continuation of Fredegar's chronicon,
Chapter 13 ??? ]

2.1.2.Bernarius - Ct of Septimania

2.1.2.1.Theoderic - Ct of Septimania

2.1.2.1.1.Guillaume I the Saint - Cte/Duc de Toulouse(790-28.5.812), Marquis
de Septimanie

2.1.2.1.2.Bertha

2.1.2.1.3.Theoderic(d.793) - Ct of Autun

2.1.3.Gerlinde

2.1.4.Aznar I - Ct of Aragon [???]

2.2.Imitarius

3.Chilperic(d.630)

4.Bertrand - Duke of Aquitaine and Gascogne(637-?)

4.1.Hubert the Saint - Bp of Maastricht(705-721) and Liege(721-727)

4.1.1.son [What is his name ?]

5.Dagobert

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Alexander Golovanov wrote:
>
> Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
> >This line proves erroneous. for example, it would appear Eudes
> >was actually son of Hatton. There is no Clovis line here.
> >
>
> Can anyone comment the line below, please?
>

Without going through it name by name, the majority of it is
entirely invented, for the purpose of linking together all of the
noble families in the region - Gascon, Basque (Navarre), Aragon,
Toulouse, and Aquitaine into one tree. Aragon cannot be traced
prior to the father of Count Aznar Galindez. Navarre starts
winth Inigo Iniguez, and the second ruling family with a Jimeno
(who was apparently unrelated to Inigo). St. William is not
traced prior to his grandfather, and the Gascons start with
Loup. There is no evidence to allow them to be traced further.

taf

[Todd A. Farmerie]

Alexander Golovanov wrote:
>
> Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:

> >This is almost certainly false, as Cantabria was a Visigoth
> >entity, and based on his name and title, Loup wsn't. This looks
> >like one of those frequent inventions to link to Clovis and kins
> >(hence Memorana _of Franks_). As far as I know, Loup is of
> >unknown origin.
> >
>

> But Visigoths lost all their Spain lands except Asturias (between 711 and
> 718)and French lands(Septimania, Narbonne - in 720). Cantabria was
> reconquered by the kings of Asturias only in the end of 8th century, so it's
> possibly that Cantabria was under native (Ibero-Basque?) rulers as Arabs'
> vassals.

The Ibero-Basques had been displaced from this region. Under
muslim military control, it retained an Ibero-germanic and
Ibero-Gallic population until liberated.

> Is it possible that the name "Loup" means "wolf" (lat."lupus")? Some time
> ago I saw another similar name - prince "Ursus" (=bear, also Latin). May be
> native names with such meaning were translated into Latin?

This is possible, but the name was still restricted to the
regions dominated by Basque culture.

> About 2 Andecas: the last king of Sueves and Andeca, a prince of Basques -
> may be the relation by female line. Is anything known about the marriages
> between Sueves and native Iberian people?

Which native peoples? It has been speculated that the name
Vermudo among the Asturian royalty is reflective of a Suevian
marriage, but this is all I have seen.

taf

[Nathaniel Taylor]

In article <3A8827C...@interfold.com>, "Todd A. Farmerie"
<farm...@interfold.com> wrote:

I don't have the stuff handy, but I think this line is a variant (or based
on) the famous 16th-century forged charter of Alao, which gives the
Merovingian ancestry for these Gascons and various other dubious links.
We've posted before on this. There's a good discussion of the forgery in
the _Histoire generale de Languedoc_, as well as in some recent work on
Alao documents (by Ignasi Puig i Ferreté? Can't remember).

Nat Taylor

[Alexander Golovanov]

>>Is it possible that the name "Loup" means "wolf" (lat."lupus")? Some time
>>ago I saw another similar name - prince "Ursus" (=bear, also Latin). May
>>be
>>native names with such meaning were translated into Latin?

Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:

>This is possible, but the name was still restricted to the
>regions dominated by Basque culture.
>

But Gregory of Tours mentioned several persons named Lupus who were not
from these regions. For example, one of them was a citizen of Tours. Does
the name "Lope" had the Gallo-Roman origin (from Lupus) or it's a native
Iberian name ?

[Alexander Golovanov]

Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:

>Without going through it name by name, the majority of it is
>entirely invented, for the purpose of linking together all of the

>noble families in the region...
>

Todd, many thanks for your comments.

[visig...@gmail.com]

On Friday, February 16, 2001 11:23:26 AM UTC+1, Alexander Golovanov wrote:
> Todd A. Farmerie <farm...@interfold.com> wrote:
>
> >Without going through it name by name, the majority of it is
> >entirely invented, for the purpose of linking together all of the
> >noble families in the region...
> >
>
> Todd, many thanks for your comments.
>
>
> regards,



> aeg

WHAT IS THIS PEOPLE DOING WRITINGS ABOUT THINGS THEY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.

THE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SPANICH HISTORY, NOTHING ABOUT ANCIENT CANTABRIAN, SUEVI OR VISIGOTHIC HISTORY, AND HERE WE HAVE THEM WRITING NONSENS. AZNAR GALINDEZ SON OF GALINDO WAS A DESCENDANT OF EUDES DE AQUITAINE. EUDES WAS NOT OF MEROVINGIAN ORIGIN BUT OF CANTABRIAN ORIGIN, PROBABLE A SON OF ONE LUPO OF THE NEVER ENDING LIST OF LUPOS ANCIENT DUXes OF CANTABRIA. SOME SOURCES INDICATES THAT HE MARRIED A LADY OD AQUITANIAN ORIGIN CALLED WALTRADA DE VERDUN AND THAT HE HAD THE SONS LOP, HATTON, AZNAR REMISTAN, AND GAIFRE O WALFRE AND ONE OR TWO DAUGHTERS. FROM LOP WE GET THE LINE LOP--ADELRIC--SEIMINO, FATHER THE LATTER OF GARCIA JIMENEZ, FOUNDER, THROUGH HIS YOUNGEST SON SANCHO I GARCÉS, OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF PAMPLONA NAVARRA, THE JIMENA LINE. BEING THE FIRST DYNASTY ENECONIS OR IÑIGA OF GOTHIC ORIGIN.

[Derek Howard]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:12:23 AM UTC+2, visig...@gmail.com wrote:
> WHAT IS THIS PEOPLE DOING WRITINGS ABOUT THINGS THEY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.
>
> THE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SPANICH HISTORY, NOTHING ABOUT ANCIENT CANTABRIAN,
> SUEVI OR VISIGOTHIC HISTORY, AND HERE WE HAVE THEM WRITING NONSENS. AZNAR
> GALINDEZ SON OF GALINDO WAS A DESCENDANT OF EUDES DE AQUITAINE. EUDES WAS
> NOT OF MEROVINGIAN ORIGIN BUT OF CANTABRIAN ORIGIN, PROBABLE A SON OF ONE
> LUPO OF THE NEVER ENDING LIST OF LUPOS ANCIENT DUXes OF CANTABRIA. SOME
> SOURCES INDICATES THAT HE MARRIED A LADY OD AQUITANIAN ORIGIN CALLED
> WALTRADA DE VERDUN AND THAT HE HAD THE SONS LOP, HATTON, AZNAR REMISTAN,
> AND GAIFRE O WALFRE AND ONE OR TWO DAUGHTERS. FROM LOP WE GET THE LINE
> LOP--ADELRIC--SEIMINO, FATHER THE LATTER OF GARCIA JIMENEZ, FOUNDER,
> THROUGH HIS YOUNGEST SON SANCHO I GARCÉS, OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF
> PAMPLONA NAVARRA, THE JIMENA LINE. BEING THE FIRST DYNASTY ENECONIS OR
> IÑIGA OF GOTHIC ORIGIN.

What are the reliable secondary sources for these that I can follow up with and, more importantly, what is the primary evidence?

Derek Howard

[Peter Stewart via]

On 3/10/2014 12:40 AM, Derek Howard via wrote:
> On Thursday, October 2, 2014 11:12:23 AM UTC+2, visig...@gmail.com wrote:
>> WHAT IS THIS PEOPLE DOING WRITINGS ABOUT THINGS THEY DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.
>>
>> THE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT SPANICH HISTORY, NOTHING ABOUT ANCIENT CANTABRIAN,
>> SUEVI OR VISIGOTHIC HISTORY, AND HERE WE HAVE THEM WRITING NONSENS. AZNAR
>> GALINDEZ SON OF GALINDO WAS A DESCENDANT OF EUDES DE AQUITAINE. EUDES WAS
>> NOT OF MEROVINGIAN ORIGIN BUT OF CANTABRIAN ORIGIN, PROBABLE A SON OF ONE
>> LUPO OF THE NEVER ENDING LIST OF LUPOS ANCIENT DUXes OF CANTABRIA. SOME
>> SOURCES INDICATES THAT HE MARRIED A LADY OD AQUITANIAN ORIGIN CALLED
>> WALTRADA DE VERDUN AND THAT HE HAD THE SONS LOP, HATTON, AZNAR REMISTAN,
>> AND GAIFRE O WALFRE AND ONE OR TWO DAUGHTERS. FROM LOP WE GET THE LINE
>> LOP--ADELRIC--SEIMINO, FATHER THE LATTER OF GARCIA JIMENEZ, FOUNDER,

>> THROUGH HIS YOUNGEST SON SANCHO I GARC�S, OF THE SECOND DYNASTY OF

>> PAMPLONA NAVARRA, THE JIMENA LINE. BEING THE FIRST DYNASTY ENECONIS OR

>> I�IGA OF GOTHIC ORIGIN.

> What are the reliable secondary sources for these that I can follow up with and, more importantly, what is the primary evidence?
>

You can follow up reliable secondary sources showing that this is all
hooey - as shown by Rabanis in the mid-19th century, it is based on an
early-modern forgery known as the charter of Alaon.

As a rule of thumb in medieval genealogy, try a Google search on a few
of the principal names in any such assertion: if the first page of
results (as in this case) produces only junk, then it's most likely trash.

For a useful disccussion of the matter see pp 186ff in
https://archive.org/stream/histoiregnra02viccuoft#page/186/mode/2up.

Peter Stewart

[taf via]

On Thursday, October 2, 2014 2:12:23 AM UTC-7, visig...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> AZNAR GALINDEZ SON OF GALINDO WAS A DESCENDANT OF EUDES DE AQUITAINE.

Aznar Galindez was son of a man named Galindo. We know this from his
patronymic. While various speculation has appeared, there is no
evidence from within 500 years of the time they lived that suggests
who this Galindo was. Any claim to descending from Eudes of Aquitaine
is wishful thinking.

> EUDES WAS NOT OF MEROVINGIAN ORIGIN BUT OF CANTABRIAN ORIGIN

Eudes comes from a period where we do not know many genealogical
relationships outside the core of the state. We know his name, and we
know the titles he acquired. To attribute any specific ethnic origin
to him, when you can't even name his father for certain, is unwise.

PROBABLE A SON OF ONE LUPO

He succeeded a Lupo, but that does not mean he was his son.

OF THE NEVER ENDING LIST OF LUPOS ANCIENT DUXes OF CANTABRIA.

There is no such never-ending list.

SOME SOURCES INDICATES THAT HE MARRIED A LADY OD AQUITANIAN ORIGIN
CALLED WALTRADA DE VERDUN AND THAT HE HAD THE SONS LOP, HATTON, AZNAR
REMISTAN, AND GAIFRE O WALFRE AND ONE OR TWO DAUGHTERS.

Yes, and some sources say he was son of Beggo and was Merovingian.
Unfortunately, none of these sources are reliable, and they frequently
are more an expression of over-enthusiastic genealogists.

FROM LOP WE GET THE LINE LOP--ADELRIC--SEIMINO, FATHER THE LATTER OF

GARCIA JIMENEZ, FOUNDER, THROUGH HIS YOUNGEST SON SANCHO I GARCÉS, OF

THE SECOND DYNASTY OF PAMPLONA NAVARRA, THE JIMENA LINE.

We know only one thing about the grandfather of Sancho - that he was
father of Garcia Jimenez, again from a patronymic. Chronologically he
cannot possibly be the Gascon 'Jimeno the Strong' from the 8th century
(who was perhaps not even named Jimeno), as is sometimes erroneously
stated. The supposition that he was the Mitio, Prince of the Basques
sent to the Carolingian court is more wishful thinking. Over the past
1000 years all kinds of different ancestries have been given him, each
as much a fiction as the next.

> BEING THE FIRST DYNASTY ENECONIS OR IÑIGA OF GOTHIC ORIGIN.

All we know of this dynasty is that it arose in the Basque foothills
and used mostly Basque names (first generation, Eneco; second
generation, Eneco and Fortun; third generation, Garcia, Galindo,
Ausona; fourth generation, Fortun, Sancho, Onneca, ? Velasquita, and ?
Jimena; fifth generation, Eneco, Velasco, Aznar, Loup and Onneca), and
was linked maternally to a Islamo-Basque family (who, in addition to
Muslim names also used Loup, Garcia and Fortun) of Ibero-Roman
derivation. If they were Gothic, they forgot it quickly.

[taf via]

On Friday, October 3, 2014 10:23:54 PM UTC-7, taf via wrote:

> FROM LOP WE GET THE LINE LOP--ADELRIC--SEIMINO, FATHER THE LATTER OF
> GARCIA JIMENEZ, FOUNDER, THROUGH HIS YOUNGEST SON SANCHO I GARCÉS, OF
> THE SECOND DYNASTY OF PAMPLONA NAVARRA, THE JIMENA LINE.
>
>
> We know only one thing about the grandfather of Sancho - that he was
> father of Garcia Jimenez, again from a patronymic.

I responded quickly and skipped right over the most obvious problem with this.

Garcia, son of Seimen, was killed in 819. Sancho Garces became king
of Pamplona in 905, when he was was an upgrade over Fortun Garces.
Were he son of Garcia son of Seimen, he would have been 86 years old
at the time. He then fought campaign after campaign, through the time
of his death in 925, when he would have been 106. He was succeeded
(either as sole king, co-king, or regent for his nephew) by his
brother Jimeno, who launched at least one campaign before he died in
931, 112 years after the death of Garcia son of Seimen. It is simply
not possible that Garcia Jimenez, father of Sancho Garces, was the
same as Garcia son of Seimen as suggested here.

taf

[visig...@gmail.com]

I think that your data is incorrect. Hedon ("Eudes")of Aquitaine was born ca. 670, his son Lop ca. the year 710, he had a son Adelric born approx. the year 740-50, Seimino the year 780, ang Garcia Jimenez, co-regente de Pamplona, the year 810. He had a daugher called Sancha Garces who married Iñigo Fortun, son of king Fortun Garces, infante de Pamplona. Garcia Jimenez, co-regente, of the second dynasty later had another son (Sancho I), with a lady named Dadildis de Pallars y Sobrarbe, who became the first king of the second dynasty (the jimena dynasty) the year 905 and died the year 925. All this is well documented.

I am going to explain why there is so much artificial and fabricated confusion of this matter. The origin of the first dynasty, the Eneconis or Iñiga dynasty, who founded the royal house of Pamplona Navarra is visigothic, the second line, the Jimena, cantabrian in its origin. The second line usurped the throne in 905 and despite being well intermarried with the Eneconis line they are of totally different origin. This, by some strange reason we only can speculate about, has
resulted in a sort of disinformation about the origin of the first line where certain interest have made a great (but futile) effort of hiding the germanic or rather visigothic origin of the Eneconis. The Jimena line descends of this Dux Seimino or Jimeno the Strong, and king Eneco de Pamplona after one Eneco de Calahorra, Conde y Señor, born ca. the year 680-90. This couldn't of course be accomplished in any case due to the fact that the descendants of the first line were abundant and wealthy and became powerful and many families of the nobility of Spain descend directly from these ancient visigothic and suevi branches. In other words, this silly attempt to create confusion is something artificial we can see on the web, but do not reflect true knowledge. The same can be said of wikipedia which is a private initiative and very ambitious, but that contains errors and flagrant mistakes they do abs. nothing about to correct or improve.

[taf via]

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 7:42:51 AM UTC-7, visig...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think that your data is incorrect. Hedon ("Eudes")of Aquitaine was born ca.
> 670, his son Lop ca. the year 710, he had a son Adelric born approx. the
> year 740-50, Seimino the year 780, ang Garcia Jimenez, co-regente de
> Pamplona, the year 810. He had a daugher called Sancha Garces who
> married Iñigo Fortun, son of king Fortun Garces, infante de Pamplona.
> Garcia Jimenez, co-regente, of the second dynasty later had another son
> (Sancho I), with a lady named Dadildis de Pallars y Sobrarbe, who became
> the first king of the second dynasty (the jimena dynasty) the year 905 and
> died the year 925. All this is well documented.

There are two parts to this timeline. The latter part is, in fact,
well documented. There was a Garcia Jimenez 'king in another part of
the kingdom' who married twice, first to Oneca, rebel of Sanguesa,
having children Inigo and Sancha, and second to Dadildis of Pallars,
having Sancho and Jimeno. In 905, Sancho supplanted Fortun Garces as
king, and died in 925. The speculation that Garcia Jimenez, father of
Sancho, was 'co-regent' is without foundation although it has appeared
widely.

The first part is entirely speculative. The approximate birthdates
are without foundation, as are the relationships. We have one solid
data point, however. In 819, two Gascon leaders, Loup Centulle and
Garcia son of Seimen rebelled against Berenger, Count of Toulouse, and
Garcia was killed. It is chronologically impossible for Garcia son of
Seimen, killed in 819, cannot possibly have been father of Sancho
Garces, d. 925.

> I am going to explain why there is so much artificial and fabricated confusion
> of this matter. The origin of the first dynasty, the Eneconis or Iñiga dynasty,
> who founded the royal house of Pamplona Navarra is visigothic, the second
> line, the Jimena, cantabrian in its origin.

There is no evidence whatsoever for these origins. The first
individuals who can be documented as members of the first dynasty are
the founders, Eneco Enecones (Inigo Iniguez) and his brother Fortun.
Eneco is first documented in the early 840s, and was probably a member
of the pro-Cordoba faction before rebelling. Fortun was killed during
this rebellion, while Eneco lived to 851. We can deduce the name of
their father from their patronymic but that is it. While people have
played connect-the-dots to create ancestry for them, there is no basis
for these connections. Garcia Jimenez, king of another part of the
kingdom, is the first documented member of the second dynasty, and
again we can deduce the name of his father but nothing more.

taf

[visig...@gmail.com]

There is a well documented fact that Eneco, Conde de Calahorra, and a great grand father of the first king of Pamplona, was kinsman of king Roderick, and a recognized visigothic leader. You need to learn spanish properly and to visit the ancient libraries of Spain and the learning sites of Toledo and Oviedo where everything is registered. The expedientes de pureza de la sangre of the ancient medieval orders of Alcantara, Calatrava and Santiago trace the origin of the nobility of Spain all the way back to visigothic and roman times. There is no other country in Europe that can show genealogical documentation in the extension and rigurosity that is found in Spain. You cannot write history by fishing all kind of nonsens fron the internet.

The other line, the Jimena, has a very different origin, cantabrian and it is as follows: Hedón-->Lop-->Adelric--> Seimino (Jimeno) the Strong--> One son, Garcia Jimenez and according to certain sources, one Iñigo Jimenez, but nothing is registered about this unknown character.

Garcia Jimenez married twice, first to none Oneca Rebelle de Sanguesa, and a daughter from this marriage, named Sancha Garces, married an infante Eneco of Pamplona. The second marriage of Garcia to one Dadildis de Pallars (she a descendant of Charlemagne) produced King Sancho I Jimenez, first king of the second dynasty.

/Ig.

[visig...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, October 15, 2014 5:57:27 PM UTC+2, taf via wrote:

There is a well documented fact that Eneco, Conde de Calahorra, and a great grand father of the first king of Pamplona, was kinsman of king Roderick, and a recognized visigothic leader. You need to learn spanish properly and to visit the ancient libraries of Spain and the learning sites of Toledo and Oviedo where everything is registered. The expedientes de pureza de la sangre of the ancient medieval orders of Alcantara, Calatrava and Santiago trace the origin of the nobility of Spain all the way back to visigothic and roman times. There is no other country in Europe that can show genealogical documentation in the extension and rigurosity that is found in Spain. You cannot write history by fishing all kind of nonsens fron the internet.

The other line, the Jimena, has a very different origin, cantabrian and it is as follows: Hedón-->Lop-->Adelric--> Seimino (Jimeno) the Strong--> One son, Garcia Jimenez and according to certain sources, one Iñigo Jimenez, but nothing is registered about this unknown character.

Garcia Jimenez married twice, first to none Oneca Rebelle de Sanguesa, and a daughter from this marriage, named Sancha Garces, married an infante Eneco of Pamplona. The second marriage of Garcia to one Dadildis de Pallars (she a descendant of Charlemagne) produced King Sancho I Jimenez, first king of the second dynasty.

/Ig.

[Bronwen Edwards]

You need to learn spanish properly and to visit the ancient libraries of Spain and the learning sites of Toledo and Oviedo where everything is registered.

When we have arrived in Toledo and Oviedo, where do we go and what do we ask for? If you have done this yourself, why have you not said where all of this documentation can be found - item by item, assertion by assertion? Just to say that it is well documented is not adequate.

[Mara]

On Sunday, December 28, 2014 5:54:43 AM UTC+1, Bronwen Edwards wrote:
> You need to learn spanish properly and to visit the ancient libraries of Spain and the learning sites of Toledo and Oviedo where everything is registered.
>
> When we have arrived in Toledo and Oviedo, where do we go and what do we ask for? If you have done this yourself, why have you not said where all of this documentation can be found - item by item, assertion by assertion? Just to say that it is well documented is not adequate.

I know proper Spanish, live in Spain, have gone to several archives in Oviedo and Toledo, own a decent collection of charters, and, so far, have not found any document that supports such genealogies which show an obsession with proving descent from the Visigoths. Please enlighten me and tell me precisely what I've missed and which ancient libraries must I visit to investigate to confirm your assertions.

[taf via]

On December 27, 2014, /lg wrote:

> There is a well documented fact that Eneco, Conde de Calahorra, and a
> great grand father of the first king of Pamplona, was kinsman of king
> Roderick, and a recognized visigothic leader.

No, there isn't. Among other things, the earliest sources are even in
conflict as to the father of the first 'king' of Pamplona. The Codice
de Roda begins with him, and simply calls him Enneco Arista. The
earliest christian chronicle, which dates from the 11th century, more
than 200 years after the fact, presents a flawed and fantastic account
of the earliest generations, but calls this king Inigo Jimenez. A
forged charter of the king calls him Inigo Garces. The Al-Andalus
chronicler Ibn Hayyan calls him Wannaco ibn Wannaco (i.e. Enneco
Enneconis - Inigo Iniguez) and is at least internally consistent,
elsewhere referring to his brother as Fortoun ibn Wannaco (both are
referred to as maternal half-brothers of Musa ibn Fortun ibn Qasi).
So he was either son of Garcia, son of Jimeno or son of Inigo. To
suggest that amid this quagmire of conflicting information about his
father one can definitively identify his great grandfather as a
visigoth named Eneco who was kinsman of Rodrigo, is an unwise
assertion. If this is such a well-documented fact, then it shouldn't
be a problem for you to present to us a reliable near-contemporary
document that indicates such an Eneco, Count of Calahora actually
existed.

> The other line, the Jimena, has a very different origin, cantabrian and it is as
> follows: Hedón-->Lop-->Adelric--> Seimino (Jimeno) the Strong--> One son,
> Garcia Jimenez and according to certain sources, one Iñigo Jimenez, but
> nothing is registered about this unknown character.

> Garcia Jimenez married twice, first to none Oneca Rebelle de Sanguesa, and
> a daughter from this marriage, named Sancha Garces, married an infante
> Eneco of Pamplona. The second marriage of Garcia to one Dadildis de Pallars
> (she a descendant of Charlemagne) produced King Sancho I Jimenez, first
> king of the second dynasty.

As I have pointed out before, this description combines two different
people named Garcia Jimenez.

One of them was Garcia Jimenez, the 'rebel' who was killed in 819, and
who was son of Jimeno, frequently but perhaps incorrectly called
Jimeno the Strong. If he had any children, and I do not know this to
have been the case, they had to have been born by 820. (The pedigree
given this Jimeno, making him son of Adelric and grandson of Lop, is
also unsupportable, but this is not the time to discuss that.)

The second Garcia Jimenez, "king in another part of Pamplona", is the
one who had the cryptic brother Inigo Jimenez (according to the Codice
de Roda), and who married twice, first to Oneca 'rebel of Sanguesa',
and second to Dadildis of Pallars (likely a descendant of Charlemagne,
but the exact descent is nothing but guesswork). By Oneca he had two
children, Inigo (who married a granddaughter of King Fortun) and
Iniga, who married successively Inigo Fortun, the king's son, and
Galindo Aznar of Aragon. By Dadildis he had Sancho and Jimeno, who
each married granddaughters of Fortun. Sancho succeeded Fortun in
905, and appears to have married about the time of his succession,
having 5 daughters and finally, in 919, his son and eventual
successor, Garcia. Sancho died in 925. Jimeno then served as sole
leader for the rest of the decade, and abotu 930 as co-ruler with his
nephew until Jimeno disappears, probably due to his death, in 931.

It is completely impossible for king/regent Jimeno Garces to have been
leading troops in support of the Banu Qasi in 928 if his father was
the Garcia Jimenez who died in 819. No man leads an army at the age
of at least 109! It is little better when looking at Sancho, who led
troops as late as 924, and whose son was born when he would have had
to have been 100 years old were he son of the rebel Garcia Jimenez.

Is it possible that Sancho Garcia descended from the earlier Garcia
Jimenez? Yes. He could, perhaps, have been great grandson, and several
scholars from the middle of the 20th century produced such
reconstructions, making him son of Garcia Jimenez, son of Jimeno
Garces, son of Garcia Jimenez the rebel, but it is speculation as
there is no information whatsoever available about his grandfather
Jimeno (known only from his son's patronymic). Indeed one of the more
trustworthy al-Andalus chroniclers introduces King Sancho's son as
Garcia ibn Sancho ibn Garcia ibn Inigo, suggesting that the father of
Sancho Garces was named Garcia Iniguez, and a modern scholar of the
period has accepted this in preference to the Garcia Jimenez shows by
the Roda pedigrees. (see En los albores del reino ¿dinastía Iñiga?,
¿dinastía Jimena? by Alberto Canada Juste, in Principe de Viana, 72
[no 253]: 229-248. - I find myself unconvinced by his argument, and
prefer the Roda version, for reasons I will not go into here).

The take-home is that you have two men named Garcia Jimenez at least
two generations removed from each other, not the same man.

taf

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

I absolutely agree. I own some "ejecutorias de nobleza," "pruebas para órdenes militares," and what not that show an impressive array of alleged Visigothic, Suevi, Roman and whatever else, including Adam and Eve, in those papers. Of course, none of them are documented. One particular--particular in the sense of ignoring pre-existent documentation-- laughable case is the family Oubiano (also Ubiaño, Ubiano, etc.), whose members were documented for at least two centuries as being "pecheros" (not nobles, paying taxes) and then all of a sudden thanks to marrying into a family who could transmit "hidalguía" (nobility, of sorts) through one of the three Asturian collective Privilegios (in this case, that of "Privilegio del Páramo") not only began being censed every 7 years as hidalgos, but obtained a "Real Ejecutoria de Nobleza, etc." stating that they were descendants of...the Kings of France, therefore a fleur de lys appears in their new and very convoluted coat of arms and from then on they were censed not only as "hidalgos" but as "Don XXX, hijodalgo notorio de casa y solar conocido y armas poner y pintar" (the highest "ranking" among the hidalguía). So, they went from nobodies to being of royal blood in less than 40 years. Go figure!
There is no reliability whatsoever in those documents supposedly stored in Toledo or Oviedo (where? I've been there many a time and never ever found anything that could resemble a decent document, they are ancient or, better said, old papers, but they are not based on any reliable contemporary or near-contemporary document that could prove what they stated, albeit the classic formula "according to genuine documents in our files," which files? Have all of them vanished in the air suddenly?).

[visig...@gmail.com]

As I said earlier, you do not know much about ancient history of Spain and Portugal. You need seriously to check some of your data. In Germany there are important works regarding the history of the Goths of Spain (including the Suevi and Vandals) which clarify this situation that have you in this dramatic cloud of existential doubts. In Oviedo there are expedientes of some of the aristocratic families of Spain that descend directly (in a patrilinear line) from the kings and High Nobility of the Goths, from the Amelung line of Beremund, the Alaric line of the Balthes Clan, the descendants of count Liuverico through his sons Atanagildo, Liuva and Liuvigild, from Theudis, the Ostrogothic general sent to Spain by Theoderic the Great, and who later in Spain married a very powerful hispano-roman lady of an ancient family, and also the descendants of Chindasvinto and the kings of the Suevis who also left important descendence. There were, as you can see, different families and clans that competed for power and for kingship in Visigothic Spain and not one single line. Though the Amelung line was by lineage and history the most prominent of them all. The Amelung line became kings in the Suevi Kingdom and briefly kings in the wisi- gothic kingdom as well.

Garcia Jimenez was co-regent when king Fortun I Garces was away from power in Sevilla, so your data is not correct. Remember that there are several Garsind (or Garcias) so you should check your data well. Garsind Llop f. instance is another character and so are others Garcias and Sanchos from other branches of these gascogne families, all of different origin than the Eneconis which descended from the dukes of Cantabria Andeca and Beremund, both brothers, in time of the decline of the Visigothic kingdom. Duke Andeca called by some sources "the 1st prince of the Basque" was the son of Froilla, Conde and Procer of the Goths, died in 654 in the siege of Zaragoza, killed by Recesvinto, son of Chindasvinto. Dux Andeca married Momerana of the Franks. Andeca died in the year 711 in Guadalete. So did his son Eneco, kinsman of King Roderick.

Important to note is that the Eneconis like their ancestors were less inclined to christianity than other families of the region. This explains as well why they intermarried with the Fortunez clan of the Ebro Valley that had previously converted to Islam and which, through Fortun I Garcés and his wife Oria Banu Qasi, made the third and last king of the first dynasty of Pamplona directly connected to the Omeyas of Damasco and descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. Well, the son of king Fortun I, the infante Eneco, as you might know by now never became king of Pamplona and was conveniently supplanted by a son of Garcia Jimenez, Sancho I el Grande, founder of the Jimena dynasty. In other words, two very different lines that intermarried creating a "natural" transference of power from one to another.

Here I close my lecture for tonight.

/Greetings

/Ig.

And ALWAYS remember: LO QUE NATURA NON DA SALAMANCA NON PRESTA.

[visig...@gmail.com]

------------------------------------
As I said earlier, you do not know much about ancient history of Spain and Portugal. You need seriously to check some of your data. In Germany there are important works regarding the history of the goths of Spain (including the Suevi and Vandals) which clarify this situation that have you in this dramatic cloud of existential doubts. In Oviedo there are expedientes of some of the aristocratic families od Spain that descend directly in a patrilinear line from the kings and High Nobility of the Goths, from the Amelung line of Beremund, the Alaric line of the Balthes Clan, the descendants of count Liuverico through his sons Atanagildo, Liuva and Liuvigild, from Theudis, the Ostrogothic general sent to Spain by Theoderic the Great, and who later in Spain married a very powerful hispano-roman lady of an ancient family, and also the descendants of Chindasvinto and the kings of the Suevis who also left important descendence. There were, as you can see, different families and clans that competed for power and for kingship in visigothic Spain and not one single line. Though the Amelung line was by lineage and history the most prominent of them all. The Amelung line became kings in the Suevi Kingdom and briefly kings in the wisi- gothic kingdom as well.

Garcia Jimenez was co-regent when king Fortun I Garces was away from power in Sevilla, so your data is not correct. Remember that there are several Garsind (or Garcias) so you should check your data well. Garsind Llop f. instance is another character and so are others Garcias and Sanchos from other branches of these gascogne families, all of different origin than the Eneconis which descended from the dukes of Cantabria Andeca and Beremund, both brothers, in time of the decline of the Visigothic kingdom. Duke Andeca called by some sources "the 1st prince of the Basque" was the son of Froilla, Conde and Procer of the Goths, died in 654 in the siege of Zaragoza, killed by Recesvinto, son of Chindasvinto. Dux Andeca married Momerana of the Franks. Andeca died in the year 711 in Guadalete. So did his son Eneco, kinsman of King Roderick.

Important to note is that the Eneconis like their ancestors were less inclined to christianity than other families of the region. This explains as well why they intermarried with the Fortunez clan of the Ebro Valley that had previously converted to Islam and which, through Fortun I Garcés and his wife Oria Banu Qasi, made the third and last king of the first dynasty of Pamplona directly connected to the Omeyas of Damasco and descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. Well, the son of king Fortun I, the infante Eneco, as you might know by now never became king of Pamplona and was conveniently supplanted by a son of Garcia Jimenez, Sancho I el Grande, founder of the Jimena dynasty. In other words, two very different lines that intermarried creating a "natural" transference of power from one family to another.

Here I close my lecture for tonight.

[Hans Vogels]

When you face a crowd that does not understand you it is wise to realise that perhaps the communicator is not clear in his information transfer.

>> In Germany there are important works regarding the history of the goths of <<

>> Spain (including the Suevi and Vandals) which clarify this situation, <<

This is quite vague. In Germany there are important books on the history of story telling as well as lots of other important and non important books, so this is a not convincing argument.

Tell your audience what they want to hear. Name the books and publications where your statements can be verified, enlighten the research with a new frontier of unknown information sources.

Hans Vogels



Op dinsdag 3 februari 2015 04:57:17 UTC+1 schreef visig...@gmail.com:

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 12:53:11 AM UTC-3, visig...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip] In Oviedo there are expedientes of some of the aristocratic families of Spain that descend directly (in a patrilinear line) from the kings and High Nobility of the Goths, from the Amelung line of Beremund, the Alaric line of the Balthes Clan, the descendants of count Liuverico through his sons Atanagildo, Liuva and Liuvigild, from Theudis, the Ostrogothic general sent to Spain by Theoderic the Great, and who later in Spain married a very powerful hispano-roman lady of an ancient family, and also the descendants of Chindasvinto and the kings of the Suevis who also left important descendence. There were, as you can see, different families and clans that competed for power and for kingship in Visigothic Spain and not one single line. Though the Amelung line was by lineage and history the most prominent of them all. The Amelung line became kings in the Suevi Kingdom and briefly kings in the wisi- gothic kingdom as well.
[snip]
No, there are none. The only documentation painstakingly compiled by the Marqués de Ciadoncha in the early 30s of last century was completely burnt down when the Republicans set fire to the Real Audiencia de Oviedo at the beginning of the Civil War in Spain. The only thing available, is the compilation made, telling which documents he and his team had filed and ordered. But the documentation was destroyed with the building.
Yes, there are scattered [and for that matter, thousands] of documents in early monasteries but unfortunately they deal with each monastery own interests and that of the families who founded them about whom almost nothing is known apart from their names.
Ciertamente, lo que Natura non da da, Salamanca non presta. Crystal clear in this case.

[taf via]

[This is running too long, so I will split it

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 7:57:17 PM UTC-8, visig...@gmail.com wrote:

> As I said earlier, you do not know much about ancient history of Spain and Portugal.
> You need seriously to check some of your data. In Germany there are important works
> regarding the history of the goths of Spain (including the Suevi and Vandals) which
> clarify this situation that have you in this dramatic cloud of existential doubts. In
> Oviedo there are expedientes of some of the aristocratic families od Spain that descend

> directly in a patrilinear line from the kings and High Nobility of the Goths, from the

> Amelung line of Beremund, the Alaric line of the Balthes Clan, the descendants of count
> Liuverico through his sons Atanagildo, Liuva and Liuvigild, from Theudis, the Ostrogothic
> general sent to Spain by Theoderic the Great, and who later in Spain married a very
> powerful hispano-roman lady of an ancient family, and also the descendants of
> Chindasvinto and the kings of the Suevis who also left important descendence. There
> were, as you can see, different families and clans that competed for power and for

> kingship in visigothic Spain and not one single line. Though the Amelung line was by

> lineage and history the most prominent of them all. The Amelung line became kings
> in the Suevi Kingdom and briefly kings in the wisi- gothic kingdom as well.

Sorry, no. It is not good enough to say "you don't know very much"
and then talk vaguely that there are sources somewhere in an entire
country (Germany) or city (Oviedo). You need to cite a specific
source, or even better, quote one. By analogy, you can find similar
claims among British families, tracing back to before the Norman
Conquest to Anglo-Saxons who took part in the pre-Conquest government.
Horace Round showed how the vast, vast majority of them were simply
made up by the families to glorify themselves, or made up by local
monasteries for their founder families in order to push back their own
claim to land. It is a high bar that we place on such claims,
specifically because of the desirability of them. They need to be
supported by impartial documentation, not documentation from 1000
years after the fact that was recorded for the specific purpose of
showing how glorious the family was. As an example from Iberia, you
can find a published pedigree from the 17th century that traces the
Alvarez de Toledo, and in effect every other de Toledo family, plus
the Guzman and some others, back to Isaac, son of the Byzantine
Emperor. This does not mean that they actually had such a descent,
and in fact a superficial examination of the line shows it to be
completely fatally flawed, to the point of being humorous. You cannot
take such claims at face value, and the more extraordinary the claim,
the more skepticism should be applied to its evaluation.

> Garcia Jimenez was co-regent when king Fortun I Garces was away from power in Sevilla,
> so your data is not correct.

Many modern secondary sources claim this to have been the case, but
what is the actual evidence we have for the man? There is, precisely,
one historical document written before the year 1000 that names him.
It is the Codice de Roda (and some would not grant it the early date
of composition I am giving it). It calls him Garcia Jimenez, "king in
another part of the kingdom", gives him a brother Inigo (not
explicitly called Inigo Arista, but some have suggested this is the
case so they could then impeach the source for making a
chronologically-impossible claim), two wives, Oneca 'rebel of
Sanguesa', and Dadildis, sister of Raymond of Pallars, and four
children.

Where, then, did this trope about him being regent or co-regent come
from? It was simply an attempt to find a role for him, to better
account for the fact that one (or more likely two) of his sons became
kings. Kings don't come from nowhere (or so the reasoning goes) so we
need to have his father be important within the realm. Fortunately,
it is known that Fortun was taken captive to Cordoba in about 860, and
spent 20 years there. This again we owe to the Codice de Roda. At
some time during this period, his father, the reigning monarch, either
died or became incapacitated, or so some modern sources report. Thus,
there must have been a regent, and it would be the perfect role for
Garcia (or, alternatively, some would have the regent be Garcia's
father Jimeno, whom they equate with the Mitio, prince of the
navarrese, who went as envoy to the Carolingian court). There are
several problems with this.

First, we have no idea when Garcia Iniguez, the 'king' (prince/sahib)
died. We only hear about him in the writings of Ibn Hayyan and the
other Al-Andalus chroniclers when he was in open rebellion, when he
joined forces with Ramiro, or when he intervened in the squabbles
among the native convert families in Zaragoza. As a consequence, he
appears just once during the 20 year period of Fortun's captivity, in
870/871, and then nothing more. There is a claim that he lived as
late as 882, when a Garcia not otherwise identified marched south to
intervene in one of the campaigns of Umar ibn Hafsun, but this is
problematic. First, king Garcia Iniguez couldn't have been born much
after 800, and he would have been too old to be campaigning. More
importantly, I have not been able to find this in any of the
Al-Andalus sources, or any sources for that matter, prior to the
1800s, so it must be viewed with extreme skepticism. Likewise, the
earliest accounts I do find do not identify him as the king, so it
could be anyone named Garcia. We can't even tell if Garcia lived to
see his son's return, and indeed, it could be that the reason Fortun
was finally released was so that as a client of Cordoba he could
succeed his recently-deceased father.

There is also, though, another 'king' who appears in documentation of
the time. A king Sancho shows up in a document from the mid-860s,
naming his father-in-law Galindo. This document is presumably
responsible for some of the secondary accounts that claim king Sancho
Garces married the daughter of Galindo II Aznar (only to have his son
marry another of Galindo's daughters almost 70 years later!). The
better candidate is Sancho Garces, brother of Fortun. Were he
son-in-law of Galindo I Aznar, it would mean that siblings Oneca and
Sancho Garces, children of Garcia Iniguez, married siblings Aznar II
and an unnamed sister, such double marriages being a common pattern.
This interpretation is given weight by the name that Sancho gave his
son, Aznar (although one should be cautious to over-interpret
onomastics in this period when we know of so few families). What all
this has to do with anything, is that there was a perfectly viable
regent from within the royal family, were they looking for a regent in
the absence of Fortun. As to the use of 'king' when his father was
still living, the term seems to have been applied more broadly in
Navarre - there are several later cases where a member of the royal
family who did not rule a 'kingdom' still is referred to by the title,
including Sancho I's elder brother Inigo, and Sancho II's son Jimeno.
In the 860s, the meaning of being a king in this region is not what we
would recognize, it being applied to people who were little more than
local tribal chieftains (in some cases we have translation back and
forth with Arabic to thank for the imprecision - Garcia Iniguez is
called sahib by the Arab chroniclers, but even they were writing far
enough after the fact that they may have extrapolated back and applied
to the earlier men terminology more fitting to the grandeur their
descendants achieved).

The take-home message of all this is that we know next to nothing
about Garcia Jimenez, and much of what we think we know from secondary
sources is not well supported. Just for the sake of the exercise
though, please explain how a man who died in 819 could have been a
co-regent between 860 and 880.

> Remember that there are several Garsind (or Garcias) so you should check your data
> well. Garsind Llop f. instance is another character and so are others Garcias and
> Sanchos from other branches of these gascogne families, all of different origin than
> the Eneconis which descended from the dukes of Cantabria Andeca and Beremund,
> both brothers, in time of the decline of the Visigothic kingdom. Duke Andeca called
> by some sources "the 1st prince of the Basque" was the son of Froilla, Conde and
> Procer of the Goths, died in 654 in the siege of Zaragoza, killed by Recesvinto, son
> of Chindasvinto. Dux Andeca married Momerana of the Franks. Andeca died in the
> year 711 in Guadalete. So did his son Eneco, kinsman of King Roderick.

Much of this is poorly supported, to say the least, but even were it
all true, we cannot trace Inigo Arista beyond his father.

[to be continued]

taf

[taf via]

[continued]

On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 7:57:17 PM UTC-8, visig...@gmail.com wrote:

> Important to note is that the Eneconis like their ancestors were less inclined to
> christianity than other families of the region.

I am not sure they were "less inclined to Christianity" but they do
first come to our notice in 841 as kinsmen and supporters of the
Muslim family of the Banu Qasi. Looking at the general context over
the preceding half-century, where both Cordoba and the Franks were
trying to extend their power into the region, we see that the Banu
Qasi perhaps briefly flirted with the an alliance with Charlemagne
only to renege, but then fell strongly within the pro-Cordoba camp
until their rebellion in 841. It seems likely that Inigo Arista was
likewise in the pro-Cordoba camp, coming to power after the defeat of
a pro-Frankish army in 816.

> This explains as well why they intermarried with the Fortunez clan of the Ebro
> Valley that had previously converted to Islam and which, through Fortun I Garcés
> and his wife Oria Banu Qasi,

They were already interrelated, as Inigo Arista and his brother Fortun
were maternal half-brothers of Musa ibn Musa ibn Fortun ibn Qasi, and
it was likely this half-sibling relationship that contributed to them
joining him in his rebellion. That being said, there is not the
slightest bit of evidence that Oria, wife of Fortun, was of the Banu
Qasi. Onomastics are usually highlighted, because the name Oria is
known from the Banu Qasi, but this is not as straightforward as it
would seem. The name is found in the Banu Qasi in the prior generation
in the form or Oriyyah, daughter of Musa ibn Musa, who is know from
Ibn Hazm to have married 'Garcia, prince of Pamplona', otherwise
unknown except for an account of the battle that reports his death
fighting on the side of his father-in-law against Ramiro and Garcia
Iniguez. Later, a daughter of Musa married a local Muslim lord, but
her name is never given and it seems unlikely she was the same
daughter. The only other occurrence of the name in this onomastic
context is a granddaughter of Fortun and his queen. So, it is not
like this name is found in multiple generations of the Banu Qasi, such
that it was a distinctive Banu Qasi name - it appears once that we
know of. Further, it is said in the Codice de Roda that Musa married
the daughter of Inigo Arista (I have my doubts about this, but let's
see the implications), so it could have been brought into his family
in that generation from Inigo's kindred. Indeed the Banu Qasi also
used common Basque names such as Loup (Lubb) and Fortun (Fortoun) and
Garcia (Garsiya), so they were drawing on the regional name pool. With
all this in play, there is no reason to identify Oria as a Banu Qasi
name. Indeed, the name Oria is of Latin origin (i.e. Auria,
effectively Goldie) and is found in this form in Asturias in prior
years. Politically, speaking, at the time the marriage seems to have
taken place, (based on the age of her grandson) the bride and groom's
grandfathers were allied in rebellion so it is not unreasonable to
suggest such a marriage of half-second cousins would take place, but
we haven't the slightest evidence this was the case.

> made the third and last king of the first dynasty of Pamplona directly connected to
> the Omeyas of Damasco and descendants of the Prophet Mohammed.

And here we go from bad to worse, as this supposed descent of the Banu
Qasi from the Prophet Muhammad is completely without foundation - the
invention of modern genealogists. It is based on the supposed
marriage of Fortun ibn Qasi to a daughter of the caliph, supposedly
accounting for the appearance of the name Musa in the next generation.
This ignores that converts to Islam frequently shift to the use of
Muslim names (indeed, the Banu Qasi are notable among their peers for
continuing to use non-Muslim names in addition to Musa and Muhammad
and Ismail in the early generations), and that there was an ethnic
hierarchy within the caliphate, whereby the non-Arabs were very much
second-class, making it very unlikely such a politically valuable
marriage prize would be given a local landowner of so little
significance he is only known through the name of his grandson (or
perhaps great-great-grandson, depending on your view of the recent
alternative reconstruction of the family). Indeed, if I recall
correctly, only only three wives are known from the entire Banu Qasi
dynasty. First, we know that Musa was half-brother of Inigo and
Fortun from the chronicle of Ibn Hayyan, implying that the wife of
Musa ibn Fortun was widow of the father of Inigo and Fortun Iniguez.
Second, the Codice de Roda says that Musa married a daughter of Inigo.
We do not know whether she was mother of his children. Third (and
here I am going from memory, so caveat emptor), we know that Ismail
ibn Musa married the daughter of a neighboring local lord of a convert
family. Given that we have the names of dozens of family members,
that gives you the scope of our ignorance on the matter of Banu Qasi
wives. There is no reason to believe they descended from Muhammad,
and every reason to dismiss such a claim.

> Well, the son of king Fortun I, the infante Eneco, as you might know by now never
> became king of Pamplona and was conveniently supplanted by a son of Garcia
> Jimenez, Sancho I el Grande, founder of the Jimena dynasty. In other words, two
> very different lines that intermarried creating a "natural" transference of power from
> one family to another.

We know so little about this transference of power that one can hardly
be justified in calling it natural, or unnatural for that matter.
What we know is: 1) that that it happened in 905 (extrapolated from
his death date and regnal length); 2) that Fortun survived the change,
living on as a monk; 3) that Sancho, son of "a king in another part of
the kingdom" (from the Codice de Roda) became king of the realm in
seeming preference to his older half-brother (leading to speculation
that his maternal uncle played some role in the change of power) and
to Fortun's own sons (although we don't know if those sons still were
living - Fortun himself was well over 70, perhaps even 80); and 4)
that Sancho married a maternal granddaughter of Fortun (also from the
Roda document), but whether he was married to her before he became
king (giving him a link that made his selection more palatable) or
after (in a manner analogous to Henry VII of England, as a way of
adding legitimacy to a fait accompli). By filling in the gaps with
their own imagination, historians have developed elaborate pictures of
a coups or whatever it was, implicating Asturias, Ribagorza, Aragon,
the Banu Qasi and/or Cordoba, but I am not aware of any further actual
reliable evidence.

taf

[visig...@gmail.com]

-------------

-----------------------------

I have discovered a very weak point, wow, wow, wow, a very feeble position from your side, you do not argue very well, don't you ! You dont have any info. at all, you just keep repeating the same things without very much knowledge. You haven't done your homework. Ho, ho, ho. I usually have this effect on certain people.

This info. is part of the genealogies of some of the oldest families of Spain, and you know nothing about it. Inigo Arista was not named "Arista", but Eneco Eneconis a.k.a Arista. His father a direct descendant of Eneco of Calahorra, so once again a cloud of ignorance have you caught in a -state of denial- which I find very amusing.

German scholars have written several books on the Goths of Spain, the Enecos, Enicos, and you are going to get very very sad when you read them, existential problems that will lead you to a profound life crisis ho, ho, ho !! Ignorance at its best, I would say. Your insistence of Garcia Jimenez, a well recognized figure of Pamplona, father of King Sancho I el Grande, is a reference that you, despite your dramatic effort, are not capable of questioning at all. It shows very clearly your tendency to absurdity. Sancho I el Grande had a father named Garcia Jimenez, sometimes called Garci II Jimenez.

As the scholars of ancient Spain used to say: LO QUE NATURA NON DA SALAMANCA NON PRESTA.

/Ig.

[visig...@gmail.com]

------------

German Scolars did pay special attention to the History of the Goths in Spain, the Vandals, Wisigoths, the Amelungs and Suevis. Somethinmg which reached great importance during the XIX century with the particular interest of the prussian kings and german kaisers. These books are to be found in Germany and some of them translated to other languages of importance.

What did you say ? Tell your audience what they want to hear ? WRONG. I am not here to tell them what they "want" to hear BUT what they need to hear, and that is knowledge. And you should think better before you write and try to give an opinion. Elementary, Watson !

Think first then we talk !

/Ig.

[visig...@gmail.com]

----

Sorry, have to dissapoint you. The material is there. You have not been to Oviedo.

[Richard Smith]

On 05/02/15 15:21, visig...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sorry, have to dissapoint you. The material is there. You have not been to Oviedo.

If the material is there, it should be easy for you to provide an
adequate citation of these sources so that others can view them too.
Simply stating the name of a town is not a citation. Can you let us
know which archive, library or museum holds the material, and the class
marks or reference numbers that the institution in question uses to
identify them, please? Any genuine expert who knew of such a source
would surely be only to happy to oblige with such details in order to
inform those with less expertise in the field.

Richard

[joe...@gmail.com]

> I have discovered a very weak point, wow, wow, wow, a very feeble position from your side, you do not argue very well, don't you ! You dont have any info. at all, you just keep repeating the same things without very much knowledge. You haven't done your homework. Ho, ho, ho. I usually have this effect on certain people.
>
> This info. is part of the genealogies of some of the oldest families of Spain, and you know nothing about it. Inigo Arista was not named "Arista", but Eneco Eneconis a.k.a Arista. His father a direct descendant of Eneco of Calahorra, so once again a cloud of ignorance have you caught in a -state of denial- which I find very amusing.

It is called scholarship. Something which you clearly lack, but poking fun at the well reasoned response you received. The links you have put forth have been studied for a thousand years. Thomas Paine said "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason... is like administering medicine to the dead..."

I think he must have met you.

--Joe Cook

[taf via]

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 7:10:22 AM UTC-8, visig...@gmail.com wrote:

> I have discovered a very weak point, wow, wow, wow, a very feeble position
> from your side,

Have you?

> You dont have any info. at all,

That's right, none at all. I have made reference to the Codice de
Roda, Al-Muqtabis fi Tarikh al-Andalus of Ibn Hayyan, the Jamharat
Ansab al-'Arab of Ibn Hazm, and made oblique reference to Al Udri's
Tarsi al-akhbar. I have also discussed a contemporary charter from
the mid 860s (for which see Antonio Ubieto Arteta's article "¿Un nuevo
rey pamplonés para el siglo IX?" in Principe de Viana, and its
subsequent use in the reconstruction of Christian Settipani in his La
noblesse du Midi Carolingien. I have not provided a primary citation
for the absence of any additional information, for obvious reasons.
You, on the other hand, have cited the nation of Germany and a vaguely
described collection of documents in the city of Oviedo.

> you just keep repeating the same things without very much knowledge.

I keep relating what is in the sources, and more importantly, what is not.

> This info. is part of the genealogies of some of the oldest families of Spain,
> and you know nothing about it. Inigo Arista was not named "Arista", but
> Eneco Eneconis a.k.a Arista.

He appears as Enneco cognomento Aresta (Inigo, called Arista) in the
Codice de Roda. He is Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo (Inigo Iniguez) in Ibn
Hayyan's chronicle, and alternative forms of Yannaqo or Wannaco appear
in some of the derivative Al-Andalus chronicles as well as Al Udri.
There actually isn't an early source that calls him Enneco Enneconis,
but the form does appear in much later writings. He is Enneco, . . .
filius Simeonis (i.e. Inigo Jimenez) in a forged charter from Leire,
and as Enneco Garseanes (Inigo Garces) in a highly confused Leire
chronology. Ibn Hazm briefly names a king Wannaqo ibn Sanyo (Inigo
Sanchez) that may refer to Arista. So, other than giving him four
different father's, the primary sources are in perfect agreement with
you.

> His father a direct descendant of Eneco of Calahorra, so once again a cloud
> of ignorance have you caught in a -state of denial- which I find very amusing.

So you say, citing the nation of Germany (or was it the city of Oviedo).

> Your insistence of Garcia Jimenez, a well recognized figure of Pamplona,
> father of King Sancho I el Grande, is a reference that you, despite your
> dramatic effort, are not capable of questioning at all. It shows very clearly
> your tendency to absurdity.

If you question my analysis, please cite a reliable primary source,
other than the Codice de Roda, that names Garcia Jimenez and indicates
what role he played in the kingdom. I ask this rhetorically. Please
do not cite references to what must be distinct men who simply have
the same name and patronymic, the one killed in 819 or the one who
appears in 828, both being way too early to represent the father of a
man who was a vital warrior king as late as 923.

> Sancho I el Grande had a father named Garcia Jimenez

Or at least that is what the Codice de Roda says, and other than
saying he is a "king in another part of the kingdom", his wives, kids
and brother, that is all it says about him. Nothing about co-regency,
nothing about ancestry, and it certainly doesn't equate him with a man
who died almost a century before Sancho became king.

I should add, that there is another source that contradicts this. Ibn
Hayyan refers to Sancho's son as (standardizing names) Garcia ibn
Sancho ibn Garcia ibn Inigo! He would make king Sancho I son of a
Garcia Iniguez. Given the choice between the name given by the Codice
de Roda and that given by ibn Hayyan, I would choose the former. I
believe that even thought he surviving manuscripts are of a later
date, that the original was earlier than Ibn Hayyan's writings, and
the generation of Garcia falls within the source's apparent historical
horizon (looking at whom the source includes and overlooks in each
generation, it becomes progressively less complete as it goes from
Fortun Garces (the great-great grandfather of the monarch at the
apparent time of its composition) to Garcia Iniguez, until Inigo
Arista is, in effect, nothing but a name and some vague traditions,
but Garcia Jimenez comes in the generation after Fortun, when the
source seems to have significant specific knowledge).

Such names Arabic naming does not necessarily imply a direct ancestral
descent. One might see Muhammad ibn Lubb ibn Musa ibn Qasi, which
does not mean that Musa was son of Qasi, but rather that this is
Muhammad, son of Lubb ibn Musa of the Banu Qasi. Ibn Hayyan may be
referring to Garcia, son of Sancho Garces of the Ibn Inigo. This may
reflect a belief that king Garcia was a member of the family of Inigo
Arista, implying a distant male-line descent. Alternatively, it may be
reference to the fact that Garcia was the representative of the
dynasty founded by Inigo, if not a male-line member himself (this
interpretation is admittedly a little shaky). However, Ibn Hayyan may
have intended a literal descent, but was incorrectly informed.
Remember that the monasteries of Navarre, at the time Ibn Hayyan was
writing, were producing a flawed history based on the mistaken belief
that king Sancho I Garces was son of king Garcia Iniguez (and were
followed in this belief by peninsular scholars well into the 20th
century). Ibn Hayyan may have been misled by this.

That is my interpretation, but Alberto Canada Juste has recently
published a different view ("En los albores del reino ¿dinastía
Iñiga?, ¿dinastía Jimena?", in the journal Principe de Viana in 2011,
which is available for free at Dialnet). He prefers Ibn Hayyan over
the Codice de Roda and concludes that Garcia Jimenez, father of king
Sancho, didn't exist at all, that Sancho's father was an otherwise
unknown man named Garcia Iniguez. He would make this Garcia Iniguez
son of a hypothetical Inigo Garces, in turn son of a documented Garcia
Jimenez of an 828 charter. He makes this man brother of Inigo Arista,
in so doing favoring the (usually dismissed as dubious) Leire charter
that names king Inigo as Inigo Jimenez, over Ibn Hayyan's reference to
the king as Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo - Inigo Iniguez. As I have explained,
I do not find myself positively disposed to this alternative, but it
is worth a read (as is his 2013 alternative reconstruction of the
relationship between Garcia Sanchez and Abd ar-Rahman, specifically
moving the linchpin Oneca to a different generation, also published in
Principe de Viana - this raises some concerns with the traditional
pedigree and the chronology it enforces on the family, but leaves some
critical problems unaddressed).

> sometimes called Garci II Jimenez.

I don't even question that he is sometimes called this. I would add,
however, that those who call him such usually do so based on a host of
incorrect assumptions, and haven't the slightest evidence for him
being a king of the realm ruled by the family of Inigo Arista. That
being said, a collective numbering has come to be adopted for the
kings ruling in any of the kingdoms subsequently united in the Crown
of Castile, so I could accept calling him Garcia II, given that he was
king of a different part of what would later come to be a united
kingdom of Navarre.

> As the scholars of ancient Spain used to say: LO QUE NATURA NON
> DA SALAMANCA NON PRESTA.

Actually, being ancient scholars, they would have used the Latin: Quod
natura non dat, Salmantica non præstat. That being said, it is you
and not Salamanca who has failed to provide in this discussion. As
the scholars of ancient Venice (California) used to say, Put up or
shut up! Provide actual specific information from cited primary
sources showing that Garcia Jimenez was co-regent of Pamplona during
the captivity of Fortun Garces. We can move on from there to
documenting the claimed descents from Visigoths, also using citations
to specific primary sources.

taf

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

Excuse me? I've been to Oviedo nth times, my paternal family live there, being one of the many "ancient" ones having set up residence in the city and where they originated (in Somiedo, which, by the way is paradise with its "treasure trove of ancient and verifiable documents). I've spent many year, along with other members of my family, searching for documents and trying to get the puzzle together, to no avail.
If you know WHERE EXACTLY they are, please let's enlighten us--poor ignorants no matter how many degrees we earned (Doctors in History, Genealogists, Linguists and what not).
You ramble on and on saying those alleged documents are there...well then, here is the challenge: SHOW PROOF.

[taf via]

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 10:07 AM, taf <t...@clearwire.net> wrote:

> I should add, that there is another source that contradicts this. Ibn
> Hayyan refers to Sancho's son as (standardizing names) Garcia ibn
> Sancho ibn Garcia ibn Inigo!

> That is my interpretation, but Alberto Canada Juste has recently
> published a different view ("En los albores del reino ¿dinastía
> Iñiga?, ¿dinastía Jimena?", in the journal Principe de Viana in 2011,
> which is available for free at Dialnet). He prefers Ibn Hayyan over
> the Codice de Roda and concludes that Garcia Jimenez, father of king
> Sancho, didn't exist at all, that Sancho's father was an otherwise
> unknown man named Garcia Iniguez. He would make this Garcia Iniguez
> son of a hypothetical Inigo Garces, in turn son of a documented Garcia
> Jimenez of an 828 charter. He makes this man brother of Inigo Arista,

Having just posted this hypothesis by Canada Juste, I came across a
much older paper by Antonio Ubieto Arteta* that has only recently been
placed online. It also adopts an alternative reconstruction of the
family. He bases his conclusions on entirely distinct sources and
arguments, but curiously ends up with exactly the same set of names.
I have explained why I am not fond of Canada Juste's argument. I am
even less enamored of Ubieto Arteta's.

Ubieto Arteta was troubled the order in which information is presented
in the Codice de Roda. Specifically, the account of the family of
Garcia Jimenez reports a brother Inigo Jimenez, and two wives, first
Oneca of Sanguesa, having: 1) Inigo and 2) Sancha, then by Dadildis of
Pallars, sister of count Raymond he had: 3) Sancho and 4) Jimeno. It
then proceeds to give the marriage and children of 1) Inigo Garces,
starting with eldest son Garcia Iniguez. Next, 4) Jimeno Garces, who
married Sancha Aznarez and had several children. Then it gives the
family of king Sancho Garces, who married Toda Aznar, and had
daughters married into the highest Christian families on the
peninsula, kings of Asturias/Leon, counts (or their families) of
Castile, Viguera, Aragon, Ribagorza and Bigorre, and also his son and
heir Garcia Sanchez.

The problem Ubieto Arteta sees is that when giving the children of
Garcia Jimenez, it gives them in order, Inigo, Sancho, then Jimeno.
Presenting the individual families it gives Inigo, Jimeno then Sancho.
The compiler, it is claimed, was fastidious about the order of
presentation, and the fact that he gives these last two in a different
order means that the last Sancho was not be the same as 3) Sancho,
that the source is giving 1) Inigo Garces, 4) Jimeno Garces, and then
X) King Sancho Garces of a different generation.

If not Garcia Jimenez, who then was the father of king Sancho, then?
To answer this he turns to the 13th/14th century chronicles -
Villarense and San Juan de la Pena. Here he finds a chronology that
begins with Inigo Aristo, then his son Garcia Iniguez, who is made
father of Sancho Abarca, the great king. Now, we know that Sancho I
is not grandson of Inigo Arista, nor son fo king Garcia Iniguez, but
Ubieto Arteta notices that if King Sancho was son of a different
Garcia Iniguez, this could be the son of 1) Inigo Garces, and this
would explain the order reversal in the Codice de Roda. He then
hypothesizes that Sancho I was son of Garcia Iniguez, son of 1) Inigo
Garces, son of Garcia Jimenez by Oneca of Sanguesa.

There are two critical problems with this reconstruction that in my
opinion, the negate its value. First, the late chronicles don't just
make king Sancho Garces I the son of any old Garcia and grandson of an
Inigo - it makes him son of king Garcia Iniguez and grandson of Inigo
Arista. We know that there was a Sancho at this point in the pedigree
of the house of 'Iniguez', the younger brother of king Fortun. It
seems much more likely that one Sancho Garces (the king's brother) has
been confused with another, Fortun's successor, all the more so
because we know the pedigree breaks down before it got back this far.
Specifically, it makes Sancho Garces el Mayor (III by modern counting)
the grandson of Sancho 'Abarca', whom it equates with the man we call
Sancho I. It makes a chimera out of Sancho I's son Garcia and that
man's grandson, also Garcia and father of Sancho III. It should come
as no surprise that a source that has compressed a string of Sancho
I-Garcia-Sancho II-Garcia-Sancho III into just Sancho
(I)-Garcia-Sancho (III) might also compress a pedigree running
Inigo-Garcia-Fortun||Sancho I into just Inigo-Garcia-Sancho I,
particularly when Fortun was the worst-remembered of the group and had
a brother Sancho. Once there is a significant problem in a pedigree
from centuries afterward, you have to view what comes before with
extreme skepticism.

His analysis of the Codice de Roda is also problematic. Specifically,
he ignores the identity of the wives of Jimeno Garces and Sancho
Garces. These women were Sancha Aznar and Toda Aznar, both daughters
of Aznar Sanchez of Larron. The traditional interpretation, making
king Sancho identical to the son of Dadildis of Pallars, would make
these two sisters the wives of two brothers, 3) Sancho and 4) Jimeno.
Ubieto Arteta's reconstruction would make the husbands of these two
sisters, 4) Jimeno and X) king Sancho, great-uncle and great-nephew.
It seems clear to me that the compiler, rather than intending a switch
in generation, was instead being strategic. He got 1) Inigo and 4)
Jimeno out of the way, so that he could conclude with the great king,
3) Sancho, and the intermarriages of his daughters that interwove
almost all the pedigrees in this, his final generation.

So, in my opinion, this argument is without value, and even though it
provides the same string of names behind Sancho I, it cannot be viewed
as supporting Canada Juste's alternative.

*Antonio Ubieto Arteta, "La Dinastia Jimena", Saitabi: revista de la
Facultat de Geografia i Història, 10: 65-79 (1960)

taf

[George William A.]

[George William A.]

I HAVE SEEN YOUR DATA. YOU ARE wrong. PERHAPS YOU BELONG TO THE FOREIGN ANGLO-SAXON CULTURE BUT THE ORIGIN OF THE FIRST ENECO FOUNDER OF THE FIRST DYNASTY OF PAMPLONA IS KNOWN. THE DESCENDANTS OF THIS KING , MANY OF THEM PART OF THE NOBILITY OF SPAIN, KNOWS PERFECTLY WELL WHO HE WAS AND ALSO WHICH LINE HE BELONGED TO IN GENEALOGICAL TERMS. TOO MUCH BLA BLA FROM YOUR SIDE ON THINGS YOU KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT.

[joseph cook]

I am a direct descendant of the founder of Pamplona. My cousins lied to you as a joke about the true founder and the line of descent. We thought it was funny. As a direct descendant, I can tell you first hand now, and reveal the truth.

Now you have conflicting information from two descendants who know perfectly well about things you know very little about. Since descendants are your authority; it seems you are in a pickle.

--Joe C

[taf]

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 6:04:19 AM UTC-8, George William A. wrote:

> I HAVE SEEN YOUR DATA. YOU ARE wrong.

Well, I guess that proves that. Who am I to disagree with someone with a broken caps-lock who proclaims me to be wrong.

How about letting me see your data . . .

taf