On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 7:07:42 PM UTC+1, taf via wrote:

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

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 5:40:26 PM UTC+1, taf via wrote:

[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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, January 4, 2022 at 9:04:19 AM UTC-5, George William A. wrote:

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 7:07:42 PM UTC+1, taf via wrote:

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

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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)