Discussion:
New theory on the Muslim descent of the Maia
(too old to reply)
taf
2016-06-14 21:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I recently got hold of an article from a Portuguese journal by Antonio Rei that presents a novel alternative to the reconstruction of the Maia/Maya origin legend.

As a reminder, the Livro Velho de Linhagens is a collection of accounts of the noble families of Portugal, thought to have first been compiled in a preliminary form in the latter half of the 13th century, and finalized by Pedro, Count of Barcelos, in the mid 14th century. In its account of the origin of the Maia, it presents what is referred to as the Lenda de Gaia (the Legend of Gaia, also called the Miragaia), which relates that king Ramiro II of Leon, while campaigning in what is now Portugal, fell in love with the sister of the local lord, Alboazar Albocadam. He kidnapped her, planning to divorce his wife and marry her, only to have Alboazar kidnap his wife and when he tried to sneak in and rescue his wife, she revealed his presence to Alboazar out of revenge for Ramiro's infidelity. However, Ramiro's son Ordono stormed the castle, killing Alboazar, and Ramiro took the sister, baptized as Artiga, back to Leon, where he married her and had children (he having murdered his prior wife for her role in the affair). The Livro Velho then makes Alboazar (soemtimes called Cid - lord) the founder of the Maia, the son of Ramiro by Artiga.

This connection has provided the basis for many claims of Muslim descent, but there have long been flaws observed in the connection. Notably, none of this finds any mention in the historical record of Leon. While one could argue that the christian chroniclers of the Reconquest may have purged a Muslim connection, it seems inexplicable that they would not at least have condemned Ramiro for murdering his wife. Likewise we are not restricted to histories, as there are surviving (as copies) charters from Ramiro's reign, and again no indication of this wife. Likewise, the account in problematic on the Maia side of the descent, for the Maia founder appears in contemporary documents, not as Alboazar Ramires as he is named in the Livro Velho, but as Alboazar Lovesendes - Alboazar, son of Lovesendo. Still when there is a desirable descent at stake, it rarely stops the enthusiast to find contradictory evidence.

A decade ago there was extensive discussion of this connection. Notably, Chico Doria presented his thoughts that culminated in a self-published book, Uma hipotese sobre a origem dos senhores de Maia, seculo X. I have not seen this but have seen a preliminary manuscript, and the crux of his argument comes from finding several of the names from the legend in the contemporary documents of the region, and notably he finds a Lovesendo whom he identifies as father of Alboazar Lovesendes - basically, he would argue that Ramiro was interposed into an authentic account of the Muslim origin for the Maia, but that it was Lovesendo who married a Muslim princess (as well as himself having Muslim descent). While he mention's Doria's work as an inspiration for his own, Rei takes a different tack, one that effectively arises out of an evaluation of the name forms found in the Lenda and the Maia pedigree.

Rei first presents come cultural background and documents that Ramiro II was active in the region in question. However, the crux of his argument comes from an evaluation of name forms. He starts with that of the Maia founder, Cid Alboazar. Doria had interpreted Cid as an honorific, 'lord', and Alboazar as coming via a garbled intermediate, Abouazar, from the name Abu Nazar, a common Arab name. Rei instead interprets it as Abu l-'Asar, which effectively means 'Founder of the Lineage'. He interprets this along with Cid (from the Arabic Sayyid) as being an honorific. This allows him to conclude that the name Cid Alboazar Lovesendes does not mean 'Lord' Alboazar, son of Lovesendo, but rather that it means 'Lord Founder' Lovesendo, and by so doing, removes the impediment that the patronymic represented in making the Maia founder the son of Ramiro.

Rei likewise analyzes Artiga (Ortiga in later versions of the pedigree). In this name he sees a corruption of Ariqa. (The two would be quite similar, bearing in mind that the guttural Q is often represented as a G in the Latin alphabet, and that soft vowels are omitted in older written Arabic, makign the two Artqa vs Aryqa, with 't' and 'y' differing in the placement of two dots above vs. below the letter.) Ariqa, he tells us, means 'she of a noble lineage', so that this name likewise is honorific in nature. I will add here that just because it was honorific does not mean it was not being used as a given name, although it can be hard to tell sometimes - the Codice de Roda refers to a daughter of Muhammad al-Tawil as Velasquita, while in Muslim sources she is Sayyida - the feminine form of Sayyid and a name also familiar to genealogists in the form of Zaida, Alfonso VI's mistress.

With this then Rei concludes that, lost within the honorific name forms found within the Livro Velho account is an authentic pedigree, in which the Maia founder was Cid (honorific) Abu l-'Asar (honorific) Lovesendo Ramires, the son of king Ramiro by the lady of most noble lineage (Ariqa), daughter of (and this part is not explained, simply shown in a chart referencing Ibn Hazm's collection of Al-Andalus pedigrees) Sa'd (Abu Sa'dun), brother of Umayya, governor of Santarem in 937, both in turn sons of Ishaq, an Umayyad descendant of founder Marwan al-Umawi, who married the great-granddaughter of Muhammad.

So, is this a viable solution? I say no. The interpretation of Alboazar as Abu l-A'sar is certainly possible, but it cannot be a literal honorific, because it appears in documents from the man's own time. It is the rare man who is called founder of a lineage during his own life, and as I mentioned above, these honorifics were used as actual literal names (Abu Nazar is also such an honorific). The format used at the time was name/patronymic, and while there are cases where an honorific is used, it replaces the name, rather than displacing it at the expense of the honorific. Were Lovesendo Ramires to be called instead by his honorifics, we would expect Cid Ramires or Abu l-A'sar Ramires. This is particularly the case given that the patronymic in question was the highest claim the man could make - being a lord is one thing, and being the (prospective) founder of a lineage is another, but this man was (we are told) son of the king and the patronymic would have been a continual reminder to everyone that this was the case - I can't see him forgoing it just so he could be called 'lord' Lovesendo. No, as much as some want it to be otherwise, this man was lord Abu Nazar (or Abu l-A'sar) Lovesendes, son of a Lovesendo and the royal connection (and the Muslim connection along with it) is just a myth like so many 'my ancestor was secret lovechild of the king' myths.

taf
taf
2016-06-15 19:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
I recently got hold of an article from a Portuguese journal by Antonio Rei that presents a novel alternative to the reconstruction of the Maia/Maya origin legend.
Let me just add that Sancha de Ayala, who serves as an Iberian gateway for several colonial American immigrants, has a descent from this family:

14.Sancha de Ayala m. Walter Blount
13.Ines Alfonso de Ayala m. Diego Gomes (de Toledo)
12.Fernan Perez de Ayala
11.Sancha Fernandez Barroso m. Pedro Lopez de Ayala
10.Fernan Perez Barroso
9.Pedro Gomes Barroso
8.Gomes Viegas de Basto
7.Egas Gomes de Basto/Barroso fl. 1169-83
6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30
5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112
4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2
3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38
2.Trastemiro Aboazar
1.Alboazar Lovesendes

I took a quick look, and the daughters of Pedro I who married the sons of Edward III of England may not descend from her - I eliminated most of the possible routes, but there are still a small number back behind the wife of Alfonso de Molina that I haven't been able to totally eliminate.

taf
Hans Vogels
2016-06-16 05:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30
5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112
4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2
3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38
? 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1034-38?
Post by taf
2.Trastemiro Aboazar
1.Alboazar Lovesendes
Hans Vogels
Post by taf
Post by taf
I recently got hold of an article from a Portuguese journal by Antonio Rei that presents a novel alternative to the reconstruction of the Maia/Maya origin legend.
14.Sancha de Ayala m. Walter Blount
13.Ines Alfonso de Ayala m. Diego Gomes (de Toledo)
12.Fernan Perez de Ayala
11.Sancha Fernandez Barroso m. Pedro Lopez de Ayala
10.Fernan Perez Barroso
9.Pedro Gomes Barroso
8.Gomes Viegas de Basto
7.Egas Gomes de Basto/Barroso fl. 1169-83
6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30
5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112
4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2
3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38
2.Trastemiro Aboazar
1.Alboazar Lovesendes
I took a quick look, and the daughters of Pedro I who married the sons of Edward III of England may not descend from her - I eliminated most of the possible routes, but there are still a small number back behind the wife of Alfonso de Molina that I haven't been able to totally eliminate.
taf
j***@gmail.com
2016-06-16 11:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by taf
6.Chamoa de Sousa m. Gomez Mendes Guedeo fl. 1121-30
5.Mem Viegas (de Sousa) fl.1094-1112
4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2
3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38
? 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1034-38?
Post by taf
2.Trastemiro Aboazar
1.Alboazar Lovesendes
Hans Vogels
? Hans Vogels?

Joe C
taf
2016-06-16 12:32:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Hans Vogels
Post by taf
4.Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) fl. 1071-2
3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1134-38
? 3.Gonzalo Trastamires fl.1034-38?
Post by taf
2.Trastemiro Aboazar
1.Alboazar Lovesendes
Hans Vogels
Sorry, what's your question?

taf
j***@albion.edu
2016-06-16 15:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hans was just noticing an apparent typo in your dates for #3 Gonzalo Trastamires, that's all. He's presuming you meant 11th century (fl.1034-38) instead of 12th century as you wrote (fl.1134-38) for the father of Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) (fl.1071-2).
J+
taf
2016-06-16 15:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@albion.edu
Hans was just noticing an apparent typo in your dates for #3 Gonzalo Trastamires, that's all. He's presuming you meant 11th century (fl.1034-38) instead of 12th century as you wrote (fl.1134-38) for the father of Gontinha de Maya m. Egas Gomes (de Sousa) (fl.1071-2).
J+
Ah, yes, good catch, Hans.

taf
taf
2016-07-11 04:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Since making my post on Antonio Rei's paper regarding the Maia descent, I have laid hands on another paper of his, claiming to trace Iberian descents from Muhammad.

“Descendência hispânica do Profeta do Islão – exploração de algumas linhas primárias”, in Armas e Troféus, IX série, 2011-2012, Instituto Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, pp. 31-59

I despair!

At one point he makes Egilona, wife of Visigoth king Roderick then of conqueror Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa, a kinswoman of the Banu Qasi founder simply because "what could be more natural?" (and I note that this supposed relationship has found its way into Spanish Wikipedia as if it were authentic history). He then, I kid you not, indicates that the rest of that descent comes 'primarily from' Medieval Lands - this from an academic researcher, basing an entire paper on something he found on the internet.

OD the three descents he includes, the first includes four connections (marriages or relationship of child to parent) that are completely invented, but he doesn't give this possibility the slightest consideration. As to the other two descents shown, one goes through a man who was an invention of an 18th century historian, and the other accepts an origin legend as absolute fact, he being completely unaware that the family in question didn't even exist at the time of the legend and the line he shows is based on the connect-the-dots, name's-the-same speculation by the same 18th century historian (Salazar y Castro). Sigh!

taf
j***@gmail.com
2016-07-11 04:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
This is a pretty poor reflection of the portugese institute of heraldry of Lisbon.
Is this a to poall level of editorial review for them?
Peter Stewart via
2016-07-11 04:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
Since making my post on Antonio Rei's paper regarding the Maia descent, I have laid hands on another paper of his, claiming to trace Iberian descents from Muhammad.
“Descendência hispânica do Profeta do Islão – exploração de algumas linhas primárias”, in Armas e Troféus, IX série, 2011-2012, Instituto Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, pp. 31-59
I despair!
At one point he makes Egilona, wife of Visigoth king Roderick then of conqueror Abd al-Aziz ibn Musa, a kinswoman of the Banu Qasi founder simply because "what could be more natural?" (and I note that this supposed relationship has found its way into Spanish Wikipedia as if it were authentic history). He then, I kid you not, indicates that the rest of that descent comes 'primarily from' Medieval Lands - this from an academic researcher, basing an entire paper on something he found on the internet.
But "what could be more natural"?

Genealogy is so little regarded by many academics that when one does
venture into the subject all bets (and most standards) are off.

Medieval Lands is readily accessible and seems to carry the imprimatur -
if not the outright sponsorship - of the "Foundation for Medieval
Genealogy", which may appear a substantial referee in its favour.

This exemplifies why I was so appalled at its promotion here in the
first place, and at the continuing regular use of it by some who should
know better.

The work of anyone who wants to make a gold-standard wiki in this field
has been made much harder, if not practically impossible, by the
recourse of so many to the glister of fool's gold.

Peter Stewart
taf
2016-07-11 16:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
“Descendência hispânica do Profeta do Islão – exploração de algumas
linhas primárias”, in Armas e Troféus, IX série, 2011-2012, Instituto
Português de Heráldica, Lisboa, pp. 31-59
There is one additional relationship that is worth addressing, because it is indicative of the nature of these things.

Rei shows Musa ibn Musa with two wives, Assona, daughter of Inigo Arista, and Oneca Velasquez, daughter of Velasco, lord of Pamplona. The first of these wives comes from the Codice de Roda. It must be said that this relationship falls before the historical horizon of that source. I think there is room to question whether this statement was an attempt to reflect a non-descript memory of relationship-via-a-female that is reflected in al-Muqtabis of Ibn Hayyan as a half-brother relationship between Musa ibn Musa dn Inigo Arista. This relationship is central to the chain that led to the 'second wife' of Musa ibn Musa.

Not helpful is a specific ambiguity in al-Muqtabis. He refers to brothers "ily ibn Wannaqo" (the lord Iniguez) and "Furdoun ibn Wannaqo" of Pamplona, and to Musa ibn Musa, half-brothe rof both. Elsewhere he reports the death of Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo, lord of Pamplona and the succession of his son as "Garsiyya ibn Wannaqo". A full reading makes it clear that the Lord Iniguez and Inigo Iniguez are the same, but as knowledge of these texts first drifted into the genealogical community, before their formal publication, some authors were confused over who it was how it all fit together and who was brother and half-brother of whom. As usual, these problems persisted in English-language sources longer, with one common compendium from the 1970s reporting that a non-existent king Inigo Iniguez succeeded Inigo Arista, to be followed by his brother of Garcia Iniguez. One likewise, in early-to-mid-20th century sources, finds every manner of placement of Musa ibn Musa and Inigo Arista with respect to the marriage that united the two families (half-brothers vs step-father and step-son or themselves husband of the same woman).

There are three assumptions of slip-shod medieval genealogy we see frequently: that genealogy abhors a vacuum, that everyone who held power in a region must be related, and that everyone with the same name must either be the same person or related. Each of these comes into play in the creation of Oneca Velasquez. First, the name Oneca (the feminine form of Inigo), as one of the few names we know from the region and period, so it has separately been tapped to serve as the name of the wife of Inigo and also that of his mother.

Independent of this is the supposed parentage of Inigo's wife. There are three references to the name Velasco in the early days of Pamplona. In 816, we read in al-Muqtabis, Velasco, lord of Pamplona and an army that included Garcia Lopez, nephew of king Alfonso, Sancho, premier knight of Pamplona, and Saltan, knight among the pagans (apparently representing Zaldun, Basque for knight) were defeated by the troops of the emir. Nothing more is known of any of these people.

Later, again from al-Muqtabis, we learn that during the rebellions of the 940s and 950s a Velasco Garces went over to the Cordoban side. Finally, we have from the Codice de Roda a Garcia Velasquez (son of Velasco), who strong-armed his way into the county of Aragon in resentment over a practical joke played on him by the Count's son. There have been sloppy attempts to link these three Velascos together, making Garcia Velasques the son of Velasco the turn-coat, himself made son of king Garcia Iniguez (even though there is no indication in al-Muqtabis that this was the case, and Velasco appears to have been Garcia's contemporary). To explain the introduction of the name Velasco into the family (as if the use of such a common Basque name by a Basque dynasty needed explanation), it then makes king Garcia the son of Inigo Arista by the daughter of the earlier lord Velasco (ignoring that Inigo was, prior to 840, in the pro-Cordoba camp that crushed Velasco in 816). This neatly ties together all of the men named Velasco and the leaders of both Pamplona factions along with Aragon into a single descent. No basis for any of it, other than the supposition that everyone named Velasco must be related/identical, but there it is.

Now, combine the groundless naming of Inigo's wife as Oneca with the this chain of Velasco descent and you get Oneca Velasquez, wife of Inigo Arista and daughter of Velasco. With both Inigo's wife and mother, separately, being assigned the name Oneca, and with the older sources confusing which Inigo was married to the same woman as which Musa, this has somehow led to the transfer of Oneca Velasquez, supposed wife of Inigo Arista, to Musa ibn Musa.

Thus, by combination of invention, supposition and confusion, we manage to arrive at the marriage reported by Rei.

taf
l***@gmail.com
2018-05-24 00:19:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by taf
I recently got hold of an article from a Portuguese journal by Antonio Rei that presents a novel alternative to the reconstruction of the Maia/Maya origin legend.
As a reminder, the Livro Velho de Linhagens is a collection of accounts of the noble families of Portugal, thought to have first been compiled in a preliminary form in the latter half of the 13th century, and finalized by Pedro, Count of Barcelos, in the mid 14th century. In its account of the origin of the Maia, it presents what is referred to as the Lenda de Gaia (the Legend of Gaia, also called the Miragaia), which relates that king Ramiro II of Leon, while campaigning in what is now Portugal, fell in love with the sister of the local lord, Alboazar Albocadam. He kidnapped her, planning to divorce his wife and marry her, only to have Alboazar kidnap his wife and when he tried to sneak in and rescue his wife, she revealed his presence to Alboazar out of revenge for Ramiro's infidelity. However, Ramiro's son Ordono stormed the castle, killing Alboazar, and Ramiro took the sister, baptized as Artiga, back to Leon, where he married her and had children (he having murdered his prior wife for her role in the affair). The Livro Velho then makes Alboazar (soemtimes called Cid - lord) the founder of the Maia, the son of Ramiro by Artiga.
This connection has provided the basis for many claims of Muslim descent, but there have long been flaws observed in the connection. Notably, none of this finds any mention in the historical record of Leon. While one could argue that the christian chroniclers of the Reconquest may have purged a Muslim connection, it seems inexplicable that they would not at least have condemned Ramiro for murdering his wife. Likewise we are not restricted to histories, as there are surviving (as copies) charters from Ramiro's reign, and again no indication of this wife. Likewise, the account in problematic on the Maia side of the descent, for the Maia founder appears in contemporary documents, not as Alboazar Ramires as he is named in the Livro Velho, but as Alboazar Lovesendes - Alboazar, son of Lovesendo. Still when there is a desirable descent at stake, it rarely stops the enthusiast to find contradictory evidence.
A decade ago there was extensive discussion of this connection. Notably, Chico Doria presented his thoughts that culminated in a self-published book, Uma hipotese sobre a origem dos senhores de Maia, seculo X. I have not seen this but have seen a preliminary manuscript, and the crux of his argument comes from finding several of the names from the legend in the contemporary documents of the region, and notably he finds a Lovesendo whom he identifies as father of Alboazar Lovesendes - basically, he would argue that Ramiro was interposed into an authentic account of the Muslim origin for the Maia, but that it was Lovesendo who married a Muslim princess (as well as himself having Muslim descent). While he mention's Doria's work as an inspiration for his own, Rei takes a different tack, one that effectively arises out of an evaluation of the name forms found in the Lenda and the Maia pedigree.
Rei first presents come cultural background and documents that Ramiro II was active in the region in question. However, the crux of his argument comes from an evaluation of name forms. He starts with that of the Maia founder, Cid Alboazar. Doria had interpreted Cid as an honorific, 'lord', and Alboazar as coming via a garbled intermediate, Abouazar, from the name Abu Nazar, a common Arab name. Rei instead interprets it as Abu l-'Asar, which effectively means 'Founder of the Lineage'. He interprets this along with Cid (from the Arabic Sayyid) as being an honorific. This allows him to conclude that the name Cid Alboazar Lovesendes does not mean 'Lord' Alboazar, son of Lovesendo, but rather that it means 'Lord Founder' Lovesendo, and by so doing, removes the impediment that the patronymic represented in making the Maia founder the son of Ramiro.
Rei likewise analyzes Artiga (Ortiga in later versions of the pedigree). In this name he sees a corruption of Ariqa. (The two would be quite similar, bearing in mind that the guttural Q is often represented as a G in the Latin alphabet, and that soft vowels are omitted in older written Arabic, makign the two Artqa vs Aryqa, with 't' and 'y' differing in the placement of two dots above vs. below the letter.) Ariqa, he tells us, means 'she of a noble lineage', so that this name likewise is honorific in nature. I will add here that just because it was honorific does not mean it was not being used as a given name, although it can be hard to tell sometimes - the Codice de Roda refers to a daughter of Muhammad al-Tawil as Velasquita, while in Muslim sources she is Sayyida - the feminine form of Sayyid and a name also familiar to genealogists in the form of Zaida, Alfonso VI's mistress.
With this then Rei concludes that, lost within the honorific name forms found within the Livro Velho account is an authentic pedigree, in which the Maia founder was Cid (honorific) Abu l-'Asar (honorific) Lovesendo Ramires, the son of king Ramiro by the lady of most noble lineage (Ariqa), daughter of (and this part is not explained, simply shown in a chart referencing Ibn Hazm's collection of Al-Andalus pedigrees) Sa'd (Abu Sa'dun), brother of Umayya, governor of Santarem in 937, both in turn sons of Ishaq, an Umayyad descendant of founder Marwan al-Umawi, who married the great-granddaughter of Muhammad.
So, is this a viable solution? I say no. The interpretation of Alboazar as Abu l-A'sar is certainly possible, but it cannot be a literal honorific, because it appears in documents from the man's own time. It is the rare man who is called founder of a lineage during his own life, and as I mentioned above, these honorifics were used as actual literal names (Abu Nazar is also such an honorific). The format used at the time was name/patronymic, and while there are cases where an honorific is used, it replaces the name, rather than displacing it at the expense of the honorific. Were Lovesendo Ramires to be called instead by his honorifics, we would expect Cid Ramires or Abu l-A'sar Ramires. This is particularly the case given that the patronymic in question was the highest claim the man could make - being a lord is one thing, and being the (prospective) founder of a lineage is another, but this man was (we are told) son of the king and the patronymic would have been a continual reminder to everyone that this was the case - I can't see him forgoing it just so he could be called 'lord' Lovesendo. No, as much as some want it to be otherwise, this man was lord Abu Nazar (or Abu l-A'sar) Lovesendes, son of a Lovesendo and the royal connection (and the Muslim connection along with it) is just a myth like so many 'my ancestor was secret lovechild of the king' myths.
taf
Loading...