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.

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.

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