Talk:Íñigo Arista

Untitled
I have made a series of changes as separate edits:

1. correct relationship of Iñigo to Musà. This is simply correcting a mistake. There is no doubt about the relationship as Iñigo is explicitly called brother via the mother of Musà ibn Musà by the chronicler Ibn Hayyan, and is reported as such in every history book that covers the period. (e.g. the Menendez Pidal Historia de España, Lévi-Provençal's Histoire de l'Espagne musulmane, etc.)

2. regency. Ibn Hayyan reports the roles of Fortun and Garcia, and Fortun's death, while the embassy to Charlemagne is reported in a Frankish chronicle. J. Pérez de Urbel, "Lo viejo y lo nuevo sobre el origin del Reino de Pamplona" in Al-Andalus, XIX (1954), 1-30. Lévi-Provençal, E. and Emilio Garcia Gómez. "Textos inéditos del "Muqtabis" de Ibn Hayyan sobre los orígines del Reino de Pamplona". Al-Andalus. 19:295-315 (1954)

3. wife and daughter. Regarding the wife, see, for example, Thierry Stasser. "Consanguinity et Alliances Dynastiques en Espagne au Haut Moyen Age: La Politique Matrimoniale de la Reinne Tota de Navarre". Hidalguia. No. 277: 811-39 (1999) speculates that the wife of Iñigo was probably a member of the family that gave rise to the later counts of Aragon, and was perhaps named Tota. Christian Settipani, La Noblesse du midi carolingien, Occasional Publiucations of the Unit for Prosopographical Research, Vol. 5. shows two 13th century chronicles giving the two names, Tota in one, Oneca in the other. He uses Tota in subsequent charts and speculates about her origin. Luiz Mello Vaz de São Payo. "A Ascendência de D. Afonso Henriques". Raízes & Memórias Nos. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8. calls her Oneca and has her as daughter of Valasco. José Maria Lacarra. "Textos navarros del Códice de Roda". Estudios de Edad Media de la Corona de Aragon. 1:194-283 (1945) discusses the genealogy of these families as well as all relevant documentation, but gives no named wife to Iñigo, which given the thoroughness of the study is of value if only through omission. As to "Nunila", Lacarra, "Textos navarros del Códice de Roda" shows the surviving source material, which does not name this daughter.

4. succession. Ibn Hayyan writing not long afterwards, explicitly states in his entry for 851/2 that Iñigo died and was succeeded by his son Garcia. Lévi-Provençal and Garcia Gómez. "Textos inéditos del "Muqtabis" de Ibn Hayyan"; Pérez de Urbel, "Lo viejo y lo nuevo". Jimeno does appear to have been prominant enough to have sent envoys to Charlemagne along with Iñigo, but that is the only historical reference to him, except in so far as his son's name, Garcia Jimenez, indicates that he was son of a Jimeno, (Pérez de Urbel, "Lo viejo y lo nuevo") and the latter is said to have held sway in "another part of the kingdom", (Lacarra, "Textos navarros del Códice de Roda"), suggesting either that the region had not consolidated into a single political entity yet, or that the Jimenez ruled as regional sub-kings. (Pérez de Urbel, "Lo viejo y lo nuevo"; Pérez de Urbel, "Jimenos y Velas en Portugal". Revista Portuguesa de História. 5:475-492 (1951)).

5. parentage and kinship. His patronymic comes from ibn Hayyan, Lévi-Provençal and Garcia Gómez. "Textos inéditos del "Muqtabis" de Ibn Hayyan"; Pérez de Urbel, "Lo viejo y lo nuevo". For examples of speculation regarding his origins and kinship, see Lacarra, "Textos navarros del Códice de Roda", Perez de Urbel and Ricardo del Arco y Garay. Espana Christiana: Comienzo de la Reconquista (711-1038). (Menéndez Pidal) Historia de Espana, vol. 6 (1964), and a different hypothesis for the origin of the Jimenez, Luiz Mello Vaz de São Payo. "A Ascendência de D. Afonso Henriques". For dating the marriage to Musa ibn Fortun, see Alberto Cañada Juste, "Los Banu Qasi (714-924)". Principe de Viana 41:5-95 (1980); Simon Hayak. "Los Banu Qasi". Boletin de la Asociacion Español de Orientalists 28:143-157 (1992).

Agricolae 01:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename
I have moved the page from Inigo I to Inigo Arista. The tradition among Iberian historians is to use ordinals for all kings of Asturias/Leon/Castile, Aragon, and Portugal, but for the Counties of Castile and Aragon, and particularly for Navarre to favor name/patronymic and to only number when both name and patronymic were the same. Thus the Counts of Castile are known as Fernan Gonzalez, Garcia Fernandez, Sancho Garces and Garcia Sanches - not Garcia I and Garcia II. In Aragon, Galindo Garces is not numbered, and you get Galindo Aznar I & II. In Navarre, the Garcias are Garcia Iniguez, Garcia Jimenez, Garcia Sanchez I, II & III, and Garcia Ramirez (the exception is with the Sanchos, who do tend to be numbered sequentially). When English writers began to refer to these individuals, they tried to apply ordinals, but this has only led to confusion as various authors used different systems, using different criteria from who to count and who not to count, but more followed the Spanish practice of leaving them unnumbered (hence king Garcia Ramirez gets ten times as many relevant hits as Garcia IV, Garcia V, Garcia VI, or Garcia VII, all of which have been used). This is seen with Arista, who some make Inigo I, while others call him Inigo II, making his father Inigo I, but most don't number him at all. Most consider him to be the only king named Inigo - the later Inigo currently numbered II in Wiki was probably never king at all. He only appears as such in a secondary entry in the Roda Codex, but this was likely translated from an Arabic source that was using a term more applicable to Count (or even chief) [see, for example, Martín Duque, Ángel J., Algunas Observaciones Sobre el Carácter Originario de la Monarquía Pamplonesa. Princípe de Viana. 63: 835-39 (2002) on the nature of the original 'kingdom'. A 'king' Sancho Iniguez can also be found in other Arabic sources, as can a 'prince' Garcia who is distinct from the other Garcias, and in fact Garcia Jimenez was probably not king either]. The exception to patronymic usage is Inigo Arista, a name as distinctive, unambiguous, and universally recognized among those familiar with Navarre as Alfred the Great is to England. His patronymic was only discovered within the past 50 years, and prior to that a different patronymic occasionally appeared from a late and untrustworthy chronicle, but most called him Inigo Arista. In summary, while it goes against the naming conventions for royalty, in this case that convention causes more confusion than it resolves, and forces an arbitrary choice of one among several conflicting naming conventions, while the established convention of historians is recognizable and unambiguous.

(This is not the only one I intend to move, so I would appreciate some discussion on a broader rename.) Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He's the first monarch of Pamplona. There's absolutely no reference to any father nor any other monarch of the city before him, as it was part of the Duchy of Vasconia, apparently.
 * I'd rather suggest naming as Eneko Haritza (or Aritza). Arista being just a Castilian deformation of the Basque name (meaning oak tree) and Iñigo being as well, the Castilian version of Basque name Eneko. We are talking of a Basque realm, where Castilian was never used before the 1512-21 invasion. --Sugaar (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wiki naming does not follow actual history or the usage of the natives of the region where someone ruled, but common English usage. While there is no evidence whatsoever of Inigo's father other than his sons' patronymics found in Ibn Hayyan and al-Udri, the father is still called Inigo I by some English-language (and Castilian) historians, with Inigo Arista being Inigo II. Again, it may not be right, but I have seen it often enough that I think using any number for Inigo will confuse more than it will help, while presenting him without any number avoids the problem.
 * As to the name, we are not looking for the name that most accurately represents original usage or local usage, but rather the appropriate 'English' name. Hence Alfred the Great is Alfred, not Ælfræd. Paul of Russia is Paul, not Pavel (or Па́вел). For better or worse, the English-language historical tradition with regards to Spanish history derives from the Castilian-language historians, and not directly from the Basque. (This tendency is not specific to the Basques either - Castilian forms are the most common English usage for those in the Catalan-speaking realms of Aragon and Barcelona that do not have a true English equivalent). English-language Encyclopedias, compilations, histories, all use Inigo, and while Eneko may rarely get a parenthetical mention as the Basque version. It is the most common English form we are after, and rightly or wrongly, that is Inigo Arista. (For that matter, I would just as soon take out the accents, which are likewise not used in English.) Agricolae (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Inigo is not Íñigo, right? --Sugaar (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are just asking what I intended (was I being lazy in not putting in diacriticals or accurately displaying the English usage), I would have to say that English usage predominantly uses Inigo, but some do use Iñigo (and this is becoming more common as it becomes easier to do mechanically) - I have never seen an English source using Íñigo. That being said, if you are asking in order to indicate that my argument favors Inigo (English) over Íñigo (Castilian), you won't get any arguments from me but someone went through a lot of effort to put in all the diacriticals, so presumably they feel strongly about them. Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And why not Eneko Aritza, as is the most used name nowadays? -Theklan (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that it is. That this is the name given him at birth, as the Basque form, doesn't necessarily mean this is the more common form used by English-language scholars, who have typically followed the forms used by Iberian historians writing in Castillian.  It is English-language scholarly usage that matters.  So, what form does Roger Collins use? The Encyclopaedia Britannica?  The fact of the matter is, modern Basque is not the best indicator of what he used either as no language is static, and the earliest surviving authentic records that we have that name him are in Latin and Arabic.  Agricolae (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The "de Sousa Girao" claim.
What do people think about the "de Sousa Girao" family's claim to direct descent from him? Here in a rather well respected royal DNA project ( http://www.familytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=yresults ) there's a participant with surname "de Sousa Girao" who's claiming direct descent from Íñigo Arista. However, this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visconde_de_S%C3%A3o_Jorge ) states that the "de Sousa Girao" family is famous for professional forgeries. СЛУЖБА (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, FamilyTreeDNA family pages are open to anyone saying anything. They maybe respected for their ability to produce accurate DNA marker analysis, but individual customers provide the information associated with those haplotypes with no review for reliability.  As I said on my Talk page, no such descent exists and any claim is at best wishful thinking and at worst forgery. Agricolae (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Indirect descent
This is a semantic oxymoron. One either descends from someone or one doesn't. There is no such thing as an indirect descent (unless one is speaking of a great-uncle or something, and then the use of the term descent could itself be questioned. Garcia Sanchez I was the great-great-great-grandson of Inigo Arista, nothing indirect about it.  The descent was in the female line, which may be what is being implied by 'indirect', but if this is deemed worth specifying, then it is better to express it in those terms - that they descended in the female line, rather than treating a female-line descent as somehow less direct than a male-line descent. Agricolae (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Name section
I am not entirely happy with the creation of this section. The three different parts of his name, while ostensibly sharing the common feature of being parts of his name, are actually addressing two distinct biographical questions and one question dealing with how he came to be remembered, and thus 'Name' doesn't actually represent a natural grouping for the discussion of these separate concepts. Likewise, I can't think of the page for any other monarch where we have a section that breaks down the etymology of their name, just for the sake of doing it. If, as I suspect, the goal of detailing Eneko is to demonstrate his Basque origin, then we should say this explicitly as part of a discussion of his origin. If not, if it really is just for etymology, then something like what is done in the first line of Alfred the Great will suffice. I don't have a problem with discussing the origin of Arista - in fact, it should be discussed as he was remembered more by this name among Christian sources than his patronymic, but there isn't a single contemporary record that calls him that (unfortunately, there isn't a single contemporary record at all except perhaps for the report of his embassy to the French court naming Induo) so this should be more a discussion of the fact that this is how he was remembered, including what it may mean and the earliest document to call him this name (? the Codice de Roda?, if we can find a reliable source). As to the patronymic, it was originally being used as evidence for the name of his father, not for its own sake. All of this is worthwhile information, I just don't think that leading royal biographies with name etymology sections is the way to go, when as I said it is really documenting three distinct concepts, origin, paternity and remembrance. Agricolae (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My drive is not to demonstrate nothing but to show what is actually missing. The article is pretty detailed, but new sections make no harm, actually enhance it. Eneko/Íñigo is known as Arista in all or most biographies, as it happens with Charles "Martel", it is a matter of usage. While Alfred the Great poses no doubts, Alfred is a very well known name in English, Eneko is not, so the name demands an explanation. If "Name" is too ugly a heading, I can add all the explanation in a second introductory paragraph, three or four lines. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The name Alfred is common, but its meaning is obscure (to the every-day reader). We just don't discuss the etymology of names in biographies like this - I don't know of a single like bibliography that does so.  We have a page on the name itself, Inigo for that purpose.  As to Arista, yes, it is about usage, and as I said, I think it would be good to show the earliest this usage is found, and in what context, but it need not be in the same place as the meaning of Íñigo is given as the two are distinct concepts.  I will experiment a little when I have time. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, I note that Inigo could really use some attention - it refers to it as a Welsh name of Basque origin, when it is really a Basque name that has on occasion been used by Welsh. Agricolae (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While the international equations ES Alfredo EN Alfred DE Alfred, or ES Ignacio EN Ignatius DE Ignatius, etc. are well known, that is not the case for Ínigo/Eneko, still subject to confusion. That's why at least a short explanation is due, more so if we bear in mind that Íñigo is a later Spanish or Romance language development, not the original name. A link to Inigo may fix part of the deficiencies, but as I see, the article needs some revising --I may go through it later myself if I have time. As for Arista, it is a widely accepted form and I wouldn´t touch it. Charles "Martel" may have never been "Martel" during his lifetime, that should be highlighted, since many people have been led to think otherwise, but I would let it (the name) rest. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I don't want to touch it.  I want to explain it - what might it mean and how early is it found? (with cites, which I unfortunately don't have)  I just don't think this is really the same inherent theme as an explanation of what his patronymic implies about his paternity.  One is addressing how he is remembered, the other is addressing the only detail we know (sort of) about his father.  The later should be an integral part of a discussion of his origin, the former of his historical legacy. They don't belong in the same paragraph, let alone a whole section.  As I said, when I have time I will experiment. Agricolae (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Leyre
Is Leyre's foundation under Íñigo accepted by critical scholars? I know that they have documents claiming this to be the case, but I also know that these are all of dubious authenticity. Medieval monasteries were notorious for forging an earlier history for themselves so we really need a modern critical scholarly analysis of the specific question to be comfortable of this (while if it were recast as 'it was later claimed' that would remove the problem). Agricolae (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have seen it written in a few articles, and it can be thought to have been founded by him, the monastery being initially Benedictine tells a lot. The solution you presented may fix the problem. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Velasco the Gascon
It doesn't matter how iconic a Basque name Belasko is. When this battle is reported in scholarly sources, the name is almost always given as Velasco, and it doesn't matter if the author is Spanish (Sanchez-Albornoz), French (Barrau-Dihigo) or most importantly for our purposes, English (Collins). Likewise, Velasco the Gascon is overwhelmingly preferred to Velasco the Gaul - search Google for "Velasco el Galo" and you get 3 hits. For "Velasco el Gascon" you get 1660. Much fewer in French, but "Velasco le Gascon" gives you 7, Velasco le Gaulois", zero (and much fewer all the way around for Belasko - 2 hits total for ever combination of el/le/the Gascon/Gaul/Galo/Gaulois, and one is to this page). Wikipedia reflects usage, and usage favors Velasco and Gascon.  While we are at it, let me address two other points raised in edit summaries. First, why I used the term Muslim to refer to the group to the south.  Yes, it is a religious designation, but it wasn't just the Emirate that was involved, it was also the marcher lords with whom the Pamplona dynasty sometimes fought and sometimes collaborated with in opposition to Cordoba.  In referring to these as a whole as 'Muslims' I am in good company - see for example Lacarra's article on 'Muslim campaigns against Sancho I'.  Not Andalusian campaigns, not Cordoban or Caliphate campaigns, but Muslim campaigns. Second, just as an Earl in the kingdom of England, leading an English army, is rightly called an 'English earl' even if his name was Svein and his father was a viking, so too a count within the Kingdom of the Franks leading a Frankish army (an army of that kingdom) can rightly be called a 'Frankish count' independent of his ethnicity. Ethnicity is not the sole criterion relevant to describing people - nobody objects to calling Charles XIV a Swedish king, even if he happened to not have a drop of Swedish blood. Agricolae (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Belasko is the original totemic name on which it's meaning ('small falcon') and the historic context can be grasped. Velasco means nothing, and it's not even phonetic. As for the second part of it, "Gascon", I can´t bring numbers to support my claim, but as a history reader I had the intuition that "Galaski" can hardly mean 'Gascon', both etymologically and ethnically, in the same way that one could hardly believe that Santiago once appeared in a Clavijo battle and encouraged the 'Christian brothers' to slay 'the Moors' (I wonder why we don't use the word Barbarians, or the Savages..., just joking;). I do agree with Sanchez-Albornoz in many respects but not in all of them, and just like other authors, he's a son of his time. (Poor thing, I can only imagine what the burden it was for him to defend that the Spanish national iconic Clavijo was actually... a fabrication!, bless him).


 * However, if you take a look at historic literature 30 or 40 years ago, it claimed/mirrored accounts that held the Santiago Matamoros as true, except for "fringe scholars". As it happens, people and scholars questioning that the Clavijo battle ever existed were numerically-statistically very inferior (still today in Spain?, just listen to the new Education Minister), and many may have thought that keeping things simple just works. Listen, you won't find me on that boat, replicating historic clichés, and I'd be sad to see that you are ready to do so.


 * The numbers are very relevant, but not only. The reader wants updated reliable information and if possible reflecting latest research, so that we can abandon misconceptions and burdens of the past, such as the idiotic ubiquitous Christian/Muslim (or even better, the catch-all "Moor") opposition. If someone wants to make the Wikipedia an arena for religion war I won't play along, just because it's are not true to historic events and developments. A Muslim from the Sahel has little to do with one from Saudi Arabia, and for such distinct cultures as the Hispano-Romans, the Basques, the Gallician celts, the Asturians, the Goths, or the Franks that was even more the case at that early stage of blur Christianity and incipient Islam in the Iberian Peninsula, the Pyrenees and the whole Western European context.


 * Sorry, but the concept of Gascon didn´t exist at the time, there are as you know the Saxons, there are the Frisians, and there are the Basques-Wascones (etc.!). The Frankish Annals are a pretty reliable source of info and it clearly states that the Wascones lived around the Pyrenees, confirming later in the same document that the Hispani Wascones were defeated. I would really feel disappointed, deceived actually, if a Frisian, commander of Charles Martel's army was called a Frank. Moreover, that I'd call straight hiding information from the reader. You may be looking the wikipedia to learn of the Frankish armies, but others may be interested in the psychology of the character in question or his troubled relationship to his own people or his personal interests or political ambitions in the Frankish empire.


 * That "Galaski" is 'the Gaul' I am pretty convinced, like the later Sancho Sanchez, mentioned in the context of the Albelda episodes approx 850-860. Admittedly I can't find the doc where I found my perception confirmed, but since this is matter of disagreement you may add your citation. I will add mine when I (re-)find it.Iñaki LL (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter what is totemic, or what the original Basque would be. We don't refer to Ælfræd the Great, even if that is the totemic Anglo-Saxon form of the name, because usage trumps etymological precision, and in this case usage overwhelmingly favors Velasco.  As to Gascon vs Gaul, a 200-fold preference for interpreting it as Gascon means that Gaul shouldn't be treated as an equally likely interpretation, even if we both have references.  I had hoped that the most recent translation of the al-Muktabis text of which I am aware would give a current scholarly interpretation, but unfortunately it was only transliterated for his name (from memory, as "B.l.s.k al-Y.l.s.k" or something of the sort). For all the brave-new-world language about abandoning the misconceptions of the past, what did the Banu Qasi, the Banu Amrus, and the Emirate Cordoba have in common?  Not ethnicity, not political structure, not territories or armies or alliances (at least not all the time), but religion and there is nothing idiotic about using a term that describes the one trait they consistently shared.  It has nothing to do with a holy war.  And while we are talking about abandoning misconceptions of the past, how about we not assume that someone's name (and by implication ethnicity) is a window into their soul.  Nobody called Aznar a Frank.  He was called a Frankish count - i.e. a count within the Frankish empire.  You clearly shouldn't be speculating about why I come to Wikipedia, nor do I need to be lectured to and SHOUTED AT in edit summaries just because I have used different words than you would prefer. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, listen, for a start, about SHOUTING, I may have wanted to emphasize a word or expression, for what I can guess, and you have felt shouted at. If so, my apologies since what I intended was to stress the importance of what I was stating, and I think it is, not to offend. I will use, if needed, bold or underline another time. I'm not just voicing a concern of mine, it's a perception many readers have, it's a matter of visibility and availability of key information, so I would suggest to whoever edits, you or other, to make it clear, since as far as I'm concerned and I'm not being subjective, many people are led to think that almost everybody north of the Ebro and the Pyrenees at that time was a Frank, with modern connotations, you know. You may claim a difference between Frankish (count) and Frank, but people, myself included, don´t see that, if there is any apart from a grammatical nuance, and that leads the readers to wrong conclusions, or simplistic views. Sorry but saying Muslim is a sweeping, convenient but very imprecise adjective. Basically, we are talking about territories sometimes, or peoples sometimes. I won't lecture you since I think you are old enough and know better, but on the topic we are dealing with, Al-Andalus is a territory with certain organizational, ethnic, and historic background. Certainly religion can be one feature, but don't simplify, it was a complex society where Christians were the majority, and they may have been drafted to the army, and sometimes, the Mozarabs held positions in the royal court. Admittedly, Al-Andalus has a bad solution in English usage to form an adjective, I feel comfortable with Andalusian, not all terms have just one meaning, but usage may not support it.
 * As far as I see, and you don´t need to feel offended by this, there is a lot, a lot of work to do in many articles related to the period in question, since many of them seem to go many decades back in the historic approach existing in Western Europe, and not for the good reasons. Have a nice day Iñaki LL (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)