Talk:Fortún Ochoiz

Genealogical speculation
I have doubts over three genealogical connections drawn here.

First Mencia. The cited source for this marriage states that Mencia was daughter of Garcia, without suggesting illegitimacy. Of course as you known, most sources show her as wife of Lope, but I seen nothing to suggest that she wasn't daughter of Estefania. What is the basis for this? Agricolae (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mencía was illegitimate according to Diego Catalán, cited in for the marriage to Lope. If García and Estafanía were married shortly before 1038 (as here), and Mencía was born around 1030, then it follows that she was illegitimate, as no other wife of García's is known. The king is alleged to have had a son and two daughters premaritally (as here). As to the marriage to Lope, I have seen that elsewhere, but I decided to trust the source on which the article is based because the documents in which her marriage to Fortún is supposedly mentioned are cited, as is a document mentioning Lope Fortúnez as her son. Do you know what is the basis for the contrary claim, or in what sources I could search? (FMG also has Mencía marry Fortún). Srnec (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Second, Fronilda. She is just picked by default, but there is good reason to reject it. Given her attested incest, it seems extremely unlikely that she would then have married a nobleman. If there was a genealogical link, a marriage to a daughter of Sancho Ramirez would just as well account for the connection. Still, Garcia was older than Sancho III, and Fortun is shown marrying, secondly, Sancho's granddaughter, which makes for an awkward span of generations. Agricolae (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence why I refer to it as speculation in the article text itself, because it is extremely speculative. Since the source is not old, I thought it worth mentioning. You'll note that the FMG external link suggests two Fortún's, but I haven't got into that. Srnec (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Finally, the Banu Qasi connection. While published in a scholarly, peer reviewed journal, this does not represent the consensus of the field, and I, personally, do not find it convincing. It seems to be based on three main arguments. First, the names Fortun and Lubb used by the Banu Qasi are repeated in the person of Fortun Ochoa. Second, that some of the Banu Qasi are known to have converted, and third that Ochoa was active in the region formerly occupied by the Banu Qasi. My response is that if you look at the Codice de Roda and other documents of the 10th century, you find the names Fortun and Lope quite common among the Christians of Pamplona, so there is nothing about the names that points to the Banu Qasi over these other families. Peterson calls the names characteristic of the Banu Qasi, but they were characteristic of the Pamplona Basques in general. Likewise, the Banu Qasi did not just transition out of existence. They were displaced, squeezed by Sancho and Jimeno of Pamplona, Bernard of Ribagorza, and Abd er-Rahman of Cordoba. They were exiled and executed, fled or given as hostages. Their territories when taken by Sancho (with whome they were enemies, so he is unlikely to have let them stay, while Abd er-Rahman granted those he took to the Banu al-Tawil and the Tujebies. There was no continuity of landholding, and that Fortun held lands where the Banu Qasi had previously no more suggests genealogical continuity than the various Norman knights holding at Domesday suggest continuity with the prior Anglo-Saxon holders. I think this landholding is more likely to represent a grant in the immediate post-al-Mansur era. Finally, the conversion.  We have no idea what happened to most of the converts, except for one who is specifically named, Fortun ibn Lubb. He seems to have been sent as a hostage to Asturias, and converted there, his sister having married king Fruela. There is every reason to think he would have remained there, with his sister the queen, and nothing to suggest that he would have gone to Pamplona. As to the others, they are just said to have converted, but that could have taken them to Asturias, Pamplona, Pallars (where there was a documented kinship) or Barcelona. Taken together, it seems little more than a house of cards. I do not find this suggestion convincing at all. Again, it has been published, but it strikes me as more of a pet theory by an academic, not scholarly consensus, and as such I think it is given way too much weight in the article. Agricolae (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not unaware. I am unconvinced myself, though I have no idea whether Fortún Ochoiz is enough studied for a consensus to develop concerning this stuff. The dilemma when creating articles of this nature (on historical figures known mainly from documents, about whom there is much speculation, and lots of academic minutiae of interpretation) is how to present theories such as these, which deserve mention if only because they are interesting and may excite an interest in the reader. In both the cases you bring up I tried to solve the problem by (i) explicitly calling it speculation and (ii), in the case of the Banu Qasi, concentrating on the undisputed facts about their family members and their territories and less on repeating the arguments for the connexion. Perhaps it doesn't accomplish it very well. Perhaps the whole section could be reduced to "One recently-published paper has posited a familial connexion between Fortún and the Banu Qasi to explain the concentration of Fortún's fiefs in the former heartland of the muwallad clan". Perhaps we could condense the rest into the footnote. The question then becomes, for me at least, how much do we force the reader to track down in the source and how much do we present to him here?
 * I have found another source of value here and I will look at it later. (By the way, if you wish to un-intersperse my comments, feel free.) Srnec (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)