GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-11 > 1290123915


From: Francisco Tavares de Almeida <>
Subject: Re: Zaida of Denia Clarification
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:45:15 -0800 (PST)
References: <4f0d17ee-e2d2-4ace-bba4-df9e82c5b1ad@g25g2000yqn.googlegroups.com><1d0752b7-badd-4fd8-a3c5-1eb5feb07439@j9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com><6de3cfc3-2f79-40a0-a9be-34d3f32c6699@32g2000yqz.googlegroups.com><73f6c2eb-ae83-4964-be28-ecfa2a050c86@f20g2000vbc.googlegroups.com><1489002d-c207-412c-8a4c-1631069ac7d6@o2g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>


Please read:
- My conclusion is that to call daughter-in-law to a daughter would be
highly unproblable in arab culture.
- ... and the alternative "wife of my son" ...

F.


On Nov 18, 9:21 pm, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
<> wrote:
> Thank you for the quick answer to my questions.
>
> > The oldest al-Andalus source says she was daughter-in-law.
>
> You are right for the arab version brought by Lévy-Provençal based in
> fragments of old chronicles found in the great mosque of al-Karwlyin
> in Fez (Morocco) and not studied before but those stated who she
> married but nothing about her parentage.
> Incidentally I admit that new information may be find - if not is
> already known - in arab sources but the almost entirely absence of
> cooperation and the lack of interest for these particulars by arab
> scholars may leave us in ignorance for many years to come.
>
> > I don't remember the origin of the niece version.
>
> The niece version appears in Cronicón Villarense followed by Cronicón
> de Cardeña II. Cronicón Villarense was the castilian version of part
> of Liber Regum written between 1194 and 1209 in aragonese and
> considered the elder general history of Iberia written in a romance
> language. And it was used by Rodrigo Jiménez de Rada's "De Rebus
> Hispaniae" written or finished on or after 1243.
>
> ...
>
> > more likely that the distinction between daughter and daughter in law
> > was lost in translation
>
> I have paid some attention to this. In arab daughter is "bint" or
> "ibnat", both feminin for well known "bin" or "ibn"; the plural would
> be "banaat" or "banàt". Daughter-in-law would be "kinni" or "kunna".
> The sister-in-law of somebody would that somebody's "kinnè" (no word
> for brother-in-law).
> The root for the arab sister-in-law (kinn or kunn) originated the
> portuguese "cunh" so in portuguese brother(sister)-in-law is
> "cunhado(a)". In portuguese with the same root we have
> "alcunha" (nickname) also in arab with the same meaning.
>
> (Portuguese assimilated the arab population in a much larger scale
> than Spain and kept words, jobs of the lower administration, unities
> of weight and capacity, agricultural techniques, food, sweets, etc.,
> while Spain's muslim heritage is pratically limited to architecture.
> For instance, the word for customs in portuguese is "alfândega" while
> in castilian is "duana" like the french "douane".)
>
> In all the forms this root "kunn/cunh" had a meaning of "some sort of"
> or "anything similar but different of" a sister-in-law beeing
> something different from a sister, a nickname being something
> different of a name, undoubtely close but somewhow vague. But daughter-
> in-law in castilian is "hija politica" the exact equivalent of
> english, meaning a relationship acquired by a legal event, an exact
> definition inherited (I think) from Roman Law.
> My conclusion is that to call sister-in-law to a daughter would be
> highly unproblable in arab culture. But in christian chronicles and
> charters, to call a daughter-in-law by daughter is trivial. I don't
> think there was a word for daughter-in-law in barbarian latin used in
> documents and the alternative "daughter of my son" considered that
> both would have to be "embelished" - most beloved, above all much
> loved etc.. - leave it just daughter was much easier and became common
> practice.
> I wholeheartly agree with Lévy-Provençal on the superior reliability
> of muslim sources.
>
> > She may not have been - the taifa was a tributary state of Alfonso,
> > and there is no inherent reason for them all not to flee to their
> > overlord, but Zaida caught the king's eye, so she is the one we know
> > of.
>
> I can not follow you in this point. Cordoba was then ruled by Fath al-
> Mamoun, sometimes titled "emir" others the equivalent of "governor"
> but on his father's right and Sevilla was an Emirate. I can not
> immediately give an exact source but out of memory, Zaida fled from
> Cordoba to Sevilla and at al-Mu'tamid advice, from Sevilla to Toledo,
> Alfonso's court.
> We know that other sons of al-Mutamid were in command of castles
> because al-Mutamid himself gave them the order to surrender them to
> the Almoravids as a way to save his own life and live the rest of his
> life exhiled in Morocco. It is theoretically possible that other
> daughters-in-law also fled to Toledo but I very much doubt that an
> event of that range was not registered in chronicles.
>
> Regards,
> Francisco
> (Portugal)
>
> On Nov 18, 6:54 pm, taf <> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 18, 5:42 am, Francisco Tavares de Almeida
>
> > <> wrote:
> > > Tod,
>
> > > I have acknowledged your favorable disposition for the marriage but I
> > > would like to know that if that charter of Urraca was the same cited
> > > by Reilly - and considered unclear by most spanish scholars - or
> > > something strikingly new.
>
> > Just to be clear, I am more favorably disposed than I was, but I still
> > don't know that I would go so far as to say it is more likely than
> > not.  The charter is one brought to the broader attention by Jaime de
> > Salazar Acha - I don'tthink Reilly was aware of this.
>
> > > This drives us back to Zaida's birth.
> > > AFAIK the eldest source says she was a niece of Auenalfage.
>
> > The oldest al-Andalus source says she was daughter-in-law.  I think
> > the oldest Christian source says daughter, but Levi Provencal
> > evaluated it and decided that al-Andalus source was the more likely.
> > I don't remember the origin of the niece version.
>
> > > Menéndez
> > > Pidal (La España de el Cid, II) identified that Auenalfage with
> > > Alhayab, king of Denia and Lerida, that is al-Mundir 'Imad al-Dawla.
> > > Babbit Theodore (Crónica de veinte Reys) identified him with
> > > Avenhabet, king of Cordoba; and Salazar y Acha (Contribucion al
> > > Estudío del Reinado de Alfonso VI de Castilla) goes much further -
> > > maybe too much IMO - and makes Avenhabet brother of al-Mu'talib, king
> > > of Sevilla and father-in-law of Zaida who had then married a first
> > > cousin.
>
> > The problem is that some form of Abenhabet is a patronymic, and could
> > apply to al-Mutalib himself. But she can't be both daughter and
> > daughter in law.  Salazar Acha tried to square the circle, in that all
> > of the siblings in the earlier generation could be called by that
> > name, so if she married her first cousin, that would let her be both
> > daughter and daughter in law.  Such attempts to harmonize conflicting
> > testimony with a 'both' scenario seem inherently unlikely, it being
> > more likely that the distinction between daughter and daughter in law
> > was lost in translation.
>
> > > To me - no expert - the Denia's origin made sense. Denia was a taifa
> > > that controled a large portion of the coast of Valencia and Ibiza -
> > > for some time all the Baleares' islands - and it made sense that the
> > > emir of Sevilla married a son to a niece of a neighbour who could
> > > control sea access.
> > > Something that allways bothered me was why had Zaida to escape to a
> > > christian court. Al-Mu'talib had other sons so presumably other
> > > daughters-in-law; al-Mamoun was already dead following the fall of
> > > Cordoba so why was Zaida so special to run away from the Almoravids?
>
> > She may not have been - the taifa was a tributary state of Alfonso,
> > and there is no inherent reason for them all not to flee to their
> > overlord, but Zaida caught the king's eye, so she is the one we know
> > of.
>
> > > "Web genealogies" make this al-Mu'Talib a descendant of Mohammad, the
> > > Prophet through a long line that I can not evaluate but
>
> > I have an unpublished scholarly study of this by an expert who
> > concluded the pedigree is without foundation.
>
> > taf



This thread: