I have occasionally summarized recent papers on Iberian royal genealogy, and here is another one. There is a problem with the chronology of the early kingdom of Pamplona. The preserved pedigree in the Codice de Roda and the works of Ibn Hayyan, Al Udri and Ibn Hazm combine to produce a chronological framework that simply requires too many unlikey suppositions, either having people fight battles at the age of 70+ or have many generations in too short a time. The crux of the problem centers on the two earliest datable births in the Pamplona royal kindred, those of Garcia Sanchez II of Pamplona (917) and of his cousin Abd ar Rahman III (891). The Codice de Roda shows these two monarchs to be half-first cousins: Oneca, daughter of king Fortun Garces (deposed 905) is shown to have first married Aznar Sanchez of Larron by whom she had Toda Aznar, Garcia's mother, and secondly to the emir Abdullah, whose son Muhammad was father of Abd ar Rahman. This is flawed, as Muhammad is thought to have been born about 864, meaning Toda was 54 or older when Garcia was born. Usually, this is addressed by reversing the order of Oneca's 'marriages'. This would allow Toda to be born after her mother's return to Pamplona, and put her more in her late 30s at Garcia's birth. It is consistent with a model whereby Sancho I, in deposing Fortun, married the king's granddaughter to give him some legitimacy, kind of like Henry VII's marriage to Elizabeth of York. There is still a crunch at the other end, though. Oneca is supposedly 3 generations down from Iñigo Arista. Were we to use typical averages for those generations, it would put the birth of Iñigo Arista about in 755, but he was militarily active in the 840s. One is forced to use generation spans of 15 years for Oneca and 20 years for each of the three men to have Inigo born at a reasonable date, and while you sometimes see spans this short, you rarely see so many in a row, what with infant mortality and the possibility of a run of daughters first (as was the case with Toda's children). Enter the new paper. Cañada Juste has proposed that the genealogy in the Codice de Roda, that serves as the basis for the whole family tree has made a simple mistake between two women of the same name who married men of the same name. He would suggest that the mother of Muhammad ibn Abdullah was not the same woman as Toda's mother. A look at the pedigree in the Codice shows the following: Iñigo Arista ..Garcia Iñiguez ....Oneca m. Aznar Galindez ....Fortun Garces ......Oneca m.1 Aznar Sanchez, m.2 Abdullah ........Toda m. Sancho Garces ..........Garcia Sanchez (b. 917) ........Muhammad (b. c. 864) ..........Abd ar Rahman III (b. 891) Note that we have in successive generations two princesses named Oneca who each married men named Aznar, and that the births of supposed first cousins Garcia and Abd er Rahman are 26 years apart, a full generation different. He proposes that it was actually the elder Oneca who was grandmother of the Caliph: Iñigo Arista ..Garcia Iñiguez ....Oneca m.1 Abdullah, m.2 Aznar Galindez ......Muhammad (b. c. 864) ........Abd ar Rahman III (b. 891) ....Fortun Garces ......Oneca m Aznar Sanchez ........Toda m. Sancho Garces ..........Garcia Sanchez (b. 917) This has the advantage of freeing the birth of the younger Oneca from chronological constraints. She would be a contemporary of Muhammad b. 864, not his mother, and the years gained could then be distributed among the generations between her and Iñigo, allowing her to have been in her late teens and give the males averages in the mid-20s. One could envision Iñigo Arista born ca. 795, Garcia ca. 819, Fortun ca. 843, Oneca Fortunez ca. 867, Toda ca. 886 and married 905 (these are my dates - Cañada Juste puts Iñigo's birth about 785, but I think it unlikely to have been this early). This would make Iñigo 50 when he was fighting his last battles, and his son Garcia about 25 when he took over for his debilitated father. Were Iñigo really the half-brother of Musa ibn Musa, he could be born in the neighborhood of 805, and be 56 when he went to war against his son-in-law in 861 and was mortally wounded (not 72 as most reconstructions would require him to have been, though my dating would require accepting the alternative pedigree of the Banu Qasi put forward by Martinez Diez). In terms of affecting descent, I am unaware of any descendants of Muhammad ibn Abdullah, so this would simply shift Abd er Rahman from being nephew of Toda to being her first-cousin, still close enough that she might have expected to a favorable reception when seeking his intervention on behalf of Sancho I of Leon. Descendants of both Oneca/Aznar marriages would be unaffected, except with respect to the chronology. Alberto Cañada Juste, "Doña Onneca, una princesa vascona en la corte de los emires cordobeses", Príncipe de Viana, 74:481-502 (2013) As an added bonus, I was just reading the translations of Arabic source material provided in Lorenzo-Jimenez's work on the Banu Qasi and came across something interesting. Ibn Hayyan was said by Levi Provencal and Garcia Gomez to have made Iñigo Arista and Musa ibn Musa maternal half-brothers. Al-Udri has a similar sentence, but with critical differences. First, while Ibn Hayyan names Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo as the kinsman of Musa, Al Udri refers to Ibn Yannaqo ibn Wannaqo - the son of Iñigo Iñiguez. Further, Lorenzo Jimenez interprets the relational statement as indicating that this son of Iñigo Iñiguez was the brother of the mother of Musa ibn Musa (not brother 'by' the mother, maternal half-brother, as per the Levi Provencal Garcia Gomez translation of Ibn Hayyan). It is chronologically untenable to make Iñigo Iñiguez the maternal grandfather of Musa ibn Musa (such that the son of Iñigo would be the maternal uncle) but if we assume that Al Udri made a slip in the first 'ibn' and that he intended to refer to Iñigo Iñiguez as the brother of the mother (rather than brother by the mother) of Musa, we would still have a third way these are said to be related through the distaff side (remembering that the Codice de Roda calls Musa the son-in-law of Iñigo) one has to think that this is simply a vague tradition of a kinship through a woman that each source is representing differently (with a big caveat - I have yet to go back to the Arabic text to ensure the difference between the Ibn Hayyan and Al Udri relationships isn't due to different translations of the same Arabic description of their relationship. taf