Judge accepts denounce against Julio Núñez and provincial government in the Iruña-Veleia archaeological destruction case

In a hopeful twist in the Iruña-Veleia scandal, Instruction Judge no. 1 of Vitoria-Gasteiz has accepted the denounce against the new site director Julio Núñez (left, "at work") and the provincial government of Araba for the alleged destruction of patrimony, as evidenced by photos, videos and testimonies previously discussed in this blog.

In the denounce it is requested that the Director Plan for the Vasco-Roman site of Iruña-Veleia is paralyzed urgently on light of it not being even respected at all by chief archaeologist Núñez. It is also requested that judicial police and independent experts survey piles of disposed soil with embedded archaeologically remains.

Source: Noticias de Alava[es]


Update: a comic by Zaldieroa (Crazy Horse). It's not really new (May) but it is funny anyhow:

 

1st panel:

In the Ivory Tower of Irati (a large forest in the Pyrenees)

2nd panel

Goblin: My Lord, here there are the latest reports on Veleia.

Lord: Still with that issue around?

Goblin: Yes, my Lord.

3rd panel

Lord: But... tell me... has the ergative been found in Veleia?
Goblin: Not, my Lord, there is no trace of any ergative.
Lord: Then they are false, 'leñe'!! That is not genuine Basque!

Note: the Lord is described in previous cartoons, as Euskal Taliban Jatorra (the purebred Basque Taliban), the goblin is called Yoda. The "Taliban" is depicted often as a linguistic purist of the worst kind.

Yet another international linguist takes a stand in favor of Gil in the Iruña-Veleia affaire

In this case it is Roslyn M. Frank, professor emeritus of Spanish and Portuguese at the University of Iowa and a scholar who has dedicated some good time to deal with Basque language, visiting this little corner of Europe very often since 1974 and authoring several books on Basque theme, mostly on linguistics.

Roslyn M. Frank (linguist)

In her latest visit, these days, Frank offered two interviews with Noticias de Alava (local newspaper in Spanish language):

In one of them she states her astonishment and that of the European scientific community because of the lack of analytics on the controversial pot shards with inscriptions (mostly in Basque and Vulgar Latin).

Two weeks ago I was at a congress in Germany in which there were a lot of scientists from everywhere in Europe, among them several archaeologists. When I told them about Iruña-Veleia, the first thing they asked was: 'Which were the results of analytics?' And I had to reply that they were never made. They could not understand. And asked once and again: 'But why were they not made?' And I did not know what to answer.

She compares the Kafkian circumstances surrounding Iruña-Veleia with a paternity demand in which the alleged father is the one demanding a paternity test after being declared guilty without any evidence.

It is impossible to talk of scientific consensus in this case. The data provided by the [official] report are very weak because of 359 pages most do not even have bibliographic references.

She is outraged by the procedure executed by the new director, Julio Núñez, which she considers an attack against the patrimony. A position held by this blog and SOS Iruña-Veleia, among others.

For linguists, she argues that the philological reconstruction of proto-Basque (the main argument held against the Lurmen archaeological team led by Eliseo Gil) cannot ever disprove any archaeological finding:

... the word 'proto' always means a reconstruction, which is hypothetical, because the appearance of new data often changes the nature of the reconstruction.

In other words, the academic inquisition of the Philology department of the Basque Country University has, consciously and mischievously, put the cart before the horses in this case.

In the other interview, she says that she hopes the best but expects little for Iruña-Veleia, at least while Núñez is in charge. Her denounce of his destructive methods contrasts with the support for the period in which the site was under the direction of Eliseo Gil and Idoia Filloy, when the site attracted as many as 35,000 visitors (2008).

In both interviews she lists a number of other important supporters of the original methods and findings, some of whom have already been mentioned here: Juan Mari Elexpuru (linguist), Hector Iglesias (linguist), Emilio Illarregi (archaeologist), Luis Silgo Gauche (archaeologist) and Edward Cecil Harris (archaeologist).

Found at Iruña-Veleia, Gezurra Ala Egia?[eu], where a paper by Roslyn Frank on the graphological analysis used to smear Eliseo Gil is also linked (click on 'descargar', PDF in Spanish). This document, which concludes with a request for the provincial government be stripped from its role as custodian of the original graffiti in benefit of the right of defense, is part of the procedures of the trial against Eliseo Gil. In this procedure it has also been ordered an official analytic by police as the provincial government has refused to do so.

For background and further information on this most sad scandal, see the category Iruña-Veleia in this blog.

Politicians finally take a stand on the Iruña-Veleia scandal

Opposition party Aralar, by mouth of their leaders Patxi Zabaleta and Iñaki Aldekoa, has demanded the immediate suspension excavations and the firing of Julio Núñez from his charge of chief researcher of the Roman era site.

In press release they showed the video I posted here two days ago, demanding that the excavator was removed for good.

Hopefully this exposition of the ugly truth of the excavation will cause enough indignation, at popular, political and academic levels as to detain this crime against the archaeological patrimony.

Sources: Iruña-Veleia Gezurra ala Egia?[eu], Berria[eu], ABC[es]


Judges demand new analysis of the controversial inscriptions

On request of former director, Eliseo Gil, the tribunal in charge of the case for alleged fraud in the previous dig at Iruña-Veleia has ordered new analysis of the shards and other pieces that caused the controversy. The probe will be realized by the Guardia Civil (military police corps) after the Provincial Government has ignored all requests by the tribunal to produce analytic research themselves.

Sources: Iruña-Veleia Gezurra ala Egia?[eu], El Correo[es]


Each day the case against the former archaeologists seems weaker and motivated by pure pathetic camarilla reasons. Giving the charge to the only archaeologist who participated in the persecution, Julio Núñez, with the atrocious results of brutal destruction, maybe in order to destroy possible further evidence in favor of Lurmen, only shows how negatively such camarilla conspirations can evolve when they feel protected by institutionalized impunity and without any real investigative media around to air the dirty clothes.

If we had a half-decent democracy and a half-decent media context this scandal and manipulation could surely never have gone so far.

For background information on Iruña-Veleia, see previous tematic posts at Leherensuge, SOS Iruña-Veleia and Lurmen's dedicated site.

Sad re-inauguration of Iruña-Veleia archaeological site. Video of the destructive dig

Yesterday the Vasco-Roman site of Iruña-Veleia was officially re-inaugurated after several years of closure. For Julio Núñez and his demolition team it was just another day of mechanical excavation and dumping of layers and layers of archaeological treasures.

This has no name!



In the video above (narration in Spanish) it is shown how the excavator is almost the only one working at the site. Nobody gathers any remnant nor keeps any record of the layers nor anything: it's all dumped in the truck once and again without any control.

It is intentional and criminal destruction of the patrimony.

Just before the authorities and official press arrive for the discourses and photos, the excavator and truck are hidden. The members of SOS Iruña-Veleia attempt (says the narrator) to give a letter of protest to the Provincial President but police prevents them from doing so.

As the politicians leave the demolition continues.

Found via Iruña-Veleia Gezurra ala Egia?

Archaeologist Idoia Filloy against the destruction of Iruña-Veleia

J. M. Elexpuru published yesterday night an article of Idoia Filloy, co-director of the previous archaeological team, Lurmen, where she denounces the atrocity that is being perpetrated against which is possibly the most important Vasco-Roman site.

The article is in Spanish and it is too long for me to translate integrally but I will provide here some of the most important passages:

Parcel 98 [see map] is where work has begun, planned to affect 17,000 m². In this area, thanks to air photography carried by us, it is known the existence of a dense network of structures, clearly visible from air, thanks to the shadows that differential vegetation growth projects, which trace a whole urban network under the soil. Also, in 2006, our team -under the direction of Eliseo Gil and myself- carried 13 stratigraphic probes that showed the existence in this parcel of a most rich archaeological patrimony of Roman and pre-Roman age. We could assess how, under a layer of agricultural disturbance of some 30 cm. on average, intact Roman archaeological remains appeared, with strata and structures to which abundant materials were associated. (...)

However Núñez' Director Plan contemplates the mechanical elimination with heavy machinery of 50 cm. of earth potency in 14,000 m² of the site, estimating a removal of some 7000 m³ of soil. The Plan itself admits the risks of such an actuation, because of the possibility of affection to layers of archaeological interest (...)

But the worst has happened when field work has begun, that is when the mechanical elimination of soil was started. And that is because not only the planned 50 cm. have been removed but in many cases more than 1 m. has been excavated with heavy machinery. (...) We can see clearly in the photographs how the mechanical excavation has not just affected structures but that has eliminated vast archaeological layers, what has caused the irreparable loss of most important archaeological information, fundamental for the reconstruction of the historical sequence of the site, as well as of associated materials. There is even a zone where a Roman pavement at a depth of more than 1 m. has been exposed, and I ask: where are occupation archaeological layers, the collapse remains or whatever it had on top? (...)

The feeling one gets is that the goal is to reach the archaeological structures (at whatever depth they were) as if the objective was to offer in the shortest possible term a wide zone with visible constructions. (...)

I must remind that this zone is one of the areas where the so-called exceptional graffiti were found, both on the surface as in three of the stratigraphic probes, what means that the mechanical excavation of the area would cause the destruction of evidence for a possible future judicial investigation.

One of the many controversial exceptional graffiti, in this shard, found in parcel 98, we can read NEU ('I' or 'me' in Basque)

Therefore it is my opinion as experienced archaeologist (...) that a flagrant destruction of the patrimony of Iruña-Veleia is being carried. And in a few days more the level of affection would be even greater if nobody intervenes. I believe that excavating as is being done here means destroying severely and permanently the underlying patrimony.

Hence this text is an express denounce of what, in my opinion, is a grave attack against our Patrimony and I request to the responsible public institutions to act accordingly and not to tolerate something like this.

Additionally, to the judicial denounce presented by SOS Iruña-Veleia association we have added now our own.

Further reading:

• Articles on Iruña-Veleia at Leherensuge
• SOS Iruña-Veleia (mostly in Spanish but with many informative photos)
• Veleia.com (Lurmen's site on Iruña-Veleia)
  

Send emails of protest to: dfa@alava.net (Provincial Government) and patrimoniohaa@alava.net (Provincial Direction of Historical-Artistic and Archaeological Patrimony).

Update (Jul 20): I have been suggested to send protests also to the Basque Government - Direction of Patrimony. No direct email available but there is a suggestion box of the Department of Culture HERE.

And more "archaelogical" vandalism at Veleia

SOS Iruña-Veleia is doing a prime job documenting the atrocity that "archaeologist" and "educator" Julio Núñez is doing at Iruña-Veleia, with new photos each workday. These here belong to July 16 and are part of a larger group of images.



As you can see in these photos of Prof. Núñez at work (notice how he has achieved his likely goal of digging in perfectly clean white clothes!) the layer removed must be of at least 1 meter, twice the size he authorized himself to do and three to five times the agricultural layer on top.


The average height of Basque males is like 175 cm., hence the mechanical excavation must have get rid of 125 to 150 cm according to the image above, unless that guy is a Pygmy.

Archaelogy is, we know, a destructive procedure, hence the importance of keeping the best possible record and being very methodical, even of leaving sectors untouched for future excavations to implement presumably more advanced techniques. In this case, huge amounts of potentially (and most likely) informative material have just been dumped.

I can only understand this as cultural genocide: destroying the archaeological legacy of Basques and all Europeans.

Images of the destruction at Iruña-Veleia

A member of SOS Iruña-Veleia, just stopped by Leherensuge (see comments in previous post) to comment that the destruction is terrible:

I was there yesterday and it is horrendous what they are doing. They remove the earth with a big excavator - not just removing the top layer affected by agriculture - till the appearance of Roman structures, up to more than one meter deep. I could clearly distinguish the destruction of structures and otherwise archaeological layers.

He also mentioned that there are now many photos at their site documenting the archaeological atrocity perpetrated by Prof. Núñez.




Above just a couple of examples of how not to do an archaeological dig... unless your intention is merely to destroy everything, to erase the archaeological evidence in that site.

The excavator has dug much deeper than the 50 cm allowed by the director (even if the agricultural layer is just 20-30 cm deep), removing a lot of potentially informative material, destroying the stratigraphy and even in some cases reaching to the base rock, that is: destroying the whole stratigraphic sequence.

This has no name. This is a crime against history for mere particular (and I suspect ideological) interests.

I am not sure of what can we do but I imagine that a good idea is to send emails of protest to the Provincial Government of Araba (Álava) in charge of the site and the dig expressing your outrage in the hope that they react to public pressure and forbid these "methods" altogether.

Relevant email addresses are:

Provincial Government (Arabako Foru Aldundia - Diputación Foral de Álava):

dfa@alava.net

Museums - Service of Historical-Artistic and Archaeological Patrimony

patrimoniohaa@alava.net

Reckless destruction at Iruña-Veleia Vasco-Roman site

J.M. Elexpuru denounces that excavator activities have been authorized and have already began in the most important Vasco-Roman site of Iruña-Veleia. I translate directly from Basque:

S.O.S. The destruction has begun!!!

Today at afternoon, thanks to the information of a person who passed by the site, we have got to know that the destruction has begun: some workers with an excavator were laboring at the south of the archaeological site, around the main gate. From the probes made by Lurmen*, we know that this area is also very rich in archaeological remains. But according to the approved Directive Plan, the new director general, Núñez, has allowed himself to dig with machines up to 50 cm, without taking in consideration that at the depth of just 20-30 cm there is also a wealth of archaeological material, as found by Lurmen in the probes of 2005 and 2006. The destruction has begun, we are at the gates of a new edition of what happened at Gaztelu Plaza in Pamplona, Navarre**.

Notes:

* Lurmen is the company in charge of the dig up to 2006, when they were forced by rumors to prematurely announce the finding of a host of Roman era impressive findings, including many of the oldest Basque texts known to date. This triggered a witch hunt by a camarilla of well-connected linguists, led by Joseba Lakarra, who saw their theories in danger, resulting in the removal of Lurmen and its competent team from the dig, which was given to one of the few archaeologists who supported the witch-hunt. To date the archaeologists in charge of Lurmen have been acquitted of any charges but not yet rehabilitated in spite of growing academic support.

** The "emergency" dig at Gaztelu Plaza (or Plaza del Castillo) in Pamplona's old city center, where most important Roman era (and probably older) remains, including baths, were found when an underground parking lot was being built, was another archaeological scandal of mismanagement and cruel disinterest in unveiling Basque history. The park had no urgency whatsoever but was built anyhow at the expense of science and patrimony, stuff on which our institutional politicians seem to have no interest - or even a quite clear interest in hiding and deforming.

For further info, see category Iruña-Veleia in this blog. Also at SOS Veleia (in Basque, English and Spanish).

Video: linguists confront the linguists who claimed Veleia's texts were falsifications

If there's any reader with sufficient knowledge of Spanish and interested on the linguistic debate on the controversial Roman Age inscriptions (in Basque and Latin) from Iruña-Veleia, officially declared "false" a year ago by the provincial government and an academic panel essentially made up of philologists, not archaeologists, you can watch the conference by linguists Luis Silgo and Hector Iglesias organized by SOS-Veleia at En el Ángulo Oscuro or at Vimeo (a video hosting site), distributed in 7 videos [also at the SOS-Iruña-Veleia site].

There are many interesting points, as you can imagine but what most called my attention was when Hector Iglesias said that the grafitti also damage his own theory on Basque-Iberism (i.e. the identity of Basque and Iberian language) but that he still thinks that they are consistent and not any falsification. Furthermore he said, as did in a previous paper, that some of the texts require such erudition that make practically impossible that they are falsifications. These hyper-erudite words, like "Miscart" (a variant of the Phoenician god Melkart) or "Denos" (an ill-known Celtic name), were precisely the main arguments of their accuser linguists, who seem to only have demonstrated their ignorance and bad faith.

For further information on this controversy, which has destroyed the reputation of a whole archaeology company (LURMEN) and the career of the archaeologists in charge (Eliseo Gil and Idoia Filloy), mostly because the findings challenged the theories of some popes of Basque linguistics, you can check the various posts here at Leherensuge on the matter.

New paper on the Iruña-Veleia findings

Dr. Koenraad Van den Driessche has published a new report that addresses the authenticity of the Iruña-Veleia findings from the viewpoint of the physical evidence. So far there had been only one such report (by Madariaga), which only studied a few samples and was rather inconclusive (the shards had been buried or artificially make to look old).

Luckily, once doubt was cast on the initial findings, the LURMEN team decided not clean any shard that had the slightest chance of having a text on it in the 2007 excavation campaign, allowing the evidence to remain intact, even if it hindered the research process.

Van den Driessche, a geologist, addresses both categories and denounces that this important part of the evidence was totally ignored by the committee set up by the provincial government (which, as I said before, let the archaeologists without the right of defense).

One of the many extraordinary findings

Conclusions (my translation):

1. The conclusion of the committee resulted from a scientific procedure that was intervened by the administration with irregularities.

2. The composition of the committee cannot be said to be independent: of the nine academic members, all are from the same university and seven from the same faculty. Some members have interests in the same "archaeology market" as the excavators of LURMEN.

3. The conclusions of the committee are based only on unilateral considerations on the cultural value of the graffiti. We cannot evaluate these conclusions but we find an aversion to the research of the material evidence. What is confirmed by the declarations of a member of the committee: "more laboratory research is the wrong way to go"*.
The arguments of the committee are almost exclusively arguments of authority, no falsifiable methodologies are provided. They did not apply statistical methods, something elementary in modern human sciences.

4. The only study of the physical evidence is the limited contribution of Mr. Madariaga, who researched only one kind of material and only in nine of the pieces. His only relevant conclusion is that the pieces were buried. We can say that the physical evidence of the exceptional findings have not been researched.

5. We notice in the methodology of the committee a total lack of research of the pieces as part of a set which may have an internal organization (coherence) or not. The existence of this internal coherence is in itself an important evidence for the falsehood - authenticity. The committee rather considers the set as a random one.

6. We have demonstrated the presence of different relevant physical evidence trough photographs that can give information on the time passed since the inscription. The main ones are:

• Various kinds of adherences which are proof of a state of burial with a meaninful duration since the inscription.
• Inscriptions on bone.
• Inscriptions on bricks - before cooking or not?

7. From the preliminary study on the inscriptions on bone it is deduced that they were realized on fresh bone, that is: in a short time frame after the death of the animal.

8. One of the key probes to research the falsehood - authenticity is the chemical and sedimentological correspondence between pieces of the same stratigraphic unit.

9. The meaning in terms of time of the adherences mentioned in point 6 must be researched.

*This sentence was made by Prof. Joseba Lakarra, the linguist who triggered by means of academic rumorology all the institutional persecution, apparently for fear that his theories on Basque language could be deemed false on light of the new evidence.


The paper (PDF in Spanish) can be downloaded HERE (click on "descargar"). Additional photographic data is provided HERE.

New wiki on Iruña-Veleia

Under the motto scientia vincere tenebras (defeating darkness through science), and promoted by a rather large group of scientists, Veleia-Online has arrived to the Internet. In their own words:

MISSION STATEMENT

SOS-Veleia has been created to serve as an online resource tool for those interested in exploring questions related to the discovery of the so-called ‘exceptional inscriptions’ of Iruña-Veleia (Northern Spain), excavated in 2005 and 2006 by the Lurmen group. Our inquiry is grounded on the premise that the falsity of the artefacts has not been sufficiently demonstrated and that there are reasons to believe that they are authentic. Our goal is to foster honest and transparent reflection concerning the authenticity of the artefacts discovered to date by applying sound scientific methods to their study. With this objective in mind SOS-Veleia seeks to:

• Make available the reports that have been prepared to date by all parties involved.
• Display all photographs currently available of the pieces.
• Situate the pieces along with their respective transcriptions and interpretations within the archaeological context in which they were found.
• Encourage debate so that experts as well as other concerned individuals can express their opinions and provide input.
• Compile and make available reports and other information that this subject has elicited in the past and continues to produce.
• Demonstrate why it is important that new physical tests be carried out on the artefacts.
• Establish why it is essential that the contrastive controlled excavations recommended by Professor Perring be conducted. Dr. Perring is an internationally recognized expert in the field of Roman archaeology and a member of the Scientific Advisory Commission and therefore , hence an expert appointed by the Deputy Lorena López de la Calle. In his report to the Scientific Advisory Commission, dated 21 september 2007, Dr. Perring made this recommendation: that well recognized archaeologists, not connected to any of the parties involved, carry out new excavations at the site. Specifically, Perring stated the following in section 3.7.2. of his report (2008, link to full text of Perring’s report: Anexo IV): “An additional test, and perhaps the most important, is to see if the results obtained can be duplicated by an independent team of researchers. Much as is the case with any scientific experiment, the replication of the experiment provides the ultimate proof. A new archaeological team, involving none of the archaeologists or institutions involved in the recent work, should be invited to see if their excavations at Veleia will also produce ‘exceptional graffiti’.”

The site is promoted by:

• Estitxu Breñas Glz de Zarate; B.A. in Geography and History. Editor. (Vitoria-Gasteiz)
• Pello Eizagirre; Specialist in Palaeo-Christianity (Zarautz, Gipuzkoa)
• Juan Martin Elexpuru; Ph.D. in Basque Philology. (Bergara, Gipuzkoa)
• Enrique Fernandez de Pinedo; B.A. in Basque Philology. (Vitoria-Gasteiz)
• Idoia Filloy Nieva, Master in Archaeological Patrimony. B.A. in History (Vitoria-Gasteiz)
• Roslyn M. Frank; Ph.D. Linguist and Bascologist, Professor Emeritus, University of Iowa (US)
• Eliseo Gil Zubillaga, Master in Archaeological Patrimony, B.A. in History (Vitoria-Gasteiz)
• Xabi Otsoa de Alda; B.A. in Geography and History. (Vitoria-Gasteiz)
• Koenraad Van den Driessche; Ph.D. in Geochemistry (Beasain, Gipuzkoa)

I have already discussed to some extent the Veleia affair in this blog.

Found via: Iruña-Veleia, Gezurra ala Egia?

The Kafkian case of the archaeology of Iruña-Veleia

I have been recently posting on the controversy about the potentially most important Vasco-Roman site of Iruña-Veleia. Veleia was the Roman name, Iruña, "the city", the Basque term used for the area in Medieval and Modern times, in spite of not being anything but a monastery there anymore (memory is oddly stubborn sometimes).

Now K. Fernández de Pinedo writes at Herrian, a small magazine of the provincial government, mostly oriented to the rural areas, reviewing the process of criminalization of the lead archaeologists and how reports that are either neutral or clearly contradictory with the claims of falsification have mounted up without the institutions (provincial government of Araba, Basque public University) backing in their claims of falsehood.

Air picture of the house called "Pompeia Valentina" where most of the inscriptions were found, among the rubble used to ciment the building. The room of the findings is marked with an X.

The article (in Spanish) is provided by linguist Juan Martin Elexpuru at his dedicated blog: Iruña-Veleia, gezurra ala egia? (Iruña-Veleia, lie or truth?) as a PDF download. I can't translate it in its integrity (though I recommend all who are minimally fluent in Spanish and interested to take a direct look) but I can make a synthesis.

Elexpuru also provides an extensive private Flickr archive of photos of the Basque texts, with brief explanations in Basque, that should not be any major handicap for whoever is really interested in the matter.


The late chronology of the Iruña-Veleia case

In 2008 the ad-hoc Advisory Scientific Committee on Iruña-Veleia reported to the provincial parliament of Araba (Alava) and left no doubt: the impressive findings of the Roman age city were fake, there was no linguistic theoretical way they could be true (no mention of archaeological or other factual data, at least nothing clear). A few days later, Eliseo Gil, lead researcher, gave a press conference to defend his innocence and that of his team members, including his wife and co-researcher, Idoia Filloy. A few weeks later the provincial government publishes in the net the acts, reports and a good deal of the photos.

More than a year later the official stand is the same, in spite of Gil and Filloy being acquitted of scam at court (the accusation of forgery is still pendant at another court). There is not a single material evidence that supports the case of forgery and there are 13 new reports that show that things then considered as "impossible" were real in other areas of the Roman Empire.

As time has passed, the irregularities of what happened in the committee, made up mostly by members of the same faculty (Philology). All what happened then is irregular: Eliseo Gil is faced with some kind of unexpected trap, some negative reports are read and he's made to know that the decision has been taken. On a written order from the provincial public servant, Félix López, the authorities sentence that the inscriptions are false in spite of only one report being published by then. The rest would appear only weeks later.

By this order, Eliseo Gil is expelled from the site.

That same evening a press conference tries to demonstrate that all was a forgery. The use of glue by the archaeologists to compose broken pieces (a common practice) is the only material "evidence". They claim that in one shard it's read "Descartes", when the actual word very clearly reads "Miscart", seemingly a variant of the Phoenician name of Mercury, Melkart.

Do you read Descartes or Miscart here?

One of the worse irregularities has just been known: assigning the research of the site to Julio Núñez, author of one of the most negative reports.

The reports of the commission are all very negative, emphasizing that they are forgeries, basing their conclusions specially on the uniqueness of some of the shards and the alleged "impossible anachronisms" among the findings.

The "impossible" materials include names like Nefertiti or Deidre, combination of capital and small letters, some epigraphic issues, existence of words that rather belong to Vulgar than Classical Latin, words in a Basque that is "too modern"...

The only material report actually confirms that the shards have either been buried for centuries or have suffered some other sort of accelerated aging process, though in the conclussions section takes a Pilatean attitude: "we can't confirm that the shards are false or authentic".

Shard with a Christian cross drawing and the text neure ata (my father in Basque). Intrusions in the graph are quite apparent.

Two of the members of the committee, Santos and Ciprés, have all the time nevertheless defended the authenticity of all. Another one, Gorrochategui, did originally but changed his mind later on. Yet another member, Henrique Knörr, also supported the authenticity of the findings, even if favored an Early Middle Age origin for them, but he has passed away since then.

Since then 13 experts have elaborated for free, based on the images that can be found on the Internet, different reports, all of which support the authenticity of the findings. These can be grouped in three categories: archaeological (dealing with excavation methods), philological (dealing with the plausibility and possible meaning of the texts) and technical (dealing with the autheticity of the shards).

Three of these reports deal with the archaeological methodology, including one by Edward Cecil Harris, who concludes that "the research was carried on with the highest standards"

Seven other papers are of linguistic nature and notice numerous contradictions in the committee's reports and the lack of any expert in Vulgar Latin in the team, in spite of most Latin texts being written in Vulgar dialect, as almost nobody spoke Classic Latin anymore by the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries, when these shards are dated.

The last group, includes three reports (by geologists Koenraad Van Der Driessche and Mikel Albizu and paleopathologist Joaquim Baxarias) all of which find enough physical evidence that supports a likely ancient origin, such as crusts, carbon remains, marks of roots, etc.

Another inscription showing clear incrustations (detail). The full text reads Denos zure naiaDenos your will, with Denos being a rare Celtic name according to H. Iglesias)

While the judicial procedure continues its course, the provincial government has requested a graphological report on a latrine that presumptly demonstrate the hand of Gil in the texts. As Fernández de Pinedo notices, these also resemble closely, for example, the types used by popular comic of Roman Age ambient, Astérix.

In this situation, the author makes a demand for an independent reanalysis of the findings, which, if authentic, would be of exceptional importance. This is the request of SOS Veleia, which is gathering e-signatures in demand of such revision.

The materials found at Veleia include some 400 texts, mostly on pottery shards, though there are also some on bone, brick and glass, dated to the 3rd and 4th centuries CE mostly (some also from the 5th century). They have drawings and/or text on them, mostly in Vulgar Latin but also a few in Greek, with Egyptian hieroglyphs (maybe just decorative) and crucially some 50 of them with texts in ancient Basque. Many have a Christian theme, being one of the most controversial ones a calvary with a supposed "RIP" inscription that may be only three strokes.

Previous posts on the subject:
- Rare Celtic and Phoenician names add credibility to the Iruña-Veleia findings.
- Further voices in favor of the authenticity of Iruña-Veleia's findings.

See also: Veleia.com, where you may find all or most of the reports briefly mentioned here.

Further voices in favor of the authenticity of Iruña-Veleia's findings

Valencian archaeologist and epigraphist Luis Silgo Gauche is yet another voice to support the authenticity of the materials found in the important Basque site of Roman era, that have been inquisitorially persecuted by a gang of institutionally powerful linguists lead by Joseba Lakarra, with the sympathies of the Castilian nationalist school of historians (Celticists and generally anti-Basque) and the shameful complicity of some politicians.

In a recently published paper he states that the finding of inscriptions in situ, within a perfectly documented excavation procedure, discards in a total and definintive manner that it would be, in all cases, a falsification.

Luis Silgo Gauche, OBSERVACIONES SOBRE LOS RECIENTES HALLAZGOS EPIGRÁFICOS PALEOVASCOS DE IRUÑA-VELEIA (TRESPUENTES-VILLODAS, ÁLAVA). 2010. (PDF, in Spanish).

See also:

• Iruña Veleia site (partly in English too)
• My previous post on the matter

Rare Celtic and Phoenician names add credibility to the Iruña-Veleia findings

Some years ago a locally important discovery hit the news: the oldest texts (other than patronymics) in Basque language had been found at the Roman Age site of Iruña-Veleia, Araba, at the historical border between the tribes of Caristii and Autrigones. There was more: a calvarium (one of the earliest of its kind) and even Egyptian hieroglyphs but what seemed more important of all was the finding of disposed ostrakas (pottery fragments used to write short texts) with texts in Basque language, a confirmation, it seemed, that the Basque language had been spoken among the ill-known tribes of the Western Basque Country in Roman times.

This issue had always been controversial, as the evidence was virtually nil, and the Spanish nationalist school prefered to consider them Celts, while the Basque nationalist school thought of them as likely Basques. Similar debates existed and still exist around the identity of the ancient Cantabri who fought against Caesar twice, once allied with "their relatives" the confirmed Basque-speakers Aquitani.

Location of Iruña-Veleia in Roman Age tribal context and modern Basque Country

The discovery was soon contested by philologists who argued that such constructions were "too modern" for Basque language. Of course, nothing is known of how was Basque spoken before at least the 11th century, when the first rare texts appear, because all the evidence is patronymic and toponymic but linguists always have some theories and these findings didn't seem to fit in them well enough.

Furthermore the chief archaeologist, Eliseo Gil, seems to have done many unusual things, never publishing a proper paper, admittedly falsifying one ostraka as a joke and maybe some other odd stuff. I am not really sure of the details because the issue is very complex, full of crossed accusations and confusing information. Gil was sued for scam and acquitted, though he may have some other trials pending and his reputation has probably been irreversibly damaged.

But, as I say, the matter is far from clear and multiple articles have appeared in the press and Internet defending either position. My impression is that the archaeologists were rather informal and suddenly they found themselves thrown into an inquisitorial process of multiple dimensions (academic, judicial and mediatic) that was just too much. But I may be wrong.

Whatever the case a new neutral voice from the field of linguistics (key in the academic discussion, as the main "evidence" against the findings is a linguistic criticism) has now arisen in favor of the veracity of the findings: Héctor Iglesias, from the University of Bordeaux, argued at Tribuna de Álava (in Spanish, found via En el ángulo oscuro), that there are some clear indications that the findings cannot be mere falsifications:

• The inscription DENOS can only be for him a Celtic name, known just to a handful of specialists.
• The inscription MISCAR or MISCART can only be the name of the Phoenician version of the god Mercury/Hermes, better known to laymen as Melkart, but known with this ortography again only to very few experts.
• The inscription RIAMO DALIA DEIDRE can only refer to the also Celtic name Deirdre, still in use in Irish and considered plausible by expert Celticists to have existed in antiquity.

He argues that these, only a few examples from his thick study on the matter (still unpublished because of huge political pressure), are evidence that there is no such falsification: it would be almost impossible that falsifcator would know all that.

If so, we would be confronted with a true academic scandal of huge proportions and multiple political ramifications, not anymore because certain archaeologist has (allegedly) created the Basque "Piltdown man" out of nothing, destroying his own career in the attempt, but because the Academy and other powerful institutions including surely politicians and judges, may have caused huge damage to scientific research (and of course to the implicated scientists) for political and other murky reasons. This would not be new at all when it comes to research associated to ethnic minorities that the states want to neutralize but I have never heard before any such brutal scandal in Basque studies, what makes necessary that the issue is openly debated as it must be: in scientific terms and publically.

Note: lots of documentation on the Iruña-Veleia controversy can be found here (in Spanish).

Update: the paper of Héctor Iglesias is in fact published in French and Heraus has been so kind of providing a link: H. Iglesias LES INSCRIPTIONS DE VELEIA-IRUÑA (PDF).

Important update (Dec 30): you can sign a petition (already with almost 2000 signatures) asking the authorities to do things properly to clarify the matter. The petition is available in Basque, Spanish and English languages.