![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Kaixo berriz Sugaar: I think maybe you should be warned that according to opinions I have heard (privately) from very well established specialists in the Basque language (whom I cannot name for reasons of discretion, but I HAVE heard this at first hand), there is currently a strong suspicion that the Iruña-Veleia texts, and some of the other details surrounding them, may be fake. Nobody is sure yet because of the limited amount of information that has been "leaked", but what has been divulged does not sound very convincing. So while nobody is prepared to say so in public yet, privately there is a lot of doubt about the whole business. I thought you perhaps ought to be told that, considering that you have written this article. -- A R King 12:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just discovered that there's another article (stub) on the same subject ( Veleia (Spain)). It's quite obvious to merge or maybe even just delete the stub (as this article is much more complete).
Note: when merging, notice that the stub is disambiguated at Veleia, that should after the merge redirect here. -- Sugaar 11:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This week I had another opportunity to check again on the latest state of opinion about the putative "oldest Basque texts" among Basque language specialists of the highest standing in the Basque Country. Nothing has changed, I was told, since the last discussion a few months back, on which I have already reported higher up on this page. That is to say, the authenticity of the findings is viewed by my sources as being just as doubtful as it was last time.
The only information of which the public disposes (including the academic public, and therefore this Wikipedia article also) comes from press reports, not directly from scholarly evaluations. Sensibly, serious scholars are awaiting publication of the findings by those who claim to have found them before giving an opinion. Publication of findings had been promised for October (last month) but have now been delayed until the middle of next year!
All we can say, then, is that serious Basque language experts have seen strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Basque texts leaked to the press; such doubts can only be clarified, hopefully, when fuller and more reliable information about the texts is made available, but until it is, the doubts are not going to vanish either. I will not go into details again about the reasons for these doubts, other than to reiterate that they are based on both "external" and "internal" arguments.
I will give one example of an "internal" argument, i.e. one based on the content of the putative text: the use of the letter z roughly as in modern Basque seen in the text is an obvious anachronism, coming over a thousand years too early in fact, because the modern use of z in Basque to represent a voiceless sibillant is an imitation of the similar early modern Spanish usage (compare the similar use of z introduced by the Spanish colonists in America, as seen in classical Nahuatl orthography for example). From Spanish conquistadors to Roman legions there is quite a time leap, I should say! In Roman times, the letter z had a quite different value (when used at all).
So, the information about this given in the article is based on unconfirmed and dubious information from the press. Not only that, but it also uses that information selectively. For instance, in the Gara article the link for which is given on the page as a reference, we read:
(My translation; the emphasis is also mine:
The fact that the claims about the text are presented in the Wikipedia article without qualification, while the existence in the scientific community of "suspicions" or "scepticism" alluded to in the same source is not mentioned, could be seen as lack of rigour. I suggest (once again) that some qualification be added to inform the reader of the real status of this information according to currently available knowledge. -- A R King 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Simple note about translations of the words. In modern basque "urdin" means blue, but not long ago means "the colors of the sky" from white to blue, including grey. This use of "urdin" is rare but acceptable today. the translations may be:
URDINISAR : white star, blue star, grey star.....
ZURI URDINGORI : Zuri is translated as "white" as in modern basque, can be translated "for you" , translation maybe "for you greyred"
Personaly, as basque speaker, is really amazing the understanding of those words more than thousand years before they wroted, i think is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.152.149 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2006
Sugaar: I will make one more try to put this into perspective (something which I feel has been sadly lacking here from the start). After this I will try to keep my mouth shut, so bear with me this one last time.
Here we have an article about the archaeological site Iruñea-Veleia which refers to some findings, including what are purported to be the earliest (by far) specimens of writing in Basque, which are currently in the news. The public (including the scientific community, i.e. everyone except perhaps for the archaelogists working on the site) do not at this time dispose of a full range of reliable facts because none have been released. There are only press reports from the archaeologists and some opinions from other Basque experts that have also been circulated in the press. These opinions include both expressions of doubt about the authenticity of the texts that have been released and expressions of support. However, most Basque specialists are refraining from publicly taking a position as professionals, which is as it should be because neither they nor anyone else have been provided with a rigorous and comprehensive account of what has been found. However, informally at least, I think there does exist at this time a general feeling in Basque linguistic/philological circles, at least among some academics and scholars and possibly among a majority of them (though obviously I don't have data to prove that they are a majority), who would agree that it would not be wise to assume, at present, that these are necessarily authentic third-century Basque texts, as the finders have claimed. Some of the reasons for maintaining this position of "abstention", "not assuming" or "wait-and-see" have been explained by those academics who have chosen to speak to the press about it. At the present time, a full report is expected for some time next year, at which time it may be possible for many of the present doubts and suspicions to be resolved one way or another, but for now this is all we have to go on.
The English-language article on the subject, which I believe you have written, only gives the version of the team who announced their findings to the press. It contains nothing to reflect the existence of the scholarly opinions that recommend caution or of the current "dispute", if that is what it is. When I made my first comments to you on this page about this, they were to point out to you that such "reasonable doubts" do exist. And that is still the only thing I am trying to tell you. Your reaction was not what I would have expected.
You insist on referring to the scholarly opinions I am talking about as "unfounded rumours". You have also intimated, more than once now, that the scholarly opinions I am talking about are some sort of anti-Basque Spanish plot. And you have complained that I am "divulgating" (by which I understand you mean "spreading") the aforementioned "unfounded rumours". I take these "points" is reverse order. I am not trying to spread/divulgate anything, I am not even defending a yes/no position on the authenticity issue, I am asking for a bit of balance in the article (and also in your attitude, if at all possible) by reporting on the full range of views/information now available. As for the Spanish conspiracy theory, which you have recently once again alluded to, you are obviously not listening because I told you before that I am referring to the opinions of respected scholars in the Basque academic world. There is nothing Spanish about them. Of course, even if there were, your way of reacting (I am not Spanish either, who's bringing the Spanish into this?) would surely smack to many of paranoia and an inability to address the issues per se. Finally, why do you insist on dismissing the opinions that suggest we should exercise caution, expressed publicly and privately by many specialists, as "unfounded rumours" just because you (obviously) don't like them?
The upshot of this is that, sadly, at the present time, the article on Iruña-Veleia in the Spanish Wikipedia appears to be a lot better and more balanced than this one on the English Wikipedia. (Unfortunately they haven't got around to writing anything at all on the Basque-language Wikipedia yet.) That's a shame in my opinion. I must therefore refer interested readers who can read Spanish to the Spanish-language article [1], and draw their attention in particular to the references included in that, which will provide some of the sources and information lacking in the English article. (I suppose it would be too much to ask to have those references added to this article too? After all, the ones already cited here are also in Spanish...)
From one of these references, a newspaper interview [2] with the academic Joakin Gorrotxategi, I quote to conclude (English translation follows):
-Si el puzzle no encaja, ¿no surgirán sospechas de falsificación?
-La respuesta a eso tendrá que ser el final del estudio. Yo aún no estoy seguro de que eso sea auténtico. Pero, ojo, de la misma manera que reclamo que no se puede decir ahora que todo va a misa, por la recíproca no podemos decir que esto es falso. No creo que esto se vaya a dilatar, parece que de aquí al verano ya estará el informe definitivo.
-¿Se le ha pasado por la cabeza que el hallazgo pueda ser falso?
-Para mí están abiertas todas las posibilidades, también que sea verdadero.
Translation: - If the jigsaw puzzle doesn't fit, won't that lead to suspicions of forgery?
- We'll have the answer to that at the end of the investigation. I am still not convinced that it is authentic. However, just as I am now claiming that it is too soon to assume that everything is true, conversely we cannot be sure that it is a fake either. I don't think this will go on for long, apparently the official report is going to be available by next summer.
- Has it ever occurred to you that the find could be a fake?
- I consider all possibilities open, including the possibility that it may be genuine.
The position of judicious caution so clearly expressed here is what I am asking to see reflected in the article, and you are dismissing my suggestion as "divulgating unfounded rumours".
I rest my case. -- A R King 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed: This article is about the Roman town in Spain. See also Veleia (Italy). becuase Veleia already disambiguates to both. I've also fixed the link at Veleia disambiguation page. -- Sugaar 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody changed my original translation from "mister" to "master". Master is not the meaning of jaun. Master would be jabe in the sense of "slave-owner" (jabe means "owner"), ugazaba or nagusi in the sense of "boss" or maisu (a Latin/Romance loanword obviously) in the sense of "teacher" (itself irakasle)
Instead Jauna is used like "Mister" (Mr.) in English or Spanish "Don". Odriozola Jauna is (in current usage) Mr. Odriozola, though in the appropiate historical context could also be Lord/Sir Odriozola. -- Sugaar 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. jabe. 2. ugazaba, nagusi
Jaun: señor
jaun i (titulu gisa) señor. Elizegi jauna, el señor Elizegi. 2 señor, dueño, propietario. 3 Dios: Jaunaren eguna, el día del Señor.
jaun 1 iz. Señor, noble Bizkaiko jaunak: los señores de Vizcaya Dukerri bateko jauna: Señor de un ducado 2 iz. Señor, hombre; individuo de cierta categoría social Egun batean pobre, beste batez jauna: un día pobre y otro día señor Jaun egina etorri zaigu: nos ha venido hecho un señor Jaun- eta andre-multzo bat: un grupo de hombres y mujeres 3 iz. Señor, dueño Zeruko eta lurreko erregea eta jauna delako: porque es dueño y señor del cielo y de la tierra 4 iz. kortesiazko tratamendua Señor Mikel Segurola jaunari: al señor Mikel Segurola Erretore jauna (Ipar. jaun erretorea): señor párroco Alkate jauna: señor alcalde Bai, jauna: sí, señor Jaun goren hori: excelentísimo señor Jaun agurgarria: estimado señor 5 iz. maiusk. (Jainkoa) Señor; Dios Jaunaren eguna igandea da: el día del Señor es el domingo 6 iz. pl. Erl. (aingeru-mota) Dominación
-- A R King 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, the use of Z in basque writing is relatively modern (in old times, S and Ç were used for it); thus, I can´t understand that it were in roman times. An other point: In the basque order of words URDINISAR is not blue star, but star of blue. In basque "standing" is not ZUTAN, but "zutik". IOSHE ,with an modern english SH?. J. Aranguren 158.227.33.102 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr ( talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a discussion about the implications of the finding of christian references (the Calvary and the sentence in Basque about Joseph, Jesus and Mary) at such an early date. It is often asserted that the Basques were relatively late converts to christianity (see the Wikipedia article about Basque People for an example), and these findings would seem to contradict that. I´m not an historian, so could someone with more knowledge on this topic include a few lines about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 ( talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sirs, 1-There is no a firm proof that this place should be called Iruña-Veleia.Some scholars are naming it now Iruña-Oka. 2-There is no a single evidence that the Basque inscriptions do not belong to the 3rd Century AD. Three independent international laboratories have assessed it. 3-The "official study group" has been choosen among locals.The conclussions may be unsuitable,since international experts,particularly linguists,should have been included.If the findings are valuable,as it seems,life work of some experts within the "official study group" would be destroyed. This conflict of interest is probably the cause of repeated delays in the last 2 years,avoiding to publicy show the found material .The last delay has officially been announced a few days ago. """DEVA""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.41.186 ( talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the evidence is pretty firm now, when the Foral government of Alava has revoked the digging license of the company which was doing the works, and is trying to sue the pants outta them. Unless anyone wants to keep arguing about what the experts say about knowing Descartes about 14 centuries before he was born? Because the latest group of experts were less than kind about the supposed works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.103.137 ( talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not a very vindictive person by nature. I have a tendency to forgive and forget - eventually. But I'm just wondering: given the rude way in which I think I was treated in the above discussion page (thank goodness for permanent discussion pages) taken together with the eventual rectification which has subsequently been ratified throughout the scholarly community and even in the Wikipedia article concerned, do I deserve an apology? -- A R King ( talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I came here just after I finished reading an article published in Four Stone Hearth, a monthly carnival of the best of the blog posts relating to four-field anthropology (paleo, archaeo, linguistic, and cultural). The article [4]s suggests that there is reason to believe that the inscriptions are authentic and that the accusations against the archaeologists may have been politically motivated.
I don't know who's right or wrong in this matter (it's not my field), but if the folks who run Four Stone Hearth, who are well-regarded in their fields and have no axes to grind (so far as I can tell) think that the archaeologists may be right, then the article should be revised to say only that there's a controversy, and NOT to take sides in the controversy -- which it currently does.
I'm holding off on making those revisions until other folks have had a chance to comment. Zora ( talk) 06:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Dumu, it seems that you've already made up your mind on the matter and want the article to reflect your view. But we have one reputable source (Four Stone Hearth) that thinks another view is worth presenting. Four Stone Hearth has been publishing for years, is run by accredited professionals with degrees and academic jobs. It may be a blog, but that doesn't mean it's contemptible. It's at least as credible as a government report (which is not the same thing as publication in a peer-reviewed journal!).
It's the WP way to present the controversy, not to use the article to propagandize for your point of view. I don't have time now, but in a few days, I will read what I can of the literature and attempt to revise the article to be more even-handed. Let the readers follow the references and make up their own minds as to who is more credible. If your view is correct, you have nothing to fear. Zora ( talk) 05:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all, This article is of course the opposite of objective. It doesn't mention at all that we are treating with a controversy. The official version that everything is forgery and that Eliseo is a crook sounds good, is sustained by newspaper articles and even by an article in Archaeology. Unfortunately, the reality seems a bit more complicated. There are a dozen of reports written by different specialists (all with Ph.D.) that find substantial errors, serious gaps in the investigation, and maybe even biasing (see: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/informes). To name just one aspect, several inscriptions are covered by rests of a crust (looks like carbonate in the picture) that is sufficient archaeological evidence to consider these inscriptions as authentic (if this crust is not artificial, an element that is not investigated! See http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org). My opinion is that we don't know yet. So we will propose substantial changes for this article. An alternative view on the Veleia affair can be read in http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/affaire.
Saludos, Koen
PD. Profesor Emeritus Jean-Batiste Orpustan (a respected Basque philologist and academic from the university of Bordeaux, claims that inscriptions in Basque are credible (see http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/conferencia-silgo-iglesias and http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/silgo)
The bias of this article is apparent. It is based on quick references from Spanish newspapers, who in many Basque related issues can contruct a real monster out of nothing (e.g. Egunkaria case). Altogether this article is no doubt one-sided and unbalanced. Recently the investigators accused of forgery were acquitted in the count of economic fraud related to sponsoring of the works of Iruña-Veleia, the probe into the issue carries on. Iñaki LL ( talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
See [5], Doug Weller talk 11:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
In the article, it is stated that “Eventually, all these inscriptions turned out to be a fabrication, as concluded by the 26 experts who analyzed the data for almost 10 months, and that went public on November 19, 2008. The texts were described as "crude manipulation," "incoherent," having texts and words both "incorrect and non-existent", and as being so "obviously false as to be almost comical." The case was dubbed by some as the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula" and "the product of an elaborate hoax."” However, no mention is made at all to the reports that favor the authenticity of the findings. This cannot be attributed to ignorance, since at the “external links” section, the SOS Iruña-Veleia web site is listed, where reports on both sides of the controversy can be found [1]. Some of the pro-authenticty reports are authored by respected scholars in different fields, including archaeologist Edward Harris, author of the stratigraphic method used by the archaeologists at Iruña-Veleia and by most archaeologists today [2], epigraphist and professor of ancient history at the University of Santiago de Compostela Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero [3], French linguists Hector Iglesias [4] and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan [5], German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz [6], palaeopathologist Joaquín Baxarías [7], and archaeologist and epigraphist Luis Silgo [8], [9]. Outside of the SOS Iruña-Veleia site, two videos by Edward Harris arguing in favor of the correct stratigraphic dating at the Iruña-Veleia site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8BXT0fwa9U&feature=youtu.be, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMIcxerbY-o&feature=youtu.be, texts of conference presentations by Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero [10] and Ulrike Fritz [11] and a journal article by Hector Iglesias [12]. Therefore, it appears as if this Wikipedia article is misleading the readers by omitting any mention to the existence of a scientific controversy around the Iruña-Veleia findings and only mentioning the opinions of authors favoring their falsehood. This is contrary to the rule of neutrality that all Wikipedia articles must follow, which implies that the article needs complete rewriting in some sections which are absolutely biased.
An additional point is the omission of the link to the Ama Ata blog http://www.amaata.com that currently is by far the most active in discussing the Iruña-Veleia findigns. Four days ago, I added this link with this description “Ama Ata, blog dedicated to linguistics, history, archaeology, genetics, epigraphy ..., with a particular focus on the findings at Iruña-Veleia. Articles and comments are largely favorable to the authenticity of the findings". Yesterday, this link was removed stating that “we rarely link blogs see WP:EL”. However, the blogs “Ieshu Ioshe Marian”, “En el ángulo oscuro”, and “Iruña Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos VIII: Más cerca de la autoría” are still there. Why remove only the Ama Ata blog and not all of them? Obviously, this is not a neutral action. Mmthomson ( talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iruña-Veleia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375086.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375087.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Kaixo berriz Sugaar: I think maybe you should be warned that according to opinions I have heard (privately) from very well established specialists in the Basque language (whom I cannot name for reasons of discretion, but I HAVE heard this at first hand), there is currently a strong suspicion that the Iruña-Veleia texts, and some of the other details surrounding them, may be fake. Nobody is sure yet because of the limited amount of information that has been "leaked", but what has been divulged does not sound very convincing. So while nobody is prepared to say so in public yet, privately there is a lot of doubt about the whole business. I thought you perhaps ought to be told that, considering that you have written this article. -- A R King 12:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Just discovered that there's another article (stub) on the same subject ( Veleia (Spain)). It's quite obvious to merge or maybe even just delete the stub (as this article is much more complete).
Note: when merging, notice that the stub is disambiguated at Veleia, that should after the merge redirect here. -- Sugaar 11:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
This week I had another opportunity to check again on the latest state of opinion about the putative "oldest Basque texts" among Basque language specialists of the highest standing in the Basque Country. Nothing has changed, I was told, since the last discussion a few months back, on which I have already reported higher up on this page. That is to say, the authenticity of the findings is viewed by my sources as being just as doubtful as it was last time.
The only information of which the public disposes (including the academic public, and therefore this Wikipedia article also) comes from press reports, not directly from scholarly evaluations. Sensibly, serious scholars are awaiting publication of the findings by those who claim to have found them before giving an opinion. Publication of findings had been promised for October (last month) but have now been delayed until the middle of next year!
All we can say, then, is that serious Basque language experts have seen strong reasons to doubt the authenticity of the Basque texts leaked to the press; such doubts can only be clarified, hopefully, when fuller and more reliable information about the texts is made available, but until it is, the doubts are not going to vanish either. I will not go into details again about the reasons for these doubts, other than to reiterate that they are based on both "external" and "internal" arguments.
I will give one example of an "internal" argument, i.e. one based on the content of the putative text: the use of the letter z roughly as in modern Basque seen in the text is an obvious anachronism, coming over a thousand years too early in fact, because the modern use of z in Basque to represent a voiceless sibillant is an imitation of the similar early modern Spanish usage (compare the similar use of z introduced by the Spanish colonists in America, as seen in classical Nahuatl orthography for example). From Spanish conquistadors to Roman legions there is quite a time leap, I should say! In Roman times, the letter z had a quite different value (when used at all).
So, the information about this given in the article is based on unconfirmed and dubious information from the press. Not only that, but it also uses that information selectively. For instance, in the Gara article the link for which is given on the page as a reference, we read:
(My translation; the emphasis is also mine:
The fact that the claims about the text are presented in the Wikipedia article without qualification, while the existence in the scientific community of "suspicions" or "scepticism" alluded to in the same source is not mentioned, could be seen as lack of rigour. I suggest (once again) that some qualification be added to inform the reader of the real status of this information according to currently available knowledge. -- A R King 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Simple note about translations of the words. In modern basque "urdin" means blue, but not long ago means "the colors of the sky" from white to blue, including grey. This use of "urdin" is rare but acceptable today. the translations may be:
URDINISAR : white star, blue star, grey star.....
ZURI URDINGORI : Zuri is translated as "white" as in modern basque, can be translated "for you" , translation maybe "for you greyred"
Personaly, as basque speaker, is really amazing the understanding of those words more than thousand years before they wroted, i think is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.152.149 ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2006
Sugaar: I will make one more try to put this into perspective (something which I feel has been sadly lacking here from the start). After this I will try to keep my mouth shut, so bear with me this one last time.
Here we have an article about the archaeological site Iruñea-Veleia which refers to some findings, including what are purported to be the earliest (by far) specimens of writing in Basque, which are currently in the news. The public (including the scientific community, i.e. everyone except perhaps for the archaelogists working on the site) do not at this time dispose of a full range of reliable facts because none have been released. There are only press reports from the archaeologists and some opinions from other Basque experts that have also been circulated in the press. These opinions include both expressions of doubt about the authenticity of the texts that have been released and expressions of support. However, most Basque specialists are refraining from publicly taking a position as professionals, which is as it should be because neither they nor anyone else have been provided with a rigorous and comprehensive account of what has been found. However, informally at least, I think there does exist at this time a general feeling in Basque linguistic/philological circles, at least among some academics and scholars and possibly among a majority of them (though obviously I don't have data to prove that they are a majority), who would agree that it would not be wise to assume, at present, that these are necessarily authentic third-century Basque texts, as the finders have claimed. Some of the reasons for maintaining this position of "abstention", "not assuming" or "wait-and-see" have been explained by those academics who have chosen to speak to the press about it. At the present time, a full report is expected for some time next year, at which time it may be possible for many of the present doubts and suspicions to be resolved one way or another, but for now this is all we have to go on.
The English-language article on the subject, which I believe you have written, only gives the version of the team who announced their findings to the press. It contains nothing to reflect the existence of the scholarly opinions that recommend caution or of the current "dispute", if that is what it is. When I made my first comments to you on this page about this, they were to point out to you that such "reasonable doubts" do exist. And that is still the only thing I am trying to tell you. Your reaction was not what I would have expected.
You insist on referring to the scholarly opinions I am talking about as "unfounded rumours". You have also intimated, more than once now, that the scholarly opinions I am talking about are some sort of anti-Basque Spanish plot. And you have complained that I am "divulgating" (by which I understand you mean "spreading") the aforementioned "unfounded rumours". I take these "points" is reverse order. I am not trying to spread/divulgate anything, I am not even defending a yes/no position on the authenticity issue, I am asking for a bit of balance in the article (and also in your attitude, if at all possible) by reporting on the full range of views/information now available. As for the Spanish conspiracy theory, which you have recently once again alluded to, you are obviously not listening because I told you before that I am referring to the opinions of respected scholars in the Basque academic world. There is nothing Spanish about them. Of course, even if there were, your way of reacting (I am not Spanish either, who's bringing the Spanish into this?) would surely smack to many of paranoia and an inability to address the issues per se. Finally, why do you insist on dismissing the opinions that suggest we should exercise caution, expressed publicly and privately by many specialists, as "unfounded rumours" just because you (obviously) don't like them?
The upshot of this is that, sadly, at the present time, the article on Iruña-Veleia in the Spanish Wikipedia appears to be a lot better and more balanced than this one on the English Wikipedia. (Unfortunately they haven't got around to writing anything at all on the Basque-language Wikipedia yet.) That's a shame in my opinion. I must therefore refer interested readers who can read Spanish to the Spanish-language article [1], and draw their attention in particular to the references included in that, which will provide some of the sources and information lacking in the English article. (I suppose it would be too much to ask to have those references added to this article too? After all, the ones already cited here are also in Spanish...)
From one of these references, a newspaper interview [2] with the academic Joakin Gorrotxategi, I quote to conclude (English translation follows):
-Si el puzzle no encaja, ¿no surgirán sospechas de falsificación?
-La respuesta a eso tendrá que ser el final del estudio. Yo aún no estoy seguro de que eso sea auténtico. Pero, ojo, de la misma manera que reclamo que no se puede decir ahora que todo va a misa, por la recíproca no podemos decir que esto es falso. No creo que esto se vaya a dilatar, parece que de aquí al verano ya estará el informe definitivo.
-¿Se le ha pasado por la cabeza que el hallazgo pueda ser falso?
-Para mí están abiertas todas las posibilidades, también que sea verdadero.
Translation: - If the jigsaw puzzle doesn't fit, won't that lead to suspicions of forgery?
- We'll have the answer to that at the end of the investigation. I am still not convinced that it is authentic. However, just as I am now claiming that it is too soon to assume that everything is true, conversely we cannot be sure that it is a fake either. I don't think this will go on for long, apparently the official report is going to be available by next summer.
- Has it ever occurred to you that the find could be a fake?
- I consider all possibilities open, including the possibility that it may be genuine.
The position of judicious caution so clearly expressed here is what I am asking to see reflected in the article, and you are dismissing my suggestion as "divulgating unfounded rumours".
I rest my case. -- A R King 07:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed: This article is about the Roman town in Spain. See also Veleia (Italy). becuase Veleia already disambiguates to both. I've also fixed the link at Veleia disambiguation page. -- Sugaar 20:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Somebody changed my original translation from "mister" to "master". Master is not the meaning of jaun. Master would be jabe in the sense of "slave-owner" (jabe means "owner"), ugazaba or nagusi in the sense of "boss" or maisu (a Latin/Romance loanword obviously) in the sense of "teacher" (itself irakasle)
Instead Jauna is used like "Mister" (Mr.) in English or Spanish "Don". Odriozola Jauna is (in current usage) Mr. Odriozola, though in the appropiate historical context could also be Lord/Sir Odriozola. -- Sugaar 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
1. jabe. 2. ugazaba, nagusi
Jaun: señor
jaun i (titulu gisa) señor. Elizegi jauna, el señor Elizegi. 2 señor, dueño, propietario. 3 Dios: Jaunaren eguna, el día del Señor.
jaun 1 iz. Señor, noble Bizkaiko jaunak: los señores de Vizcaya Dukerri bateko jauna: Señor de un ducado 2 iz. Señor, hombre; individuo de cierta categoría social Egun batean pobre, beste batez jauna: un día pobre y otro día señor Jaun egina etorri zaigu: nos ha venido hecho un señor Jaun- eta andre-multzo bat: un grupo de hombres y mujeres 3 iz. Señor, dueño Zeruko eta lurreko erregea eta jauna delako: porque es dueño y señor del cielo y de la tierra 4 iz. kortesiazko tratamendua Señor Mikel Segurola jaunari: al señor Mikel Segurola Erretore jauna (Ipar. jaun erretorea): señor párroco Alkate jauna: señor alcalde Bai, jauna: sí, señor Jaun goren hori: excelentísimo señor Jaun agurgarria: estimado señor 5 iz. maiusk. (Jainkoa) Señor; Dios Jaunaren eguna igandea da: el día del Señor es el domingo 6 iz. pl. Erl. (aingeru-mota) Dominación
-- A R King 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, the use of Z in basque writing is relatively modern (in old times, S and Ç were used for it); thus, I can´t understand that it were in roman times. An other point: In the basque order of words URDINISAR is not blue star, but star of blue. In basque "standing" is not ZUTAN, but "zutik". IOSHE ,with an modern english SH?. J. Aranguren 158.227.33.102 16:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see Category talk:Earliest known manuscripts by language. Enaidmawr ( talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a discussion about the implications of the finding of christian references (the Calvary and the sentence in Basque about Joseph, Jesus and Mary) at such an early date. It is often asserted that the Basques were relatively late converts to christianity (see the Wikipedia article about Basque People for an example), and these findings would seem to contradict that. I´m not an historian, so could someone with more knowledge on this topic include a few lines about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.112.58 ( talk) 14:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sirs, 1-There is no a firm proof that this place should be called Iruña-Veleia.Some scholars are naming it now Iruña-Oka. 2-There is no a single evidence that the Basque inscriptions do not belong to the 3rd Century AD. Three independent international laboratories have assessed it. 3-The "official study group" has been choosen among locals.The conclussions may be unsuitable,since international experts,particularly linguists,should have been included.If the findings are valuable,as it seems,life work of some experts within the "official study group" would be destroyed. This conflict of interest is probably the cause of repeated delays in the last 2 years,avoiding to publicy show the found material .The last delay has officially been announced a few days ago. """DEVA""" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.41.186 ( talk) 18:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'd say the evidence is pretty firm now, when the Foral government of Alava has revoked the digging license of the company which was doing the works, and is trying to sue the pants outta them. Unless anyone wants to keep arguing about what the experts say about knowing Descartes about 14 centuries before he was born? Because the latest group of experts were less than kind about the supposed works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.20.103.137 ( talk) 23:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not a very vindictive person by nature. I have a tendency to forgive and forget - eventually. But I'm just wondering: given the rude way in which I think I was treated in the above discussion page (thank goodness for permanent discussion pages) taken together with the eventual rectification which has subsequently been ratified throughout the scholarly community and even in the Wikipedia article concerned, do I deserve an apology? -- A R King ( talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I came here just after I finished reading an article published in Four Stone Hearth, a monthly carnival of the best of the blog posts relating to four-field anthropology (paleo, archaeo, linguistic, and cultural). The article [4]s suggests that there is reason to believe that the inscriptions are authentic and that the accusations against the archaeologists may have been politically motivated.
I don't know who's right or wrong in this matter (it's not my field), but if the folks who run Four Stone Hearth, who are well-regarded in their fields and have no axes to grind (so far as I can tell) think that the archaeologists may be right, then the article should be revised to say only that there's a controversy, and NOT to take sides in the controversy -- which it currently does.
I'm holding off on making those revisions until other folks have had a chance to comment. Zora ( talk) 06:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Dumu, it seems that you've already made up your mind on the matter and want the article to reflect your view. But we have one reputable source (Four Stone Hearth) that thinks another view is worth presenting. Four Stone Hearth has been publishing for years, is run by accredited professionals with degrees and academic jobs. It may be a blog, but that doesn't mean it's contemptible. It's at least as credible as a government report (which is not the same thing as publication in a peer-reviewed journal!).
It's the WP way to present the controversy, not to use the article to propagandize for your point of view. I don't have time now, but in a few days, I will read what I can of the literature and attempt to revise the article to be more even-handed. Let the readers follow the references and make up their own minds as to who is more credible. If your view is correct, you have nothing to fear. Zora ( talk) 05:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear all, This article is of course the opposite of objective. It doesn't mention at all that we are treating with a controversy. The official version that everything is forgery and that Eliseo is a crook sounds good, is sustained by newspaper articles and even by an article in Archaeology. Unfortunately, the reality seems a bit more complicated. There are a dozen of reports written by different specialists (all with Ph.D.) that find substantial errors, serious gaps in the investigation, and maybe even biasing (see: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/informes). To name just one aspect, several inscriptions are covered by rests of a crust (looks like carbonate in the picture) that is sufficient archaeological evidence to consider these inscriptions as authentic (if this crust is not artificial, an element that is not investigated! See http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org). My opinion is that we don't know yet. So we will propose substantial changes for this article. An alternative view on the Veleia affair can be read in http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/affaire.
Saludos, Koen
PD. Profesor Emeritus Jean-Batiste Orpustan (a respected Basque philologist and academic from the university of Bordeaux, claims that inscriptions in Basque are credible (see http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/conferencia-silgo-iglesias and http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/silgo)
The bias of this article is apparent. It is based on quick references from Spanish newspapers, who in many Basque related issues can contruct a real monster out of nothing (e.g. Egunkaria case). Altogether this article is no doubt one-sided and unbalanced. Recently the investigators accused of forgery were acquitted in the count of economic fraud related to sponsoring of the works of Iruña-Veleia, the probe into the issue carries on. Iñaki LL ( talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
See [5], Doug Weller talk 11:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
In the article, it is stated that “Eventually, all these inscriptions turned out to be a fabrication, as concluded by the 26 experts who analyzed the data for almost 10 months, and that went public on November 19, 2008. The texts were described as "crude manipulation," "incoherent," having texts and words both "incorrect and non-existent", and as being so "obviously false as to be almost comical." The case was dubbed by some as the "biggest archaeological fraud in the history of the Iberian Peninsula" and "the product of an elaborate hoax."” However, no mention is made at all to the reports that favor the authenticity of the findings. This cannot be attributed to ignorance, since at the “external links” section, the SOS Iruña-Veleia web site is listed, where reports on both sides of the controversy can be found [1]. Some of the pro-authenticty reports are authored by respected scholars in different fields, including archaeologist Edward Harris, author of the stratigraphic method used by the archaeologists at Iruña-Veleia and by most archaeologists today [2], epigraphist and professor of ancient history at the University of Santiago de Compostela Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero [3], French linguists Hector Iglesias [4] and Jean-Baptiste Orpustan [5], German Egyptologist Ulrike Fritz [6], palaeopathologist Joaquín Baxarías [7], and archaeologist and epigraphist Luis Silgo [8], [9]. Outside of the SOS Iruña-Veleia site, two videos by Edward Harris arguing in favor of the correct stratigraphic dating at the Iruña-Veleia site https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8BXT0fwa9U&feature=youtu.be, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMIcxerbY-o&feature=youtu.be, texts of conference presentations by Antonio Rodríguez Colmenero [10] and Ulrike Fritz [11] and a journal article by Hector Iglesias [12]. Therefore, it appears as if this Wikipedia article is misleading the readers by omitting any mention to the existence of a scientific controversy around the Iruña-Veleia findings and only mentioning the opinions of authors favoring their falsehood. This is contrary to the rule of neutrality that all Wikipedia articles must follow, which implies that the article needs complete rewriting in some sections which are absolutely biased.
An additional point is the omission of the link to the Ama Ata blog http://www.amaata.com that currently is by far the most active in discussing the Iruña-Veleia findigns. Four days ago, I added this link with this description “Ama Ata, blog dedicated to linguistics, history, archaeology, genetics, epigraphy ..., with a particular focus on the findings at Iruña-Veleia. Articles and comments are largely favorable to the authenticity of the findings". Yesterday, this link was removed stating that “we rarely link blogs see WP:EL”. However, the blogs “Ieshu Ioshe Marian”, “En el ángulo oscuro”, and “Iruña Veleia y sus "revolucionarios" grafitos VIII: Más cerca de la autoría” are still there. Why remove only the Ama Ata blog and not all of them? Obviously, this is not a neutral action. Mmthomson ( talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Iruña-Veleia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375086.php{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.noticiasdealava.com/ediciones/2006/06/09/sociedad/alava/d09ala14.375087.phpWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)