Destruction of the Iruña-Veleia archaeology site

Destruction of the Iruña-Veleia archaeology site

Destruction of the Iruña-Veleia archaeology site
(This report has been sent to 86 faculties of Archaeology worldwide)
We are writing this letter to inform your Faculty of the archaeological destruction that has
taken place in Euskal Herria (the Basque Country) – specifically, the Iruña-Veleia site in the
province of Álava.
We feel this is certainly the most serious archaeological destruction in the European Union in
recent years.
For your information, our association is an organisation concerned with the origins of our
language (Basque or Euskera), and every year we organise a conference on this theme. The
ostraca found in Iruña-Veleia presented a unique opportunity to uncover information on the
Basque language of 1,800 years ago, but they were held to be fakes, no attempt was made
to carry out any dating procedures, and subsequently work started on destroying the site to
do away with any further potential linguistic remains.
Below we have provided you with a brief summary of this crime against culture. We are
including the links to all reports written to date (7 reports in which the ostraca discovered are
judged to be bogus, and 19 reports in which the remains are considered genuine), and also
to the video on destruction of the site.
1. The initial archaeological discoveries
The archaeological team led by Eliseo Gil worked from 1994 to 2008 at the Iruña- Veleia site
in the province of Álava in the Basque Country. During the initial years, since economic
resources were scarce work was carried out during the summer months only. Subsequently
major financial assistance enabled the team of archaeologists to be enlarged, to extend
excavations throughout the year, and make considerable progress on archaeological
research.
In 2005 and 2006 a number of ostraca were discovered with relevant inscriptions: Christian
images, written texts in Basque etc.
2. The creation of an inquiry committee
In 2007 the Provincial Government of Álava (Diputación Foral), which was responsible for the
site, decided to create a scientific committee to examine the authenticity of the discoveries.
Eight of the twelve committee members were lecturers at the Arts Faculty of the UPV-EHU
(University of The Basque Country). The composition of the committee was rather
unfortunate in that it did not feature any archaeologists with wide experience of Roman
remains, and in particular there was no archaeometric dating expert, comparable to omitting
a DNA expert from a murder investigation.
There were only two scientists on the committee: Fernando Legarda, a nuclear engineer, and
Juan Manuel Madariaga, a chemist.
The committee worked over one year, and met on five occasions. No committee members
visited the site during that period, and no one talked to the archaeologists at the site to
ascertain how the work had been carried out. Worst of all, neither of the two main requests
by Eliseo Gil was admitted: dating the one hundred most controversial ostraca, and carrying
out controlled dating at the place where most of these ostraca were found.
No committee members from out side the Basque Country were invited to the site to
familiarise themselves with it or to meet the team of archaeologists, or attend the meetings of
the committee itself. It should be clarified that the site was only 8km from the location at
which the committee conducted its meetings.
They were sent partial archaeological reports by the Lurmen archaeology team. Many
members of the committee thought they were fake, a totally unusual occurrence. Nor was the
controlled sampling carried out, as requested by Eliseo Gil, and also by Dominic Perring, a
committee member from outside the Basque Country.
During the year of the committee’s findings, the confidentiality clause was not observed, and
on three occasions it was leaked to the press that the ostraca were fakes. One member of
the committee even spoke publicly on the issue at a conference.
3. Press conference on 19 November 2008
On 19 November 2008 the Diputación introduced an order based on the opinion of a large
number of committee members, though not all of them, that all the ostraca inscriptions, in
both Basque and Latin, were fakes. It also banned Eliseo Gil’s Lurmen company from the
site, and subsequently took legal action against it.
It later transpired that, of the ten reports submitted, only one was dated prior to 19
November. Thus the Diputación order was issued on the basis of reports that had not been
submitted officially. It is suspected that at least one of these was modified after19 November,
because there is no coincidence between what was said by its authorat the press conference
and what the final report said.
Of the ten reports submitted, seven refer to falsification, or that the items cannot date from
the time suggested by Lurmen (2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries). Nevertheless, almost half the
reports were written by three lecturers who had claimed one year earlier that the finds were
genuine. In other words, the same ostraca that were reported as genuine were considered to
be fakes only a year later.
Two main issues were addressed at the provincial government’s press conference. Firstly,
according to Mr Lakarra, the fact that “Descartes” was written on them confirmed both the
bogus nature of the finds and the clumsiness of the perpetrator.
When the photo of the ostraca was published two months later, we perceived that what was
written was “Miscart” and not “Descartes”.
According to the three philologists on the Diputación committee, there can be no doubt that
the inscription on this ostracon is “Descartes”.
Mr Madariaga the chemist, meanwhile, told the entire assembled press that the ostraca were
false because he had detected a modern component in them.
The following day Eliseo Gil clarified the issue: the component formed part of the glue
normally used to adhere ceramic pieces. This claim by Mr Madariaga should have sufficed to
expel him from the committee, and to claim back the fee he had been paid. This was not the
case, however, and no attempt was made to locate another expert to ascertain whether
datings could be carried out. Incidentally, there had been no archaeometry expert on the
committee while work was being carried out, or indeed afterwards.
4. Official publication and summary of the reports
After almost two months, all the reports and a large number of photos of the ostraca were
posted on the Diputación web site on 17 January 2009, when we were finally able to read
“Miscart”, the dates of the reports etc.
Below we have summarised the reasoning behind a number of the reports. For an in-depth
examination, see:
http://euskararenjatorria.net/?p=3659&lang=en
4.1. Madariaga As mentioned above, he claimed the ostraca were fakes at the press
conference, although his report states it is impossible to prove by chemical means whether
the ostraca are genuine or fakes.
4.2. LegardaHe was the second member of the scientific unit along with Madariaga. He
confirmed that the C-14 dating had been carried out properly, and that therefore the ceramics
corresponded to Roman times.
4.3. LakarraIt had been this philologist, along with two others, who was adamant that the
word written on the ostracon was “Descartes”. He also suggests other possibilities which
meet with little approval. For example, he states that the inscription in the image below is
“DENOK”, when it may very well be “Denos”, the Basque translation of the Latin term
“Denus”.
Dubious ostracon: for some the inscription is “Denos”,
while the committee’s philologists feel it is “Denok”.
The Basque ergative case does not appear on some of the ostraca, and Lakarra felt this was
further proof that they were fakes. This comment comes as a surprise, since schoolchildren
whose mother tongue is Spanish tend to make the same mistake nowadays, because the
ergative case does not exist in either Spanish or Latin.
4.4. Gorrochategui. According to Lakarra and Gorrochategui, 2,000 years ago the Basque
article - an “a” added to the end of words – was not in use, and thus words on ostraca which
ended in this were fake. This argument is not very convincing since some inscriptions during
the Roman period, in fact, have the “a” ending.
4.5. Núñez. According to the opinion of this archaeologist, many images of the ostraca would
not be possible in Roman times, thus showing them to be fakes: those showing women with
a centre hair parting, theatre masks with animal images, ostraca depicting naked women...
Núñez does not seem to be aware of the fact that all these “impossible” components were
found at Pompeii.
Mr Núñez, incidentally, is now the site director, hardly appropriate since he was instrumental
in expelling Lurmen from it.
Images from Pompeii such as women with centre
hair partings, and masks with animals.
4.6. Cipres and Yanguas. The epigraphist and the historian, along with Gorrochategui, were
those who defended the ostraca theory at the outset. Their report claims the ostraca may be
fakes because they contain “spelling mistakes”, because the dative is missing in certain Latin
words etc. This is rather surprising because the items were foundin a “pedagogium” or
school. Three spellers were found among the ostraca, confirming that those who wrote most
of the ostraca were young people, and so it is normal there should be spelling mistakes.
One of the three spellers found.
4.7. Velazquez. Agrees with most of the interpretations of Lakarra: “Descartes” ...
5.Reports pointing to the authenticity of the ostraca
Thanks to the publication of the reports and photos of the ostraca, it was possible to initiate a
scientific debate. The conditions were quite unusual, since anyone defending the authenticity
of the ostraca risked a major blow to their prestige.
Since then a further 19 reports have been published which suggest the ostraca may be
genuine, and they have been produced by researchers from the Basque Countryand beyond,
across all the disciplines related to the issue such as linguistics, archaeology, epigraphy,
history, Egyptology and geology.
In these reports almost all the arguments “proving” the ostraca are fakes have been refuted.
After three years, however, not a single member of the committee which claimed the ostraca
were fake has challenged the counter-arguments of the19 reports. Nor have they shown any
willingness to debate this publicly with those claiming the ostraca are genuine, which
demonstrates how solid their arguments are.
The 19 reports contain more than 1,800 pages, and were written free of charge. The
committee reports contain 400 pages, and were extremely costly.
Although all the reports are of great importance, special mention should be made of those by
the linguists Elexpuru and Iglesias. Point by point, they refute all that seems possible to
Lakarra and Gorrochategui, also providing examples and a large number of sources: Miscart
(not Descartes), Denos (not Denok)...
As Iglesias says, if in the whole world there are only 10 experts on the Celtic language, how
can it be that the alleged forgers were familiar with Celtic names and the committee experts
were not?
Two other major reports were written by Van den Dreissche and Baxarias. The former clearly
explains that many ostraca considered to be fake can easily be dated because, among other
items, they contain remains of calcite and sediment. The texts written on bricks before firing
can also be dated, because it is possible to detect the firing date, and this is also possible in
the case of ostraca with remains of soot and those written on bones.
Baxarias, meanwhile, claims it is almost impossible for inscriptions on bones to be recent.
Ostraca withcalcium carbonate and sediment
Bricks with inscriptions prior to firing
Ostraca with remains of soot
Anothernoteworthy report is that by Edward Cecil Harris, Director of the Bermuda Maritime
Museum and the father of modern archaeology. According to Dr Harristhe excavation
method used by Lurmen was appropriate, and met all requirements.
Due to a lack of space we cannot comment on all the reports which bear out the authenticity
of the ostraca, but they are available on the following web site:
http://euskararenjatorria.net/?p=3582&lang=en
6. The Court and the datings
The Vitoria-Gasteiz Nº 1 Court of First Instance handling this case has shelved the two
claims instigated by the two sponsoring companies against Lurmen, and only the action
taken against it by the provincial government remains in place, which charges Eliseo Gil and
other two members of the group with forgery.
To reinforce this statement the provincial government ordered a graphology analysis. Since
this report did not show specifically that Gil had produced the ostraca, it ordered a second
analysis to be carried out by another graphologist. This was similar to the first, and it thus
ordered a third analysis, which did indicate that Gil was a potential forger. In this case the
graphologist was adamant that his name should not be publicly disclosed6
It was a good job that the provincial government was satisfied, because otherwise they would
have asked for a fourth analysis, a fifth analysis, or more until they succeeded. It should be
mentioned that the last two reports, following leaks to the press, have not been made
available to the party accused. Therefore it was only possible to refute what had appeared in
the press, but it has become clear that the third report is totally unsatisfactory for the many
reasons mentioned by Roslym M. Frank’s report: it is impossible to use writings on a rigid
medium such as ceramics in graphology analyses, in view of the wide range of variations in
all the letters compared etc.
In view of all this the examining magistrate at the Nº 1 Court of First Instance decided to
accept the proposal of the defendant, Mr Gil, to carry out datings on a number of ostraca to
decide, once and for all, whether or not they were genuine. This decision was taken in July
2010, and to this end she ordered the Guardia Civil’s Chemistry Department to carry out the
appropriate tests.
It should be said that the request to carry out dating was made shortly after the Diputación
decided the ostraca were fake. More than 2,000 signatures were even collected in favour of
dating. Moreover, many letters and articles appeared in the press in favour of dating, stating
that this would be the only way to clarify this controversial issue. This request has not yet
been taken into account by any of the three Culture representatives who have held the post
since.
The request to the Guardia Civil by the magistrate was astonishing since the Guardia Civil’s
Chemistry Department does not have any of the proper archaeometry equipment without
which it is not possible to carry out a dating, such as mass spectrometry accelerators,
thermoluminescence apparatus etc.
After a wait of one year, according to a press leak the Guardia Civil replied to the judge in
July 2011, stating that it was unable to carry out the dating process, thereby confirming what
we had predicted right from the outset.
Some months ago the Court made the same dating request to the Basque Country’s
autonomous police force, the Ertzaintza. However, the Ertzaintza denied the request saying
it does not have the necessary equipment to do the datings.
Even if Court of First Instance first needs to contact these two Institutions to ask the
autonomous government’s Department of Justice for permission and financial resources to
send the ostracon to a laboratory outside the Basque Country, the slowness of the process is
exasperating, and it is incomprehensible that after 18 months this request has not been met.
Worse still, we do not know if the Public Prosecutor got any intention of sending the ostraca
to a well-known archaeometry laboratory. This is the only way to clear up the dispute.
7. Programmed destruction of an area of the site
In July 2010 when the Judge ordered the dating to be carried out, in order not to waste any
time the new archaeology site team led by Mr Núñez destroyed an entire area with
excavation equipment.
"The excavator going deeper and knocking down the flagstones.
Everything that was on it was send straight to the dump.
They've demolished a whole area !"
For an entire week they used a power shovel to dig down one and a half metres, and all the
material extracted was taken away for dumping. Over a large part of the zone the machinery
reached housing floor levels. As a consequence, many flagstones became visible and many
others were broken, as shown in the photos.
Flagstone broken by excavation machinery taking up earth,
remains of walls and of other material above
Anything that could have been found on those flags – utensils, pieces of ceramics, perhaps
ostraca – was destroyed and directly taken away for dumping on trucks every 7 minutes.
What will they do next? Look for archaeological remains under the flagstones?
This work was not carried out just anywhere. Prior to this, two ostraca in Basque and a
speller were found where the excavator was put to work. However, as Mr Núñez said to the
committee, since this kind of ostracon could never be found in Iruña-Veleia, the destruction is
understandable.
The video can be seen on the following website:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CaiVRIPwQU
The report of the destruction and other reports:
http://euskararenjatorria.net/?p=3673&lang=en
Following public protests, this year they refrained from using excavation equipment and
concentrated on improving the condition of the wall.
8. More information
The photos & texts of the ostracas: http://www.sos-irunaveleia.org/arqueologia:arqueologia
We are of course willing to supply you any extra information you may require.
We trust Archaeology will receive your valued assistance.
Yours sincerely,
14th of April of 2012
Association Euskararen Jatorria
[email protected]