Talk:Kingdom of Navarre

Proposals

I see there's a lot to edit here:

• Name: it was called Kingdom of Pamplona until the first partition of 1054. The part under the Aragonese kings retains the name until García Jiménez "the Restorer" leads the new independent period (since 1134). Some time during Aragonese rule a county of Navarre (probably from Basque "nabarra", meaining both "plain" and "brown", which describes pretty well the Navarrese plains in comparison with the mountainous and green of other parts of the Basque Country) is formed in the central lowlands of modern Navarre but this fact seems irrelevant but in order to explain the change of name.

The article was originally Navarre, and too many of the early kings were mentioned as of Navarre, not speaking anything about Kdom of P. I have made many corrections in this respect, but I am weary of doing it all the time. Someone else, please do some work...

I believe Navarre as name was interchangeably used already in 10th century. However, apparently, K of Pamplona was more usual then.

Who were counts of Navarre? more info about that entity, please.

I thought the Restorer was Garcia Ramirez.

• Formation: the legend surrounding the first king Eneko Aritza is quite correct but the only name used at the time was Pamplona. The revolt against the Franks had been active since 778 (Roncesvaux battle) or possibly even before (independent Duchy of Wasconia), the instauration of a monarchy (regulated by many laws and customs: the fuero) was just the logical outcome of that independence de facto in the context of Upper Middle Ages.

Most of navarrese history till the X century is very fragmentary in nature, so a serious amount of hipotetizing exist. This should be made clear. Btw. Do you have any references to this "independent duchy of wasconia" (first time heard of)? And the basque name for Iñigo Arista is based on some documentary witness or just a modern re-translation? It sounds a little bit odd--Wllacer 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Carlist wars: need a deeper analysis, particularly becuase it is well stated that from the viewpoint of Basques, who were almost the only supporters of Carlism in all Spain, the revolt was intended to keep their great self-government and mixing with reactionary Spaniards was just an odd alliance. In the Carlist party there were two factions: the Apostolic or Castilian and the Navarrese (or foralist). The last one filled almost all ranks except the direction, which was in cotrol of the Apostolic or true Carlist. The sentence Navarre was staunchly Catholic and much under clerical influence is strongly arguable, as is difficult to proof that in anything Navarre or the rest of the Basque Country was more religious than anywhere of the ret of Spain at that time.

Ouch !!! With your view of the carlism of the first war, you're touching a very complex matter. Migth it be so simple as you state... just as a sample, nobody would ever dream Maroto is to be viewed as a proto-autonomist, and was the leader of the anti-Apostolic party. In general, discussion about carlism is welcomed in the corresponding article/talk page --Wllacer 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)ç

Where did you read that the basques "were almost the only supporters of carlism in all Spain"? Maybe you should find a more accurate reference about Carlism.Layo 11:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There's also lack of information of the period of Navarre under Spanish sovereignity, which is relevant because it was still a kingdom, not just formally as other regions of Castile but in laws and borders, keeping a semi-independence.

The article needs to be reorganized, dividing it maybe in several periodical sections in order to allow for more clarity.

I suggest the following plan:

• Origins (Basques and Pamplona before Eneko Aritza)

As this deals with KINGDOM of N, please not too much text which has nothing to do with Kingdom. Most of the origins should be explained in Basque country

• Kingdom of Pamplona (824-1054)

Didn't Garcia V use Navarre as his main title?

• First partition (1054-1134)

was this really a partition, in a sense that lands taken by Castile were returned after this period? The name could be "Aragonese dominion"

• Restoration (1134-1200)

Restoration took place in 1034 but did not continue until 1200. Rather, this was "restored kingdom" or "Spanish period"

• Castilian invasion of the west (or second partition) (1199-1200)

Is this really an era? or only an event?

• Lower Medieval Navarre (1200-1512)

in other words, "French period"

Nor exactly. Navarra enters the french period at least 75 years latter.

I'd love to have more information about the civil war (agramonteses vs beaumonteses) of the last years of the independent kingdom, if posible --Wllacer 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Castilian invasion (1512-21)

period or event?

• Latter Navarrese kingdom in the north (1512-1572/1610)

I'd love to know more, specially after I read that in 1789 navarrese deputies went to the Estates Generals with mandates from the Navarres States as observers (as an independent Kingdom befits). Can somebody expand ?--Wllacer 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Foral (autonoumus) Navarre inside Spain (1512/21-1833)
• Carlist wars and supression of the fuero (1833-76)

This dates are correct only for the first statement. After the law of the "Amejoramiento" (1841) the juridical position of Navarra changed little with the outcome of the third carlist war--Wllacer 10:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

• Post-Carlist foralism and nationalism (1876-today), as rather brief conclussion, linking to other topics (Navarra, Basque People, Basque Nationalism, etc.)

At the bottom a list of kings and queens should be added as well.

Please check List of Navarrese monarchs. Do not repeat that, rather only link and refer. 217.140.193.123 01:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If nobody disagrees, I will eventually procceed to do it in the following days/weeks.

--Sugaar 22:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should be worth watching! --Wetman 23:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicely ambitious plan :)

Almost as big as my additions to the original article, made last weekend. 217.140.193.123 01:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arrano beltza

I want to point one thing that i think should be corrected, the image of the "arrano beltza" should be the black eagle over a red bottom, not yellow, the traditional coat of arms´ colour was always red.Layo 11:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

See Arrano Beltza article. The only (preserved) historical seal with that icon that is colored has a yellow background. Red was indeed the traditional color of the most common escutheon of Navarre: the 8 crossed (golden) bars, that eventually evolved in the modern version of the chains. Another escutheon that I have read about was a botton pointed crescent (Moon) over an 8-pointed star (background was maybe blue, not sure). Also there is the flower of 8 petals, found carved in stone mostly. --Sugaar 22:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

User:Wetman misunderstood my citationneeded tag. I am not questioning the meaning of nava or hiri or herri. I doubt their conflation in the etymology of Navarra, Nafarroa, napar. The first lines in this very page offer another etymology. If you think that it comes from nava+hiri, you should attribute it to some authority. --Error 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The connection of nava and Navarra is a commonplace one may overhear, for instance, among these on-line notes, which offer some useful further links. There is an online Basque-English dictionary: I couldn't get anything searching nabarra, which doesn't have a Basque sound. I did search brown in the English-Basque dictionary and got several hits, none of which was remotely nabarra. Many placenames in the Spanish Pyreneees have Nava- toponyms: for instance Nava de Francia. Am I missing something? --Wetman 01:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reworked it from the Auñamendi article in Spanish. The Morris has nabar. -a is the article. --Error 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That's better than anything I could have done. --Wetman 04:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

nabar: 1 adj. rich in shades, multicolor. 2 adj. brown. 3 ploughshare. 4 furrows opened with these ploughs. 5 plough blade. 6 (word) lustful, clumsy. (My direct Spanish-English translation from the 2000 Basque-Spanish/Spanish-Basque dictionary. ELKAR S.A., 1996. ISBN 84-7529-983-0).

Nabar is declined regularly in Basque as (nom. int.) nabarra (sing.) and nabarrak (pl.), and (nom. tr.) nabarrak (sing.) and nabarrek (pl.)

Most common example is surely hartz nabarr(a): brown bear.

While nava could hypothetically come from Spanish (v=b phonetically) the suffix ar/arra can only be Basque. There's no such suffix in Spanish, except in words of Basque origin such as chamarra (from eu zamarra). Also in the period that Navarre adopted that name, the "official" language of both Navarre or Aragon was not Castilian (Spanish) but Latin and Languedocin (Occitan). Basque was, of course, much more extended than it is now as well. --Sugaar 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Aragón-1515

That is impossible, Navarra was "conquered" by Castille in 1512 and the anexation of the iberian side of the kingdom signed in the "Cortes de Burgos" of July-1515. Altought Ferdinand the Catholic was regent in Castille the conquest isn't aragonese, but castillian.

-Fco

You're right. And the (forced) "pact" was signed in 1513, not 1515 (though maybe it was ratified in this year).

The Navarrese people was forced to accept Castilian sovereignity, with the compromise by the invaders of respecting the Kingdom's entity in all aspects, specially in what refered to the fueros. The pact was formalized in 1513 by oath of the first Castilian viceroi. Example of the sort of willingness with which the Navarrese accepted the new situation was the pretension of Pamplonese people, in the moment of pacting their surrender to the Duke of Alba, that their acceptance of the new monarch was with the condition of being excepted of any compromise of fidelity to him, in case that the Labrit family would in the future be in conditions of recovering their throne. (My direct Spanish-English translation of a passage from Historia de Navarra, el estado vasco, Mikel Sorauren, 1998, Pamiela Ed. ISBN 84-7681-299-X). --Sugaar 22:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I corrected it according to the above text. --Sugaar 08:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Some changes

1. the Kingdom of Navarre evolved from the county of Pamplona to the Kingdom of Pamplona, later renamed as Navarre, evolved from the county of Pamplona. Reason: the name Navarre did not appear until the 12th century.
2. Enneco Aresta (Iñigo Arista or Aiza in Spanish) by Enneco Aresta (Basque: Eneko Haritza, [Spanish language|Spanish]]: Iñigo Arista or Aiza). For obvious NPOV linguistic reasons.
3. The first historic king of Navarre by The first historic king of Pamplona. Equally I've changed Navarre for Pamplona and Navarrese for Pamplonese, along the history text, until the Aragonese period, except when had only (modern) geographic meaning.
4. Roncesvalles by Roncesvaux, most common English/historical term with additional note (Orreaga in Basque, in the first mention.
5. The pass of Roncesvalles, which leads from France to Navarre by The western Pyrenean passages, only ones allowing good transit through the mountains, Catalan ones apart. It's not even wholly clear if Charlemagne and Roland were effectively defeated in Orreaga-Roncesvaux or some other pass.
6. The Vascones from that area and more north, known as the Vascongadas, were never able to fight for themselves, and due to increased pressure ran from the sight of war and defeat, never being able to defend themselves successfully against the Moorish invaders if it had not been for the help of the Navarra King Sancho el Fuerte. Super-POV and extemely imprecise. Deleted (as adds no info at all).
7. The domination of Charlemagne, who conquered Navarre in 778, was short-lived by It's not clear how solid was the Frankish influence over Pamplona, whatever the case, in August 15 778, after retreating Charlemagne had demolished the walls of Pamplona, the Basque tribes annihilated his rearguard, led by Roland, at some mountain passage known to history as Roncesvaux. Also reorgainzed following passages to give chronological consistence to the narration.
8. Added: In the year 905 a Leonese chronicle mentions the extension of the Kingdom of Pamplona for the first time, being clear that it extended then to the Western Basque Country as well.
9. The first historic king of Pamplona was Garcia Sanchez's son Sancho II Garces, nicknamed Abarca, who ruled from Pamplona as king of Navarre and count of Aragon from 970 to 994 by Garcia Sanchez's son, Sancho II Garces, nicknamed Abarca, ruled as king of Pamplona and count of Aragon from 970 to 994. If there are historical documents since 905, Antxo Abarka can't be the "first historical king". And again the inconsistence of Navarre before this name was ever used.
10. He ruled over nearly all Christian Spain by less POV and more precise: he ruled over Pamplona, Castile and Aragon, exerting protectorate also over Leon and Gascony. Gascony can't be considered to be in Spain, obviously. Kept another sentence below on the same line because I don't want to harass.
11. Garcia of Najera received Navarre, Guipuzcoa, Vizcaya, and small portions of Béarn and Bigorre north of the Pyrenees. Incorrect re. Bigorre and Bearn. The Basque provinces did not exist yet. Replaced by: Garcia of Najera inherited the Kingdom of Pamplona, from the proximity of Burgos and Santander to the border with Aragon.
12. Edited: The eldest legitimate son, Ferdinand I ruled as high king having Castile as his seat, and he enlarged his realm by various means. His Navarrese line ruled as kings of Castile and Leon. The claim of "high king" is totally out of place (false). The only vincle was Aragon being nominally dependant of Pamplona, soon vanished. Saved as: The eldest legitimate son, Ferdinand I was the frist Castilian monarch to use the title of King and he enlarged his realm by various means (see Kingdom of Castile).
13. Garcia of Najera, the younger legitimate son of Sancho III, founded a new line of rulers of Navarre. The kingdom of Navarre then comprised the present province of Navarre, the Basque Provinces (which were later lost to Castile), and, north of the Pyrenees, the district called Lower Navarre, now a part of France. Obviously he founded no "new" line, specially as he died in battle against his brothers and his son, Sancho García IV of Peñalén, was murdered also by his own brothers. Edited this paragraph totally.

Documentation used: Historia de Navarra, el estado Vasco. Mikel Sorauren, Pamiela Ed., 1999. ISBN 84-7681-299-X. Will add to references. --Sugaar 23:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

More changes (in the same lines):

1. The small Navarre could no longer extend its dominions, and became in a measure dependent upon its powerful neighbours. POV - deleted. Pamplona was much larger than Aragon, while Castile was not much bigger yet. Also many argue that Pamplona-Navarre was never really interested in expansion as it was an ethnical people's state (constitutional monarchy of sorts) and had a traditional pact with the Banu Qasi Muslim (but native) lords of Tudela, that served as buffer state.
2. The then king of Aragon, successor of the bastard Ramiro, took much of the Navarrese lands and its royal title. King of Castile took some of the western lands. In the 12th century the kings of Castile gradually annexed the Rioja and Alava. As long as Navarre was united to Aragon (1076–1134) it was free from aggression on the east, but never recovered the western territory taken by Castile. About the year 1200 Alfonso VIII of Castile annexed the other two Basque provinces, Biscay (Vizcaya) and Guipúzcoa. Tarazona remained in possession of Aragon even after Navarre had regained its independence in around 1134. The Basque lordship of Biscay retained its near-independence even under Castilian overlordship, thus its Princes were called as Lords Sovereign of Biscay. Very POV. The provinces talked of were not yet such, but integral parts of Pamplona, also Castile took many territories not mentioned in that paragraph: La Rioja, Alava, and all what is NE Burgos province and eastern Cantabria, beyond the Burgos-Santander line. The Restoration is skipped like a non existent thing. Rewritten totally along with other disorganized and redundant paragraphs below. Example of most POV claims: He (García the restorer) was utterly incompetent, and at various times was dependent upon the revenues of churches and convents. --Sugaar 00:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivial Change (Battle of Roncevaux)

Since experts are working on this, I am reluctant to insert my own tiny changes. But the next time someone is working on the paragraph where Roncevalles is mentioned twice along with the year (twice), you might merge those two sentences. One contains a correct pointer to Roncevalles/Roncevaux, the other (last) pointer isn't correctly cross-refenced and goes to a "lacks article."

That's probably my fault but you're welcome to make such useful changes. This is Wikipedia. --Sugaar 08:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it by deleting the older(?) passage that was actualy innacurate: the attack on the baggage was something that the same army suffered while retreating from Zaragoza by Muslim followers of the former governor of that city that rescued him from the Franks. The Battle of Roncevaux Pass actually was a massacre of Frankish knights, who made up the rearguard of that army,... the baggage was surely then at Donibane Garazi along with Charles and the bulk of the army.

The dead link was my fault: I mispelled Roncevaux as Roncesvaux. --Sugaar 08:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, Roncesvaux is valid English. Probably picked from some variant of French Roncevaux.

However, from the local site: The following movements of pilgrims and emigrants from the other side of the Pyrenean, ended with a frenchified name (Rozabal, Ronzabal, Roncesvals, Roncesvaux,etc.) until it acquiered the current name. They use Orreaga or Roncesvalles in the English pages.

--Error 20:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

905 Chronicle

Sugaar You seem to have put a lot of work and interest in this and related articles. But i have serious doubts about the scholary outcome. I'm afraid you've followed a source which has mislead you.

I read about the so-called by you "905 leonese Chronicle" and it awoke my interest. I did a cursory search (google, wikipedia, Roger Collins' "Early Medieval Spain", ...) and i'm unable to locate it. Which, taking into account that Collins is one of the foremost scholars in Basque studies, makes me wonder.

From the context and date it could only be the Cronica de Alfonso III, whose text can be found at [1] (look for "Rotensis" and "Ad Sebastianum"). Using the later version -its latin is a little less barbarian- the "Uascones" are cited in §16 as "rebelantur" from Fruela I of Asturies, and §14 cites Pamplona in a context related to Alfonso I of Asturias. I'll reproduce the paragraph as it's very interesting.

14. Eo tempore populantur Primorias, Libana, Transmera, Supporter, Carranza, Bardulies que nunc appellatur Castella et pars maritima Gallecie; Alaba namque, Bizkai, Alaone et Urdunia a suis incolis reperiuntur semper esse possesse, sicut Pampilona [Degius est] atque Berroza ...

My Latin is rusty but there is no way to contort the meaning to imply that Alaba ... where dependent of Pamplona (which belongs to Degius ¿?). The paragraph AFAIK is the first written statement about the presumed authoctony of the basques. The Rotensis has a couple of textual variations in both paragraphs, which don't alter the meaning and a new cite of a rebellion (§25) during Ramiro I of Asturias' reign.

There are many other statements i think you were mistaken, but they need their time --Wllacer 10:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not any scholar indeed and I only had an indirect reference to that source:

A Leonese chronicle states that in the year 905 Sancho Garcés is elevated as King in Pamplona. In a more defined manner it describes the soverignity, that reaches with greater clarity [than in previous sources] territories that reach by the West up to Biscay, up to Upper La Rioja by the South, including Calahorra and even other sites by the East (...) like Valdonsella and Cinco Villas [Ejea]. (M. Sorauren, 1998, see the reference in the article).

My Latin is also awful (just took one course - never thought I'd need it again). Can you quote the full text?

Can also someone translate the text accurately? To me it does seem that Alaba, Bizkai, Urdunia, Pampilona and Berroza all belong to the same sentence. The "Degius est" is in brackets indicating a glose (???), a corrector comment? It seems out of the text.

I'm not a scholar but Mr. Sorauren is a graduated historian with several publications (2 books and 5 papers as per the date of the book) all on Navarrese history. He seems a serious source. --Sugaar 23:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

My hand translation (thanks to a couple of online dictionaries) runs a follow

In that times Primorias ...Gallecie were (re)populated; for the inhabitans (incolis) who live (reperiuntur) in Alaba ... Urdunia have always held it , as it's the case (atque) with Pampilona and Berzosa.

I've omited the (Diegus est) clause, because I can also make neither head nor tails of it. But the exact translation is just a minor point here.

Everybody knows that historical primary sources for the VIII-X centuries in the Iberian Peninsula are extremely sparse (and even more for the vasco-navarrese area), so this "leonese chronicle" would be capital for a lot of debates (some of them -the origins of Biscay, f.i.- running since the XVII century). But the fact is that the source you used is extremely vage in identifiying it, and i have been unable to locate a suitable reference, so I rang alarm. I expected you had the book and there would be a more proper reference. We misread the quote you just wrote, and used ca. 905 as the composition date; thus my reference and quoting form the Alfonso III.

There are other grounds for suspicion. Although no intrachristian borders were less stable during high middle ages (till 1200) than the western Pamplona/Navarra border, just a generation latter (around 930-940) there is diplomatary evidence for a Count of Alava, which unambiguously operates as a leonese potentate (although as autonomous, when not the same person as the Count of Castille). Some of it was already published by Llorente in 1806 and is available at [2]

Beyond the fact that i would never qualify a pre XIX c. state construct as a "nation-state" (but that's another thread), as the book's title seems to imply; I lack any opinion on Mr. Sorauren's work, as i haven't read it; but if your contributions basically depend on it, seems that there is ample field for discussion.Wllacer 09:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All that is being disputed and reviewed (Spanish focused historiography has dominated for centuries and only now some Basque/Navarrese autoctonous research, as the book I quoted, is questioning large parts of it). The text you mention is definitively not the one that Sorauren does, as Alfonso III is of a later date. Tomás Urzainqui and J.M. de Olaizola (La Navarra Marítima. Pamiela, 1998 - ISBN 84-7681-293-0), say about that text:

It's been pretended to deduce a vinculation to Asturias in the 8th century on the grounds of a late source of Alfonso III of Asturias where it reads: "Alava, Bizkaia, Alaón and Orduña, lands always posessed by their inhabitants", from which the only thing that can be said with clarity is that they did not belong to the contemporary Kingdom of Asturias, against which they had to defend themselves, but that they belonged to their natives. On the contrary, as well as the rest of Vasconian territories, they formed part of the ducal and condal Vasconia [later Gascony], "Gallia Comata", that later would conform the Kingdom of Pamplona.

They add

The permanent confrontation with the Visigothic Kingdom, attested by the repeated "domuit Vascones", is contnued with the neo-Visigoths of the Kingdom of Asturias. In this regard, the recent archaeological investigations made by Agustín Azkarate on the 6th-7th century period, have confirmed the domain of the territory by the Vascones, whose material culture is the same as that of Aquitanian Vasconia. The fact that in the 8th century there was more or less degree of domination of Vasconia by the Franks of Aquitaine, "Gallia Comata", does not mean that in the same period they were under the domain of Asturias.

After making a strong criticism of some pro-Asturian authors, particularly García de Cortazar. They quote other authors, more in the pro-Pamplonese line: Gregorio Montreal (1986) says:

... since the first indirect political mentions of the territory in the 10th century, Bizkaia appears rather viculated adminitratively to the Kingdom of Pamplona: it is clearly integrated in the Navarrese political area in the following century, to which it will remain adscribed, with some Castilian alternance, until the end of he 12th century.

The identity of right between Western Basque and Navarrese is also aduced to claim a total historical identity of these territories. The authors also cirticise Sabino Arana on his claims that Biscay and Guipuscoa (and Alava) were independent, they say:

...historical criticism does not admit at all said [Arana's] claims. On the contrary: the lands that today make up Alaba, Gipuzkoa and Bizkaia were indeed politically independent but only as long as they were the Kingdom of Navarre [Pamplona actually].

Your novecentist source, Llorente, starts claiming that Autrigones, Varduli and Caristii remained loyal to Rome. This is not clear at all. In fact, modern archaeology rather supports that the whole area was unruly in the 5th century (reaction to feudalization) and that whole "inner limes" was created around the Basque lands in that period. This explains well why we find the independent Vasconia in the High Middle Ages and not a Visigothic province. I really have no time nor patience to read all the nonsenses that have been said in the past centuries, I leave that task for the professional historians, who live on it. Regarding "nation-state", it's clear that ethnicity was at times a constituent factor of kingdoms and duchies in the Middle Ages and that often said countries were named for the people who lived there: Saxony, Swabia, Wales, Scotland, Vasconia/Gascony, Polania/Poland are clear cases. You can't just apply the same non-ethnic criteria that amy be valid for some areas for all cases without further consideration. In the case of Vasconia and later Pamplona/Navarre, it seems very clear that the ethnic factor was most important, even if the awareness of it is not always explicit. The Navarrese Right (aka Pyrenean Right) is not Roman-based nor of Germanic origin: it has its own local roots and it is consistent along all the territory that was once Basque and was able to keep their laws (fueros). --Sugaar 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(Use the blockquote tag for embedded texts, it reads better, i just recently discovered it).

While i agree my quotation of the Alfonso III chronicle does not prove nothing about sovereingty. I just gave it as the only explicit reference to Pamplona and the -IMHO- most interesting authoctony thesis.

There are, though the other paragraphs i referenced which deserve some comment. For the author of the chronicle it was obvious that the uascones rebellentur at least a couple of times. While it says nothing about the real events behind, it shows that a learned in the early X century thought it was the way it should have happened. This points to the fact that, in his lifetime, an ideal or practical sovereingty over some/the uascones existed. In absence of any other evidence the question would be undecided. But the attestation of the leonese count of Alava shortly after, makes highly probable that some degree of Asturleonese control existed over some basque areas.

The whole evidence for the High Middle Ages is sparse, and one can not avoid to throw high fliying theories with little documentary support, specially when there is a contemporaneous political debate which makes (mis)use of history. One of the wonderful things of this Internet Era, is that many primary sources are now available for scrutiny. This is what i do when i find statements that surprise me. In this regard, I have a clear idea of the shortcomings of Llorente , beyond its age, but contains the first serious collection of documentary evidence for the early history of the current basque country. And is easily available on the web (although not confortable to use)

I wish I could use an as comprehensive and more up-to-date source of primary evidence, but as long as it's useful for checking some context, be welcome.

BTW. By the V century feudalization is a clear anachronistic term, and by then the Roman Empire in the west was clearly flowing down the flush.Wllacer 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant 4th century (301-400), my bad.

What is clear is that the Alfonso III quote you refer to, is contested for the meaning you and Llorente claim and instead is now read (at least by some authors) as meaning that Basques owned their own lands. If it says something that they rebelled, it may mean: (a) against the Franks or (b) they resisted (hypothetical) Asturian pretensions of sovereignity. In any case nothing in that text seems to defend the theory of Asturian sovereignity on the western Basque lands, except possibly Autrigonia.

There must also be another document of the year 905, because Sorauren mentions it, that states the Pamplonese ownership of those lands.

The political debate has been going on for centuries, maybe milennia if you want to get ancient Celts in this (as often is done anyhow). But while Castilian-centric historiography has been dominant, partly because there were no universities in the Basque Country and Basque culture was deemed inferior and barbaric, now some scholars are questioning the official version.

Anyhow this is the same version, word up, word down, that you can find in the Encyclopedia Auñamendi. But I don't own that work, so I can't document from that source without going to the local library. Nobody half serious disputes that encyclopedia. I mean that long before buying these books, I already knew all that grossly from browsing the encyclopedia in my grandpa's home, maybe 20 years earlier. This is now an estabilished truth, even if you can always find some Spanish-nationalist (or French-nationalist too) people trying to revive archaic theories on the alleged Berber origin of Basques and stuff like that, or, more commonly, appealing to obsolete sources in order to argue the modern version of our history.

You can't just imagine that a people that has been subject to such huge pressure could have survived by invading others' lands. We just owned our homelands, hill up, hill down. And defended them once and again. By definition our armies (militias) could not go on campaign out of the country. It was forbidden by law unless the soldiers were paid for it. This custom continued until the 19th century. --Sugaar 18:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation and analisys are wholy mine, as I had the luck to find a modern edition of the chronicle (v. supra). "Possessores" could also be translated as a political term, but (on absence of a concordance database) I've opted for the meaning most fitting in context: the first clause of the paragraph is devoted undubitabily to repopulation activities during the VIII century.

The text is also inequivocal regarding the revolts: they were quelled by the Asturian kings. But as i stated before, this detail is not the important part.

I got at last Sorauren's source. It's the Albeldense. Originally Asturian but with an "addenda" about the pamplonese kings written (probably) during Ramiro I of Navarre's reign. I'm working on a translation of the relevant paragraphWllacer 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests that the main sources should be secondary (like Sorauren, Urzainqui, Lacarra, etc.) Anyhow, I don't oppose using the primary source, as long as the translation is reliable. As you admit not being excellent with Latin, I suggest to contact two good Latin speakers (Cat:User la) for this purpose, preferably from a some unrelated country, so they have no bias. --Sugaar 11:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Domuit vascones

About the domuit vascones, I found the following links Libro imprescindible sobre los nacionalismos ( I ):

Nos cuentan, los voluntariosos historiadores nacionalistas, que los cronicones de las biografías de todos los reyes visigodos terminaban “Domuit Vascones”, “dominó a los vascos”. Esto era prueba evidente que ninguno lo había hecho.

El único inconveniente es que esta frase nunca fue escrita, no hay cronicones de reyes godos. Una de las más altas autoridades en la historia altomedieval, Armando Besga, doctor de la Universidad de Deusto nos asegura: “La dichosa expresión “domuit vascones” no aparece ni una sola vez en la fuentes de la época de los reinos germánicos, lo que demuestra cómo se ha hecho una parte de la historia de los vascones”.

DIGRESIONES HISTÓRICAS: “Adiós, España”: Por Pío Moa:

He aquí un ejemplo característico (pero los hay a centenares), que además, de tan repetido, ha llegado a ser aceptado por historiadores no nacionalistas: la frase domuit vascones (dominó a los vascones), atribuida por el PNV y ETA-Batasuna a los reyes godos. El clérigo nacionalista fray Bernardino de Estella afirma en su Historia Vasca, de 1931: “En las crónicas de los reyes visigodos se encuentra una frase constantemente repetida: Domuit vascones. Vencer a los vascos fue la idea que abrigaron todos los reyes visigodos. Pero la frase, siempre repetida hablando del mismo pueblo, indica claramente que jamás lograron dominar a las tribus vascas”. Muy lógico. En la misma idea insisten otros historiadores nacionalistas, como Martín de Ugalde. [...]

[...]El vascómano useño Mark Kurlansky, en una Historia vasca del mundo muy vendida en Vascongadas, repite la expresión y concluye: “Todos los gobernantes de la Península hasta el actual Ejecutivo español han abrigado la misma intención: Hay que controlar a los vascos”. Anasagasti cultiva el lema: “El frentismo español diseña una vez más el domuit vascones.” [...]

[...] Y sin embargo nunca existieron esos cronicones de los reyes godos ni nunca escribió esas palabras Isidoro de Sevilla, a quien también se las atribuyen. Sólo una referencia posterior en siglos, y ceñida a Leovigildo, habla de que venció a “los feroces vascones”. Como resume Armando Besga, doctor de la universidad de Deusto, “aunque parezca increíble, lo cierto es que la dichosa expresión domuit vascones no aparece ni una sola vez en las fuentes de la época de los reinos germánicos, lo que demuestra cómo se ha hecho una parte de la historia de los vascones que, además, ha trascendido mucho”.

I know that the page authors are biased but the assertion of Visigothic chronicles mentioning domuit vascones should be easy to prove if true.

Besides, do you know that Auñamendi is online? --Error 02:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I put yesterday an article from Armando Besga as a reference in the main article body, which recounts also the question. I found also this page which is a lenghty thread with many common points here.

Anyhow, there is to be realized that most of the debate is a recap of a similar one at the late XVIII century (sadly this time overtly politized). It's telling how spare and ambigous the evidence is. Most of the chronics are available since the publication of the España Sagrada in the mid 1700 and the diplomatary corpus which has appeared since, seems not to have altered the "big picture"

The Auñamendi on line works not for me (at least with Firefox). Is it as neutral as Sugaar thinks?

Wllacer 11:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always used secondary sources and until today I had never seen those claims. This should be easily verifiable for any professional historian. In some other cases, claims from that Moa have been false. What can you say to that, Wllacer?

Its known i don't depise Moa as contemporaneist, but in this questions is an amateur like us, aggravated by his vehement style. But on the other hand, Armando Besga (whom he uses) has ALL the qualifications, (Medieval History Titular Professor at Deusto University), and I found the article i linked an excelent intro to early navarrese history, in a totally diferent light as your Sorauren Wllacer 18:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The online Auñamendi doesn't work for me well either: I only get references to articles and books, not the online encyclopedia I expected. I can link the articles when you link them but can't make searches myself other than giving references to other entries and documents never hotlinked.

Auñamendi encyclopedia is very serious. Neutrality can always be disputed but there's not any other work of that entity on the Basque theme, so it is a most useful reference. It is also useful because it treats Basque history in depth and does not follow the classical (but disreputed) anti-Basque perspective of most earlier works (nor the classical Aranist theory of provncial independence) but rather a modern consistent realistic approach (in my opinion). --Sugaar 17:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Albendensis & Cantabria

Here is the relevant paragraph from the Albendensechronicle. Source is once again the site from the CSIC [3]

. In era DCCCCXLIIII surrexit in Panpilona rex nomine Sancio Garseanis. Fidei Xpi inseparabiliterque uenerantissimus fuit, pins in omnibus fidefibus misericorsque oppressis catholicis. Quid multa? In omnibus operibus obtimus perstitit. Belligerator aduersus gentes Ysmaelitarum multipficiter strages gessit super Sarrazenos. Idem cepit per Cantabriam a Nagerense urbe usque ad Tutelam omnia castra. Terram quidem Degensem cum opidis cunctam possideuit. Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit, necnon cum castris omne territorium Aragonense capit. Dehinc expulsis omnibus biotenatis XX' regni sue anno migrauit a seculo. Sepultus sancti Stefani portico regnat cum Xpo in polo (Obiit Sancio Garseanis era DCCCCLXIIII (A marg.).

Beyond an exact translation, we face here, in order to flesh out the western borders of Sancho Garcia 's kingdom (mark the cepit,conquered) one of the most vexing problems of spanish early middle ages: the exact location (even the meaning) of Cantabria back in the X century. For a starter have a look on the spanish wikipedia [4]. I suppose this is probably why it is little emphasis on it Wllacer 15:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

There can be other reasons for some authors ignoring this passage. You don't ignore this has (or may have) present political ramifications.

As far as I know the Duchy of Cantabria of the Goths was mostly in Rioja and areas of what later would become Castile. The modern province of Cantabria is not any good reference, as Catabrii themselves lived only in the western half of it (being the east Autrigonian) plus eastern modern Asturias and the moutainous area of northern Castile (in Palencia and Burgos provinces). Amaia, their capital, extant in the High Middle Ages, was near the border of Burgos and Palencia provinces, not far from the source of the Ebro. --Sugaar 11:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The duchy of Cantabria could or not have corresponded to that area and is normally said (as far as I can recall from Auñamendi encyclopedia at least) that it was areas of La Rioja and Burgos. Hence the name of Sierra de Cantabria in southern Alava. Classical regional names of semi-vanished peoples may have fluctuated perfectly in the Dark Ages. In any case the Duchy of Cantabria was the Gothic mark against Basques, whichever its extension.

The Spanish Wiki-entry does seem to confirm this perception, despite the map. The location of Amaia is clear and that of Cantabria city is said to have been "near Logroño". I guess that it could approximate the territory of Cantabrii and Autrigones together, but the Gothic control of the mountainous coast is not very clear anyhow.

The text anyhow does mention Nájera, which is a clear reference: it means that Sancho García controlled it. That's Upper Rioja and presumably a "straight line" northwards (it's quite logical) up to the Cantabrian Sea, that is: the Bay of Biscay. It could mean that Pamplona also controlled more lands west of Nájera (as is clear in later periods) but, if I understand correctly, there's no doubt about that minimal extent. Obviously the mountainous provinces were not very relevant for the princes of the time nor their chroniclers.

If you can get a good translation, we could even include it in the article.

Good job, btw.

--Sugaar 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to comment something more when my server crashed yesterday. The passage Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit seems to mention Araba (Álava). Surely this is arguable but I can find no other explanation. This means, as Soraruren interpretates it, that Araba and La Rioja (as well as Tudela and Upper Aragon) were under Pamplonese jurisdiction at that time. The borders are pretty clear, it seems to me.

The only doubt is wether Cantabria means that Sancho also reigned further west, in the former territories of the Duchy of Cantabria (northernmost Castile). This would be coincident with the borders of Sancho III, who, two centuries later, when the documentation becomes more aboundant, was disputing Burgos to newly born Castile (then centered in the Duero: Aranda-Lerma).

For me, and in the absence of other clear contradictory documentation, it means (along with sorauren and Urzainqui & Olaizola) that Pamplona kept quite clear control over the Western Basque Country and La Rioja before the 12th century, with likely (though arguable) ownership as well of the "Autrigonia" (mountainous part of Old Castile, east of the Santander-Burgos line).

I do got a translation out of a web server of the University of Zaragoza, but i have the reference on other machine (so wait a little). This translation does not translate Arbam as Alava, but as "Arba de los Pamploneses.

Sorry for the delay. The translation is at [5] (I made a mistake, the server is from the UAM). It was done by J.M. Lacarra in his work "Genealogias de Roda".

And the text for the sentence in discussion (for the too lazy to browse) is

También tomó bajo su tutela todos los castillos sitos entre Cantabria y la ciudad de Nájera. Ciertamente poseyó la tierra de Deyo, con todas sus fortalezas. Además puso bajo su autoridad la "Arba" pamplonesa. También tomó toda la tierra aragonesa con sus castillos.

I think the leading historian on Navarra will the discussion.Wllacer 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To the reader, I've commented out a paragraph with my own try at translation. It is now unnecesary Wllacer 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Alava is the least bad documented area (of our interest) in the X century. I'm on a "warpath" for diplomatary evidence, and shall report briefly. BTW any of you know if there is a Salinas beyond Salinas de Añano in the upper Ebro Valley ? I got in the UniZar site a document from Fernan Gonzalez where he donates some land in a town Salinas, and the only one i know of is the alavese.Wllacer 13:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just looked in the Spanish Wikipedia [6], and there are the following that can be meaningful:

• Salinas (Castrillón, Asturias) [7]
• Salinas de Añana (Gesaltza Añana, Araba) [8]
• Salinas de Leniz (Lenitz-Gatzaga, Gipuzkoa) [9]
• Salinas de Oro (Navarre, no article in Spanish, stub in English)
• Salinas de Pisuerga (Palencia) [10]

There is also another Salinas in Alacant province but I guess it's irrelevant for our case. There could also have been other Salinas (name that means just saltworks, salt mines or salt pans), whose name may have been lost. It seems unlikely that Añana was called "Salinas" before the lost of Basque language in that area, that happened later for sure. So my best guess is Salinas del Pisuerga, that may have been Castile or a feudal posession of that count in Leon.

Had a look at Auñamendi's, and other sources. There seems to be common consensus that the Salinas (in the latin original) which appears on this document from the X century (and many others) is indeed Salinas de Añana. But it is less useful in this discussion than i thought, because it didn't became part of Alava till 1460 Wllacer 10:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have documentation to argue that Araba is not a modernism but one can't be sure, as it's likely taken from daily Basque speech. Alaba is also said to be from certain Roman town named Alba but both Alaba and Araba could make sense as Basque terms, specially the second (araba, Batua would be: arabe, arape: under the valley(s); compare with Aragoi: high valley, i.e. Aragon). Modern for valley is aran (that can also mean berry and other things) but ara (without "-n" does appear in toponimy). Arguably Alaba could also claimed to be Basque (the daughter) but seems much less likely in my opinion. The only thing certain is that Alaba (if we except this Arba(m) term) was the prefered form in Latin and Romance.

And yes: you are making too much original research probably. --Sugaar 17:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Text and translations

I duplicate it here, just for clarity. I add a new translation Once again the original text. [11]

. In era DCCCCXLIIII surrexit in Panpilona rex nomine Sancio Garseanis. Fidei Xpi inseparabiliterque uenerantissimus fuit, pins in omnibus fidefibus misericorsque oppressis catholicis. Quid multa? In omnibus operibus obtimus perstitit. Belligerator aduersus gentes Ysmaelitarum multipficiter strages gessit super Sarrazenos. Idem cepit per Cantabriam a Nagerense urbe usque ad Tutelam omnia castra. Terram quidem Degensem cum opidis cunctam possideuit. Arbam namque Panpilonensem suo iuri subdidit, necnon cum castris omne territorium Aragonense capit. Dehinc expulsis omnibus biotenatis XX' regni sue anno migrauit a seculo. Sepultus sancti Stefani portico regnat cum Xpo in polo (Obiit Sancio Garseanis era DCCCCLXIIII (A marg.).

Translation according to J.M. Lacarra - Leading Figure in Navarrese History - (cited in [12])

En la era 943 surgió en Pamplona un rey de nombre Sancho Garcés. Muy unido a la fe de Cristo fue hombre devoto, piadoso entre todos los fieles y misericordioso entre los católicos. ¿Que más? En todas las circunstancias consiguió ser el mejor. Luchando contra los islamitas, causó muchos estragos entre los sarracenos. También tomó bajo su tutela todos los castillos sitos entre Cantabria y la ciudad de Nájera. Ciertamente poseyó la tierra de Deyo, con todas sus fortalezas. Además puso bajo su autoridad la "Arba" pamplonesa. También tomó toda la tierra aragonesa con sus castillos. Finalmente expulsados todos los malvados, en el año XX de su reinado abandonó el mundo. En la era 963 fue sepultado en el pórtico de San Esteban. Reina con Cristo en el cielo.

Translation according to José Luis Moralejo, ( Crónicas Asturianas, Universidad de Oviedo, 1985, pág. 263). This is the modern standard scholar edition of the Chroniques. As cited at [13]

.En la era 944 [905] surgió en Pamplona un rey de nombre Sancho Garcés. Fue hombre de inquebrantable veneración a la fe de Cristo, piadoso con todos los fieles y misericorde con los católicos oprimidos. ¿A qué decir mucho ? En todas sus acciones se mostró magnífico guerrero contra las gentes de los ismaelitas; causó múltiples desastres a los sarracenos. Este mismo conquistó, en Cantabria, desde la ciudad de Nájera hasta Tudela, todas las plazas fuertes. Desde luego la tierra de Degio [Monjardín, en las cercanías de Estella], con sus villas la poseyó entera. La tierra de Pamplona la sometió a su ley, y conquistó asimismo todo el territorio de Aragón con sus fortalezas. Luego tras eliminar a todos los infieles, el vigésimo año de su reinado partió de este mundo. Sepultado en el pórtico de San Esteban [Monjardín], reina con Cristo en el cielo (Murió el rey Sancho Garcés en la era 964)

Seafaring nation

I was about to scratch the whole "Navarre was a seafaring ..." paragraph, but I'll give an oportunity to explain how a landlocked country since 1200, with the final cession to Castille of Guipuzcoa (minus intermitent ownership of Fuenterrabia/Hondabarria) can be a a seafaring trading nation in its later existence. Wllacer 10:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not my adition but I find it fine (though admit it needs explanation and expansion).

In La Navarra Marítima (1998, see above for the ISBN) Urzainqui and Olaizola explain it well (chapter 13th).

Pamplona-Navarre had a wide coast for at least 4 centuries (9th to 12th), at its highest point extending from Santander to Bayonne (Labourd was temporarily a Pamplonese fiefdom as per agreements with Vasconia-Gascony but was usurped by the Angevins).

Even in the first partition, Navarre kept Donostia-Hernani.

When Navarre was landlocked by Castile in 1200, Navarre pacted with Bayonne, that was the main Navarrese harbour until the supression of the trade freedoms in 1833, after the First Carlist War.

Some sources claim that Basque fishermen arrived to Newfoundland as soon as 1372 (van Beneden and Irigaray). Other sources are less explicit but clearly state that Baques were there before any other people (excepting obviously natives and Norwegians). This may be argued that does not belong properly to Navarre though, nevertheless, Navarrese was often used as synonim of Basque and Navarre as such was involved in such endeavours:

In Azkona, near Lizarra (Estella), there is a fresco in a 12th century chapel where its seen a three-masted ship. The painting, very old, can make think that in the 12th century there were in Navarre such ships.

The rudder was known as "Navarrese steer" ["timón a la navarresa"] and also as "Bayonese steer" ["timón a la bayonesa"] (...) Nowadays this kind of steer remains being used and, seemingly, there were the Navarrese ships which generalized and extended it. (Three authors are quoted to support this).

Since the mid 12th century Bayonne is not anymore under Navarrese soverignity, but it was until 1152, when it started its dependence to the Crown of England. Nevertheless, Sancho VII the Strong, when deprived of St. Sebastian in 1200, pacted with the Bayonese the conversion of Bayonne in Navarre's harbour.

Do you have enough? You may also want to check the article on Labourd, where I have dwelt in Basque mariner activities from the perspective of this region. --Sugaar 11:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny the importance of the coast from Santander to Bayone during the low middle ages (XIII c. onwards), nor their achivements as sailors, nor that at one time or another they were politically controled by Pamplona during the IX to XII century. It's simply that I don't buy giving credit to the navarrese for (f.i.) the late XIV/XV century Newfoundland fisheries. Under the then current political boundaries it's impossible, and to invoke a causal chain which put the origin of this prowess on the fact that they were once navarrese subjects is at best innocent, and for sure highly controversialWllacer 17:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it surely belongs better to a yet to be written History of the Basque Country (join the WikiProject!) but as Pamplona-Navarre had coast for 4 centuries, it's justified to talk about Nvarrese mariner activities in that period without doubt. The fisheries of Newfoundland can be of the 14th century but the rudder is probably of the 12th century (when Navarre still had coast), probably the oldest one registered in all Europe, what the use of the terms "Navarrese steer" and "Bayonese steer" in historical texts seem to justify. After Navarre lost the posession of its coast, we better should talk of Basque sailing, not Navarrese.

I found the peragraph when I was editing all those sections and, knowing what I know, I didn't dare to delete it but wasn't sure how to improve it either, so I left it there somehow misplaced and confuse. --Sugaar 18:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Second partition

Beyond a somewhat contorted redaction. The last paragraph which currently runs as

By 1200 the conquest of Western Navarre was complete. Castile granted to the fragents of this territory (exceptions: Treviño, Oñati, directly ruled from Castile) the right of self-rule, based in their traditional customs (Navarrese right), that came to be known as fueros. Alava was made county, Biscay lordship and Guipuscoa just province.

is incorrect. Alava had been a county before, but is never again (IIRC) mentioned as such after 1200. Biscay is well documented as a Lordship during the XI and XII centuries. Usually on a castillian, sometimes on navarrese contexts (but always a Lopez de Haro). As provinces (a stable administrative unit) neither Alava nor Guipuzcoa appear before the XIV/XV century. In the interim a complex map of petty lordships, pools of dominical rights (f.i. the Cofradia de Arriaga) and direct royal lands (tierras de realengo, more than the two cited) emerged.

The right of self-rule, and the origin of the fueros based on this event are highly disputable Once again a reference to Llorente is highly advisable, if only because it's available on the net. And a side note, unlike his work on the Inquisición, the only argument against his work on the origins of the basque provinces it that he could have destroyed some documents against his thesis without further proof Wllacer 10:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read my coments above? Many authors question the pro-Castilian/pro-independent "classical" viewpoints. And they have good reasons to do so.

Alaba and the other provinces were just administrative divisions of Pamplona (when they existed as such). Navarrese counts were not inheritable, but rather governors that were put and dismissed by the King and Parliament (Cortes). It was precisely this under-developed faudalism of Pamplona what caused many aristocrats to favor Castilian pretensions, as they expected to gain faudal domain over their governorships, specially in La Rioja.

I can document as much as you wish, but honestly, buy the source books and read them first preferably. It's tiresome that you question each of my well sourced edits. --Sugaar 11:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Summing up

It seems Sugaar and me won't agree. I started this whole "war" as I suspected he was using a source for the article which was somehow peculiar but he wasn't aware. So I pointed to certain facts for which i can provide primary evidence (i.e. contemporaneous documents), or am aware of; which ran against what he had written or demanded for a reference of their statements. I feel they are left unanswered.

Error also has contributed, as usual outstandingly, on a different question.

The threads leave me more even more suspicious of the scholar validity of Sugaar sources, but perhaps he is right, and i ought to read them. I did my research and have found that the historian of Navarra still considered the most authoritative source is Jose María Lacarra, as is Roger Collins work on the Basques in general. And they are already on my (desperate long) reading list. Not to not respond to the "national question". It's simply i'm too hobsbawmite (radical anti-(any)nationalist) in this regard that i confess such a discussion fruitless.Wllacer 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Lacarra's work (about 6 or 7 books) is listed in the bibliography of these authors. But I haven't read it either.

The criticism to the founding myths of Hosbawm is surely correct but it's not the same when you happen to discover that, against the founding myths promoted by the elites of existing states and even by those of your own fractioned states/provinces, you do happen to have a real ethnic struggle of centuries, always in the context of the period. Maybe you can read it this or that way. But you should also apply the criticism to the Spanish and French myths minimizing Basque presence/owenrship of their lands. Those are also myths and have seemingly much less of real stuff to sustain them. That's why they are sinking: Truth defends itself. --Sugaar 19:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't, i shouldn't ;-) If this something called El Ser de España ever exists, i would bet that there are more basque roots in it than, say, jewish (little jab at A. Castro;-)

real ethnic struggle of centuries

You've been told -and buyed- the carlist wars were a national liberation struggle but in name? or read the annexation of Navarre in ethnic terms ? Frankly, -we are going too much off topic, so take it as a rethorical question- do you really believe it can be applied to the history of basque people?Wllacer 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read a couple of primary sources on Carlist Wars. I was indeed teached they were just dynastic wars but after reading Xaho, Humboldt and some other stuff you realize there's much more to it than the eye meets. I am on the opinion that Carlism was very bad for our country as created much confussion but it's also quite clear that, specially in the 1st war, there were two factions inside the Carlist party: the Navarrese party (the Basque biltzarrak and the mass of the fighters) and the Castilian or Apostolic party (the elite, mostly in the exile). While the Apostolics needed the Navarrese masses for the fight the Navarrese party did not really need the Apostolics for much (they were bakrupt, they were meddling and they had different objectives in the end). It seems that the Navarrese party offered the crown of Navarre to Zumalakerregi, he declined. Soon after he suffered a minor injury and the peretender's physicians killed him.

But the Carlist wars are just one epysode. We can talk of Celts (only attested by archaeology and lack of linguistic contact), of Romans (Aquitanians and arguably Cantabrians), of Visigoths, Franks, Muslims etc. Basques had to balance most of the time between compromise with superior forces or armed resistence and that was the most common choice. Basques managed to create ethnic polities (Duchy of Vasconia, Kingdom of Pamplona) and later to retain more than just substantial autonomy (near independence).

It's centuries, milennia of struggle. If you go the Artenac culture, maybe at the roots of Aquitanian (Basque) identity, it was a fighter culture that drove the Danubians out of France.

But this is not the best space to discuss all this. Pass by my talk page and let's continue there. --Sugaar 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Careful with Chaho. From what I remember from the corresponding chapter by Jon Juaristi, he was not a Basque nationalist. He was a French Republican (as opposed to monarchists) and his goal with Aitor was to promote tourism (he was a Bayonne councilor) by giving readers colourful legends. His goal with Palabras de un vizcaíno... (apparently with a different original title) was meddling in Spanish politics for French political reasons. I don't have Juaristi around, though. --Error 01:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

A proposal, why don't we move this sub-thread to the Talk:Carlism page. There should be fitting. As a starter, Chaho is almost the only contemporaneous which saw the carlist war in a "nationalist" view, and probably this is the only thing J.C. Clemente, Alfonso Bullón and Jordi Canal would probably agree ;-) Wllacer 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Carlist War talk page should be to discuss that article's contents, I think. Best would be if we create a subpage in the Basque Wikiproject or move it to one of our personal talk pages, where there are no such constraints. I offer mine.

On Xaho, he was a romantic over all and his very republicanism is somewhat contradictory with his Carlism/proto-Nationalism, what gives him more credit. I have only read his narration of the war: no nonsense, even if he's one-sided towards the Navarrese party. Another more neutral (but less direct) source is Wilhelm von Humboldt who was in the Basque Country a decade or so before the war. I think there are more (have to visit my father's library one of these days because he has a lot of stuff on all these matters).

Come to my talk page for further discusion, please. Let's keep articles's discussions focused. --Sugaar 11:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vascones = Basque (a note of caution)

By curious coincidence i've seen a minor edit by Sugaar yesterday, which eliminated a comment about Vascones not been equal to Basque, and got some info about a serie of articles about DNA analysis from the graves at the site of Aldaieta (Alava), dated 6th-7th century, i.e. just in the middle of the time where the term "Vascones" was mostly used. and have found a severe discrepance of several genetic markers with living (and prehistoric) basque population. Izaguirre and de la Rúa, two of the authors, are among the most cited geneticits. Just a quote from the abstract of the last article

Both this latter discovery and the high frequency of haplogroup J at the Aldaieta cemetery raise questions about the generally accepted belief that, since ancient times, the influence of other human groups has been very scarce in the Basque Country.

Genetic history is still growing, and the anomalies can be explained via various mechanisms, but this news should put a note of caution even on the statements more obvious, apparentlyWllacer 15:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the references didn't work on the talk page. So here are the full references

• A. Alzualde, N. Izagirre, S. Alonso, A. Alonso and C. de la Rúa. "Temporal Mitochondrial DNA Variation in the Basque Country: Influence of Post-Neolithic Events". Annals of Human Genetics Volume 69 Page 665 - November 2005 and
• Alzualde A,Izagirre N,Alonso S,Alonso A,Albarran C,Azkarate A,de la Rua C. Insights into the "isolation" of the Basques: mtDNA lineages from the historical site of Aldaieta (6th-7th centuries AD). Am J Phys Anthropol. 2006 Jul;130(3):394-404

Wllacer 15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking genetics here: the note I removed claimed that Vascones had no relation with modern Basques at all. That's obviously false.

First: the name Vascones extended to all Basques in the early Middle Ages, and that's why we talk of Baques and not Aquitanians, Cantabrians or whatever other possible name when speaking in languages other than Basque itself. That in itself is more than sufficient reason to delete the (unsourced) claim.

Second the historical territory of the Vascones was mostly part of medieval Vasconia (see Duchy of Vasconia).

Third Basque language was widely spoken in Navarre until the Modern Ages (as discussed above).

Finally if you want to discuss genetics, we still get most of Navarre in the Basque-Gascon genetic area however you look at it [14]. Isolated "anomalies" detected in prehistoric (Neolithic) peoples are not sufficient ground to disregard all the rest. They are interesting surely but need to be put in context. I don't have MtDNA data for modern Basques (unlike autosomal and Y-DNA) to compare with, have you got that? --Sugaar 18:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy. it has surprised me also. For the time being I have no reason to blame the edit (at least on formal reasons). I was only warning that till now never challenged hypotesis, may not be so firmly grounded as expected. The article is too recent to evaluate their implications, but points to a, at least, a much needed reexamination of the question. The 1999 study from Izagirre and De la Rúa, has this mtRNA data (IIRC) for some markers. And their new data seem run against some of their own conclusions.

While i think a Great Navarra in the times of Sancho Garces is based on a dubious reading of the sources, and then a legitimate object of discussion; the Duchy of Vasconia as proposed by Estornés and others, is as "phony as a 13 dollar bill", and is just a new "fundational mith". Sadly, as there is very little usable online (and it seems written) info about (either against or for), i'm now recollecting data and hope to put my results for discussion on the corresponding talk page very soon Wllacer 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You dislike fundational myths, but you seem to dislike some myths more than others: you actually have been defending the foundational myths of Spain all the time. Myths like greater Asturian extension than sources talk about, myths like non-connecton of northern and southern Basques, etc.

History is complex and sometimes difficult to discern but the "myth" of Medieval Vasconia gets more and more support, from archaeology to history.

Of course, I expect Spanish and French nationalists to counter it because it difficults their own fundational myths but I thought you were neutral.

As I see it, it's not about fundational myths but about uncovering the truth. The truth hidden by illiteracy and cultural dominance of Roman cultures, from Romance languages to Catholicism.

On genetics, it's very messy: while Guipuscoans are high in V (c.12%), Biscainnes are very low (3%). I suggest you to discuss that in my favorite anthropology forum, where we already went over all that: Quetzacoatl: Are Basques the quintaessential Europeans?. --Sugaar 00:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Pls review what I said about the "Rotense". I clearly stated that the list didn't meant possession. And I haven't put boundaries to Asturies. What I always try to remark is that, with the available sources, much of this constructs are made out of thin air, and, as with the case of Alava in the early X century, seems to be in difficult accord with some of the sparse evidence. This is why I started asking for Sorauren's source of the "Boundaries Chronicle", which btw it's still on the air. The "Albeldense" reference is my guess.

It's not a question of either/or "fundational myth". Sometimes is a question of simply mantain a critical look at the data. For instance, when somebody tells that an obscure ruler whose last 37 (or as minimum 29) years of presumed government are unattested (and so is its polity), is probably the father of next known ruler over a similar area, without other external evidence. (Estornés about Lupo I and Eudes); even an egyptologist (used to chronological gaps) would cry alarm. There are so many critical faults like this to take certain thesis seriously. Wllacer 11:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For me it's not in the air: it's pretty clear: Najera was Pamplonese and so happened with "Arba". Have you even bothered in getting a good English translation of such important text?

You are again falling in the "sin" of original research. I see no problem on a Duke ruling for 30 years. I mean: people live up to 70-80 years, even if the average age then was shorter, rulers probably had a good living. If you assume the duchy with 20 years you can well die at 50 and have ruled those three decades without problem. But anyhow, I'm not willing to make this discussion a forum for original research and very personal doubts of you. There are other spaces for that. --Sugaar 20:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

References

Western limits of the early Kingdom of Pamplona/Navarra

Regarding this discussion. I've found, by chance, this article by Professor Jose Luis Orella (From Deusto University at San Sebastian). On a diferent problem he summarizes all the different approaches of academic scholarship to the western limits of Navarra prior to the XI century (using the "Rotense" text as a bone of contention. I'll make a long quote of it, but I think it's worth. I'll excise some text, but it is present as comment.

a) Escuela castellana: Esta escuela en la que habrá que incluir a varios autores como Pérez de Urbel, Sánchez Albornoz, Balparda y entre los actuales a Martínez Díez afirma, a grandes rasgos, que Alfonso I se encuentra actuando en tierras alavesas.(...) . Estos lugares eran tierras políticamente no extrañas al reino. Más aún para Balparda, por este texto se demuestra que Pamplona, Estella y la Berrueza habrían entrado en la órbita de Alfonso I. A esta interpretación se opone Martínez Díez afirmando que las primeras están dentro del reino, las segundas fuera de la órbita política de Alfonso I (22).

b) Escuela Navarra: Está representada principalmente por J. M. Lacarra. ... El mismo autor años más tarde se refería a este siglo y tratando de interpretar este texto afirma: "Tampoco está bien averiguado si entre la zona alavesa (que formaba parte sin duda alguna de la monarquía asturiana) y la de Pamplona, hubo en el siglo IX otro territorio de autonomía política más o menos acentuada que habría que localizar en las montañas de la zona de Estella... Alfonso III ya nos dice que estas tierras (Pampilona, Degius atque Berroza) no fueron reconquistadas por Alfonso I (739-757) ni hubo necesidad de repoblarlas porque siempre fueron poseídas por sus habitantes, lo mismo que Galicia y Vascongadas"(...) ¿Quiere dejar entender el profesor Lacarra la posibilidad de núcleos políticos o tierras con mayor o menor independencia demográfica y política en Galicia, Vizcaya, Ayala, Orduña, Deyo y la Berrueza?

c) Escuela Vasca: Elijamos a dos autores que nos representen esta tendencia historiográfica en la interpretación del texto de la crónica de Alfonso III: a J. E. Uriarte ya A. de Mañaricua. El primero al estudiar la historia de Orduña afirma: "tampoco sacamos nada en limpio hasta el siglo XIII, que nos sirva para determinar su manera de ser y vida propia ni sus relaciones con los monarcas sucesivamente de Asturias, Oviedo y león, ni con los condes y reyes de Castilla" (25).

Más explícito el segundo aunque refiriéndose a los orígenes de Vizcaya afirma: "en aquellos siglos tan oscuros para nosotros existían en el Norte de España dos puntos de polarización política; uno el reino de Asturias, otro el reino de Navarra.(...) Nada podemos afirmar con seguridad. Quizá se halló en los extremos orientales de la órbita asturiana" (26).

Conclusión: De esta disparidad historiográfica sólo podemos concluir la relatividad de las afirmaciones sobre la autonomía de tierras como Alava, Vizcaya, Ayala, Orduña. El admitir mayor influencia política de Asturias sobre Alava no llega a afirmarla en las demás regiones. y por otro lado la historia independiente de estos señoríos hasta la baja Edad Media aboga por la afirmación retroactiva de su autonomía en los primeros siglos de la reconquista.

Y es significativo al efecto que los textos tanto leoneses como navarros de los siglos IX y X no aludan nunca ni a Vizcaya ni a Orduña. Aun entre la documentación monástica las citas abundantes sobre Alava y aun Ayala, son escasas sobre Vizcaya y Orduña, por ejemplo, en la documentación de San Félix de Oca, de San Millán o de Santa María de Valpuesta. Unicamente en esta última colección y fechada en abril del 956 aparece el nombré de un tal Lain de Orduña que actúa en tierras alavesas

.

But, a few paragraphs later comments that

Por otro lado y de forma no menos tajante y sorpresiva L. Serrano afirma: "consta documental mente la soberanía del monarca navarro en Orduña y Durango y buena parte de Alava durante el siglo X; consta por otra parte que Castilla no dominó en la Vizcaya de aquel tiempo, siendo lógico por lo tanto que nuestra región quedase subordinada a Vasconia; en el siglo XI prueban este extremo testimonios documentales" (29).

I think this puts more or less the "state of the question", which is rather complex and of varied arguments. I've omitted Orella's own opinion which tends toward autonomous entities Wllacer 18:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure there are different opinions. And, really regarding anything Basque, there are always many opinions. But which are more recent and well founded?

Sorauren (Navarrese) claims that all the claims on Asturian posession or influence over the Western Basque Country, understood as east of the Burgos-Santander line, are based simply in the fact that certain Asturian monarch was married with a Basque.

Urzainqi and de Olaizola (also Navarrese) present aboundant docuentation to sustain the well stabilished Navarrese domain of the area in the 11th century. Insisting in the quick change of governors (sometimes called dux, counts or lords) in all the districts as sign of central administration and not feudal lordships.

You have read the Albeldense (key document) and really the more I read it the more clear it is in meaning that Pamplona controlled Nájera and Arba (likely Araba). It is very clear, in any case that these areas were not Asturian in 905.

To claim otherwise there would be needed a clear document that states the opposite. And such document does not exist. What we have is strong opinions castled in their traditional claims against Navarre, based in centuries of active political conflict, and, in the other hand, weak opinions of defeated, assimilated and humilliated Basques teached manu militari, and in school and church, that anything Basque is "second class" and "barbarian". --Sugaar 00:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made this long citation from Orella to show that, if anything, with the data you've given, Sorauren's thesis are wide off the main path of scholarship. And before you continue with the victimalist approach, Orella (IMHO a very good medievalist) publishes regularly articles in Gara. You know what that means ...

Never trust a single author. Best wishesWllacer 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we have the Albeldense very clear: Nájera and Arba were Pamplona then.

I propose to include the Latin text with a good translation and then the different opinions. That would allow the reader to make up their mind. --Sugaar 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Text and two translations are now in a separate subheading in its thread to make them more evident. Noone is questioning Nájera's status (btw., IIRC in this case there is collateral evidence from Arab sources)Wllacer 08:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job. I can take care of placing the Latin original and an English translation (based in the Spanish one) in the proper section. Or if you prefer you can do it yourself, adding all those doubts expressed by other scholars as counterpoint (with due references).

An important aspect of my opinion (just for the record) is that, if Nájera was Pamplonese c. 905 and no other evidence says otherwise, it's fairly logical that the mountainous area just north of it (i.e. the Western Basque Country) was Pamplonese as well. Cantabria here must refer (I believe) to the Sierra de Cantabria and/or the old Duchy of Cantabria or the old city of Cantabria destroyed by the Visigoths and believed to be near modern Logroño. La Rioja and Araba in any case, with some possibility of more western locations in northern Burgos and eastern Cantabria provinces (but unclear).

I didn't know about those Arabic sources but sounds very interesting really. It seems it's accepted that Araba and parts of Le Rioja were under some Muslim control in the 9th century for some other stuff I've read recently. --Sugaar 23:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Added the Albeldensis chronicle and a map

In the line of our previous discussion and, as nobody said anything, I've added the chronicle in Latin plus an English translation (an hybrid of both posted by Wllacer above).

I have also created and added a map that fits that chronicle. Note: the chronicle mentions that Pamplona conquered up to Tudela, yet we know that the Banu Qasi were there for the 9th-11th century period, all the time as allied of Pamplona. Hence, in the map, I've left them in the three towns that are typically mentioned as theirs: Tudela, Olite and Arnedo. --Sugaar 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)