Talk:Late basquenization
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Deletion?
This hypothesis is based in very specific (and peculiar) sources and does not follow NPOV (no criticisms, no other opinions).
It certainly ignores ancient historical sources that state that Cantabrians (west of modern southern Basques) and Aquitanians (historical northern Basques) were "relatives", as well as the fact that the ethnonym Vascones is first attested south of the Pyrenees (more or less, as the Pyrenees were never a real border) and later extended to include other Basque-speaking peoples such as the ancient Aquitani. It ignores the epygraphic evicence of Iruña-Veleia, the parallel in votive epygraphy at both sides of the Pyrenees (see: Aquitanian language, widespread toponimic evidence and, well, nearly everything of relevance in this issue.
Would the hypothesis be about an earlier and more obscure date, like the Bronze or Iron Age maybe, then it could make some sense. But this sounds to the lats piece of Spanish nationalist propaganda under a varnish of presumpt scholarship, much like the Vasco-Berber hypothesis or the reverse hypothesis of southern Basques conquering the north in the very same time frame, not long ago still held by the French academy.
The article is authored by a single anonymous author who backs it with a single unknown and probably not relevant author. The sources are no easy to contrast because they lack ISBN and the only online citation is a broken link (of a right-wing Spanish nationalist newspaper). --Sugaar (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've copied the article from the Castillian wikipedia, but I plan to add more information as soon as I finish copying their article. Well, your criticism includes so many points. If you have sources for them, why don't you include a criticism section into the article? Most of the text is based on Francisco Villar's 2005 book, the only book I'm aware of which has tried to summarize the data, the studies, and the opinion of paleo-Hispanists on this very important issue. The fact that you're not familiar with Francisco Villar's work, and laughably dismisses it as the product of a "probably not relevant author", in a very serious way questions your credentials in trying to argue the issue and the arguments presented in the article.
- (1) Many philologists and paleo-Hispanists seem to be adept of the Late basquenization, and that includes Jurgen Untermann, who for some time has been considered the greatest expert on paleo-Hispanic languages. Since the hypothesis has found adepts in many notable and well known linguists, then it is notable enough to be in wikipedia, especially because it concerns the Basques, who in the last years have been evoked to explain the origins of pretty much the entire western European populations. Be noted that Jurgen Untermann is not even Spaniard, so I don't believe it is possible to dismiss by use of ad hominem his contributions on the matter as the product of veiled Spanish nationalism.
- (2) Untermann and Villar subscribe to the same opinion, that Basque-speakers came to Iberia after the arrival of the Celts, based on the fact that the vast majority of the Iberian onomasty has an Indo-European character, and that includes the areas historically considered non-Indo-European (and that includes the Basque Countries and Navarra, etc.). Both differ, however, in that Untermann attributes this Indo-European onomasty to the Celtic laguages, while Villar attributes it to an even more remote, however still hypothetical, Indo-European strata, the Alteuropaisch. The consensus amongst linguists favours Villar's (along with others) hypothesis.
- (3) The text mentions many lines of evidence, which includes genetic and archealogical data and discoveries. I don't see how the information mentioned by you nullifies anything contained in the article (you even cite Iruña-Veleia archeaological findings, which clearly belong to the Roman period, as evidence against the hypothesis). Explain how they do.
- (4) You cite "widespread toponimic evidence" against the Late basquenization, however I ask you, "how?" Both toponymy and hydronymy in the Basque country have an overwhelming Indo-European character. When trying to defend the nativeness of the Basque language in the South Pyrenees, the only piece of onomastisc evidence Michelena could use was based on theonymy, which as it is known can much more easily be changed by recent linguistic transformations than either hydronymy and toponymy. In Viscaya, Álava, and Gupúzcoa, Villar counted 32 toponymys registered in ancient historical sources, 2 of which were Latin, 6 were Celtic, and 20 Indo-European proper... and 1 Euskera. In the Basque country, 38 toponymies were counted: 1 Celtic, 2 Iberian, 5 Latin, and 25 Indo-European proper. Only one had Euskera character, and there's strong evidence it didn't precede Roman days (after all, it was the apelative Latin-Eukera Pompaelo). Explain what do you mean by "widespread toponimic evidence" supports the Euskera nativeness. Even Gómez Moreno, who advocated the nativeness of the Euskera, recognized there was no linguistic evidence for Basque nativeness, however, because Indo-Europeans must have arrived only recently in Iberia, and other peoples and languages must have inhabited it before their arrival, then, well, the Basque must have been at least one of such languages...
- The fact that you're clearly inexperienced with the issue didn't preclude you from questioning the articles' sources and information; I believe this is caused by many persons, especially professional and amateur geneticists, who don't have expertise on the matter, feeling entitled to comment on it and favour the hypotheses which they personally like or the ones that fit the discoveries on their fields. This when they themselves don't turn into amateur "linguists" and make a fool of themselves in the eyes of most professionals. Thus we see Cavalli-Sforza telling his readers that, without a doubt, the ancient Basque presence in the Iberia peninsula corresponds to the first three isoglosses of the first principal component of the Iberian geographical-genetic map, and that is supported by toponimic evidence. He doesn't tell the whole story, of course, and he probably doesn't know the whole story. And we see amateur "population geneticist" S. Oppenheimer arguing that Indo-European languages started to separate from PIE just after the last Ice Age because fellow geneticists-turned-linguists calculated such a rate of separation based on vocabulary divergence. Well...189.70.119.42 (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And the fact that ABC.es is conservativelly oriented is irrelevant to the matter, since it was not some of their editors' opinions which was quoted, instead it was quotations from a Spanish linguist on his recently published books. I've updated the link. The bibliography section is yet to be added because, as I said previously, new information will be added, and along with new bibliography, copied from the Castillian wikipedia. I thought only the books' names were necessary to consider a citation to be properly referenced, but I'm going to immediately add the bibliography section with the works cited as of now.189.70.119.42 (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
