Talk:History of the Basques

Article's length
Even if just split from another lenghty article (Basque people), this article is alread at the very limit of its recomended size (33 KBs, max. recommended is 32 KBs). We should calmsly start pondering splitting some sections to sub-articles. I suggest to follow the template and/or discuss the general structure of Basque history in en.Wikipedia inside the Basque Wikiproject - that exists for such purposes. --Sugaar 03:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins: needs scissors

 * Just found that there's a separate article on Origin of the Basques. Therefore there's no need for that section to be so lenghty here. Someone, please, cut all the superfluous materials. --Sugaar 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
"The central state apparatus, including Spanish politicians, the judiciary and Spain's police, army and prisons, have continued to persecute members and sympathisers of the abertzale movement and to obstruct Basques' attempts to construct their own cultural and political structures or to articulate and defend a national sovereignty project." OK, that's not wrong at all, but it should also be cited that some Basque citizens try to construct this sovereignty project by force, promoting violence not only on non-Basque Spaniards, but also on Basques who have a different vision of the path to independence. Archael Tzaraath 16:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You're surely right. I did not participate at all in the creation of that section and it probably needs a good cleanup and some expansion. A delicate issue naturally.
 * Notice that the article has just been split from Basque people, where all these issues were dealt with in separate sections (and have for the most part been moved to Basque Country (historical territory) for reasons of length and separation between ethnology and politics/demography).
 * I personally welcome you if you mean to improve that section without enlarging it too much, rather defering the hot issues to specific articles (existing or to be created). --Sugaar 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

670
No mention appears to have been made of Basque whaling in 670, only the transportion of whale oil or blubber to the abby of Jumièges. The oil or blubber easily could have come from a stranded whale. Jonas Poole 22:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the oil was requested by an abbey near Paris, some 700 km away from the Basque country has been used as rationale to support coastal whaling prior to that date: the monks would not have requested it unless they knew Basques were reliable providers.
 * The source of all that is (I guess it's in the footnotes section) T. Urzainqui and J.M. de Olaizola, La Navarra marítima, 1998. ISBN 84-7681-293-0
 * Regarding the presence of Basques in Iceland in 1412, it's mentioned in the same book and sourced to to A. Irigaray, who wrote under the pseudonym of Apat-Etchebarne in 1971 and bases that claim in the presence of certain Basque-Icelandic dictionary that is preserved in the library of the Gipuzkoan Government. Nevertheless some other wikipedist argued some time ago that the dictionary was not conclusive evidence, as it could be of later date.
 * There are several authors that claim Basque presence in Newfoundland as soon as 1372, specifically Belgian cetologist Van Beneden, 1892. But guess these claims can be questioned. I have the unfinished project of writing an article specifically on Basque sailing and so far, the first 100% safe date for Basque presence in Newfoundland (Iceland was not an important area of Basque fishing, Ireland and Newfoundland were) is in the early decades of the 16th century (not sure right now but 1520s probably). --Sugaar (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The request isn't necessarily evidence of active shore whaling, but perhaps evidence that the Basque utilized stranded whales. There is something historians have dubbed "drift whaling" (a horrible term I hope will no longer be used, as it isn’t really whaling), which is the active search for whales found stranded ashore. If whales regularly stranded in the Bay of Biscay during this period, then the Basques may have been reliable providers of whale oil/whale blubber from whales that they found during the winter and spring months. This is how whaling began in the British colonies in the 17th century, as well as elsewhere.

One whale (in this case we are speaking of North Atlantic right whales, Eubalaena glacialis) would have yielded a large amount of oil, enough perhaps for that single shipment of oil/blubber to the abbey.

You already debated with me some time ago, and I told you the 1412 reference of Basque whalers actually referred to foreign vessels. See my discussion page for the reference. Also, I was the one that told you that the Basque-Icelandic glossaries came from the 17th century. See ''Edvardsson, R., and M. Rafnsson. 2006. Basque Whaling Around Iceland: Archeological Investigation in Strakatangi, Steingrimsfjordur''.

I also already spoke with you about when the Basques began whaling in the New World. Seeing as how no evidence has been put forth for the obviously dubious claims made by authors writing centuries after the fact, I’d say its safe to say the Basques didn't began whaling in Terranova until the 1530s. As Selma Barkham (1984) said: "Contrary to the spurious claims of writers on the history of whaling who have based their findings on secondary evidence, the Basques never, at any point, chased whales further and further into the Atlantic until they collided with North America. This ridiculous legend must be laid to rest once and for all." Jonas Poole (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which map for High Middle Ages ?
As far as I can judge with little expertise and no specific visit to a library, both maps don't seem convincing (though quite well sourced - for Vasconia I checked Auñamendi Encyclopedia, it is clear indeed that Sugaar's version is faithful to its source).

The general view around 500 AD is most problematic, when hinting at a "Basque kingdom" at this period. There does not seem to have been such a "kingdom" or rather, if there has been one -which is far from unlikely- we do know virtually nothing about it. It is not reasonable to map something which is not even alluded in the text nearby.

Now comes the second map, the one about Duchy of Vasconia under Odo the Great. The problem here is that I don't see any written source, outside the Auñamendi map (not corroborated by the text nearby, indeed) that would give any hint that Odo's duchy did extend south of the Pyrénées. A general book about French history I fetch tells me he was "master of most cities between the Loire and Pyrénées", but I see nothing giving any suggestion he controlled any bit of territory in present Euskadi or Navarra. I see hints of a Basque army he led, trying to conquer northern France (and defeated near Soissons, not precisely in Basque country !), but as far as I know, "Duchy of Vasconia" has nothing to do with any territory nowadays Spanish (except perhaps at Charlemagne's apogee, and only marginally in badly known conditions).

So my conclusion would be to keep no map at all : I fear none is scientific enough to be kept in the article. French Tourist (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Neither map should have to be removed. I can fix any errors in maps I make and upload a more accurate version if necessary. The other map's creator can probably do the same, or at least someone can. Each map gives great information for readers, they are relevant to History of the Basque people, and they show different perspectives of different times in Basque History. They should be corrected if they are inaccurate, but not deleted.
 * What is the best way to correct the map? I've seen different names for the Basques at different points of history. I'm not sure exactly why picked "Basque Kingdom". Is "Vasconia" or "Gascony" or do you have something else in mind. I got the borders from Euratlas Map of Europe in 500 AD. I can fix the borders too if they're wrong and you can show me how. Respectfully, Thomas Lessman (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no point in the map of half of the planet where it reads "Basque kingdom" (unexistent entity, unless you'd take as such an 7th-8th century unclear claim of the Dukes of Vasconia and Aquitaine that didn't really prosper in any case and that would be in any case "Kingdom of Aquitaine, extending to the Loire) in a tiny corner with borders that apparently don't correspond to reality (too far to the west, too short to the north).
 * I appreciate your map, Talessman, but it's beter fit for a more generic article (independently of wether it may need corrections).
 * The usage of the terms Vasconia/Wasconia and Gascony (a late medieval derivate) are discussed in the article Duchy of Vasconia and Duke of Gascony. I can't recall right now the date of the change of term (as Gascony became romanized) but it's a post-Carolingian event in any case.
 * I'd sincerely appreciate if you'd discuss the validity of the map in the relevant talk page: Image:Duchy of Vasconia.gif, that so far has no comments whatsoever. --Sugaar (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Maps
A map shouldn't take up more than about half of the in-article column space. Maps add greatly to the pleasant appearance of the articles. Wjhonson (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Navarre
was it a Basque state? Böri (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite. It was a state with a high percentage of Basque-speaking people, but the kings, nobility and the whole ruling class were Spanish-speaking. Studies on the language show its use in Navarre was already receeding when the kingdom expanded, being ultimately confined in the isolated northern mountain ranges where it is mainly spoken today. For comparison, the language has been much more preserved in the then Castillian provinces of Biscay and Gipuzkoa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.40.27 (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

German occupation in the Basque Country
Hi there, I do not see how this section could fit in the History of the Basques not more than a couple of lines, mainly linked to the ordeal undergone by the Basques fleeing the Spanish Civil War, the support found by the Germans in some pro-Vichy Basques personalities, and the support provided by others to the refugees and the allies, remember, this is about the Basques/Basque people. The article is too pumped up by now, why not create a new article? Iñaki LL (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Moved content to new article. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Neolithic Farmers
The section labeled with: "The following alternative theories about the prehistoric origins of the Basques have all had adherents at some time but are rejected by many scholars and do not represent the consensus view:"

Contains the following bullet-point: "Basques as Neolithic settlers: According to this theory, a precursor of the Basque language might have arrived about 6,000 years ago with the advance of agriculture. The only archaeological evidence that could partly support this hypothesis would be that for the Ebro valley area."

Despite that multiple articles on the Basque, including this one in the following section ("New Genetic Evidence in 2015" or some such name) support the idea that they're at least partially descended from Neolithic settlers.

Shouldn't this be cleaned up? I think it should be made clear that the theory that they are descended from Neolithic settlers is unconfirmed but that it's not rejected either.

97.95.165.72 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest serial edits by new username
WP:OR is not allowed in the WP. Please do not alter sourced statements. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bring your claims to discussion. Iñaki LL (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not Anund Graenhjalm, whom you seem to revert systematically on a minor conflict. But I can hardly describe his interventions in the article as alteration of sourced statements. The statement you reintroduce is supposed to be "sourced" by a thousand year old manuscript, that is a primary source, written in Latin ; that is called a primary source and should not be used, except maybe as a complement to a secundary source. (Additionally, the given web link is dead). Moreover (I have not checked this assertion by Anund Graenhjalm, but it seems pretty likely) this primary source uses the latin expressions 'Pamplionensium regum' and 'Regibus Pampilonensibus', whose English translation hardly seems to be "Basque kingdom". Chonchonchon (talk) 13:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)