Introduction
Seven years without dating analyses
How is the judicial process going?
The opinion of Edward Harris
Miguel Thomson’s Report
The University of the Baskeland prohibits a speech on Iruña-Veleia
Lurmen’s expulsion from Iruña-Veleia: 7th anniversary
Basque police (Ertzaintza) report has no scientific basis
Know Iruña-Veleia’s Treasure
02-Iruna-Veleia-Newsletter-Berripapera-Boletin
Introduction
This is the second newsletter on the Iruña-Veleia affair. In it, we will comment on the current situation of Lurmen archaeologists (Eliseo Gil and others) who were accused of forgery while excavating the Iruña-Veleia site seven years ago. This accusation was not supported by any scientific evidence and was mainly based on linguistic arguments, which have been refuted by many authors.
Seven years without dating analyses
On November 19th, seven years had passed since the Provincial Government of Alava expelled the excavating Lurmen company from the Iruña-Veleia archaeological site.
This decision was totally unjust for many reasons: it was based on reports containing personal opinions, no dating analyses nor controlled excavations requested by Lurmen were done, and the experts did not request information nor field notebooks, nor wanted to audit the stratigraphic work… Subsequently, the Provincial Govern-ment filed suit against the head of the excavation team, Eliseo Gil, on no scientific basis, since the requested excavati-ons and analyses had been denied.
How is the judicial process going?
The law suit filed by the Provincial Government is still in pretrial phase even though it was filed 7 years ago.
Two other law suits filed by the funders of the excavations were dismissed because Lurmen managed the funds correctly. The biggest problem is that the graffiti, instead of being under the Court’s custody, are still kept by the plaintiff, the Provincial Government. This would be unacceptable in any judiciary system, since it results in the breach of the chain of custody. Also, there are indications that the Provincial Government may have tampered with evidence in some graffiti.
