User:Wllacer/duchy of vasconia rebuttal(SandBox)

Disputed

Although the article has improved since its first inception, and most of its material (barred some unwarranted statements) would suit an article about the Wascones during the Dark Ages, almost nothing points to the existence of an autonomous Duchy of Vasconia prior to 768 (except its appearance as a title of two early VII century merovingian officers)

The reasons to dispute the factual accuracy of the article are fourfold:

• The article (and even worse, the map) states that the Duchy of Vasconia extended over both slopes of the Pirinees.
• The pre-800 historical framework of the Duchy isn't accurate
• The article assumes that in can be assimilated to a (proto) nation-state of the basques
• The asumption of certain political status (beside its clear anachronism)

Each of them can be treated separately. The forth question will not be treated in depth

We are not questioning here if the wascones existed; that they most probably are the ancestors of current basques; that they caused -according to the sources- a lot of trouble both to Visigoths and Franks alike; and that a Duchy of Wasconia, which became Gascogne existed. The question is when, how and where.

Literature.

The existence of an transpirenaican "Duchy of Vasconia" -prior to the Carolingian Era- seems an elusive topic. None of the scholary books I've checked on Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages seems to include a reference on it (neither even R. Collins "Early Medieval Spain" nor Ian Woods "The Merovingian Kingdoms"). A bibliographical search at CINDOC showed also nothing . A survey via Google gives a few unsourced references which on the main follow the treatment in the article and, by extension, the treatment given in the Auñamendi Encyclopedia [1]. Also there were a few genealogical references, especially in french, which sadly, make often use of the Charte D'Alaon.

Thanks to [2] I could ascertain that the whole concept seems to be founded on Bernardo Estornés' book "El Ducado de Vasconia" (Zarautz,Icharopeña,1959). Estornés was the editor of the Auñamendi Encyclopedia and author of the relevant articles there.

While the concept seems popular among certain circles, it is disdained by mainstream scholars, which don't seem even to have bothered to refute it. The longest text i've found a rather critical reference from J. Corcuera (UPV-EHU) in [3] to historians who support it.

As most of the information deals with merovingian data i've used mainly Ian Wood's . The Merovingian Kingdoms, 450-751. (London: Longman, 1994) as a reference. The book has plenty of citations of primary sources of which almost all can be found at MGH online. For certain details, i've made use of Larrea, J.J. La Navarre du IVe au XIIe siècle: peuplement et société (De Boeck Université,1998) I've also made sparingly use of two XIX books, Les Merovingiens de Aquitanie, essay historique et critique de la Charte D'Alaon from M. Rabanais (Paris, 1856) and Historie de la Gascogne from J.J. Monzelun (Auch, 1846). The first one is an unmasking of the Charte D'Alaon and provides esential references to primary sources. The second is totally dependant of that document, -thus mostly false- but provides also a host of other curious information. Both are available at books.google.com. I've made also use of a well researched paper about the basques during this era found at [4], using R. Collins "The Basques" as guide.

If the scarcity of data in the "Dark Ages" were not enough, the history of the earlier times of the duchies of Gascogne and Aquitanie is marred by the (in)famous XVII c. fake known as the Charte D'Alaon, which purports to give a genealogy of the dukes of Gascogne and Aquitanie during the VII and VIII century. Despite its falseness known since the mid XIX c. many of its data still appear even when its bogus status is acknowledged. Many of the corresponding articles of Wikipedia still show its mark as of today. Reading it (available f.i. in Monzelun, in french translation) and Rabanais immediately, saves a lot of time in ascertaining some data.

The bulk of this "disputation" has been written with the article of the Auñamendi Encyclopedia in front (as it is acknowledged that it was the main source for the article), refered as Estornés, so some of the data below might not appear in the article body as now stands.

There are also minor errors in the article (like confusing the bishop of Elusa -Eauze- with the name of a bishop of Pamplona) not worth following.

The pre-800 historical framework

Estornés list of rulers (not now in the article) show several deficiences, which undermine the whole reconstruction. A different list, derived from the Charte D'Alaon, is in the article Duke of Gascony The most basic fault both show is that they assign starting and ending ruling dates to make all the rulers cited consecutive. Only the transition Felix to Lupo and Eudes successors are documented, the other changes of rulership aren't documented; and there is no way to prove the list complete.

• Amandus (only Estornés) is an invention from the Charte D'Alaon, and thus he should be scrapped.
• The main source for Felix and Lupus is the Miracula Martiale and only deals for events around 670/673. A dux Lupus also presided a council of the aquitanian bishops during Childeric's reign (before 675).A frankish duke Lupus is attested in 672/673 operating in Herault against Wamba. It is usually acknowledged that those three are the same person. There is afterward no trace or mention of autonomous aquitanian lords (basically none in general for Aquitania as a whole) till the appearance of Eudes (around 710).
• Bertrand and Hubertus (of the Wikipedia list) come from the Charte D'Alaon and should be scrapped. For the case of Hubertus, pls. consult Rabanais
• There is no trace, nor a hint on the sources about Eudes filiation or rise to power; so both Estornés musing (son of Lupus I) or the Alaon fake (son of Boggis) are plainly unattested.
• Eudes, Hunald and Waifre, their familiar relationship, their chronology, and their autonomy are well attested.
• Lupus (II) as Duke of the Wascones is attested once in Einhard by 768, but the closing date of its government in Estornés (778) is "indebted" to the Charte D'Alaon. Lupus Sanzio is attested in 801, being "loyal like his antecessors" were to Charlemagne. Both are seen acting (and stiled) as de-facto autonomous rulers, but in close, even personal, relationship to the Carolingians. If Lupus Sanzio's second name is a patronimic (as it was customary in the X century and afterwards), he is son of a *Sancho, which could have been an unattested Duke of Wasconia in the interim; although it could be the reverse, Sancho son of Lupus (The original Latin in Ermoldus Nigellus is Lupus sic Sanzius)
• Only Serenus and Aiginus, -as Merovingian "generals"- and later Lupus (II) and succesors, are called in the sources Dux Wasconiae (or related forms).

Wood (pg. 176) points to the fact that northern sources, during the late VIII and IX century, use sometimes the term Wasconia for all Aquitania (i.e everything south of the Loire), usually in regard to Eudes. This, at least, should demand caution on the evidence based on geographical terms

Political control

It's interesting to start the discussion with Felix, as the account is rather explicit "He ruled over all the "civitates" till the Pirinees and over the Wascone people". If it is not an anachronic form from the writer, it signals that the organization of the wascones was unlike the rest of Aquitania, i.e. not based on the roman tradition of "civitas" (a territorial unit under the control of a city, with its "comes" and bishop). According to Wood (and taking into account that Lupus ordained the provincial council in name of Childerich) both Felix and Lupus started their career as "warlords" with token submision to the Merovingian kings, although after the dead of Chliderich, Lupus acted even formally as independent. The career of Eudes and his family is absolutely independent from the Pipinide Majors of the Palace. No exact account about his grip over Gascogny proper -i.e south of the Garonne- exists. Rabanais even points to the fact that none of the places they are attested acting are located there.

In general, we have no data how the area under control of all of this aquitanian rulers was administered, less even for Wasconia.

The attitude of Lupus (II) in the "Hunold (II) affair" is shown in Einhard as of a minor but independent ruler. In 787, Gascogny was spared the redivision of counties at Aquitania, but already from 801, at least the county of Fezensac is attested as carolingian administrative unit. Thus only for this period (from 768 onwards) it can be spoken of an autonomous Wasconia, under frankish suzeranity . Its area was more and more reduced as the IX century advanced with the creation of direct frankish counties (like Bearn)

Extension of the Duchy over the southern slopes of the Pirinees

There is not a single trace in the sources to support this statement, nor even after Roncesvalles and the conquest of Pamplona in 805

The only reference to a Merovingian era action in the south western slopes of the Pirinees is the rather odd Fredegarius 33, who mantains that Sisebut (612-620) conquered "Cantabria" from the Franks, which deserves an independent study in itself, and is previous to all events we are now discussing.

Is a nation-state

Ethnicity of the rulers.

The only ruler whose ethnicity merits to be under scrutiny is Lupus (I). Estornés gives him the byname "Otxoa" (which in modern Basque means Wolf, as is Latin Lupus) and makes him a "vascon". There are two problems with this. First is that his origins are nowhere explicited in the sources, nor the byname; and second, that acording to Rouche (cited by Wood, pg. 229).

Childeric's successor, Theuderic III ( 673, 675-90/1), confiscated his lands in the Orleannais, and donated them to the monastery of Fleury

which seems rather to point to an frankish origin. OTOH, while not common, the name Lupus is attested also in environments of hardly vasconic ethnicity

Felix is also a very interesting fellow. His title was "Patricius of Toulouse". Both name and title point to a gallo-roman origin and, most curiously, to a remainder of gone by Roman times.

Although a relationship between names and ethniticity should always be treated with utmost caution; the rest of the names of the list till Lupus (II) are of German or Gallo-Roman fashion. Most of the remainder of the IX century (and other potentates in this area) belong to the well known pool of names (Garcia-Cortazar via Besga [5]) which (with caution) should be called peri-pirenaican (and most probably point to wasconic influence, at least), so if not authoctonous, were selected from a regional elite pool rather than frankish.

Ethniticity of the state

Wasconia (Gascogne) as a geopolitical term was given to the lands south of the Garonne, i.e. the former roman province of Novempopulania and its heir, the eclesiastical province of Eauze (later Auch). While we can not be sure of earlier times, this was the area Lupus (II) and its heirs controlled (or at least, that was not affected by the carolingian 787 reorganization). Gorrochategui (thru Larrea pg. 126) estimates that the "basque" speaking people (according to the indirect proof of toponims) reached utmost to the Adour. So we are talking of a polity without clear lingüistic unity (despite it's name). I haven't found data about the posibility of wascons as "Staatstragendes Volk" (not unlike the Franks). so this possibility remains open

A note I feel obliged

I got intrigued at first with the duchy with a disdaining ("mithical") reference in Jon Jauristi's El Bucle Melancólico, but never got scholary data for or against it (it seems that beyond circles I don't frequent, for scholars is a non-topic). This article, though, giving the Auñamendi reference, has helped me in understanding and further researching the question. I regret to say, that for the time being, I must concur with Mr. Jauristi.

I regret not having been able to consult three major works in this (or closely related) field: R. Collins' The Basques; Armando Besga's work Domuit Vascones and M. Rouche L' Aquitaine des Wisigoths aux Arabes.

Not exactly belonging to this historiographical question, but closely related is Azkarate 2003, a very interesting document relating to arqueological issues during this ages and the basques.