La autentificación del Óstracon con el plano de la ciudad romana de Iruña-Veleia (Alava/Araba, País Vasco)

• Autores: Xabier Gorrotxategi, Idoia Filloy Nieva
• Localización: Arse: boletín anual del Centro Arqueológico Saguntino, ISSN 0213-8026, Nº 56, 2022, págs. 63-100
• Idioma: español
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen
  • español

    En este artículo se trata de la autentificación del óstracon IR14469 de la ciudad romana de Iruña-Veleia. Se desarrolla un proceso de autentificación que establece de forma crítica 13 indicios o pruebas de veracidad, correspondientes a la trazabilidad externa de la pieza. Estos se basan en el informe del Servicio de Restauración de la Diputación Foral de Alava y prueban de manera incontestable la antigüedad del grafito asociado al ladrillo romano. También se evalúan de forma crítica las carencias del informe de la Escuela de Restauración de Bienes Culturales, peritaje judicial que negó la trazabilidad al grafito.

  • English

    This article deals with the authentication of the ostracon IR14469 from the Roman city of Iruña-Veleia. An authentication process is developed that critically establishes 13 indications or proofs of authenticity, corresponding to the external traceability of the piece. These are based on the report of the Restoration Service of the Provincial Council of Alava and prove indisputably the antiquity of the graffito engraved on the Roman brick. The following 13 indications and proofs of authenticity have been verified: 1) the coordination of the object; 2) the identification of incisions by archaeologists at the beginning of its cleaning, which justifies its sending to the Restoration Service; 3) the court testimony by the restorer asserting that she already knew about the existence of a graffito on the piece before she began her work; 4) the written confirmation by the restorer of the fragile state of the piece and of the concretions that covered it, coinciding with the analysis of the archaeologists; 5) the court testimony by the restorer asserting that the inscription was old and that no recent manipulation had been observed; 6) the identification of the engraving associated with the support by the Restoration Service; 7) the photographic documentation of the object and associated engraving prior to its restoration; 8) the photograph after its partial cleaning and consolidation that documents lines and engraved letters, where VELEIA, GORI and NOVVA are read; 9) the description of physical evidence in the piece, with superficial layers strongly adhered on the incisions; 10) the drawing of the object by the artist working at the site; 11) its independent transcription by archaeologists;

    12) the verification of a partially unknown and novel message, necessarily original from Roman times; 13) the observation of a homogeneous old patina covering some letters and the unengraved surface of the piece. The shortcomings of the ESCRBC report, a judicial expert opinion that denied the traceability of the graffito, are also critically evaluated