Iberians and Celto-Iberian Irish

[Vacceo]

One of the limitations of archaeology - every cultural shift is identified as a new distinct culture (arising almost from nowhere), usually "backed up" with theories of mass migration and wipeout.

Genetic analysis shows that approximately 75% of modern residents of the British Isles are descended from populations resident in the British Isles 8,000-12,000 years ago - the vast majority arriving from the Iberian Ice Age refuge (a much small number, rising slightly in eastern areas, came via the east from the Balkans refuge). Even in England, the figure is two-thirds; the population was neither "wiped out" or "pushed west" by the Romans, or the Anglo-Saxons. See "Origins of the British" by Oppenheimer.

More speculatively (using archaeology, linguistics and genetics), the book suggests that the English language was not brought by Anglo-Saxons, but was a much earlier Germanic branch, with some Norse influence. Also that the 'Saxons' - closely related to Belgic/Frisian tribes - were present in south eastern England before the Romans.

8.000-12.000 years ago there was no iberian culture so the link for II Iron Age is inexistant.

You should take a look at the archeological theories you´re refering to, since invasionism and culture substitution is completely outdated nowdays.
Archeologists use the term culture as a substitution of the more precise "material culture" and lots of them consist in local evolution and developement of past realities.

The one I know best is vaccean one and I can tell you for sure that it´s strongly linked to Soto de Medinilla culture (I Iron Age) and Cogotas culture (Last Bronze Age) so they didn´t "come from nowhere".

 

[Pwyll]

Genetic analysis shows that approximately 75% of modern residents of the British Isles are descended from populations resident in the British Isles 8,000-12,000 years ago - the vast majority arriving from the Iberian Ice Age refuge (a much small number, rising slightly in eastern areas, came via the east from the Balkans refuge). Even in England, the figure is two-thirds; the population was neither "wiped out" or "pushed west" by the Romans, or the Anglo-Saxons. See "Origins of the British" by Oppenheimer.


well seeing as it is recognized that the Celts did not arrive in the British Isles till 800 b.c. aprox. this would suggest that they unlike the normans enforced their culture on the native populace. A so called ruling class seperate from the general populace. More successful than the Normans ever were.

 

[unmerged(63880)]

In order to recognize it we must know what genetic analyze means in this case ?

 

[Pal]

If someone´s interested in the whole British/Celtic/Anglosaxon story, here´s a nice read: http://www.proto-english.org/

It also suggests that there has never been a people called "Celts", but rather a "fashion" (or cultural level) of that name which the various ethnic groups in Europe adopted. It also says that both major ethnic groups of Western Europe, Gauls and Germans, were residing in their respective homelands since the last ice age (explaining the reasons for "Celts" being in Ireland, Wales, Normandy and Galicia).

It´s a great read, though I don´t know how much it can be trusted to be more true than the classical theory...

 

[hildoceras]

If someone´s interested in the whole British/Celtic/Anglosaxon story, here´s a nice read: http://www.proto-english.org/
(...)
It´s a great read, though I don´t know how much it can be trusted to be more true than the classical theory...

I would be very very cautious indeed !!! :wacko:

 

[Vacceo]

well seeing as it is recognized that the Celts did not arrive in the British Isles till 800 b.c. aprox. this would suggest that they unlike the normans enforced their culture on the native populace. A so called ruling class seperate from the general populace. More successful than the Normans ever were.

Celts didn´t even existed at 800. b.c.
What we call "celts" in that time, are all those cultures associated to some exent to La Tène material culture and that is from 450 b.c. on.

 

[redmark]

8.000-12.000 years ago there was no iberian culture so the link for II Iron Age is inexistant.

I didn't mention culture; only that the vast majority of the original inhabitants of the British Isles came from the Iberian ice age refuge - as did most inhabitants of western Europe, even a significant number of early settlers of Scandinavia. The British Isles then had rather less later immigration and mixture than other areas of western Europe, which is why there remains to this day significant genetic similarities between parts of the British Isles and parts of Spain.

Celts didn´t even existed at 800. b.c.
What we call "celts" in that time, are all those cultures associated to some exent to La Tène material culture and that is from 450 b.c. on.

One of the themes of the book (and other works the author cites that I don't recall precisely and don't have the book to hand) is that the celt-La Tene link is a mistake, largely due to a couple of basic geographical errors by a Roman historian which were later repeated or ignored by a couple of prominent archaeologists.

According to the theory (and the genetic evidence for migrations), Bronze and Iron age migration (which was limited) to 'celtic' areas was almost entirely from the Atlantic trade routes - southern France, Iberia and ultimately Mediterranean routes. There is no evidence for any significant migration from areas covered by the La Tene culture to carry the celtic languages to the western British Isles; moreover, there is no evidence that celtic languages were widely spoken in England at any time (which should be expected if celts moved from East to West) - hence the speculation for an early form of Germanic/English in southern/eastern England pre-dating the historical Anglo-Saxon period.

well seeing as it is recognized that the Celts did not arrive in the British Isles till 800 b.c. aprox. this would suggest that they unlike the normans enforced their culture on the native populace. A so called ruling class seperate from the general populace. More successful than the Normans ever were.

As above, if the analysis of the genetic evidence is correct, then the "celts" have been misidentified. The "celts" (i.e. the people of the Atlantic fringe we now identify as celts) then pre-date the arrival of the celtic language via the Atlantic trade route, but both would infact be much earlier than 800bc.

 

[Vacceo]

Migration is not necesary for a culture to get spread. Since the only thing we can say about languaje is purely speculative (we have no grammars, no vocabularies...) what we can track is material culture.

And material culture from Bronze Age in Iberia is terribly fragmented. Only the costal ones (Galicia, Cantabria) are slightly linked to atlantic Europe.

For the I Iron Age it´s even worse: material cultures tend to be even more local over here and from that cultures comes the celtiberian ones. Only in that cultures we can find a decent link to central european cultures (that is La Tène).

 

[Jolt]

I think the closest thing a Paradox game has made to the "iberian tribal chaos" is the italian republics in EU.
I mean, let´s say we have an Iberian culture; that iberian culture would gather lacetans, indikets, bastetans...
A celtiberian branch could include arevacians, vettonians, vecceans, oretans, carpetans...

I think that is the closest thing implementable in a game like this, because if you want genuine reality, I don´t think it will be possible to create a genuine oppida political map in which the vacceans (the example I know best) could be divided into little political groups corresponding to their oppidum: that would make possible that the vacceans from Pallantia have different alliances an policies than the vacceans of Intercatia or the vacceans from Rauda, Cauca, Salmantica...

Regarding the origins, according to this last decade excavations, seems like iberian and celtiberian populi combined a 75% of native developement and a 25% influence from non-iberian cultures.

If you look at arevacian world (the famous guys who resisted in Numantia), only a 25% of his material culture is La Tène related while the rest comes from I Iron Age cultures like Soto de Medinilla and even from the last Bornze Age period (in this case, Cogotas culture)

Indeed. I gotta say I'm new into the archeology course (Going to my 3rd week in my 1st year in college/university) and I only have started studying so far. Still the notes you have given only goes to show the extreme diversification in cultural terms in Iberia. Your suggestion of dividing Iberians and Celtiberians is a simple and good solution, game-wise, but to make it historical...heck, every province would need a different culture.

 

[Vacceo]

Your suggestion of dividing Iberians and Celtiberians is a simple and good solution, game-wise, but to make it historical...heck, every province would need a different culture.

There are lots of connections between every "populi" of the Peninsula with the rest of them (iberian pottery has been found in the vaccean graveyard of Padilla de Duero and that is a "celtiberian" tribe. We have even found a piece of attic pottery!) in material culture and more specificaly in ways of manufacture (pottery, ironworks), decorations, architecture, urbanism, funneral rites...

That´s why I personaly consider a culture for each tribe as something even historicaly excesive (arevacians, vacceans and vettonians are different expressions of the same roots in different geographical areas) but for "cultures" in EU3 terms I´d put:
-Celtiberians (inner meseta groups).
-Iberians (mediterranean coast groups including Balear islands)
-Vasco-aquitanians (nowdays Basque Country and Gascoigne)
-Celtic-atlantic (Lusitania and Galaecia; this ones could be called "celtiberians", but seems like they have more of celts than iberians. ).
-And as minors, being really, really precise: the greek colonies like Rhode (nowdays Rosas) and Emporion (Ampurias), the phoenician-carthaginian cities of Gadir (Cádiz) and Kart Hadasht (Carthago Nova or nowdays Cartagena).

 

[Albert I]

For a Iberian map, we can start with geographic division follow of a map where the important city has a province

but for "cultures" in EU3 terms I´d put:
-Celtiberians (inner meseta groups).
-Iberians (mediterranean coast groups including Balear islands)
-Vasco-aquitanians (nowdays Basque Country and Gascoigne)
-Celtic-atlantic (Lusitania and Galaecia; this ones could be called "celtiberians", but seems like they have more of celts than iberians. ).
-And as minors, being really, really precise: the greek colonies like Rhode (nowdays Rosas) and Emporion (Ampurias), the phoenician-carthaginian cities of Gadir (Cádiz) and Kart Hadasht (Carthago Nova or nowdays Cartagena).

 

[Luis de Aveiro]

For a Iberian map, we can start with geographic division follow of a map where the important city has a province

Here you have one
map.

About the west side of Iberia, the most spoken theory at the time of my history grad (mid-nineties) was that the Greek defeat against the Phoenician/Carthaginian in the battle of Alalia and consequent lack of Greek traders in the Gibraltar Strait led to the collapse of the Tartessian civilization, which caused a migration of Turdetani and the Turduli to the western coastal zones between Lisbon and the Mondego river (the Turdulorum Oppida) where they met the Lusitanians, and also between the Douro and Vouga rivers (Turduli Veteres), where they certainly met the Callaecians (the theory that their origin is the Porto region, which the Roman name was Calle, is very popular but was not yet proven), which were part of the Castro culture.
Nevertheless we must understand that probably against roman and popular belief, this region (west region of Iberia, specially south of the Tejo river) had post-Tartessians, pre-celtic [Conii, Cynetes or Cunetes](look at all the settlements that end with -briga in this territory), and celtiberian-like villages/communities/tribes scattared all over it.

Depending on the number of provinces on the game, we could possibly add Turdetani and the Turduli in the coastal western area, the lusitanians at the east side of the western province, Celtic-like (pre-celtic) at the southwest provinces (south of the Tejo river), and the Callaecians in the northwest provinces, north of the Douro river

Specially for Vacceo: I'm no archaeologist, although I like the pre-roman history of our countries. The problem is that there are not many recent books on the subject (I only can find some from the early nineties and the majority are form the eighties), so I ask you if you can fill me in with the most recent published spanish works on the subject, and a good/recent History of Spain collection (the kind that stretches for several volumes). Is that the Portuguese history books only give information on the rectangle and not the inverted pentagon that is Iberia

 

[hildoceras]

Nevertheless we must understand that probably against roman and popular belief, this region (west region of Iberia, specially south of the Tejo river) had Tartessian, pre-celtic (look at all the settlements that end with -briga in this territory), and celtiberian-like villages/communities/tribes scattared all over it.

isn't -briga a celtic suffix ? (hill, mount, high)

 

[Luis de Aveiro]

isn't -briga a celtic suffix ? (hill, mount, high)

hence the pre-celtic

 

[hildoceras]

I do not follow your logic... o

 

[Vacceo]

Hi Luis; good to see a lusitanian mate over here!

To tell the truth, the best researchers for the II Iron Age in Iberian Peninsula are too centered in their respective settlements but if you read spanish (I assume so reading your post) you can take a look at:

-Almagro Gorbea (excavations in Monte Bernorio).
-Sánz Mínguez (excavations in Pintia).
-Álvarez Sanchís (excavations in Ulaca).
-Alfredo Jimeno (excavations in Numancia).

Excavations in Elviña (close to La Coruña) has given quite nice information about gallaecians.

Regarding links between celtiberians and lusitatians; seems like in the end both weren´t that different as it was supposed in preovious decades. Just take a look at the research progress in Ulaca.

Last but not least, Jose Luís Maya in "Iberos y Celtíberos en la Península Iberica" made a great sumary of how things are nowdays in the field.

The idea behind the last excavations tends to go arround the "nativist perception" and seems like the different peoples of the Iberian Peninsula were not as isolated as it whas thought.

 

[Luis de Aveiro]

I do not follow your logic... o

I meany they where probably proto-celtic... anyway, I'll use some bibliographic approach, since I was writing out of my mind about subjects I've read some ten years ago.

I'm trying to revise the list of books... with the help of Vacceo
(thanks about those authors. and about some recent "historia de España" in hard back colection?)

 

[Divi]

I would be very very cautious indeed !!! :wacko:

Let's go further: It's a piece of crap.

 

[hildoceras]

Let's go further: It's a piece of crap.

in university you never write "it's a piece of crap", unless you give a lot of proofs to justify your allegation . Instead, you say "One should be cautious when considering this text".
cautious=it's all wrong, very cautious=it's crap, should read more references=I wrote a good book on the topic

 

[hildoceras]

I meany they where probably proto-celtic...

oh, yes probably if only by the use of this -briga suffix, when more recent celts would use -dumnus
but I do not know much on proto celts o