Talk:Iberians

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have completely reformed the article

I have added quite a lot of information, pictures, and restructurated the sections.

Feel free to make more changes but please, keep the current structure, I think the article looks pretty well now.

This is how I took it [1], and this is how it is by now [2].

There's also something I'd like to comment: if you search Pre-Roman at the Wikipedia's searcher, you can find LOTS of stub-articles about Iberian and Celtiberian tribes (Indigetes, Cassetani, Laietani, Edetani, Contestani, etc). It would be pretty cool that whoever made all those articles (all they look like the same, so I guess someone has created them all) grouped all those tribes in a single article, or in an additional section to this article, so from this article one can check the articles of all the Iberian tribes. I would do it but as I said there are lots of stub-articles, so I would probably miss most of them.

Onofre Bouvila 21:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Iberians, from Iberia

As Wikipedia specifies in its own articles, Iberians didn't come from anywhere... In fact the most accepted theory nowadays is that Iberians were simple the branch of Western Europe original inhabitants who lived in the Iberian peninsula. A little look at Great Britain, Ireland or France histories shows that Iberians or Iberian-related people lived in all the area long before historic records or the immigration of Indoeuropeans, and were responsible for all the great megalithic culture in Western Europe.

Etymology of Iberia

Perhaps, the word Iberia is related, etymologically, with word Europe.

A minority, however, suggest a Greek etymology really based on the word Erebus. The word "Erebus" has a Semitic/Akkadian origin (i.e. erebu, which means "sunset").

From a Greek viewpoint, the sun sets over Iberian peniscula: the lands to the West.

--IonnKorr 21:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not. NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Your guessing has no place. Try looking up the opinions of professional historical linguists. --Victim of signature fascism 19:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

What was the relationship between the Iberians and the Tartessos civilization? are they the same people?--Burgas00 20:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think their relationship may be debated, but the Iberians definitely came after and are distinct. They may have been influenced by the Tartessos, but I think that's debated. Most theories say they had a different origin.--Bkwillwm 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Tartessians were part of the migration to Iberia from Lybia along with the other native Iberians, but formed a more "civilized" society than other Iberians... -Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 18:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

There was no "migration to Iberia from Lybia", where did you get that from? There was maybe one or two epysodes of migration of unknown origin (possibly Northern Africa but more likely to be Morocco than anywhere else) in Neolithic and maybe early Bronze Age but they would not be related with the formation of Iberians in any case, though maybe with that of Tartessians. The existent data is not enough to draw firm conclussions. In any case, it's most likely that North Africans spoke Tamazhig (Berber language) already in the Neolithic and Tartessian (nor Iberian, nor Basque) does not show show any relation with this language.

The area of would-be Iberians was colonized/culturized from the European Mediterranean shores in the Neolithic, over a native substrate that shows pervivence in most cases (as does in SE France and most of Italy too). Later the foundation of Los Millares and its successor El Argar, specially, created the basis of civilizaion and, at least since El Argar, of transmediterranean trade with the Aegean and the Levant. This would evolve into colonialism and the Iberian culture, properly speaking (Iron Age), was largely a product of Greek influence in the area. An area that already had certain cultural homogeneity previously.

As for the etymology: Iberia (the country) < Iberi (the people) < Iber(-us) (the river Ebro) < Ibar (Basque for river basin or valley, cognate of ibai: river). The reletationship between Iberian and Basque language is something that has been speculated upon a lot, but without firm conclussions (they seem to share some vocabulary but they are distict languages). --Sugaar (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient and Modern Iberians

I was interested in adding a section that mentions the relation between the original inhabitants of Iberia to modern Iberians (Portuguese and Spanish, Spanish including Castilian, Catalán, Basque, etc.). Useful statistics are given in the article Spanish people:

[QUOTE=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_people#Ancestry]It should be noted, that 68% of paternal lineages and 39.4% of maternal lineages in Spain can be traced to the earliest settlers of the Iberian Peninsula, carriers of the male R1b and the female H haplogroups, which are the most frequent haplogroups in Europe. The people with these genetic markers expanded into Western Europe from an Iberian refuge at the end of the Ice Age, 10,000 years ago. 18. Origins of Europeans. Haplogroup R1b.[/QUOTE]

--Zulu, King Of The Dwarf People 11:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead Link

External link deleted S710 08:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes... it's a pity but the site is down. They say they'll be back soon. When that happens I'll try to put a good link back on the article. The Ogre 12:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Celts arrived in Spain

They never made their way to Portugal, is that what it means? Spain, in the article, is refered as what? Because as far as I know Spain is a country in the Iberian peninsula, it is not the Iberian peninsula. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.95.63 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? Whom never arrived in Portugal? The Celts or the Iberians? The first did, the later didn't. There were, of course, pre-celtic populations in Portugal, but they weren't Iberians in the strict ethno-linguistic sense. The Ogre 13:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Just fixed it. I also added an external link with a detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC). That gives a good picture of the whole Peninsula. The Ogre 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with the map

The map depicting the approximate location of Ibero (Iberian) settlement is not acurate, since it elarges the area of Iberian settlement to include the Tartessian (later Turdetani) areas. Tartessians wee not Iberians and Tartessian language is "seemingly unrelated to all other languages, including the Indo-European or Iberian language families, and is therefore a language isolate." A better map should be found. The Ogre 13:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the Baetis/Guadalquivir is in the wrong place — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:620:5617:FD75:B241:FF69:56E9 (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Prehistoric Spain with Prehistoric Portugal & move to Prehistoric Iberia

Currently, the text of Prehistoric Spain seems really to be about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly, the text of Prehistoric Portugal seems really to be about the same thing. This would be perfectly understandable seeing as there was no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. I have argued therefore that it would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. I have proposed the articles be merged and moved to Prehistoric Iberia. Please come and discuss my proposal. Jimp 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with Pre-Roman Portugal? You see, Prehistoric Spain encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into Prehistoric Portugal and Pre-Roman Portugal. Should we merge them all? The Ogre 13:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Maps

I believe none of the two maps trying to represent the ethno-linguistic situation is accurate. Bothe commit the same error: to fear leaving blanks, and therefore they presume way too many things. We do not know:

• If Cantabri were Celtic of Vasco-Aquitanian. There are reasons to suspect the latter.
• If Astures were Celtic or not.
• If the Oretani were Celtic or Iberian.
• If the Lusitani were Celtic or other Indo-European.
• If Turduli were fully Celtic or just somewhat celtizied.
• How deep was the celtization of Galicia.
• What cultural group would have the Baleares have placed themselves in if asked (nobody did, it seems).
• How much Celticied were the Conisci.

We do know and it's not reflected in either map:

• That the Caristii and surely their neighbours Varduli and Autrigones spoke Basque.
• That the Talayotic culture was over by 700 BCE.

Can you two admit that we know only that much and either prepare a map that satisfies the demands of our ignorance or just leave it with the quite good maps from Commons?

Note: I have only intervened because somebody called me upon. --Sugaar (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively you can use Image:Languages of pre-Roman Iberia.jpg, that I created for another article without realizing there were already similar maps around. I admit that even that purely scholarly copycat work has some shortcomings (for instance lacks of any info in Basque-Aquitanian language, and it exists) but it's a lot better than your too ambitious maps.

Another possibility is to positivize this discussion and draw an even better map. --Sugaar (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

History and origins

It's a complex issue because all we can say of Iberians for sure is that they existed in their whole historical area since c. 600 BCE until the Roman conquest and aculturation.

The posited two theories are not contradictory actually but they have some shortcomings as they stand now:

1. There's absolutely no reason to believe in any Lybian origin of Iberians.
2. The would-be Iberian area was mostly non-Megalithic (with very few exceptions).

What can't stand in an article like this is to place the Iberians as out of the blue in the 6th century: they are culturally continuous with the previous substrate, at least that of Argar/post-Argar and Levante cultural areas. These two areas show clear connection since at least the El Argar civilization. More intriguing is the case of the NE that had belonged to the Urnfield cultural area (presumably Celic or at least Indo-European) for six centuries before becoming Iberian. The simplest explanation is that they were assimilated by they more developed neighbours of the south, a more adventurous one would dare to suggest that they had preserved the Neolithic cultural substrate shared with them (but that implies many milennia), a more radical idea (that I dislike) is that Iberians arrived with Urnfield culture[3]. I dislike this latter theory because that would leave no possible origins for Iberian Celts - but well.

I suggest to recapitulate the background of the area:

1. Paleolithic and epipaleolithic more or less homogeneous province.
2. Neolithic: Cardium Pottery - aculturating in most cases, mere colonization only in few areas (specially southern Valencian Country).
3. El Argar (and post-Argarian culture) and its connection with the Bronze of Levante.
4. The final constitution as historical Iberians under Greek influence - main "lingua franca" theory.

And then, if you wish, mention the alternative theories, like the one of Ramos.

In any case, as it is now, it's a mere rare hybrid of commonplaces that often have nothing to do with real scholarly research. The fact that most of its sources are online encyclopedias is quite meaningful. --Sugaar (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of the tribes

I suggest creating a separate section to mention all the tribes that are consesually accepted as Iberians. To that, add a subsection to deal with tribes of contested Iberian character (Carpetani, maybe Baleares) and others that might be somewhat iberized (Celtiberi) or are otherwise confused with Iberians, things like the Turdetani (link to Tartessian language), the Aquitani (called "Iberians" by the Romans, as to make them apart from Celts), etc. --Sugaar (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

S.W. France

Perhaps something about the Aquitani? According to their article, Caesar called them Iberians and Strabo wrote: 'For, speaking in a general way, the Aquitani differ from the Galatic race in the build of their bodies as well as in their speech; that is, they are more like the Iberians' (http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/classical_strabo2.html) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.60.63 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well their physical features don't matter. Their culture is more important (celts are members of a civilization not a race) and the culture of the aquitanis isn't very clear : -they seem to have been quite celtized. -they seem to have been acquainted with some iberian people. -Their language seems to have been related to basque language (and possibly iberian for a connection between basque and iberian languages have been speculated) but with a possibly strong influence from the celts (some of their tribes or kings have celtic names). -They fought pretty much like romans, according to Ceasar (that means they were more cautious and disciplined than the celts), probably because they were part of the people that were under the command of Sertorius in his campaigns against Metellus and Pompey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.30.235.174 (talk) 11:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Aquitani certainly needs expanding, sourcing and improving.--Wetman (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Celts and Iberians

French situation shows that the ancient Celtic culture disappears gradually as one approaches the south of Europe. The Celtiberians mentioned in the literature are probably the Iberians framed by a Celtic aristocracy. So I think that the map should be changed, to show the real extension of the ancient Iberians (from the Garonne river and the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, maybe a part of Northern Africa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeping water (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a published map that should provide the basis for the Wikipedia map?--Wetman (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the first user. Iberian culture was dominant in all south-western Europe. This new wave of Celtic feeling in Spain or Portugal (even Northern Italy) is just a pathetic politic claim, with very few basis. But shhhhh...If some spanish teenagers ear you, you will be blocked...They are the wardians of the Spanish propaganda on the wiki.--Neverendtop (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you gents serious? "Iberian culture was dominant in all south-western Europe"? How is that reflected in our sources, exactly? Those Spanish teenagers might as well nose or tongue you there, such statements still would not receive any more support than they deserve. It always makes my hair stand up when someone falls back on crying "political agenda" when they feel their sources do not turn out the leverage they believe they should have. What "political agenda" would scholars such as Meid have to distort our evidence? And how exactly would claiming a greater Celtic or Iberian presence in pre-Roman times benefit any political agenda, and whose would that be? Who, apart from a few right-wing nutcases, would even dream of drawing any political consequences from ethnic divisions that have been obsolete for two millennia? Trigaranus (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw: if you're wondering which kind of idiocy will get one blocked, I hope you weren't thinking of these pearls of modern reasoning. Trigaranus (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on, man. I have partially followed the discussion between the French user and the others on the page "Celts". I don't say that I agree with all the french statements. But what I remember is the extraordinary bad faith of those Spanish teenagers who have reverted all the edits that he had made by using absurd pretexts. But as they are the majority, shhhh... They've got the power. In any case, it is now recognized that the wiki is just a crap. I participate sometimes for fun, but I would never get my sources in an encyclopedia that gives power to those funny teens.--Neverendtop (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we're all of one mind on that last one there. (Not that I would necessarily see the WP compromise being primarily driven by Spanish teenagers, but as far as looking for sources elsewhere is concerned: most people are with you on that one.) Trigaranus (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at sockpuppets of User:Erfurt150. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's bloody impressive how many conversations with himself that twerp had. Yes, I am impressed at how good that man is at wasting his and everybody else's time. Trigaranus (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What amazes me is that the current list of puppets excludes several already indefinitely blocked user names - more socks than a laundromat - and that's not counting IP edits. Gabhala (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Can someone please supply a relatively recent, reliable, non-Wiki mirror, journal article reference specifically on the origins of the Iberians as a people (not just references for the origins of people in the "Iberian peninsula") ? Most of the references here are circular on Wiki content it seems to me. This section as it stands appears to me as WP:OR mainly. Need an expert in the field to fix this up (it will require me some time to do this - so help from an expert would be appreciated).Jembana (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did find a reliable source finally - I propose modifying this page where necessary from this and other such reliable sources that I can find - have a read please and comment if needed:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.2005.00194.x/full

Jembana (talk) 23:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Iberians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568486/Iberians.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006160601/http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm to http://www.arqueotavira.com/Mapas/Iberia/Populi.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227095813/http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/index.htm to http://www.webpersonal.net/jrr/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. - checked Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Iberians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071023223039/http://www.dpz.es/ifc2/publi/fichapublic.asp?recid=2622 to http://www.dpz.es/ifc2/publi/fichapublic.asp?recid=2622

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Greek and Phoenician Colonies in The Iberian Peninsula.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)