The Celts of Iberia

[Regulus]

I think there's two very obvious issues with the Celtic-speaking peoples of the Iberian penninsula: they didn't constitute a homogenous group, and instead, they were very diverse. The Celtiberians of the upper Ebro area were culturally heavily Iberian-influenced, whereas said influence was absent further to the west. The Gallaecians were cultural influenced by earlier Lusitanian culture in the area.

That may very well be true in general.
The main difference from my side would be that the various waves were homogenous among themselves for the most part but began to mix over time. For example large groups of Urnfielders move into certain areas, held them, and then either mixed in with Iberians, drew back to the West of Iberia, or did a little of both as Iberians retook areas. The 'borders' in Iberia were in a state of flux between Iberians and Celts for a very long time. The situation does not appear to have been settled until the days when Carthage and Rome had their spheres of influence.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

There is of course more to the word Celt than that of a culture or a linguistic group. Sure, I would readily allow that the closeness of kinship would be less than that of, say Germans, who did not "spread out" in their migrations until much later. I would also allow that many groups may have become "Celtized" through contact. But from what I have learned, the genetic side should not be ignored when we consider Iberia. Germanization appears to have happened to certain groups also, just like it did with some that were is close contactor ruled by proto-Celts/Celts.

There were several waves of proto-Celts and Celts into Iberia over time.
The earliest groups settled more to the West, later were Urnfielders and possibly Halstsatts both of which were more spread out. Control bounced back and forth in many areas between them and Iberians and much mixing seems to have resulted. From reading what is available here in the forum, the genetic markers do seem to tell a tale of a population that can be identified by DNA.


The twin arguments about Celtic culture beginning in Iberia and equating Celtic only with Gauls are both recent developments in historical terms.
To me, they both leave too many unanswered questions. It looks to me like the genetic information now at out fingertips is or will cause us to dispense with both and result in a general return to the traditional view.

When one mentions that Celts were a minority in Iberia, maybe we should ask for more details, i.e., was it 15% or 45%? There is a massive difference between the two. I am somewhat confused at what may be the motivation to minimize the presence of Celts in Iberia, but the trend seems to have a surprising number of adherents.

Thank you for your very intelligent and insightful remarks. One would hope that certain agenda driven characters here will take heed.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

That may very well be true in general.
The main difference from my side would be that the various waves were homogenous among themselves for the most part but began to mix over time. For example large groups of Urnfielders move into certain areas, held them, and then either mixed in with Iberians, drew back to the West of Iberia, or did a little of both as Iberians retook areas. The 'borders' in Iberia were in a state of flux between Iberians and Celts for a very long time. The situation does not appear to have been settled until the days when Carthage and Rome had their spheres of influence.

Yes, it is important to consider the state of flux with respect to Celtic migration and settlement patterns in Iberia.

 

[Wilhelm]

I have a study from the Real Academy of History and the Casa Veázquez, on the calculation and approximation of the Celtiberian population (not Celts, only Celtiberia ! ) here it is :

"These results allow us a calculation of the total Celtiberian population between 250.000 h. and about 350.000/450.000 h., a bigger and more logical number. The first demographic anlysis of the Celtiberia offers a interesanting information and very useful for further studies on Archaeology and Ancient History and Geography, and also to better understand the territorial and urban planning, the demography and the sociology of the Celtiberians. "

Taking in account that the total population of Iberia was about 1 million in those times, and they estimate areound 400k , the Celtiberians made about 40 % of the total population according to this study. Now on the greeks and phoenicians, same study:

""y elementos griegos, incorporados en cantidades poco significativas numéricamente, pero mucho culturalmente, a asentamientos ibéricos
15. "se debilitan los aportes fenicios, sobre todo los étnicos, aunque tengan algún relieve los culturales, y aumentan los griegos, por la consabida presencia colonial de los focenses en Emporion y Rhode; su limitado peso numérico tiene como contrapartida una gran influencia cultural, especialmente sensible en la franja costera."

What it says : Their influence was cultural, because their numbers are very limited.

Source: ENTRE Celtas e Íberos. Las poblaciones protohistóricas de las Galias e Hispania / editado por Luis Berrocal-Rangel y Philippe Gardes. — Madrid : Real Academia de la Historia : Casa de Velázquez, 2001. — 248 p. : il. ; 30 cm. (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana ; 8).
Actas de la Mesa Redonda organizada por la Casa de Velázquez y la
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid los días 12 y 13 de enero de 1998.

If you want it, I can attach the study.

 

[Taranis]

Thanks for looking that up.

I'd like to make a caveat here: a lot of the "older" literature (as late as the 2000s, anyways) equates Celtiberians with "any Celtic-speaking people on the Iberian peninnsula". Still, said information changes little about the general statement.

Regarding Greeks and Phoenicians, despite it was also probably relatively small, I would argue that the Phoenicians decisively had a greater impact.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Thanks for looking that up.

I'd like to make a caveat here: a lot of the "older" literature (as late as the 2000s, anyways) equates Celtiberians with "any Celtic-speaking people on the Iberian peninnsula". Still, said information changes little about the general statement.

Regarding Greeks and Phoenicians, despite it was also probably relatively small, I would argue that the Phoenicians decisively had a greater impact.

How can you say that Phoenicians had a greater impact? On the fringes of Southern Iberia yes, but not elsewhere.

Also, are we talking only about Celtiberians or all Celtic peoples in Iberia? What about the Celts of the west?

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I have a study from the Real Academy of History and the Casa Veázquez, on the calculation and approximation of the Celtiberian population (not Celts, only Celtiberia ! ) here it is :

"These results allow us a calculation of the total Celtiberian population between 250.000 h. and about 350.000/450.000 h., a bigger and more logical number. The first demographic anlysis of the Celtiberia offers a interesanting information and very useful for further studies on Archaeology and Ancient History and Geography, and also to better understand the territorial and urban planning, the demography and the sociology of the Celtiberians. "

Taking in account that the total population of Iberia was about 1 million in those times, and they estimate areound 400k , the Celtiberians made about 40 % of the total population according to this study. Now on the greeks and phoenicians, same study:

""y elementos griegos, incorporados en cantidades poco significativas numéricamente, pero mucho culturalmente, a asentamientos ibéricos
15. "se debilitan los aportes fenicios, sobre todo los étnicos, aunque tengan algún relieve los culturales, y aumentan los griegos, por la consabida presencia colonial de los focenses en Emporion y Rhode; su limitado peso numérico tiene como contrapartida una gran influencia cultural, especialmente sensible en la franja costera."

What it says : Their influence was cultural, because their numbers are very limited.

Source: ENTRE Celtas e Íberos. Las poblaciones protohistóricas de las Galias e Hispania / editado por Luis Berrocal-Rangel y Philippe Gardes. — Madrid : Real Academia de la Historia : Casa de Velázquez, 2001. — 248 p. : il. ; 30 cm. (Bibliotheca Archaeologica Hispana ; 8).
Actas de la Mesa Redonda organizada por la Casa de Velázquez y la
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid los días 12 y 13 de enero de 1998.

If you want it, I can attach the study.

I'm gathering that the Celts of the west did not form part of the calculation.

 

[Wilhelm]

I'm gathering that the Celts of the west did not form part of the calculation.

Like I said, the study focuses only on the demographics of Celtiberians not all the Celts of Ibera. And no, they don't consider the celtiberians to be all the celts of Iberia because that same study clearly differenciates them. Considering that only the Celtiberians were about 40% of the population, one can presume that overall the Celtic population was well over the majority of the Peninsula.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Like I said, the study focuses only on the demographics of Celtiberians not all the Celts of Ibera. And no, they don't consider the celtiberians to be all the celts of Iberia because that same study clearly differenciates them.

Fine. I haven't read the study and just wanted to make certain.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Like I said, the study focuses only on the demographics of Celtiberians not all the Celts of Ibera. And no, they don't consider the celtiberians to be all the celts of Iberia because that same study clearly differenciates them. Considering that only the Celtiberians were about 40% of the population, one can presume that overall the Celtic population was well over the majority of the Peninsula.

Ok, just wanted to be clear. Then we are likely dealing with a Celtic population number in the range of ~ 70% for the entire Peninsula. In other words, a great majority.

 

[Taranis]

How can you say that Phoenicians had a greater impact?

There's quite a number of reasons, anyways.

1) The Phoenicians were first, arriving approximately 400-500 years before the Greeks.
2) The Phoenicians had decisively more settlements than the Greeks did.
3) The Phoenician settlements extended across much larger range, broadly from the mouth of the Guadiana to Murcia.

Therefore, it should be kind of self-explanatory that the Phoenicians had a greater impact on the Iberian penninsula than the Greeks.

 

[Wilhelm]

There's quite a number of reasons, anyways.

1) The Phoenicians were first, arriving approximately 400-500 years before the Greeks.
2) The Phoenicians had decisively more settlements than the Greeks did.
3) The Phoenician settlements extended across much larger range, broadly from the mouth of the Guadiana to Murcia.

Therefore, it should be kind of self-explanatory that the Phoenicians had a greater impact on the Iberian penninsula than the Greeks.

Yes, you are right. We tought you compared phoenicians with Celts.

 

[Taranis]

Yes, you are right. We tought you compared phoenicians with Celts.

Dear heavens, no! etrified:

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

There's quite a number of reasons, anyways.

1) The Phoenicians were first, arriving approximately 400-500 years before the Greeks.
2) The Phoenicians had decisively more settlements than the Greeks did.
3) The Phoenician settlements extended across much larger range, broadly from the mouth of the Guadiana to Murcia.

Therefore, it should be kind of self-explanatory that the Phoenicians had a greater impact on the Iberian penninsula than the Greeks.

Yes, I would agree that the Phoenicians had more of a cultural impact than the Greeks. Like Wilhelm, I thought you were comparing Phoenician and Celtic influences.

 

[Reinaert]

Has anyone thought of the idea that the Celts/Basques may have already lived in Iberia before the last ice age?

 

[Taranis]

Has anyone thought of the idea that the Celts/Basques may have already lived in Iberia before the last ice age?

The Celts: No. From the linguistic perspective (especially relationship with other Indo-European languages), that is utterly impossible. The Basques, it's really, really hard to say since when they lived in the area because we have nothing to compare their language against. It's also unlikely that they lived in the area because the dominant Y-Haplogroup in Western Europe, R1b-P310, is way younger than the end of the last ice age.

 

[Wilhelm]

The Celts: No. From the linguistic perspective (especially relationship with other Indo-European languages), that is utterly impossible. The Basques, it's really, really hard to say since when they lived in the area because we have nothing to compare their language against. It's also unlikely that they lived in the area because the dominant Y-Haplogroup in Western Europe, R1b-P310, is way younger than the end of the last ice age.

But you forget the maternal line. The mtDNA V, H1, H3 is of iberian origin, in the Franco-Cantabrian region, and it peaks in Basques. At least in the maternal line, the Basques have been living in the area since the Ice Age. The indigenous paternal line is the I2, which is found in 10% of basques. The other 90% paternal line is indeed of indo-european origin.

 

[Taranis]

But you forget the maternal line. The mtDNA V, H1, H3 is of iberian origin, in the Franco-Cantabrian region, and it peaks in Basques. At least in the maternal line, the Basques have been living in the area since the Ice Age. The indigenous paternal line is the I2, which is found in 10% of basques. The other 90% paternal line is indeed of indo-european origin.

Well, you are absolutely correct about the Basque maternal lineage, and also about the assessment that I2 is probably the paternal counterpart. What I was refering to is that because Basque is a language isolate (with possibl exception of Iberian), it's basically impossible to tell when it arrived.

 

[Carlitos]

oh my God! again the Basques. Yes son, the Basques were taking coffee with the Yeti also called Snowman.


The impact Phoenician as the Greeks called us, but Canaanites, Hamitic meditate had a great impact in the Mediterranean area of the Iberian peninsula, look no further treasure of starfruit tartessos attributed to recently attributed to a Phoenician origin.

The Greeks also had a large number of factories and colonies scattered throughout the Mediterranean, Greeks and Phoenicians would be released to the natives new ways of living oriental looking much more refined and advanced.

 

[Grizzly]

Are the modern studies on Celticity in Iberia by the University of Wisconsin, Cunliffe and numerous others a "myth"? Just what are you up to anyway?

Google e-Keltoi: Journal of Interdisciplinary Celtic Studies, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee for starters. There are several in-depth papers on the Celtic presence in Spain and Portugal in their rather large research corpus.

E-Keltoi makes extrapolations about inscriptions found in Iberia. There is already a discussion about this, position of E-Keltoi-Cunliffe is controversed.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25338&page=4