Talk:Prehistoric Iberia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prehistoric Iberia article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
/Archive I


Contents

[edit] Phoenician foundation of Lisbon?

The following was moved from "Talk:Pre-Roman Portugal".

This article states the following:

The myth of a Phoenician foundation of the city as far back as 1300 BC, under the name Alis Ubbo ("Safe Harbour") is unreal.

However, the wiki article on Lisbon states:

Archeological findings show that a Phoenician trading post existed in the place that, since 1200 B.C., has occupied the centre of the city. The magnificent natural harbour provided by the estuary of the river Tagus made it the ideal spot for a settlement to provide foodstuffs to Phoenician ships travelling to the tin islands (modern Isles of Scilly) and Cornwall. The new city was named Alis Ubbo or "safe harbor" in Phoenician.

Olavius 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the reputed Portuguese historian José Mattoso (vide Mattoso, José (dir.), História de Portugal. Primeiro Volume: Antes de Portugal, Lisboa, Círculo de Leitores, 1992 - in Portuguese) there were no Phoenician colonies, settlements or trading post in Portugal, other than the one in Algarve (namely in Tavira). So I believed the story about the Phoenician foundation of Lisbon should be regarded as myth. Even if the Phoenicians did maintain comercial activities with the rest of the modern Portuguese territory (other than the Algarve), and that is why one can find Phoenician pottery and such. At best Lisbon was an ancient autocthonous settlement (what the Romans called an Oppidum) that maintained comercial relations with the Phoenicians. I'll correct the article on Lisbon. Thank you. The Ogre 13:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistic map

I replaced an awful map that is subject to deletion process (and likely to be deleted by the current input) by another one I had (and uploaded ex-professo) with a reliable source (a University History manual). The Ogre then replaced it by the one standing now that may look pretty nice but seems totally self-research (see caption in Wikimedia Commons, that links to a geocities page as source, probably that of the author). One problem is evident in both maps I oppose: that they claim the Basque area as "Celtic", against all evidence (see Iruña-Veleia, for instance). Equally claiming the lands of Astures and Cantabri as Celtic is beyond what historical and archeological evidence allows (a single unlocated "-briga" toponym, Flaviobriga, is not enough, specially considering that Caesar attests that the Cantabri were "relatives" of the Aquitani, a Basque-speaking population than himsef describes as "Iberian" - as opposed to Celtic). I believe that my map is much more accurate, even if less ambitious, than any of the other two, and has the advantage of being academically sourced (no self-research). --Sugaar (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the maps are good, I grant you that...! You have stated the problems with the ones I presented (they are not my doing, mind you), and I globally agree. The one you present also has many problems (for instance, it enhaces the Tartessian linguitic zone, wich is very doubtfull, since it is not certain that the Cynetes even spoke tartessian, although they seem to have a form of writing akin to tartessian - the Southwest script; furthermore the Cynetes or Conii were eventually absoved by the Celtici...). The only good one I know is this Detailed map of the Pre-Roman Peoples of Iberia (around 200 BC). Unfortunatly it is copyrigthed... The Ogre (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I grant you that, in what regards the Iberian peninsula, the map I posted is quite good. Can't judge the paricular case of Cynetes but it's quite clear that the other maps are too "ambitious" in their level of detail (not justifiable by our level of knowldege) and lack of a scholarly source.
The "Arqueotavira" site map falls also in the same errors: too "ambitious" and too "Celticist" (i.e. intepreting any blank, doubt or whatever as Celtic by default). Still, in my judgement it's better.
For Jordá et al, all southern Portugal used Tartessian script and language. The only dubious area would be that the Lower Tago, where evidence is scant and tomonimy ambiguous: 3 Tartessian toponyms (2 in -ippo and one in -ucci/-urgi) and 3 Celtic ones (all in -briga). I can make an improved map anyhow, with more detail of the actual data and less assumptions. The important thing is to have a good unbiased map and, please, one that does not describe Astures, Cantabri and Western Basque tribes as Celtic. --Sugaar (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I have already created that new map: Image:Languages of pre-Roman Iberia.jpg. I think it's very objective and lacks the "arrogance" of other maps. Hence, with your implicit permission, I'm going to add it to the article instead of the that is right now, that has many lackings, except the "arrogance" of excessive interpretation. --Sugaar (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Great map Sugaar! I see what you mean by not being too ambitious. This is a good compromise. By the way, I've tagged your new map in order to move it to the Wikimedia Commons. Instead of uploading your maps and images to wikipedia, you should do it in the commons, where they can be available to all wikipedia projects (including all languages). Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ogre. It's less "easy" for the reader with little knowledge (than for instance my other version) but it's what the facts are, independent of each one's interepretation.
I usually upload all maps to em.Wikipedia, the reasons are veried: (1) I only work in this language Wikipedia, not in the Spanish one, for instance, where I would be smashed quickly by furious masses of readers of "El Mundo" and "La Razón", (2) often my maps have text in English, like in this case, and hence are not really idoneous for Commons. Rather "language mute" version should be made instead (but I'm not the one doing it, DIY). --Sugaar (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iberian origins

The article reads:

The Iberians arrived on the peninsula sometime in the third millennium BC Most scholars believe the Iberians came from somewhere farther east in the Mediterranean, although some have suggested that they originated in North Africa. The Iberians settled along the eastern coast of Iberia. The Iberians lived in isolated communities structured as tribes.

This unsourced comment is surely false but in any case quite questionable. AFAIK, there's no single archaeological evidence for a 3th milennium arrival of new peoples to the peninsula, unless the author is considering the quite old fashioned theories about Los Millares being an Oriental (Cypriot) colony, for which there's no meaningful evidence and has now fallen out of favor clearly. In any case, Los Millares and its successor El Argar (eventually Hellenized in its phase B, yes, but Iberians didn't speak Greek in any case) can't probably be considered the oly source of Iberians, at least the Bronze of Levante and other cultures (for the case of Tartessians or Western Iberians) should be considered as well.

As I see it with the available archaeological evidence (that is not scarce), Iberians likely evolved locally from the Neolithic Cardium Pottery culture, that stretched quite precisely by the area their occupied in pre-Roman times. Of course, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age developements, including Los Millares - El Argar civilization but also the Bronze of Levant, surely shaped their evolution in terms that are difficult to discern: what was more influential: the Levant or the SE civilizations?, or were these just different facies of a unique ethnicity?, or were actually Iberians not a single ethnicity but several? We just can't say on light of the available evidence. There are other questions like how and when Iberians "reconquered" Catalonia to the Celts, etc.

In any case, there's no clear evidence for any outer invasion/migration in relation with these Iberians: tholos tombs are older by more than 1,000 years in Iberia than in Greece, and older precursors in Cyprus and Syria were not used as tombs. Apart of the much questionable tholoi issue, there's no other material evidence of any outlier arrival. Even as late as the Bronze Age the remains of products imported from the Eastern Mediterranean are extremely scarce, being plainly non-existent before.

I strongly suggest rewriting this paragraph according with available evidence or just supress it, focusing in the facts: archaeologically defined cultures. We can only begin to speak of Iberians (and Tartessians, a different but connected issue) properly when the Iberian script appears in the Iron Age, showing an area of certain homogeneoity (if they didn't speak the same language, at least they used the same syllabary). --Sugaar (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! The Ogre (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Easy to say, hard to do. In fact probably all the article needs an in-depth review. There are too many inaccuracies, blatant flasehoods and arbitrary claims. Just an example: The Celts of Europe entered Iberia through two separate migrations in the ninth and seventh centuries BC. Everybody (?) knows that the Celts or proto-Celts probably entered Iberia (NE) c. 1300 BCE with the Urnfields migrations and, yes, they did have a second expansion c. 700 BCE with the Hallstatt culture, with an intermediate phase (Iron Age Urnfields) of expansion along the Ebro river (exclussively).
I'll see what can I do but I don't promise anything. --Sugaar (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revamping in progress

As not promised in the previous section (look above), I have started to revamp the article. I've begun with Neolithic and Chalcolithic (take a look and make constructive criticisms, please) but it's yet a first version. I know I have to add references and maybe polish some corners... it won't be done in a single day, that's for sure.

Next will be Bronze Age, that can be improved a lot. --Sugaar (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Age revamped.

Upper Paleolithic almost totally revamped too. --Sugaar (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technical problem

I'm having a technical problem with footnotes: when I added (every 2-3 paragraphs) <ref name="Jordá"/>, I got half of the page displaced to the footnotes section. I have no idea why this can be. By the moment I have deleted the footnotes but this is not a good solution. --Sugaar (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on such technicalities, but... have you indicated the end of the footnote with </ref>? The Ogre (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. The initial named footnote with all the details is the only one that still stands. It was the repeated references which made a vast fraction of the article to be displaced as footnote. Surely I'm doing something wrong and I will see to fix it later. --Sugaar (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm... now it does perfectly. :/ --Sugaar (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advancing

I think that Upper Paleolithic, Epipaleolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age sections are now more or less correct.

What remains to be done?

  • Iron Age (some is valid, some can be improved)
  • Archaeogenetics: looks totally amateurish but it's more difficult to adress properly
  • Lower and Middle Paleolithic: too generic maybe but not substantially erroneous, I think (this part I'm not going to touch in any case). --Sugaar (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Portuguese Iron Age"

The section "Portuguese Iron Age" is written in an anachronistic tone. Portugal did yet not exist in this period of history. The article should reference the names of cultures of this time, not of political entities which would only come into existence millennia afterwards. FilipeS (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! Jɪmp 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Laferr3.jpg

Image:Laferr3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)