Question regarding the Lusotannan and the Iberians

Well, simply put, what is the difference?

As I understand it, the Lusotannan are a tribe of Iberia (Spain). But why do the Lusotannan look so much more "wild" and "barbaric" than the Iberians? Is it beacuse they actually indeed are more "wild" and "barbaric". What gives? I've always wondered about this.

And while we're at it, the name Iberia seem to refer to two places. First, modern day Spain and Portugal, but also a place near modern day Armenia. How does one know wich is wich when using the term "Iberia". Might not be a EB-related question, yet still :inquisitive:.

Iberia was the name the Greeks gave to the region of Kartli (Mtskheta on the EB map, to the north of Hayasdan). I don't think there's any relationship between the two Iberiae, although it has been a popular idea at times.

There is also an Albania in the Caucasus, FYI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socy

Well, simply put, what is the difference?

As I understand it, the Lusotannan are a tribe of Iberia (Spain). But why do the Lusotannan look so much more "wild" and "barbaric" than the Iberians? Is it beacuse they actually indeed are more "wild" and "barbaric". What gives? I've always wondered about this.

---

Well, the Lusitanians were a tribal confederacy that was very Celtic influenced. Indeed they were much more "wild" when compared to the Southern and Eastern Iberians, who were, not only, mostly influenced by the Punic and Greek cultures in a broader sense, but also had more productive lands overall, and these, mingled with the absortion of Greek and Punic technologies, made these Iberians much more wealthy then their Celtic-influenced counter-parts. The lands of the Celtic-influenced people weren't generally much more blessed than the lands under colonial influence and that lack and difference in wealth among Northern tribes often lead to raids and sacks against other tribes, which would as a consequence of this, become hardened by the permanent "state of war" between tribes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socy

And while we're at it, the name Iberia seem to refer to two places. First, modern day Spain and Portugal, but also a place near modern day Armenia. How does one know wich is wich when using the term "Iberia". Might not be a EB-related question, yet still :inquisitive:.

---

Simply said, the Iberian Peninsula is the Greek term (Latin was Hispania), while the Iberia in Armenia was Latin term. (I don't know by what name did the Greeks call Eastern Iberia)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Socy

Well, simply put, what is the difference?

As I understand it, the Lusotannan are a tribe of Iberia (Spain). But why do the Lusotannan look so much more "wild" and "barbaric" than the Iberians? Is it beacuse they actually indeed are more "wild" and "barbaric". What gives? I've always wondered about this.

---

Why do you suppose the Iberian Peninsula is a homogeneous area? Actual Iberians are only present in the southern and eastern parts of the region. After that you got Lusitanians in the far west, Iberian Celts in the Northwestern and Northern parts, Aquitanian-influenced tribes in the Northeast and Celtiberians in the central meseta. These were all distinct cultures, each with its particular level of development and "civilization". At any rate, the EB2 units won't look quite as "wild" as these but they'll still be much more so than the middle-class of more urbanized societies of the Turdetani and Bastetani for instance.

EDIT: What Jolt said. Though I view it not so much as a strictly Celtic influence, in so much as I view it as common Indo-European ancestry combined with said influence.

So I expect at least one celtiberian faction (arevaci, for example) in EB2.
And an iberian faction will be perfect.

Lusotanan had strong celtic influences if they were not a celtic people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cartaphilus

Lusotanan had strong celtic influences if they were not a celtic people.

---

That's highly debatable. In the end, we simply can't tell...and it's not like a Celt is a very defined term. What we do know, is that they appear more archaic both in art forms, fighting style, form of government, religion, topography and most important of all, language. Which in my opinion does not make them celts, but rather a different non-native branch of indo-europeans that get highly influenced at later times by migratory waves.

Sarcasm puts it well. One could say by similar standards that the Germanic tribes were Celtic ~;p and actually some were (like the Belgians) but the term then becomes meaningless. Only concerning linguistic distinction can the term be used, while self identification is important also. La Tene and Halstatt may be closely linked with tribes later called Kelt but that by no means makes it clear that Celtic-speaking tribes were the only participants or instigators. Indo-European culture is closely linked to it all. The distinction between Illyrians and Thracians is similar, derived from Indo-European origin and close contacts, but they are culturally unique and significant in themselves and have their own Indo-European dialect (even if undocumented).

BUT there are plenty of non-IndoEuropeans who should not be discounted. The Megalithic culture common from the Mediterannean along the Atlantic all the way to Britain significantly points to this, imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

That's highly debatable. In the end, we simply can't tell...and it's not like a Celt is a very defined term. What we do know, is that they appear more archaic both in art forms, fighting style, form of government, religion, topography and most important of all, language. Which in my opinion does not make them celts, but rather a different non-native branch of indo-europeans that get highly influenced at later times by migratory waves.

---

Right. I was speaking in analogous terms, comparing West-Northern to South-Eastern Iberians.

I'm agree with Sarcasm, but this is not a closed question but a debatable one (see the work of prof. Villar of Salamanca University, "Los indoeuropeos y los orígenes de Europa"). We only know that Lusotanan were of indo-european origin, and they obviously had a strong celtic influence (as also the celtiberian tribes had) - over their culture and over their language.
But we ignore more than we know about them. So the experts are still arguing about if they were celts or not.


Obviously the best studies about pre-roman Hispania are the spanish ones. If you know/speak spanish I can tell you some good works about that question.