File talk:Ethnographic Iberia 200 BCE.PNG

Errors and things that can be improved in this map

I fear that, like all ormost interpretations, this map suffers of several errors and excessive presumptions:

• Balearic islands:
  • Major islands: the Talayotic culture was over by c. 700 BCE. After that I am not aware of them being signficatively Iberized (though they did trade with Marseilles or its trading posts in Catalonia) nor anything. Just that they were inhabited by the Baleares. They should be left blank with that name.
  • Pitiusas: they were a Phoenician colony basically.
• Northern Iberia: there's too much assumption of Celtization. While there was some Celtic influence, larger in Galicia, less so in other areas. To claim them as Celtic-speakers is absolutely far-fetched. My solution would be:
  • Galicia (and maybe Astures): draw as Celtizied but not as plain "Celtic", maybe using bars or dots.
  • Cantabri (and maybe Astures): leave blank or draw as mixed Basque-Aquitani and Celtic. We just don't know enough and there's no enough data to claim them as Celtic anyhow.
  • Autrigones, Caristii and Varduli: draw as Basque-Aquitani. There is no doubt anymore, I understand after the findings of Veleia.
• Lusitani as proto-Celtic? There are two theories: that they were non-Celtic Indo-Europeans (Ilyrians?) or that they were Celtic with an archaic language that preserved the original IE "P". J.R. Ramos says:

... the Lusitanian, a scarcely attested language regarded as Celtic by some investigators, but that preserves the /p/ from Proto-Indo-European and hence probably not Celtic.

• Other groups: I have no special reason to believe that the Oretani or the Turduli (whose name reminds so much of the non-Cenltic Turdetani) were Celtic-speakers and not more or less celtizied native groups, like the Astures or whatever.

My two cents, --Sugaar (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)