The Iberian conundrum - Solving a misleading patchwork

[Genava55]

This thread has been initiated to revisit the discussion concerning the historical accuracy of the Iberian civilization as depicted in the game. The aim is to consolidate relevant information, provide a comprehensive overview of the issue and its origins, and facilitate constructive dialogue focused on identifying potential solutions.

At present, the primary concern regarding the Iberian civilization in 0 A.D. (A27 at the time of writing) is that it represents a composite of various groups from the Iberian Peninsula, encompassing populations with distinct languages and distinct historical backgrounds.

This issue emerged early in the development of 0 A.D., largely because the Iberians were favoured by one of the project's key early contributors:
https://play0ad.com/interview-of-tonto_real/

In this interview, there appears to be notable confusion between Celtiberians and Iberians, which may have been intentional.

Geography and languages

Spoiler

I will give a quick look at the geography of the people and of the language from the ancient Iberian Peninsula. As you can see from the figure below, Iberian was a denomination used to speak about several people from the eastern coast. In the center, slightly on the East, a second group was called Celtiberians. And in the West, there are multiple single tribes but they didn’t belong to a larger group and there is no denomination known for them above their tribal names. Although Lusitanians could have been a confederacy of tribes, they are generally mentioned as a single political entity. Thus, we know only two regional-scale ethnonyms used by the ancients to categorize different political entities together: Iberians and Celtiberians. However it doesn’t mean it is exhaustive and accurate, it is simply what the classical literature reports. 

Below, here is a second map we can see a simple division of the toponymy of the Iberian Peninsula. It has been understood early on that the various people can be easily divided in two parts, one side speaking Indo-European languages and characterized by the ending -briga in multiple toponyms and another side speaking non-Indo-European languages with names starting with ili-, ilu-, ile- and ilo- for the toponyms. The Indo-European languages arrived in Spain around 2300 BC, with people carrying steppe ancestry and following Bell Beakers customs. The non-Indo-European languages probably derives from the Neolithic expansion which first arrived in the peninsula around 5700 BC. This explain the diversity in the Iberian Peninsula, there are at least two different and unrelated linguistic families.

This third map below shows the various inscriptions in the different languages of the Iberian Peninsula. It is strictly reporting inscriptions in the language mentioned, it doesn’t include Latin inscriptions and other lines of evidence from the Roman period. First we can see in blue the inscriptions written in the North-Eastern Iberian script, a writing system used regionally to write the Iberian language or at least a dialectal form of the Iberian language. Then we can see in red the inscriptions written in Celtiberian, using the Celtiberian script which derived from the North-Eastern Iberian script. It corresponds to the area of the Celtiberians from the first map but it also suggests that the language was spoken by a few nearby people like the Berones, while they weren’t mentioned explicitly as Celtiberians by the classical authors. In yellow, the Iberian inscriptions written with the South-Eastern script. In green, an uncertain language, sometimes related to the Turdetans but the relation to the Iberian language is unclear and uncertain. It could be another family. In orange, another uncertain language. Originally it was associated to the legendary Tartessos, but the location of the inscriptions doesn’t match the location of the city and of the material culture. Furthermore, the inscriptions suggest some relation to Indo-European languages which is disturbing and difficult to explain. Finally there are the few inscriptions from the Lusitanian language, in dark blue. 

The Lusitanian relations to the Celtic languages has been a long debate but it seems that the consensus among experts is that they were a different branch of the Indo-European languages. Here the abstract of a chapter titled “Language and writing among the Lusitanians“ in the book Palaeohispanic Languages and Epigraphies published in 2019:
“The number of inscriptions written totally or partially in Lusitanian is limited: only six or seven with Lusitanian vocabulary and/or grammatical words, usually dated to the first two centuries CE. All are written in the Latin alphabet, and most are bilingual, displaying code-switching between Latin and Lusitanian. There are also many deity names in Latin inscriptions. The chapter summarizes Lusitanian phonology, morphology, and syntax, though entire categories are not attested at all. Scholarly debate about the classification of Lusitanian has focused on whether it should be considered a Celtic language. The chapter reviews the main issues, such as the fate of Indo-European */p/ or the outcome of voiced aspirate stops. The prevailing opinion is that Lusitanian was not Celtic. It must have diverged from western Indo-European dialects before the kernel of what would evolve into the Celtic and Italic families had been constituted. An appendix provides the text of extant Lusitanian inscriptions and representative Latin inscriptions displaying Lusitanian deity names and/or their epithets.”

In the end, we have a bunch of different languages attested, a few uncertainties and a lot of unknown. There is the Iberian language clearly attested by two kinds of scripts, mostly located on the Eastern coast of the Iberian Peninsula. There is the Celtiberian language clearly located where were mentioned the Celtiberians. The Lusitanians is another branch of the Indo-European languages in the peninsula. There are one or two uncertain groups in the South-West. Maybe another branch of the Non-Indo-European language with the Turdetans who could be different from the Iberians. And for the unknown, there are numerous people with no certain inscriptions. The Proto-Basques or Vascones notably, there is no doubt they are not related to the Indo-European language, but it is also clear that Basque language doesn’t match the Iberian language, except for a few similarities in numerals. So, it seems they were related to another branch of the Non-Indo-European language of the peninsula. The Vaccaei and the Carpetani, while having no inscription of their language, have similarities with the Celtiberians. However, it could be a simple influence without necessarily meaning a similarity in their language. The relationship between the Vettones, the Gallaecians, and the Lusitanians is unclear; however, their geographic proximity has led some scholars to propose a possible connection. Notably because they shared some deities during the Roman period.

Unravel the origin of foreign assets

The Iberian civ in 0 A.D. has three heroes: Caros is a Celtiberian chieftain leading the coalition during the second war, Viriato is Viriathus, a famous Lusitanian war leader who resisted Roman hegemony and finally Indibil is a chieftain of the Ilergetes, an Iberian people from the North-Eastern part of the peninsula. Therefore, only one of the three heroes is properly Iberian.

The regular units are also making direct reference to other people with the skirmisher called “Lusitano Ezpatari” (which means Lusitanian swordsman but whatever), “Kantabriarko Zaldun” (Cantabrian cavalryman), the priestess of Ataekina/Ataegina (Ataegina was a goddess worshiped in the western part of the peninsula, probably a Lusitanian cult originally). There is also the “Leial Ezpatari” (loyal swordsman) which is a direct reference to the “devotio” reported by Romans to describe the vow of Celtiberian warriors to their patron/chieftain.

There is also the issue that the chainmail body armor is used extensively by the units, while there is no evidence that the Iberians used it. It seems to have been adopted much later by a few Celtiberian and Lusitanian warriors, simply because those peoples have been subjugated after the Iberians.

Both the wonder and the temple are based on the sanctuary of Cancho Roano, related to the Tartessian culture and abandoned around the 5^th century BC. So, it is not purely Iberian, it depends on the interpretation of the Tartessian culture. It is a minor issue but I think it was important to mention it.

For me, the problem with the current representation is that it is misleading. Players do not understand the differences between the various peoples mentioned, particularly the Lusitanians and the Cantabrians. Portraying them as an original component of the Iberians is awkward. Especially since it is historically confusing because the Lusitanians and Cantabrians appear quite late in the conflicts with Rome. Many wars between the Iberians and the Carthaginians and Romans never involved the Lusitanians or the Cantabrians.

What are the possible solutions?

1. Clean up all foreign elements from the civilization and make it a purely Iberian civilization. This simply means removing and replacing assets.

2. Split the civilization into two or three. In particular, create a Lusitanian civilization and a Celtiberian civilization. This means removing and replacing assets for the Iberians. Then create new assets to make one or two other civilizations.

3. Keep the foreign elements within the Iberian civilization but separate them by having them appear in specific buildings, specific technologies, etc. to show that they belong to another culture neighboring the Iberians.

My opinion

Solution 3, keeping the foreign element but separating them and distinguishing them for the Iberian core, is the most compatible with the original vision of tonto_real (aka Ken Wood). It would also bring more diversity in the Iberian civ. We can for example add specific Lusitanian buildings to integrate them properly as allies, to distinguish them from the core roster.  The effort is moderate.

Edited 2 hours ago by Genava55

[Deicide4u]

Give Iberians "embassy" like structures, that will train Lusitanian and Celtiberian units.

A good reason to make them more unique.

[Gurken Khan]

40 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

the skirmisher called “Lusitano Ezpatari” (which means Lusitanian swordsman but whatever)

I don't think we should whatev it but look for a better name.

 

I'm also leaning towards solution 3, if there's consensus that it is justifiable to keep them grouped together. I don't know if there are enough sources to make an interesting purely Iberian faction and just going by gut-feeling I doubt it for the other groups.