THE IBERIAN PENSINSULA IN THE IRON AGE

Fernand Braudel (1902-1985) was one of the most influential historians of the 20th century. The leader of the Annales School of historical thought, in his magnum opus La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen à l'Epoque de Philippe II, he proposed the paradigm of the longue durée. The theory of longue durée asserts that long lasting factors, such as climate, geography and technology, have a far greater impact upon the development of human society than short-term factors, such as wars, leaders and class antagonisms. This certainly seems to be the case with Iberia.



A physical map of the Iberian peninsula

The Iberian peninsula is roughly square in shape. Due to the effects of the African and Eurasian tectonic plates pushing against each other along the length of the Mediterranean, Iberia tends to slope more to the west, the east being backed by mountain ranges. These mountains, the Pyrenees and their Cantabrian extension, effectively isolate Iberia from the rest of Europe. Indeed this geographical isolation has resulted in Iberia having its own species of big cat, the Iberian lynx, which is the world’s most endangered feline species and has been cut off from the main gene pool of the Eurasian lynx since the Ice Ages. This structure of mountain ranges means that most of the major rivers of Iberia - the Duero, Tagus, Guadiana and Guadalquivir - flow westward. The Ebro and Segura are the only major westward flowing rivers in Iberia. All of this in turn affects access to the interior of the peninsula when travelling on water. The region’s varied geography in turn affects its climate. The north and west are significantly cooler than the south and east, being not too dissimilar to Brittany and south-western Britain at times, supporting deciduous forests and more temperate species. The south and east, by contrast, enjoy a Mediterranean climate, enabling species such as vines and olives to grow. Iberia, as a result of its mountainous geography, is also metal-rich; the Sierra Morena being rich in copper, and the Cantabrian and Galician ranges containing concentrations of gold and tin. All of these geographical, geological and ecological differences in turn affected the development of the communities of prehistoric Iberia (and later periods of history).



In addition to the above longue durée, contact with external cultures and communities (moyenne durée) further affected the development of the prehistoric peoples of Iberia. Evidence for contact between the peoples of Iberia and the communities of the eastern Mediterranean first occurred in the Late Bronze Age, as evidenced by Mycenean pottery discovered at Andalucía. Contacts intensified in the 8th century BC when the Phoenicians established a trading post at Gadir (modern day Cadiz) likely to facilitate trade with the silver-rich kingdom of Tartessos. Interestingly, at least based on the analysis of the noted Celtic specialist John T. Koch, Tartessian appears to be the earliest recorded example of Celtic. Phoenician colonisation subsequently reached its apex in the 7th century BC, with outposts established along the length of the Andalucían coast, some as far ranging as the Balearic Islands in the east, as far west as the mouth of the River Tagus in Portugal and as far south as Mogador in Africa. The Greeks, as early as 630 BC, when a native from Samos named Kolaios returned from the silver mines of Tartessos a rich man, also began to explore and settle the peninsula. The Greeks were primarily Phocaeans and settled the north-east of the Iberian coast, in particular the Golfe of Lion. The Etruscans also engaged in trade with the peninsula. All of these Mediterranean contacts, which are discussed in greater detail below, had an orientalising effect on the indigenous communities along the eastern coast of Iberia affecting the development of the Iberian culture.

The communities along the Atlantic coast had long been involved in trade with the communities of Brittany, Britain and Ireland as early as the Bronze Age. This trade is unlikely to have been long-distance, as trade in the contemporary Mediterranean could be, but instead is likely to have involved short-distance trips, with vessels travelling little farther than the next harbour before offloading their cargo onto another vessel, having kept a share for their troubles. Although the presence of Phoenician metal prospectors on the River Tagus is likely to have increased demand, neither Punic nor Greek influence appears to have had a lasting effect on the development of indigenous cultures in western and inland Iberia. Mediterranean peoples did not successfully penetrate the interior regions until the 3rd century BC. This area of the peninsula was occupied by a variety of indigenous cultures. The north east of Iberia, particularly along the Ebro Valley, developed a culture which exhibited close parallels with the Urnfield developments of temperate Europe. Across western Iberia the “Cogotas I” culture predominated. This indigenous culture lasted from the Late Bronze Age until the middle of the second millennium BC. The communities within the Cogotas I culture constructed modest settlements on low ground, although some were constructed on higher ground, and practised large-scale pastoral farming. The Cogotas I was distributed across the Meseta region of central northern Spain and the west of the Iberian peninsula, including the Asturian, Galician and Cantabrain areas as well as Portugal - in short the areas for which we have evidence of Celtic languages being spoken in the Iron Age. The Cogotas I culture would subsequently evolve during the Iron Age into a variety of regionalised cultures. In the west it would develop into the culture of the Lusitanians, whilst in the Meseta and Cantabria-Galicia-Asturias area it would evolve into the “Castro culture”. The Castro culture, which is discussed in greater detail below, would remain the culture of Cantabria-Galicia-Asturias until the final Roman expansion in Iberia in the 1st century AD. In the Meseta the Castro culture, combined with influences from the urbanised Iberian city states, would ultimately lead to the culture of the Celtiberians.



The linguistic groups and communities of Iberia c. 300 BC





THE IBERIAN CULTURE



Although the Iberians are not a playable faction in EBII, the unique nature of their culture, the fact they were influenced by and in turn influenced the Areuakoi, Romani, Karthadistim and Koinon Hellenon, and because several Iberian units are available for recruitment, it would be a shame to overlook these fascinating people. Although the term Iberia has latterly come to refer to the entire peninsula, the term Iberians, in its archaeological context, refers to a specific group of peoples who inhabited the eastern coast of Spain from the modern regions of Granada in the south, to Catalonia in north until the late Iron Age. Linguistically the Iberians are of interest as they were non-Indo Europeans. As late as the 8th century BC there were still several societies in the Western Mediterranean which had not adopted an Indo-European language (Indo-European languages having spread across much of Europe and parts of Asia from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic onwards). These included the Rasenna (Etruscans as the Romans termed them) of Tuscany, the Tartessians of southern Iberia and the Iberians themselves, although these languages do not appear to have been related to one another based on surviving evidence. Today the only non-Indo European language to survive in Western Europe is the Basque language of northern Spain and southern France.



Prior to the latter half of the 6th century BC, Iberian societies had tended to be small, inhabiting settlements with ovoid houses laid out in unplanned settlements (in fact some Iberian communities continued to live in caves) with very little social stratification, based on the evidence from tombs. From c.550BC until the expansion of Karthadastim and Roma into the area, Iberian society became increasingly complex. The origins of this change are likely due to a variety of external and internal stimuli. Externally the stimuli are in the form of the Phoenicians, Phocaean Greeks and the Rasenna (Etruscans). The Phoenicians began trading and colonising the Iberian peninsula c.800BC, establishing colonies in Portugal, Andalusia and, most importantly Gader (modern Cadiz). Their motivation for colonising Iberia was likely multifaceted; in Portugal they appear to have sought metals, slaves and salt, in Gader metals and along the Iberian coast they found a variety of tradable commodities including fish, food and murex shells. In exchange the Phoenicians provided the Iberians with the favoured commodity which many colonial powers provided to “barbarians”: Wine. C.600BC the Phoenicians were joined by the Phocaean Greeks, who founded Massalia and several smaller colonies such as Emporion, Rhode and Nicea, trading in a variety of goods from across the Mediterranean. It is likely these Greeks had come looking for many of the same raw materials which the Phoenicians had initially come in search for. The Rasenna appear to have served more as transporters of goods for the other two groups, rather than as exporters in their own right although it is likely they were in search of similar Iberian products. In addition to the arrival of these traders several internal stimuli also prompted a change in Iberian society. An increase in population, based on a growth in the number and size of settlements, as well as the fact few Iberian settlements were abandoned during this period, was a likely contributor to change. The wide scale adoption of iron also enabled the production of improved agricultural tools, most notably the iron tipped plough, which allowed Iberian communities to expand into regions which they had previously been unable to farm.





The Lady of Elche, an example of Iberian sculpture

The results of such external and internal stimuli upon Iberian society were longlasting, far reaching and varied. As stated above, starting c.550BC Iberian society became increasingly complex. Iberian settlements on the coast developed into planned towns, home to several thousand inhabitants and with evidence of increasingly complex social stratification. These news urban Iberian settlements were planned, with central streets and rectilinear, adobe walled houses. The northern Iberian settlement at Ullastret, for example, reached 3ha and was fortified with an impressive stone wall, a testament to degree of social cooperation/political control of the time. The Iberians also began to specialise in the production of items and goods. One such specialisation was the emergence of an indigenous wine industry. The grapevine is itself native to Iberia but it seems that the earlier arrival of the Phoenicians and their trade in wine stimulated the Iberians to develop their own wine industry. Soon the Iberians were producing, not only sufficient quantities of wine for their own needs, but had a large enough surplus to be able to export it. The result of this was that many smaller Phoenician settlements were subsequently abandoned, only to be occupied by Iberians, whilst the Phoenician merchants in the area were forced to diversify in the products they traded. This decline in the fortune of Phoenician merchants in Iberia may have been a contributing factor to the rise of Karthadistim, which began to assume its position as the leading Phoenician city at this time. This loss of the Phoenician wine monopoly seems to have greatly aided Greek merchants at the time, and from this period on Greek artefacts are the dominant imported objects in Iberian settlements. The fact that few, if any, Iberian settlements were abandoned at this time is evidence that the Iberian population was growing, not simply relocating to new centres.



From c.400BC Iberian society became even more urbanised and stratified. Iberian settlements continued to increase in size, the most notable being Burriac and Tarragona which enclosed 9-10 ha and the even larger settlements of Ullastret and Edeta-Sant Miquel de Llíria which enclosed in excess of 15ha. Within these towns the Iberians developed and refined their own form of architecture, incorporating features from Greek and Punic structures and in one unique case Egyptian too. The towns themselves appear to have controlled substantial territories incorporating smaller settlements of about 4ha, assumed to be administrative or military centres, and numerous villages covering little over 1ha on average. In the Catalonian regions there was also an abundance of campos de silos (silo fields) which appear to have been fortified storage sites for produce. The density of settlements from this period and the campos de silos, as well as the increased numbers of iron tools recovered, suggests that, as before, demographic growth was a major contributor to the development of Iberian society. During this later period many important features of Iberian society also developed. The Iberian script was transcribed onto lead sheets using an alphabet developed from the Punic alphabet, and in one case the Greek script. Unfortunately linguists have yet to be able to translate the language. Iberian sculpture, heavily influenced by Mediterranean , also developed during this period. Exquisite examples of which include the Lady of Elche and the Biche of Balazote. Iberian armies around this time also began to look increasingly like the hoplite based armies of other Mediterranean states. Light infantry, armed with small circular shields and deadly falcate swords were in high demand throughout the Mediterranean. Whereas the Eurasian steppe, with its lack of diverse geography, would enable relatively culturally homogenous Indo-Iranian peoples such as the Scythians, and temperate Europe, with, its easily navigable rivers and lack of obstructive mountain regions, would enable the La Tène culture to spread as far apart as Armorica and Tylis, the isolated nature of Iberia’s geography and varying climates resulted in the development of a number of very different and distinct archaeological cultures over a comparatively small area.Although the Iberians are not a playable faction in EBII, the unique nature of their culture, the fact they were influenced by and in turn influenced the Areuakoi, Romani, Karthadistim and Koinon Hellenon, and because several Iberian units are available for recruitment, it would be a shame to overlook these fascinating people. Although the term Iberia has latterly come to refer to the entire peninsula, the term Iberians, in its archaeological context, refers to a specific group of peoples who inhabited the eastern coast of Spain from the modern regions of Granada in the south, to Catalonia in north until the late Iron Age. Linguistically the Iberians are of interest as they were non-Indo Europeans. As late as the 8th century BC there were still several societies in the Western Mediterranean which had not adopted an Indo-European language (Indo-European languages having spread across much of Europe and parts of Asia from the Neolithic/Chalcolithic onwards). These included the Rasenna (Etruscans as the Romans termed them) of Tuscany, the Tartessians of southern Iberia and the Iberians themselves, although these languages do not appear to have been related to one another based on surviving evidence. Today the only non-Indo European language to survive in Western Europe is the Basque language of northern Spain and southern France.Prior to the latter half of the 6th century BC, Iberian societies had tended to be small, inhabiting settlements with ovoid houses laid out in unplanned settlements (in fact some Iberian communities continued to live in caves) with very little social stratification, based on the evidence from tombs. From c.550BC until the expansion of Karthadastim and Roma into the area, Iberian society became increasingly complex. The origins of this change are likely due to a variety of external and internal stimuli. Externally the stimuli are in the form of the Phoenicians, Phocaean Greeks and the Rasenna (Etruscans). The Phoenicians began trading and colonising the Iberian peninsula c.800BC, establishing colonies in Portugal, Andalusia and, most importantly Gader (modern Cadiz). Their motivation for colonising Iberia was likely multifaceted; in Portugal they appear to have sought metals, slaves and salt, in Gader metals and along the Iberian coast they found a variety of tradable commodities including fish, food and murex shells. In exchange the Phoenicians provided the Iberians with the favoured commodity which many colonial powers provided to “barbarians”: Wine. C.600BC the Phoenicians were joined by the Phocaean Greeks, who founded Massalia and several smaller colonies such as Emporion, Rhode and Nicea, trading in a variety of goods from across the Mediterranean. It is likely these Greeks had come looking for many of the same raw materials which the Phoenicians had initially come in search for. The Rasenna appear to have served more as transporters of goods for the other two groups, rather than as exporters in their own right although it is likely they were in search of similar Iberian products. In addition to the arrival of these traders several internal stimuli also prompted a change in Iberian society. An increase in population, based on a growth in the number and size of settlements, as well as the fact few Iberian settlements were abandoned during this period, was a likely contributor to change. The wide scale adoption of iron also enabled the production of improved agricultural tools, most notably the iron tipped plough, which allowed Iberian communities to expand into regions which they had previously been unable to farm.The results of such external and internal stimuli upon Iberian society were longlasting, far reaching and varied. As stated above, starting c.550BC Iberian society became increasingly complex. Iberian settlements on the coast developed into planned towns, home to several thousand inhabitants and with evidence of increasingly complex social stratification. These news urban Iberian settlements were planned, with central streets and rectilinear, adobe walled houses. The northern Iberian settlement at Ullastret, for example, reached 3ha and was fortified with an impressive stone wall, a testament to degree of social cooperation/political control of the time. The Iberians also began to specialise in the production of items and goods. One such specialisation was the emergence of an indigenous wine industry. The grapevine is itself native to Iberia but it seems that the earlier arrival of the Phoenicians and their trade in wine stimulated the Iberians to develop their own wine industry. Soon the Iberians were producing, not only sufficient quantities of wine for their own needs, but had a large enough surplus to be able to export it. The result of this was that many smaller Phoenician settlements were subsequently abandoned, only to be occupied by Iberians, whilst the Phoenician merchants in the area were forced to diversify in the products they traded. This decline in the fortune of Phoenician merchants in Iberia may have been a contributing factor to the rise of Karthadistim, which began to assume its position as the leading Phoenician city at this time. This loss of the Phoenician wine monopoly seems to have greatly aided Greek merchants at the time, and from this period on Greek artefacts are the dominant imported objects in Iberian settlements. The fact that few, if any, Iberian settlements were abandoned at this time is evidence that the Iberian population was growing, not simply relocating to new centres.From c.400BC Iberian society became even more urbanised and stratified. Iberian settlements continued to increase in size, the most notable being Burriac and Tarragona which enclosed 9-10 ha and the even larger settlements of Ullastret and Edeta-Sant Miquel de Llíria which enclosed in excess of 15ha. Within these towns the Iberians developed and refined their own form of architecture, incorporating features from Greek and Punic structures and in one unique case Egyptian too. The towns themselves appear to have controlled substantial territories incorporating smaller settlements of about 4ha, assumed to be administrative or military centres, and numerous villages covering little over 1ha on average. In the Catalonian regions there was also an abundance of campos de silos (silo fields) which appear to have been fortified storage sites for produce. The density of settlements from this period and the campos de silos, as well as the increased numbers of iron tools recovered, suggests that, as before, demographic growth was a major contributor to the development of Iberian society. During this later period many important features of Iberian society also developed. The Iberian script was transcribed onto lead sheets using an alphabet developed from the Punic alphabet, and in one case the Greek script. Unfortunately linguists have yet to be able to translate the language. Iberian sculpture, heavily influenced by Mediterranean , also developed during this period. Exquisite examples of which include the Lady of Elche and the Biche of Balazote. Iberian armies around this time also began to look increasingly like the hoplite based armies of other Mediterranean states. Light infantry, armed with small circular shields and deadly falcate swords were in high demand throughout the Mediterranean.



The Lady of Baza, another example of Iberian sculpture

As would later happen to the Celts of Gaul, the Galatians, the southern British tribes and, to lesser extent, the Dacians, this process of urbanisation and social stratification, not to mention the unfortunate position of the Iberian states, would make them fairly easy conquests for more centralised and powerful neighbours. Beginning in the 3rd Century BC the Barcid family of Qartkhadasht, in an effort to compensate for the losses of the 1st Punic War, began to expand their sphere of influence, ultimately conquering or coercing the Iberian city states into submission as far north as the Ebro River. Hannibal Barca leant heavily upon his Iberian lands during the 2nd Punic War, a fact which the Romani did not fail to notice. In an effort to turn the tide of the war the Romani, led by Scipio soon to be Africanus, invaded, and thereafter brought the Iberians under the control of Roma. After the initial troubles and horrors of the conquest the Iberian peoples thrived under Roman control (their only major problem being a massive loss in the share of the wine trade to the Gauls in the 2nd Century AD). The Iberian language however did not survive and was eventually replaced by vulgar Latin, which in turn developed into the modern languages of the region; Castillian and Catalan.



[/img] [/img]

THE CELTIC LANGUAGE: MIND YOUR Ps AND Qs



In addition to their unique culture, an additional aspect of the Celtiberians which set them apart from their Gallic cousins was language. The Celtiberians, as their name indicates, spoke a Celtic language, but one with a few phonetic peculiarities. It is possible (but, as discussed below, contentious) to divide Celtic languages into two categories depending on whether certain words employ a "P" sound or a "Q" or "Kw" sound when pronouncing words. In the case of the word for "horse" it is "Epos" for P-Celtic and "Equos" for Q-Celtic. The P-Celtic languages are typically classed as Gaulish, Lepontic and Brythonic (British, Welsh, Cornish and Breton). Q-Celtic is considered to be Celtiberian and Goidelic (Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx). The exact reason for this difference in Celtic languages and the chronology for the separation is still debated. Previous paradigms had argued that originally all Celts had been Q-Celtic speakers, the language having spread with the Hallstatt culture. P-Celtic had developed later and spread with the La Tène culture, as the La Tène culture did not establish itself in Iberia, and is very hard to detect in Ireland, these paradigms suggested that Q-Celtic remained in these areas due to a lack of P-Celtic invaders. This paradigm, known as the "invasionist theory" has increasingly been called into question. Although large scale invasions are historically attested, for example the Gallic invasions of Italy and Greece, they are difficult to demonstrate in the archaeological record. As a result, since the 1960s, the use of invasions to explain the spread of Celtic culture and language has been increasingly abandoned by phonologists and archaeologists.





A simplified family tree of the Celtic languages with emphasis placed on the P and Q phonetic difference

Over time new paradigms have emerged to explain the differences in Celtic language and their spread. Some prefer not to distinguish between P-Celtic and Q-Celtic at all, as the similarities between Brythonic P and Q languages are greater than the similarities between P Brythonic and P Continental languages, but prefer instead to use geography to divide up the Celtic languages (Continental: Lepontic, Gaulish, Celtiberian) and Insular (Goidelic and British). Recent studies have also shown that Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish are all more closely related to each other than any of them, including Goidelic, are to Celtiberian. The difference between P and Q-Celtic is also not as simple as it may first appear. As stated above Celtiberian and Goidelic were traditionally considered to be closely related, however within Celtiberian a "Q" sound is produced, whilst in Goidelic languages, notably Irish, a softer "Kw" sound is employed. They may sound similar, but their evolution is likely far more complex. Additionally, the "Q/Kw" is retained in some Gaulish words, for example the Sequanoi tribe of northern Gaul. A recent paradigm suggests that, instead of originating in central Europe with the Hallstatt culture, Celtic languages developed along the Atlantic coast during the Bronze Age and then spread eastward, the archaic qualities of Celtiberian being a result of the parcelled nature of Iberia’s geography. At time of writing though, no singe theory has yet been accepted to explain the qualities and differences of Celtic languages. It should also be noted that dividing up language families based on one linguistic feature is also very questionable. For example similar phonetic differences are noted in other Indo-European language groups such as Italic (in this case Latin and Oscan) and Greek (Ionic and Doric). Our knowledge of eastern Celtic is also very poor. Aside from personal names from tribes such as the Boioi and Skordiskoi as well as a passing reference by St. Jerome (347-420 AD) that the Galatians spoke a language similar to the Gauls, we have very little knowledge of Celtic languages spoken to the east. For all we know there were far greater differences between the languages spoken by eastern and western Celts, as is the case with later Germanic languages (West Germanic: English, Frisian, Dutch. North Germanic: Scandinavian languages. High Germanic: German, Bavarian and Swiss dialects. East Germanic: Crimean Gothic), than we know of. Furthermore, Julius Caesar, writing in De Bello Gallico, informs his audience that the Belgae and Gauls differed in language and customs whilst, according the Anglian monk the Venerable Bede, St Columba (521-597 AD), himself a Goidelic speaker, required an interpreter in order to converse with the likely Brythonic-speaking Picts. Anecdotes such as these may suggest that, even across comparatively short distances, Celtic languages enjoyed much variation. It is without doubt that the Celtiberians typically pronounced a "Q" sound whereas the Gauls usually pronounced a "P", but to use this as the primary criterion with which to divide up a language group is, today, a much questioned approach.





A simplified family tree of the Celtic languages, such diagrams have become increasingly popular with Celtic phonologists, at the expense of the P and Q phonetic dichotomy

In addition to their unique culture, an additional aspect of the Celtiberians which set them apart from their Gallic cousins was language. The Celtiberians, as their name indicates, spoke a Celtic language, but one with a few phonetic peculiarities. It is possible (but, as discussed below, contentious) to divide Celtic languages into two categories depending on whether certain words employ a "P" sound or a "Q" or "Kw" sound when pronouncing words. In the case of the word for "horse" it is "Epos" for P-Celtic and "Equos" for Q-Celtic. The P-Celtic languages are typically classed as Gaulish, Lepontic and Brythonic (British, Welsh, Cornish and Breton). Q-Celtic is considered to be Celtiberian and Goidelic (Irish, Scottish Gaelic and Manx). The exact reason for this difference in Celtic languages and the chronology for the separation is still debated. Previous paradigms had argued that originally all Celts had been Q-Celtic speakers, the language having spread with the Hallstatt culture. P-Celtic had developed later and spread with the La Tène culture, as the La Tène culture did not establish itself in Iberia, and is very hard to detect in Ireland, these paradigms suggested that Q-Celtic remained in these areas due to a lack of P-Celtic invaders. This paradigm, known as the "invasionist theory" has increasingly been called into question. Although large scale invasions are historically attested, for example the Gallic invasions of Italy and Greece, they are difficult to demonstrate in the archaeological record. As a result, since the 1960s, the use of invasions to explain the spread of Celtic culture and language has been increasingly abandoned by phonologists and archaeologists.Over time new paradigms have emerged to explain the differences in Celtic language and their spread. Some prefer not to distinguish between P-Celtic and Q-Celtic at all, as the similarities between Brythonic P and Q languages are greater than the similarities between P Brythonic and P Continental languages, but prefer instead to use geography to divide up the Celtic languages (Continental: Lepontic, Gaulish, Celtiberian) and Insular (Goidelic and British). Recent studies have also shown that Goidelic, Brythonic and Gaulish are all more closely related to each other than any of them, including Goidelic, are to Celtiberian. The difference between P and Q-Celtic is also not as simple as it may first appear. As stated above Celtiberian and Goidelic were traditionally considered to be closely related, however within Celtiberian a "Q" sound is produced, whilst in Goidelic languages, notably Irish, a softer "Kw" sound is employed. They may sound similar, but their evolution is likely far more complex. Additionally, the "Q/Kw" is retained in some Gaulish words, for example the Sequanoi tribe of northern Gaul. A recent paradigm suggests that, instead of originating in central Europe with the Hallstatt culture, Celtic languages developed along the Atlantic coast during the Bronze Age and then spread eastward, the archaic qualities of Celtiberian being a result of the parcelled nature of Iberia’s geography. At time of writing though, no singe theory has yet been accepted to explain the qualities and differences of Celtic languages. It should also be noted that dividing up language families based on one linguistic feature is also very questionable. For example similar phonetic differences are noted in other Indo-European language groups such as Italic (in this case Latin and Oscan) and Greek (Ionic and Doric). Our knowledge of eastern Celtic is also very poor. Aside from personal names from tribes such as the Boioi and Skordiskoi as well as a passing reference by St. Jerome (347-420 AD) that the Galatians spoke a language similar to the Gauls, we have very little knowledge of Celtic languages spoken to the east. For all we know there were far greater differences between the languages spoken by eastern and western Celts, as is the case with later Germanic languages (West Germanic: English, Frisian, Dutch. North Germanic: Scandinavian languages. High Germanic: German, Bavarian and Swiss dialects. East Germanic: Crimean Gothic), than we know of. Furthermore, Julius Caesar, writing in De Bello Gallico, informs his audience that the Belgae and Gauls differed in language and customs whilst, according the Anglian monk the Venerable Bede, St Columba (521-597 AD), himself a Goidelic speaker, required an interpreter in order to converse with the likely Brythonic-speaking Picts. Anecdotes such as these may suggest that, even across comparatively short distances, Celtic languages enjoyed much variation. It is without doubt that the Celtiberians typically pronounced a "Q" sound whereas the Gauls usually pronounced a "P", but to use this as the primary criterion with which to divide up a language group is, today, a much questioned approach.

EARLY CELTIBERIAN SOCIETY



There has been much debate as to the origin of the Celtiberian culture. It was originally believed that the Celtic language and the unique culture of Celtiberia, had been introduced to Iberia by invading Celts from Gaul. The differences in culture between the La Tène Gauls and Celtiberians were that the result of the majority of Celts who settled in Iberia having arrived during the Hallstatt period, and only a few invading during the La Tène period. Presently the majority of scholars, rather than see the Celtiberians as the result of Gallic invasions, argue that the Celtiberian culture developed out of the indigenous Bronze Age substratum of Iberia and that the Celtic language developed along the Atlantic seaboard as a result of trade. The current model of indigenous development, rather than invasion, theorises that the early Celtiberian aristocracy did not arrive but were able to elevate themselves to positions of power as a result of the landscape and climate of the Meseta, the modern region of Spain in which the Celtiberians lived.



The Meseta is a mountainous region of north-east Spain. It can become particularly harsh during summer months and during the Iron Age this necessitated a culture of pastoralists who were able to bring their livestock into the upland mountain pastures before summer and successfully bring them back in time for autumn. It is theorised that this resulted in the development of a Celtiberian elite who maintained and built upon their prestige by raiding other tribes’ herds and controlling access to the winter grazing lands. The population of Celtiberia at this time inhabited hillforts which archaeologists call castros. Castros began to be constructed c. 1000BC and would remain a feature of the settlement pattern among the north western tribes such as the Asturi and Cantabri until the campaigns of Augustus. They invariably covered less than a hectare and probably contained between 80 and 250 inhabitants with a rectilinear enclosing wall constructed of stone, which formed the outer wall for some houses, and a central street running down the middle. It is thought, based on the lack of differentiation in houses sizes within castros, that Celtiberia (and Celtic society in Iberia in general) at this time was fairly egalitarian and homogenous, the difference between aristocrat and non-aristocrat being that the only the latter were allowed to own weapons. The fact that castros do not show signs of expansion, no houses occur outside the walls and in the case of the castra at El Ceremeño the site was rebuilt after a fire to fit within the confines of the original walls, has been interpreted as evidence that the any growth in the population of Celtiberia at this time was not occurring in the castors. If population growth was not occurring within the castros, it must have occurred outside, and it seems likely that, in keeping with the historical Celtiberian ver sacrum (sacred migrations) rite, that men and women would have left their castra and moved elsewhere to begin families. Travelling around Celtiberia, with its seasonal cattle drives and associated acts of raiding, would have been a dangerous activity and it is likely that the hospitality for which the Celtiberians became renowned developed during this period. Travellers being accorded safety by the communities of different castros on the understanding that the favour would be returned should an inhabitant of that castra require protection whilst travelling.



The castra of El Ceremeño of Herreria, Guadalajara

Graves from this period provide archaeologists with a fairly detailed picture of Celtiberian warfare. Raiding was the norm, practised seasonally so as to coincide with the cattle drives in the area. The small populations of the castros and the lack of social complexity would not have permitted the existence of large scale, standing armies. These early Celtiberian armies would likely have been led by an elected commander, an individual selected, by an unknown authority, because of his supposed connections with the supernatural world or because he had experience in combat. Those who served in these early armies would have been admitted upon successful completion of a prolonged initiation rite involving sweat lodges and certain acts, and the archaeological record suggests that only a small proportion of the population during this time ever served as warriors. Two of the initiation acts mentioned above are recorded in the archaeological and historical record. One was the decapitation of an opponent, attested to in a relief from Binéfar and the Celtiberian equine fibulae which show decapitated human heads beneath the fibulae’s horses. The other rite was the removal of enemies’ hands, which is discussed in more detail elsewhere in this preview. Tactics would have been restricted to skirmishing and ambushes and, based on historical evidence both from Iberia and elsewhere in the Celtic world, duelling between champions appears to have been an important aspect of war. An example of this is when the army of Scipio Aemilianus was approached by a Celtiberian noble, Lucullus, who offered single combat to any Roman who would accept. When no Romans took up the challenge the Celtiberian jeered and insulted them for their cowardice until at last Scipio accepted the offer and killed the Celtiberian. Strabo compared the warfare of the castro-inhabiting Iberian Celts (by the time of Roman contact with the Celtiberians the castro culture was restricted to the north-west of Iberia) to the cattle raiding culture of the early Lacedaemonians.



The equipment of Celtiberian warriors at this time was generalised and lightweight. The early Celtiberian spear was a fearsome weapon with an extremely long iron blade. The reason for the length of blade may be that the spear was also used for slashing (as well as stabbing) as swords were, which although present in Iberia since the Bronze Age, appear to have been very rare among the Celtiberians. Smaller spear points have also been recovered and it is likely that these were projectile rather than melee weapons. In contrast to subsequent periods of Celtiberian history, metal armour does not appear to have been worn. Armour if it did exist was likely constructed of perishable materials such as leather whilst the lack of large shield bosses suggests that shields were either the small circular types used in later times or that shields were dispensed with altogether. However considering how formidable the early Celtiberian spear was it is unlikely that warriors would have gone without protection.

THE RISE OF THE OPPIDA AND CELTIBERIAN POLITIES



There were probably a number of stimuli which prompted the changes in Celtiberian society and warfare which archaeologists have detected in the later Iberian Iron Age. Cultural exchanges with the increasingly urbanised Iberian culture is certainly one (as described below), exchanges with the Celts of temperate Europe as evidenced by grave goods was likely another but perhaps the greatest stimulus was an increase in population. During this period the ox drawn plough came to be used on a more widespread basis, thus enabling the Celtiberians to cultivate greater tracts of land whilst the new Celtiberian urban centres, the largest indicator of social change in this period, have names which indicate they emerged as a result of population movements from the surrounding countryside; Contrebia, Complutum/Iplacea and Appian’s story of how Segeda was founded by dispossessed Celtiberians who lacked homes. Many of the castros excavated dating from this period show signs of destruction and were subsequently abandoned, never to be reoccupied. Classical authors utilise a variety of terms to describe the Celtiberian urbans centres: Appian described them as polis, Valerius Maximus oppidum whilst Ampelius termed them civitates. As polis and civitates are terms with associated juridical meanings, and as oppidum is a term used for other Celtic urban centres of comparable development, archaeologists term these new Celtiberian towns oppida. The Celtiberian oppida supplanted the earlier castros but preserved many of the features of the castros such as stone walls, rectilinear houses and a central path running through the settlement. They varied in size to include giant examples such as that at Ulaca which enclosed an area in excess of 60 hectares. At what date the Celtiberian oppida emerged is still contentious with some arguing it was as early as c. 500 BC and some as late as c. 300 BC. One thing is certain, though: the Celtiberian oppida emerged before the Celtiberians had had substantial contact with either the Romans or Carthaginians, thus the Celtiberian oppida are not the result of contact with either of these powers.



There was never such a thing as a Celtiberian state; the major Celtiberian tribes such as the Areuakoi and Belloi, despite constructing oppida and developing urban societies, did not form unified polities in the same way the Gauls and later Britons did. Among the La Tène Celts it appears that all the oppida in the territory of a civitate, such as that of the Boioi, Aedui, Auernoi or Bituriges for example, was controlled from a central, capital oppidum; the Boioi had Závist, the Aedui, Bibracte; the Auernoi , Gergovia; and for the Bituriges had Avaricum. By contrast, each Celtiberian oppidum was independent of the others even though many Celtiberian oppida shared a common tribal identity. This is illustrated by the fall of Numantia when, in 134BC, a Numantine warrior named Rhetogenes tried to appeal to the Areuakoi for support against the Romans. Rhetogenes embassy failed despite the fact the Numantines were themselves Areuakoi. The reason for this difference between the Celtiberians and the La Téne is likely a result of the cultures from which the two groups developed their concepts of urbanism. The rise of Celtiberian oppida is closely linked with that of the neighbouring Iberian states. The Celtiberians and Iberians shared a long border which served to facilitate a wide variety of exchanges. Surviving Celtiberian inscriptions often include both Celtiberian and Iberian names, the rise of the Celtiberian oppida is broadly contemporaneous with the rise of the Iberian urban sites, c. 400-200 BC, and many new developments in Celtiberian society such as the rotary quern, potter’s wheel and Celtiberian script appear to have been adopted from the Iberians. This cultural exchange is the reason we differentiate the Celtiberians from the other Celtic-speaking populations in the peninsula by name. The fact the Iberians were themselves organised into independent city states is probably due to the fact that Iberians urbanism seems to have been stimulated by contacts with Phoenician and Greek traders beginning c. 800BC. The Phoenician and Greek traders and settlers who arrived in Iberia, although still identifying with the cities they had departed from (Tyre and Sidon for the Phoenicians and primarily Phocaea for the Greeks) established settlements and outposts (Gader, Malaka and Ebusus in the Phoenician case and Rhode, Emporion and Massalia for the Greeks) which did not owe political allegiance to the Phoenician or Greek homeland. The Greek term for these settlements apoikia, a home away from home, gives some idea as to the independent nature of these sites. Only with the rise of Carthage c.550-525BC were the Phoenician colonies brought under the leadership of a single government, whilst the Greek settlements would remain independent until the rise of Rome. By contrast the main influence on the development of oppida in Gaul and Britain was Rome. When the Romans established new settlements, termed colonia, they were still subject to the rule of Rome. This contrast in influences would likely explain why the Celtiberians became organised into city states whilst the Gauls and Britons became tribal nations. This political organisation did not mean that Celtiberian society was militarily inferior to that of Gaul and Britain; if anything, it made the Celtiberians more difficult to defeat than the Gauls and Britons; whereas the Transalpine Gauls were conquered in the space of 7 years, it took the Romans almost 200 years to subdue the Celtiberians.



Celtiberian armies at this time likewise underwent major changes. Graves dating to this time contain increasing numbers of weapons and armour. Ceramic and stone depictions show that the famous Celtiberian leather cap with its crest remained in use; however bronze helmets also appear in the archaeological record at this time. These helmets were initially similar in design to a modern motorcycle helmet (without the visor) but during the later stages of Celtiberian history a type not too dissimilar from the Gallic Montefortino style also began to be used. Metal body armour, in the form of bronze discs, was also produced and its use is attested to in sculpture, ceramics and from warrior graves. Swords too become increasingly common during this period. Initially the antenna type, a straight stabbing sword with coiled decorations emanating from the hilt, was favoured (c.500-300BC) but it was subsequently replaced by the deadly curved falcata and the original form of the Gladius Hispaniensis. Towards the end of Celtiberian independence long slashing swords similar to those of the Gauls began to be used partially replacing the types which had preceded them. Spear points decreased in length but showed a greater variety in blade shape. Pilum-like javelins also began to be used during this period. The long infantry shield, which classical writers associated more with temperate Celtic armies, also began to be used at this time alongside the older Iberian buckler style shield (the caetra), the existence of which is attested to in historical documents, sculpture, ceramics and from excavations. Towards the end of the period of Celtiberian independence weapons become increasingly rare in graves. It has been theorised that this reflects the need for Celtiberians to retain their weapons for use in their struggles against Rome. However it is more likely that, as the Celtiberians urbanised, the importance of warfare declined and individuals chose to identify themselves instead as practitioners of different activities. This process is mirrored in Gaul where the later emergence of oppida caused a change in burial practices, warrior graves becoming restricted to the Rhine region and southern Belgica. The disappearance of weapons from Celtiberian cemeteries does not mean that weapons lost their symbolic importance among the Celtiberians, historians from this period describing how Celtiberian warriors preferred death to the shame of being stripped of their weapons.



Although military activity would initially have been limited to a small section of society, funerary data demonstrates that with the rise of the oppida and decline of the castros increasing numbers of men took part in military activity, or at least chose to identify themselves as such from their grave goods. For example the cemetery from the oppidum of Arcobriga, dated to the earlier phases of this period, contained 300 graves, 42 (14%) of which contained weapons. Cemeteries from La Mercadera and Ucero, dated to the later stages of the construction of oppida, were found to contain much higher proportions of warrior graves: 44% and 37.4%, respectively, than those dated to the earlier stages of the oppida construction. The number of warrior graves becomes even higher in the border regions of Celtiberia although on balance some regions such as Las Cogotas have a very small proportion of warrior graves (2.69%). The general increase in the number of individuals interred as warriors, as well as historical references to Celtiberian armies of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, shows that at this time Celtiberian armies were far larger than they preciously had been. For example at the siege of Carabis the Celtiberian army numbered 20,000 men, whilst the siege of Contrebia was relieved by 17,000 Celtiberian infantry and 400 horse. The classical authors indicate that warfare was no longer the preserve of a select few, but instead, by the later stages of Celtiberian history, the entire male population could be called upon. The references to successful sieges also demonstrate that during this later phase the Celtiberians had developed siege warfare tactics. Warfare by this stage had also ceased to be seasonal, Celtiberian armies could now stay in the field throughout the year.



A diagram showing the chronology of the Celtiberian warrior panoply

The vast majority of the warriors interred in these graves during this phase were infantry men, with the sword replacing the spear as the weapon of choice. Despite this Celtiberian warriors, unlike their Gallic or Iberian contemporaries, remained light infantry in general. Celtiberians continued to rely on ambushes, scorched earth and guerrilla tactics as their lack of heavy equipment and discipline hindered their ability to overcome the armies of Carthage and Rome. Duels also remained an acceptable form of combat for Celtiberians, as illustrated by the tale of Scipio Aemelianus fighting a Celtiberian noble in 151 BC. Cavalry became increasingly common in Celtiberian armies at this time, as evidenced by the increased number of horse harnesses from graves of this period. The number of cavalry in Celtiberian armies at this time is unusual as it tended to be quite high. The typical ratio of infantry to cavalry in armies of Antiquity was 10:1, but in Celtiberian armies it could be as high as 4:1. Although the emergence of the oppida allowed the rise of powerful noble families who controlled aspects of social life, Celtiberians continued to choose their military leaders democratically. Celtiberian warriors during this period were in great demand by both Rome and Carthage. The story of the Celtiberian warrior Moericus, a mercenary captain in Syracusan service during the 2nd Punic War, is but one example of how widely Celtiberians served, providing excellent service in the armies of such generals as Hannibal, Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar.

There were probably a number of stimuli which prompted the changes in Celtiberian society and warfare which archaeologists have detected in the later Iberian Iron Age. Cultural exchanges with the increasingly urbanised Iberian culture is certainly one (as described below), exchanges with the Celts of temperate Europe as evidenced by grave goods was likely another but perhaps the greatest stimulus was an increase in population. During this period the ox drawn plough came to be used on a more widespread basis, thus enabling the Celtiberians to cultivate greater tracts of land whilst the new Celtiberian urban centres, the largest indicator of social change in this period, have names which indicate they emerged as a result of population movements from the surrounding countryside; Contrebia, Complutum/Iplacea and Appian’s story of how Segeda was founded by dispossessed Celtiberians who lacked homes. Many of the castros excavated dating from this period show signs of destruction and were subsequently abandoned, never to be reoccupied. Classical authors utilise a variety of terms to describe the Celtiberian urbans centres: Appian described them as polis, Valerius Maximus oppidum whilst Ampelius termed them civitates. As polis and civitates are terms with associated juridical meanings, and as oppidum is a term used for other Celtic urban centres of comparable development, archaeologists term these new Celtiberian towns oppida. The Celtiberian oppida supplanted the earlier castros but preserved many of the features of the castros such as stone walls, rectilinear houses and a central path running through the settlement. They varied in size to include giant examples such as that at Ulaca which enclosed an area in excess of 60 hectares. At what date the Celtiberian oppida emerged is still contentious with some arguing it was as early as c. 500 BC and some as late as c. 300 BC. One thing is certain, though: the Celtiberian oppida emerged before the Celtiberians had had substantial contact with either the Romans or Carthaginians, thus the Celtiberian oppida are not the result of contact with either of these powers.There was never such a thing as a Celtiberian state; the major Celtiberian tribes such as the Areuakoi and Belloi, despite constructing oppida and developing urban societies, did not form unified polities in the same way the Gauls and later Britons did. Among the La Tène Celts it appears that all the oppida in the territory of a civitate, such as that of the Boioi, Aedui, Auernoi or Bituriges for example, was controlled from a central, capital oppidum; the Boioi had Závist, the Aedui, Bibracte; the Auernoi , Gergovia; and for the Bituriges had Avaricum. By contrast, each Celtiberian oppidum was independent of the others even though many Celtiberian oppida shared a common tribal identity. This is illustrated by the fall of Numantia when, in 134BC, a Numantine warrior named Rhetogenes tried to appeal to the Areuakoi for support against the Romans. Rhetogenes embassy failed despite the fact the Numantines were themselves Areuakoi. The reason for this difference between the Celtiberians and the La Téne is likely a result of the cultures from which the two groups developed their concepts of urbanism. The rise of Celtiberian oppida is closely linked with that of the neighbouring Iberian states. The Celtiberians and Iberians shared a long border which served to facilitate a wide variety of exchanges. Surviving Celtiberian inscriptions often include both Celtiberian and Iberian names, the rise of the Celtiberian oppida is broadly contemporaneous with the rise of the Iberian urban sites, c. 400-200 BC, and many new developments in Celtiberian society such as the rotary quern, potter’s wheel and Celtiberian script appear to have been adopted from the Iberians. This cultural exchange is the reason we differentiate the Celtiberians from the other Celtic-speaking populations in the peninsula by name. The fact the Iberians were themselves organised into independent city states is probably due to the fact that Iberians urbanism seems to have been stimulated by contacts with Phoenician and Greek traders beginning c. 800BC. The Phoenician and Greek traders and settlers who arrived in Iberia, although still identifying with the cities they had departed from (Tyre and Sidon for the Phoenicians and primarily Phocaea for the Greeks) established settlements and outposts (Gader, Malaka and Ebusus in the Phoenician case and Rhode, Emporion and Massalia for the Greeks) which did not owe political allegiance to the Phoenician or Greek homeland. The Greek term for these settlements apoikia, a home away from home, gives some idea as to the independent nature of these sites. Only with the rise of Carthage c.550-525BC were the Phoenician colonies brought under the leadership of a single government, whilst the Greek settlements would remain independent until the rise of Rome. By contrast the main influence on the development of oppida in Gaul and Britain was Rome. When the Romans established new settlements, termed colonia, they were still subject to the rule of Rome. This contrast in influences would likely explain why the Celtiberians became organised into city states whilst the Gauls and Britons became tribal nations. This political organisation did not mean that Celtiberian society was militarily inferior to that of Gaul and Britain; if anything, it made the Celtiberians more difficult to defeat than the Gauls and Britons; whereas the Transalpine Gauls were conquered in the space of 7 years, it took the Romans almost 200 years to subdue the Celtiberians.Celtiberian armies at this time likewise underwent major changes. Graves dating to this time contain increasing numbers of weapons and armour. Ceramic and stone depictions show that the famous Celtiberian leather cap with its crest remained in use; however bronze helmets also appear in the archaeological record at this time. These helmets were initially similar in design to a modern motorcycle helmet (without the visor) but during the later stages of Celtiberian history a type not too dissimilar from the Gallic Montefortino style also began to be used. Metal body armour, in the form of bronze discs, was also produced and its use is attested to in sculpture, ceramics and from warrior graves. Swords too become increasingly common during this period. Initially the antenna type, a straight stabbing sword with coiled decorations emanating from the hilt, was favoured (c.500-300BC) but it was subsequently replaced by the deadly curved falcata and the original form of the Gladius Hispaniensis. Towards the end of Celtiberian independence long slashing swords similar to those of the Gauls began to be used partially replacing the types which had preceded them. Spear points decreased in length but showed a greater variety in blade shape. Pilum-like javelins also began to be used during this period. The long infantry shield, which classical writers associated more with temperate Celtic armies, also began to be used at this time alongside the older Iberian buckler style shield (the caetra), the existence of which is attested to in historical documents, sculpture, ceramics and from excavations. Towards the end of the period of Celtiberian independence weapons become increasingly rare in graves. It has been theorised that this reflects the need for Celtiberians to retain their weapons for use in their struggles against Rome. However it is more likely that, as the Celtiberians urbanised, the importance of warfare declined and individuals chose to identify themselves instead as practitioners of different activities. This process is mirrored in Gaul where the later emergence of oppida caused a change in burial practices, warrior graves becoming restricted to the Rhine region and southern Belgica. The disappearance of weapons from Celtiberian cemeteries does not mean that weapons lost their symbolic importance among the Celtiberians, historians from this period describing how Celtiberian warriors preferred death to the shame of being stripped of their weapons.Although military activity would initially have been limited to a small section of society, funerary data demonstrates that with the rise of the oppida and decline of the castros increasing numbers of men took part in military activity, or at least chose to identify themselves as such from their grave goods. For example the cemetery from the oppidum of Arcobriga, dated to the earlier phases of this period, contained 300 graves, 42 (14%) of which contained weapons. Cemeteries from La Mercadera and Ucero, dated to the later stages of the construction of oppida, were found to contain much higher proportions of warrior graves: 44% and 37.4%, respectively, than those dated to the earlier stages of the oppida construction. The number of warrior graves becomes even higher in the border regions of Celtiberia although on balance some regions such as Las Cogotas have a very small proportion of warrior graves (2.69%). The general increase in the number of individuals interred as warriors, as well as historical references to Celtiberian armies of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, shows that at this time Celtiberian armies were far larger than they preciously had been. For example at the siege of Carabis the Celtiberian army numbered 20,000 men, whilst the siege of Contrebia was relieved by 17,000 Celtiberian infantry and 400 horse. The classical authors indicate that warfare was no longer the preserve of a select few, but instead, by the later stages of Celtiberian history, the entire male population could be called upon. The references to successful sieges also demonstrate that during this later phase the Celtiberians had developed siege warfare tactics. Warfare by this stage had also ceased to be seasonal, Celtiberian armies could now stay in the field throughout the year.The vast majority of the warriors interred in these graves during this phase were infantry men, with the sword replacing the spear as the weapon of choice. Despite this Celtiberian warriors, unlike their Gallic or Iberian contemporaries, remained light infantry in general. Celtiberians continued to rely on ambushes, scorched earth and guerrilla tactics as their lack of heavy equipment and discipline hindered their ability to overcome the armies of Carthage and Rome. Duels also remained an acceptable form of combat for Celtiberians, as illustrated by the tale of Scipio Aemelianus fighting a Celtiberian noble in 151 BC. Cavalry became increasingly common in Celtiberian armies at this time, as evidenced by the increased number of horse harnesses from graves of this period. The number of cavalry in Celtiberian armies at this time is unusual as it tended to be quite high. The typical ratio of infantry to cavalry in armies of Antiquity was 10:1, but in Celtiberian armies it could be as high as 4:1. Although the emergence of the oppida allowed the rise of powerful noble families who controlled aspects of social life, Celtiberians continued to choose their military leaders democratically. Celtiberian warriors during this period were in great demand by both Rome and Carthage. The story of the Celtiberian warrior Moericus, a mercenary captain in Syracusan service during the 2nd Punic War, is but one example of how widely Celtiberians served, providing excellent service in the armies of such generals as Hannibal, Scipio Africanus and Julius Caesar.

THE GODS OF THE CELTIBERIANS



Of all the things required to create the Arevaci faction for Europa Barbarorum II, deciding which gods should form the Celtiberian pantheon was probably one of the most challenging aspects of our research. In contrast to the Gauls, for whom we have Julius Caesar’s De Bello Gallico, there exists no single text which deals exclusively with Celtiberian religion. Instead we must rely on short descriptions within larger historical narratives by such authors as Diodorus of Sicily, Strabo and Pliny the Elder. The only explicit mention of the religious practices of the Celtiberians is provided by Strabo, following Poseidonius, who states:

“Some authors assert that the Callaicans are atheists whereas the Celtiberians and the neighbouring peoples of the North dance and revel all night long by their homes, with their families, during the full moon, in order to honour an anonymous god.”

Apart from this short excerpt, there is next to no literary evidence from which to reconstruct a Celtiberian pantheon. The poet Macrobius mentions the god Neto in association with the Acci and links him to the Roman god Mars. In his description of the defeat of the Vaccaeans, Strabo mentions in passing that “the people of Pallantia withdrew as if turned away from a god”. But in terms of literary evidence for the deities of the Celtiberians, that is the extent of it.



The approaches which are employed in understanding which gods were worshipped by the La Tène Celts likewise are largely inapplicable for the Celtiberians. North of the Alps, attempts to understand Celtic deities typically use the Interpretatio Romani. This is the practice of determining the nature of indigenous deities by considering the nature of the Roman god they were later associated with - for example, attestations of the god Apollo-Grannos are taken to indicate that the Celtic god Grannos performed a role similar to that of the Roman and Greek Apollo. Within Iberia this largely impossible as interpretatio only occurred on a few occasions, mainly involving the Lares and Genii, both of which are too restrictive to be used as deities in EBII, and for which there is little evidence of worship within Celtiberia. Another approach which is employed in determining which gods were worshipped by the Gauls and Britons is to examine the varied iconographic evidence which was produced. Once again, this approach is of limited use when considering Celtiberian deities. In contrast to the temperate Celts where numerous sculptural representations of gods such as Ogmios, Kernunnos, Sukellos, the Matres and Epona abound few such sculptures have been found in Celtiberia. The extant “plastic” (sculpted depictions) of Celtiberian deities are the result of protracted contact with the Mediterranean world, as a result few can be dated to earlier than the 1st century BC. Thus, as will be seen with the example of Lugus discussed below, Roman influence by this point may have altered which gods were worshipped and where. Iconography, although an important asset in the study of Celtiberian religion, is also difficult to interpret due to the polytheistic nature of the subject and the tendency in Celtiberian art to avoid realism and instead aim for abstraction.



One set of data which is of great use in determining which deities were worshipped by the Celtiberians is epigraphic evidence: theonyms (god’s names) carved into stone. The earliest epigraphs date to the 2nd century BC and are almost entirely in Latin, although some examples exist in the Celtiberian and Lusitanian languages. There are about 50 Celtiberian inscriptions corresponding in total to 30 different theonyms. Each theonym, however, need not correspond to an individual deity; Celtic religion tended not to anthropomorphize gods, and instead deities could take on multiple manifestations, as shown by the story of the Irish war god The Morrigan. Thus the total number of gods worshipped by the Celtiberians was likely below 30. Based on epigraphic inscriptions in the Celtiberian region we are able to ascertain that Lugus, Equona, the Matres and Aeius were worshipped. The evidence for the worship of these deities is concentrated in the modern provinces of Soria, Guadalajara, Ceunca, Segovio, Brugos, the La Rioja region and Teruel, the modern provinces which correlate most with the extent of the Celtiberian culture. The epigraphic evidence for the worship of Lugus, Equona and the Matres shows that the Celtiberians belonged to the religious tradition of the temperate Celts; Lugus is attested to having been worshipped in Ireland, Gaul and central Europe; Equona (or Epona in the P-Celtic regions) was worshipped in Britain and Gaul, whilst the Matres enjoyed a strong cult in the Rhineland.



As with elsewhere in the Celtic world there is also evidence for the worship of Lugus in the form of toponyms, places associated with a name such as Lugdunum in Gaul: ciuitas Lougeiorum, Louciocelum, Lucocadia, Luggoni, Logobre, Logobre, Lucus and Lucus Augusti (although this may simply mean the locus/place of Augustus). This is in addition to a variety of anthronyms including Lugaunus, Lugetus, Lugidamus, Lugius, Lugenicus or Lugoselva. Epigraphic evidence from three sites in Galicia shows that Lugus was also worshipped in the area. In his discussion of Gaulish gods Caesar referred to Lugus by the name of the Roman god Mercury, identifying him as a god with “a talent for all the arts”. In truth, Lugus was a far more versatile deity than Mercury: an inspired poet, powerful musician, heavenly king and a ferocious warrior. In the Irish tradition he is noted for being skilled in all arts and renowned for his skills with the spear and sling, which he uses to conquer the evil creatures of the other-world before being proclaimed High King of Ireland. The Welsh Lleu Llaw Gyffes is similarly titled when his mother names him for his skill at throwing stones. Lleu’s ability at throwing stones, which he uses to break a wren’s leg, as well as his transformation into an eagle relates to the Gallic tradition of associating Lugus with ravens suggests that Lugus had an affinity with birds as well as projectiles. Interestingly, based on numismatic evidence, which depict a figure identified as Lugus (on account of the birds surrounding him) with the legend SVTVS AVG (divine cobbler), and a relief from Osma, Soria, it appears that among the Celtiberians Lugus was strongly associated with shoemakers. Roman attempts to supplant the Celtic festival of Lughnasadh with a festival honouring the Emperor, Mercury and Mars on the same date (1st August) may explain why there are only about 10 inscriptions dedicated to Lugus, despite his awesome importance in the Celtic pantheon.





Peñalba de Villastar, a sacred site for the Celtiberians

At the site of Peñalba de Villastar (one of many mountains which inscriptions show us were sacred) is an epigraph known as the Gran Inscripción and is one of many inscriptions found on the sacred mountain of. It reads:

ENIOROSEI.

VTA. TIGINO. TIATUMEI.

ERECAIAS. TO. LVGVEI.

ARAIANOM. COMEIMV.

ENIOROSEI. EQVEISVIQVE.

OGRIS. OLOCAS. TOGIAS. SISTAT. LVGVEI. TIASO.

TOGIAS.





The Gran Inscription from Peñalba de Villastar

In addition to the above, over 20 inscriptions, cave paintings and other features associated with rituals (holes for dedications, for example) have been recorded at Peñalba de Villastar. Another one at Cueva de la Griega, Segovia, similarly has an inscription to Nemedus augustus. In contrast with the Gauls and Britons the Celtiberians do not appear to have constructed any ritual structures, although some dwellings from Numantia, the capital of the Arevaci, may have been the site of ritual acts, and the holes found on some cliff faces have been interpreted as the foundations for wooden ritual structures. Only the Celtici of the south-west appear to have had an urban ritual centre of some kind as it later preserved and used by the Romans as a centre for the worship of Diana, a common practice in the empire.



In addition to the epigraphic evidence from within Celtiberia, Equona was also honoured at Mount Bernorio, Palencia. Originally, Eponā was a goddess of the land. Being "The Divine Mare", she could literally take the form of a horse. Her shape shifting ability was taken to represent her tireless energy, her love for her family, and her nobility. She is often equated with the Welsh goddess Rhiannon (*Rīgantonā "Divine Queen"), on the grounds of their association with horses and the sovereignty of the land. She also stands not just for the land but for its people. On Iron Age coins from Gaul and Britain, the horse is one of the most common motifs; it is thought to represent the tribe, the people of the land, collectivised as Eponā, and, when depicted mounted, the rider represents the warriors of the tribe, personified collectively as Teutatis. It may be interesting to view the white horses which cover the countryside of the South of England in this light, as at leaset some of them were made in the Iron Age: they are depictions of the goddess, representing the vital energy of the tribe. The fact that these figures are carved into the landscape may suggest that they are a kind of spell: the tribe retained its vital energy as long as Epona on the hillside was tended to, because in the image of the goddess resides the essence of the goddess herself, who is the spirit or the symbol of the spirit (*anamū) or living energy (*anatlom) of the tribe. It is interesting too, that the horse was designed to be recognisable only from the sky, the Upper Kingdom, the realm of the gods. In Greek and Roman religion, her closest parallel is Demeter/Ceres - although it was Demeter/Ceres brother Poseidon (Neptune) who was particularly associated with horses in the classical civilisations. She was much more than a goddess of horses and a protector of cavalry; she was the symbolic mother of the tribe, in the same way that Teutatis was its father. She became goddess of horsemen during the Roman period because of her association with the horse, when she was picked up by Roman soldiers serving in Gaul and Britain, and eventually incorporated into mainstream Roman religion, a unique honour for a druidic god - but this is at best a secondary role of hers, and at worst a complete misunderstanding of the symbolism.



The evidence for worship of the Matres is varied. Epigraphic dedications to the Matres occur in generic Celtic theonyms (Matribus, Clunia, Yánguas, Matrubos and Ágreda) and in various reductions (Useis, Cannales de Sierra, Tendeiteris and possibly Covarrubias). Epigraphic evidence for the Matres also shows evidence of religious similarities with other parts of the Celtic speaking world. For example, Brigeacis from Clunia, which has the same root as Brigantia with its insular connections (the British Brigantes tribe and the Irish goddess Brigit). Historically the Matres (or Matrones as they are sometimes known) were female deities particularly popular in western Europe. They appear, based on the items dedicated to them and on the languages that altar descriptions were written in, to have been both Celtic and Germanic deities with a particularly strong following in the Rhineland region. There is plenty evidence, however, inidicating that they were worshipped in Britain (based on a schist plaque from Bath), Gaul (including a terracotta relief at the Aeduoi capital of Bibracte) and over twenty inscriptions from Iberia, the vast majority of which come from the north western area of Celtiberia. The Matres are almost always depicted as a group of three women with at least one holding a basket of fruit. Some depictions show the central figure with loose hair and the other two with loose hair whilst other depictions show scenes of sacrifice whilst images of children, nappies and snakes sometimes appear. The role of the Matres within Celtic and Germanic religion is not fully understood - however the imagery of the depictions as well a tendency to associate some other female deities (Sirona, Sulis) with healing and fertility suggests that the Matres were goddesses of the household and family.



Location of epigraphs dedicated to the gods Lugos, Equona and the Matres in Iberia

The above information thus provided the Europa Barbarorum II team with sufficient information to allocate three gods to the Celtiberian pantheon, each with distinct characteristics. It was decided Lugus should be a god of influence, Equona happiness and that the Matres should improve the health of settlements in which they were worshipped. However, considering the martial nature of the Celtiberians, this still left one key trait unaccounted for: war. Fortunately, sufficient evidence exists for the worship of the Celtiberian god of war himself.



Toponyms also enable us to identify another god who was likely worshiped in Celtiberia: Neitos. The name appears in the site of Nertobriga (possibly Neitos of victory) as well as the Botorrita plaque (the greatest single amount of Celtiberian text thus far discovered) and in Macrobius Saturnalia where he is identified with the Roman god of war, Mars. Neitos also occurs in Early Medieval Irish literature as the war god Neit. Both Neitos and Neit stem from the same root word as the Gaulish Neitoi, *Neitosioi, evidence that all three were in fact the same god. The bronze plaque from Botorrita, Zaragoza, invoked the name of Neto (as well as another possible deity, Tokaitos). More epigraphic evidence for Neto comes from Trujillo and Condeixa-a-Velha, and a monument from Binéfar contains the word Neitin. As mentioned above, Macrobius also associated Neto with Mars. This rare example of Interpretatio Romani combined with the Celtic evidence thus confirmed Neitos' place as the deity of war for EBII’s Arevaci.



Having decided that Lugus, Neitos, Equona and the Matres would be used for the Arevaci gods in Europa Barbarorum II, there remained only one special temple left to choose a god for. In EBII this temple will only exist in the Arevaci capital which, once destroyed will be lost forever. What remaining possible deities do we have evidence therefore within Celtiberia? The remaining Celtiberian deities for who we have less than eloquent epigraphic evidence appear to be local deities of which we know nothing: Caldo Vledico, Leiosse, Pendusae, Aiioragato, Lattueriis, Ordaecis- or Sordaecis-, Peicacomae, Vacocaburio, Aelmanio, Aiiodaicino, Boiogenae, Amma, Dialco. However, as noted above, Strabo did describe how a powerful god was worshipped in Iberia at the time for whom we have no name.



The anonymity of this god raises some interesting questions. Hellenic and Roman authors, like Poseidonius, typically tend to try and equate indigenous deities with those of the Helleno-Roman pantheon. The fact Poseidonius that did not equate the Celtiberian deity with a Greek or Roman equivalent suggests that this particular god did not have a Greek or Roman equivalent which could be satisfactorily linked. One possibility is that the Celtiberian god was the moon. If this was the case then it may be that the Celtiberian deity was the male equivalent of the Gallic goddess Sirona, the argument being that Sirona was a goddess of the evening star, the counterpart of the evening star being the (male) moon. An alternate theory is that the Celtiberian deity described here is the Celtic primordial father, known to the Irish as Dagda and mentioned by Caesar, in De Bello Gallico, as Dis Pater. Caesar’s association of the Roman Dis Pater with the Gallic deity is, however, a poor one. Based on the evidence from the insular descriptions of Dagda (reconstructed in EBII as *Dagodeus) he was a god of immense power, the god of Druids, father of the Irish tribes, reigned for 80 years and governed the Celtic calendar which, unlike the Roman calendar, was based on a lunar rather than a solar cycle. The evidence for a lunar calendar is borne out in the archaeological record in the form of the Coligny Calendar, discovered near Lyons in 1897. If the god which Poseidonius describes was the Celtiberian equivalent of the Irish Dagda and the Gallic god Caesar, very poorly, links with Dis Pater, it is fair to assume he was a god of great power, influence and possibly fertility. Certainly a god worthy of respect and worship.



Thus, as a result of examining the various data, combined with theorising about the mythological relationships between different deities, comparative analysis with other Celtic groups and some creative linguistics, the Arevaci will worship the following deities: Lugus (influence), Neito (war), Equona (happiness), the Matres (health) and finally Dagodeus (special power).



THE LOCALS ARE FRIENDLY ENOUGH, BUT THEY HAVE SOME ODD CUSTOMS

As Rome expanded across the Mediterranean she encountered a variety of cultures with a wide array of customs and traditions. Some of these, such as Greek education, would be embraced by the Romans; others such as the Druidic tradition of the Britons and Gauls, would be persecuted to extinction; whilst others still seem to have fascinated the Romans. Whereas the Germanic, British and Gallic cultures would receive substantial attention in the works of classical authors such as Tacitus Germanic and Agricola and Caesar’s De Bello Gallico, respectively, no single extant book from this period records Celtiberian society in the same detail. The polymath Poseidonius did write a book examining the culture of the Gauls and Celtiberians, but today it survives only in fragments of others such as Caesar, Strabo and Ptolemy. Thus our knowledge of Celtiberian customs must be gleaned from a variety of sources. Among the various habits and customs of the Celtiberians which classical writers recorded, including the mixing of wine with honey (this drink was likely mead, which had been produced in Europe since the time of the Beaker culture of the Neolithic), brewing a particularly potent drink known as caelia, a tradition which continued until the 6th century AD as recorded by Gregory of Tours, cleaning their teeth with stale urine (medically sound as urine is largely sterile) and proto-communism employed by the Vaccaei tribe, there were two aspects of Celtiberian society which appear to have greatly impressed and fascinated classical writers: Celtiberian hospitality and the Celtiberian military psyche.



An example of a "Celtic" tessaro from Cabeza-del-Griego, Cuenca

According to Poseidonius (Diodorus V, 34, 1) the Celtiberians were unrivalled in their level of hospitality and as a result were loved by the gods for it. It has been suggested that this high level of hospitality developed as a counter to the fragmented and turbulent nature of Celtiberian society, with its raiding war parties and noble power rooted in war. Similar institutions existed in other societies with comparable social dynamics such as the Iron Age Britons and Viking Age Norse, in both of which the fosterage of children was institutionalised. Fosterage facilitated the creation of bonds of friendship between different families and surviving Irish and Norse literature from the Viking Age often describes how foster brothers would come to one another’s aid in times of strife. The mechanism of hospitality likely encouraged similar bonds of friendship between different Celtiberian communities. In order to reduce the risk of harm when travelling outside their communities different groups accepted a highly ritualised and legally binding form of hospitality, thereby fostering good relations between different tribes and improving the safety of individuals travelling between those communities. The archaeological evidence for this hospitality comes in the form of objects known as tessarae hospitii; metal tokens inscribed with text relating to the act of hospitality (although it is now widely agreed that organic tessarae were produced which have not survived the ravages of time). In total around 40 tesserae have been recovered, 30 of which were inscribed in Celtic using either Palaeo-Hispanic or Latin script whilst the remaining 10 are written in Latin; evidence of Celtiberian and Roman interaction. Tessarae were produced in a variety of forms. Some are zoomorphic, in the shape of animals associated with various Celtiberian gods (boars, bulls, pigs, wolves etc). Others make use of so called “Roman” imagery (such dolphins and interlaced and non-interlaced right hands) whilst others are geometric abstractions or simply sheets of metal. One such sheet metal tessaro is from Botoritta, near Saragossa. The Botoritta tessaro is a bronze plaque which has been inscribed on both sides describing land ownership. The Botoritta tessara is of particular note as it is one of the longest inscriptions in Celtiberian to have been recovered. Tesserae invoked the divine protection and awesome power of the gods and upon their completion each individual named in the text would take either a piece of the tessaros or a copy to act as a guarantee. Although the Romans suffered heavily at the hands of Celtiberian warriors they successfully adapted the Celtiberian act of hospitality, transforming and diluting it into a clientele system which they could use to control the Celtiberians.





An example of a "Roman" tessaro from Contrebia

The second feature of the Celtiberian psyche which appears to have fascinated the Romans is the Celtiberian attitude to warfare. Like the Gallic soldurii and German retainers which Caesar described in De Bello Gallico, the Celtiberians considered it as a criminal act to survive a battle if the chief was slain. Whereas the Gauls only appear to have practised headhunting, as described by various classical authors and evidenced more graphically by the skulls set in a stone doorway from the sanctuary at Roquepertuse, the Celtiberians, in addition to headhunting, engaged in hand hunting. To cut off your opponent’s sword hand was viewed as a great triumph for yourself and a great insult to your opponent as, without his hand, he could not wield weapons in the next world and thus could not be a warrior. This fate almost befell the Roman consul Mancino and the 4,000 troops under his command when, having been defeated by a Celtiberian force, a young Celtiberian warrior wished to cut off the hands of all the Romans’ so as to be able to marry a Celtiberian princess. The Celitberians, like their Gallic cousins, also appear to have been strongly attached to their weapons to the extent they were buried with them. Unlike the Gauls, however, the Celtiberians "killed" their weapons by bending the blades so they were beyond use; in temperate Europe weapons treated in this was were not used in burials but instead religious dedications. Although cremation was the burial rite for the majority of Celtiberians, a few exceptional warriors were afforded a more prestigious rite, as described by the Roman historian Silius Italicus:

“The Celts, who have added to their name that of the Hiberi, came also. To these men death in battle is glorious; and they consider it a crime to burn the body of such a warrior; for they believe that soul goes up to the gods in heaven, if the body is devoured in the field by the hungry vulture.”

This funerary practice is further attested to in funerary stelae as well as pottery from Numantia which shows slain warriors being devoured by vultures. Indeed, it is still practiced in Nepal where is it reserved for individuals from upper castes.



Pottery fragments from Numantia, capital of the Arevaci, showing vultures feeding off dead warriors

THE VERRACOS OF THE VETTONES

In contrast to the Romani and Hellenes, the Celts did not produce many great works of stone artwork. The few examples which have been recovered, such as the life-sized male statues from Glauberg and Hirschladen, which were produced in the Hallstatt period, the Mšecké Žehrovice warrior head or the deities from the sanctuary at Roquerpertuse which are La Tène in date, are notable by their rarity. Indeed Diodorus of Sicily reports that the Celtic general Brennus, upon entering the sanctuary Delphi, mocked the Greeks for having attempted to represent the gods in stone. Within Iberia, however, at least one Celtic group appears to have routinely produced stone sculptures with a degree of technical expertise; the Vettones.





The location of, and territory of the Vettones

The Vettones, although not inhabiting the Meseta region (they lived on what is now Spain’s border with Portugal) of the Celtiberians and possibly being a non-Celtic Indo-European peoples developed out of the same indigenous substratum as the Celtiberians of the Meseta region. By the 5th century BC Vettonic culture shows signs of being increasingly Celticised as a result of contacts, likely in the form of small scale élite exchanges (the surname Keltios was later employed by individuals from the Vettones when they began to produce epigraphic dedications). Also, the Vettones, like the Areuakoi, inhabited oppida in their later history and equipped themselves as Celtiberian warriors did. Unlike the Celtic and other Celtic influenced peoples of the peninsular, who only produced a few fairly crude examples of stone artwork, the Vettones did produce large numbers stone sculptures. These zoomorphic sculptures known as verracos, of which over 400 are known to exist, date from the 4th century BC to the 3rd century AD and always depict either bulls or boars, identifiable by their pronounced sexual organs. Various theories have been advanced as to the meaning of the verracos. Some have argued they were intended as markers of wealth; others haves suggested that they were placed at the borders of territories in the belief that they would guard the people within the territories. The excavation of an engraved boar beneath the northern tower at the gate of the fortified Celtiberian settlement of Ávila may support this theory. Furthermore, it has been suggested that the verracos were intended to invoke the spirit of cattle-related deities or that the sculptures were believed to actively protect flocks and herds from evil. As with so much in prehistoric archaeology, however, we have incredible and fascinating evidence but only the faintest idea as to the original purpose behind these creations.





Verracos







THE CELTIBERIANS ENTER HISTORY



True to their martial traditions, the Celtiberians first enter history as mercenaries in Sicily and continue to appear in other conflicts along the Mediterranean. The Celtiberians enjoyed a reputation as fierce warriors and during the conflicts between Sparta & Thebes in 370-362 BC, the tyrant of Syrcause, Dionysius I sent Celtiberian & Celtic mercenary cavalry to assist Sparta, where they proved to be a great help. Celtiberian warriors were believed to possess the finest qualities of the Celts, savage battle lust and great physical courage, along with the steadiness and organization of the more civilized Iberian ancestors. Their reputation was such that after the rout of the Carthaginians by Scipio Africanus at the Burning of the Camps in 203 BC, the arrival of a band of only 4000 Celtiberians encouraged the Carthaginians to take the field once more.



Until the First Punic War, they are only mentioned fighting for pay in other peoples' wars. The Celtiberian mercenaries in the First Punic War were according to Polybios a bad lot who had been expelled from Celtiberia and they behaved badly throughout the war. After the conflict, they constituted a large part of the mercenary army that revolted outside Carthage, when pay was not forthcoming. In 237 BC, Hamilcar Barca, father of the famous Hannibal, crossed over to Iberia and began subjugating the southern Iberian lands. When he advanced northwards in 229 BC, he clashed with an army of Celtiberians led by an Istolatios, and defeated them. Afterwards, he faced another Celtiberian army, reputedly 50 000 strong, led by an Indortes, whose army was crushed and he himself was crucified by the Carthaginian general. Hamilcar died in 228 BC and his son-in-law Hasdrubal took command. He crushed the Oretani, founded Carthago Nova and continued fighting the Iberian tribes who resisted Carthaginian rule. He was assassinated in 221 BC by a Celtiberian prisoner, which meant that his nephew Hannibal Barca became the leader of Carthaginian Iberia. In 219 BC the Second Punic War began with Hannibal's attack on Saguntum (also known as Arse) and in 218 BC the Celtiberians formed a large part of Hannibal's army that marched to Italy, where they participated in all his battles. In Iberia though the Celtiberians fought on both sides, as a group of Celtiberians allied with the Roman general Gnaeus Scipio (uncle of the more famous Scipio Africanus) in 217 BC. The same year the Celtiberians took three towns from the Carthaginians and defeated Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal, reportedly in a magnificent fashion.





The Botorrita plaque, the single largest extant example of the Celtiberian language

Before Hannibal had left, he had been given the sons of many Celtiberian leaders and these were handed back to their respective families by an Iberian prince named Abilyx, who had sided with the Romans. This brought more Celtiberians over to the Roman side, and were now found in almost equal numbers on both sides. The Celtiberians continued fighting on both sides throughout the war, although it seems that more Celtiberians fought on the Roman side later in the war, especially after the fall of Carthago Nova, when the hostages that were held there by the Carthaginians were released. When the Second Punic War ended, the Romans were solidly entrenched in eastern and southern Iberia. However, the coastal tribes found out that they had merely traded one set of masters for another, and so the Hispanic Wars began. The Celtiberian tribes took no part in the early years, but faced the Romans soon afterwards, and within decades they were in full-scale war with them.



THE END OF CELTIBERIAN INDEPENDENCE



The Arevaci or Numantines, as they are also referred sometimes, faced the Romans first in 197 BC when a revolt broke out in central Iberia and the consul Cato the Elder was forced to march into the Meseta region. Cato was repulsed before Segontia, and this forced him to march with seven cohorts towards the Ebro River, where he established camps on a mountain some 6 km from Numantia, called today La Gran Atalaya - ''The Great Watchtower”. The site of the camps were to be used by all his successors in their campaigns against Numantia. In 193 BC, the Roman governor M. Fulvius Nobilior defeated a confederation of Vaccei, Vettones and other tribes near Toletum (modern-day Toledo). For the next decades there were only sporadic skirmishes. In 171 BC ambassadors from various tribes in Iberia travelled to Rome, where they were received by the Senate, to complain about the greed and injustice of Roman governors. Matters in Iberia remained relatively peaceful until 155 BC, when the Lusitanian Wars erupted.



In 153 BC the Celtiberians, fed up with the rapacity of Roman authorities and encouraged with the great rebellion of their Lusitanian brethren, prepared for war. Segeda, the capital of the Belli, began to enlarge and repair its walls. Roman protests and attempts to recruit auxiliaries for the war against the Lusitanians were rejected. It is said that the Lusitanians displayed the weapons, standards and plunder taken in their engagements with the Romans before the Celtiberians, mocking the latter's passivity.



The Romans, foreseeing a tough and relentless fight, raised a consular army 30.000 men strong, and command was entrusted to Q. Fulvius Nobilior, whose father had campaigned in Iberia in the 190s. Now a curious event happened. According to the usual practice, Nobilior should have taken command of his army on March 15 of 153 BC, at the start of the official Roman year. This would mean that any military operations could not get under way until June; and since the weather turns bad in central Iberia in September, this would have meant a very short campaigning season. It was therefore decided in Rome to change the start of the official year to January 1.: we owe thus the date of our New Year to the Celtiberian wars.



Nobilior landed at Tarraco in April and the following month advanced on Segeda by marching along the Ebro river until modern-day Zaragoza, where he marched up the River Jalon valley. The Belli & Titii had only 8000 warriors and the walls of Segeda were not complete. They therefore abandoned Segeda and fled to Numantia, where the Arevaci took in the fugitives and by doing so, accepted war with Rome. They also made a Belli warrior named Caros their war leader, who began gathering an army to oppose the Romans.



Nobilior destroyed Segeda and continued on towards Numantia, following the Jalon River. The Roman general might have believed he'd face the Celtiberians in a pitched battle on open ground, but instead his troops faced a new type of fighting. Polybios called the Roman wars in Iberia "The Fiery War", not only for its fierceness but also for its unpredictability, alternating outbreaks and periods of smoldering which were never completely stamped out. Where other wars, such as the ones in Greece and Italy, had been decided by one or two pitched battles, the Iberians waged an effective guerilla war with stubborn tenacity even during winter.



Near the Baldano river, 20 km from Numantia, Nobilior's army was ambushed by Caros' troops, 20 000 infantry and 5 000 cavalry. Nobilior had neglected reconnaissance and led his army stretched out in a long column into the trap. The ambush was bloody and 10 000 Roman soldiers were killed, 6000 of them Roman citizens. The Romans managed to hack themselves free and onto open ground, where the Roman cavalry routed the Celtiberians and killed Caros. Nobilior made his way to Gran Atalaya where Cato had established camps over 40 years earlier and from there launched an attack on Numantia in September, after receiving Numidian reinforcements, including elephants. His plan was to panic the Numantines by unleashing his elephants on them, which initially worked, but when the elephants reached the walls of Numantia they were struck with rocks & javelins, which caused them to run amok and stampede through the Roman ranks. The Arevaci immediately sortied out and when night fell, 4000 Romans and 2000 Celtiberians were dead. After pillaging the countryside, Nobilior returned to the camps at Gran Atalaya to make winter camp, where his army was further reduced by cold, famine and sickness. Nobilior's campaign characterized future Roman campaigns in Celtiberia. Numerous Roman generals attempted to attack Numantia but were repulsed or could not breach its defences and many soldiers died in guerilla warfare. In 137 BC a 20 000 strong Roman army under G. Hostilius Mancinus had to surrender and accept humiliating peace terms. These affairs lasted until 135 BC, when Publius Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, the grandson of Scipio Africanus that defeated Hannibal, the destroyer of Carthage, vowed to crush the Celtiberians. The Senate waived the legal ban on any man holding two consulships within ten years and he was appointed as consul of Hispania Citerior for 134 BC. He was not however given an army of size commensurate with his rank and had to raise one based entirely on volunteers. This however did not prove to be a hindrance, and money and troops were loaned by friends and clients, including a “cohors amicorum” paid by Attalos III of Pergamon and Antiochus Sidetes of Syria. This unit included several men who would gain fame on their own: Gaius Marius, Jugurtha, Gaius Gracchus, historian Polybios, poet Lucilius & Q. Fabius Maximus, brother of Scipio Aemilianus.



In March 134 BC, Scipio Aemilianus landed in Tarraco and found the 20 000 strong Roman army in a deplorable state, with lack of morale and discipline. Scipio immediately enacted harsh measures in order to bring the army back into fighting shape, including austere rations, forced marches and removal of luxuries. Two months later, Scipio marched out with his army and taking a longer route than his predecessors, avoided the “ambush-country” that lay between his starting point and Numantia. This route took him through Vaccei territory, to whom he harassed, took their crops and discouraged them from supporting the Arevaci. Still the Vaccei did ambush Roman foraging units when they could, but Scipio reached Numantia without major casualties in August-September 134 BC. He now had 60 000 men outside the walls, 4000 of them he had taken with him from Rome and 20 000 were Roman or Italians. The remainder were Iberian auxiliaries. The forces opposing Scipio comprised only 3000 Arevaci warriors.





Scipio Aemilianus march to Numantia



The siege of Numantia is remembered as a gruelling one, but also as a feat of Roman military engineering, and of unrelenting Celtiberian resistance. Scipio first built a palisade around Numantia and 100 metres behind this he had his troops build stone 