File talk:Prehispanic languages.gif

Disputed

This map has big innacuracies!! And in fact it is not sourced - I mean, we do know what is the source (yes the site is still on), but the site does not source the map with references, unlike Image:Ethnographic Iberia 200 BCE.PNG (which also has some problems and there is an small discussion going on at Image_talk:Ethnographic_Iberia_200_BCE.PNG), which is based upon a source map (done by Portuguese Archeologist Luís Fraga (luisfraga@arqueotavira.com), from the "Campo Arqueológico de Tavira" (Tavira Archeological Camp - official site), in Tavira, Algarve - Portugal. The reference map can be found at this location, and a pdf version, with extensive and detailed information on the criteria used, as well as the long bibliography used to source the map can be found here) with an extended bibliography supporting it (see the link for the pdf version). This map has many problems:

1. The Aquitanian area is too small and it does not take into account the ambiguities regarding some of the Astur or Pyrenean tribes and even trans-Pyrenean tribes (for example the area marked A1 is presented as Iberian, when it is know by every other source to be Aquitanian), as well as the ambiguities regarding interpenetration between Iberian and Aquitanian zones;
2. It treats the Oritani as Iberian when many sources say they were Hispano-Celt (there is some discussion about this and the map I made is still not perfect treating them as unambiguously Celtic;
3. The Lusitania area is too big, either because it extends excessively into modern Spanish Extremadura, ither because it goes all the way to the coast (thus erasing the area of the Celtic Turdolorum Oppida);
4. It ignores the Pre-Celtic but Indo-European influence in Gallaecia and Asturias;
5. It exagerates the Phoenician and Greek areas, in the sense that those were merely elite languages and not overall populacional languages;
6. It does not distinguishes the specific area of the Turdetani, which most authors (beginning with Strabo!) say had a different language from the Iberians, being the most consensual and modern hipotesys that is was descendent from Tartessian;
7. It fails to see that by 250 to 200 BCC the Conni area of the Algarve and Lower Alentejo did no longer speak a Tartessian derived language, but was pratically all "celtized" by the Celtici (even if the Conni still existed, there seem to have been a language and cultural shift) - furthermore it calls the supposed Conii area by the name South Lusitanian, whic, not being technically wrong (it was used by some authors), is confusing since that name was only aplied to Tartessian-derived Conii inscriptions and not a language area, and the name felt into desuse since it provoked confusion with the completely unrelated Lusitanian area (an Indo_european area, unlike the previous one);
8. The boundaries between languages groups (and now I mean within each big family), are excessively weel defined, not concordant with the specific geographical implantion of tribal groups according to many other sources, giving relevance to some groups and forgeting others, confusing Roman provinvial boundaries with ethno-linguistics one (there were no exact matches) and confusing tribal groups with linguistic ones, inventing language names or varities (see its site) that no source ever mentions!!

I propose that this map be deleted due to Original Research. The Ogre 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OMG! Where is the basque language? It is not celtic nor celtiberian!!--Unai Fdz. de Betoño (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Answering the previous comments:

1. The area A1 (clear pink) is not iberian (dark pink). Pink is used for non-indoeuropean languages, but certainly basque-aquitanian and iberian are distinct languages.
2. The location of inscriptions is that from bibliography, not boundaries that are reconstructions based on orography and physical natural barriers.
3. Phoenican and Greek areas are probably exagerated and represent better areas of influence of these people rather than actual presence of greek or phoenician speakers.
4. In Oretani area there are inscriptions in iberian, because of this the assignement to iberan language area.
5. It is not difficult to change boundaries redesign the map in some aspect, at least the map show exactly the location of prehispanic inscriptions, and by this reason it deservers to remain (probably in a modified or corrected form).
6. Look at this other map in wikimedia commons: "Retroceso del euskera (2).svg"

--Davius (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Menorca is not Phoenician, share talaiotic culture with Mallorca. Both Majorca and Minorca had cultural and commercial exchange with the Carthaginians, but were not colonized. --Lliura (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)