Celtic Demographics in Iberia

[Historius]

Hello all,

A lot is written about Celts/Celtiberians in Iberia, however, I do not see a lot being written about population numbers. So, I have two specific questions for anyone who may have knowledge about this:

1) What was the estimated population of Celts and Celtiberians in the entire Iberian peninsula at the beginning of the Roman conquest of Iberia?

2) How many Celtic/Celtiberian deaths are estimated during the 200 years of roman conquest of Iberia?

It would be a bonus if someone had the same information not only about the Celts, but also the Iberians of the same period. Thank you.

 

[Tautalus]

It is difficult to find information on this subject, usually they are books or articles subject to payment.
So I asked ChatGPT.

Population numbers for pre-roman Iberia ?
Estimating the population of pre-Roman Iberia is challenging due to the lack of direct demographic data from the time. However, historians and archaeologists have made some rough estimates based on archaeological evidence, the size of settlements, the land area, and other historical records. These estimates are often speculative, and they vary depending on the region and time period in question. Here’s an overview of the likely population numbers for different regions of pre-Roman Iberia:
1. Overall Population of the Iberian Peninsula
The total population of pre-Roman Iberia is often estimated to have been between 3 million and 4 million people. This estimate is based on factors like the density of settlements, agricultural capacity, and the scale of urbanization in certain areas, though these numbers remain tentative due to the lack of reliable census data.
2. Regional Populations
Different regions of the Iberian Peninsula had varying population densities depending on geography, resources, and cultural factors. Below are some rough estimates for key regions:
• Iberian South and East (Iberians) The Iberian peoples, concentrated in the southeastern and eastern parts of the peninsula, likely had a population of around 1.5 to 2 million people. This area included important urban centers, such as the coastal cities of Gadir (Cádiz), Cartago Nova (Cartagena), and Tartessos in the south. The region also had fertile agricultural land, supporting a significant population.
• Central Iberia (Celtiberians) The central plateau, inhabited by the Celtiberians, is estimated to have had a population of around 500,000 to 1 million people. The Celtiberians lived in hillforts (oppida) and had a strong warrior culture. This area was home to several tribal groups and had a mix of agricultural land and mountainous terrain.
• Northern Iberia (Celtic and Basque regions) The Celtic populations in the northern and northwestern parts of Iberia (including Galicia and Asturias) probably numbered around 500,000 people. The Basques, living in the Pyrenees and surrounding areas, would have had a smaller population, potentially around 100,000 to 200,000 people. The northern regions were more sparsely populated, with tribal societies and a greater reliance on pastoralism.
• Southern Iberia (Tartessians and Phoenician colonies) The Tartessians, living in the Guadalquivir River Valley in southern Iberia (modern-day Andalusia), likely had a population of around 200,000 to 300,000 people. The Phoenician colonies along the Mediterranean coast (such as Gadir and Malaca) would have added to the population of the southern coast. These cities were important for trade and commerce, with populations that may have ranged from a few thousand to tens of thousands.
• Greek Colonies The Greek colonies in the northeast, such as Emporion (Empúries), were relatively small, with populations likely ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 people each. The total population of all Greek settlements in Iberia might have been 20,000 to 50,000 people.
3. Urban vs. Rural Populations
• Urban Centers: Pre-Roman Iberia had several important urban centers, especially along the Mediterranean coast, such as Gadir (Cádiz), Cartago Nova (Cartagena), and Tartessos. These cities were often fortified, with populations that could range from several thousand to tens of thousands. Larger cities like Gadir might have supported around 20,000 to 30,000 people, though their populations could have fluctuated depending on the period.
• Rural Areas: The majority of the population would have lived in rural areas, particularly in agricultural villages or smaller settlements. These populations were dispersed across the fertile plains, river valleys, and coastal regions, living off agriculture, animal husbandry, and trade. Rural settlements typically had populations of a few hundred to a few thousand people.
4. Factors Affecting Population Estimates
• Geography and Agriculture: The fertile plains of the Guadalquivir River Valley, the Ebro River Valley, and the Mediterranean coastal areas were more densely populated, while the mountainous areas of the north and interior (such as the Meseta Central) were less so.
• Urbanization: Urbanization was not widespread in pre-Roman Iberia, and the number of major cities was relatively small. The most urbanized regions were those with Phoenician and Greek colonies, as well as areas inhabited by the Iberians. However, many people still lived in small rural settlements.
• War and Invasions: Periods of conflict, such as the wars between Iberian tribes, the Carthaginian Empire, and the Romans, could have affected population growth and settlement patterns. Wars, such as the Celtiberian Wars, likely caused population decline in certain areas due to destruction and displacement.
Conclusion
In sum, while it’s difficult to determine exact population numbers for pre-Roman Iberia, estimates suggest a total population of around 3 to 4 million people. The population was distributed unevenly across the peninsula, with the highest concentrations in the fertile southern and eastern regions, and more sparse populations in the northern and mountainous areas. Urban centers were relatively small, but trade and agriculture were key to sustaining the diverse peoples living in pre-Roman Iberia.

Impact of the roman conquest in the population numbers of pre-roman Iberia ?
The Roman conquest of Iberia, which occurred gradually between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE, had significant impacts on the region's population numbers. The conquest involved several military campaigns, including the Punic Wars (against Carthage), the Celtiberian and Lusitanian Wars, and the final campaigns that led to the full incorporation of Iberia into the Roman Empire. This period of conquest and subsequent Roman rule altered the demographics of the Iberian Peninsula in several ways.
1. Decline in Population Due to Warfare and Displacement
One of the most immediate impacts of the Roman conquest was a significant decline in the population as a result of prolonged warfare, destruction of settlements, and displacement of civilians.
• Destruction of Settlements: The Roman armies, particularly during the Celtiberian Wars (especially the campaigns against the Celtiberian tribes in central Iberia), systematically destroyed many fortified settlements (oppida) and towns. The most famous example is the Roman sack of the Celtiberian city of Numantia in 133 BCE, where after a long siege, the Romans either killed or enslaved the population. Similar military actions were taken against other resisting tribes, especially in the northwest (Galicia and Asturias), which led to the destruction of towns and agricultural settlements.
• Mass Slaughter and Enslavement: Following military victories, the Romans often enslaved large portions of the defeated populations. In the case of Numantia, the survivors were either killed or sold into slavery. The conquest of Carthaginian-controlled southern Iberia and the Celtiberian and Lusitanian resistance in the interior also likely resulted in heavy casualties. Estimates suggest that in some regions, up to 20-30% of the population may have been killed or enslaved during the most brutal military campaigns, particularly in the late stages of the conquest.
• Displacement and Migration: As Romans expanded their control, many people in the affected areas were displaced, either fleeing to other regions or being forcibly relocated. This migration could have disrupted local populations and contributed to temporary declines in population density in certain regions.
2. Changes in Urbanization and Population Distribution
The Roman conquest led to the founding of new cities, the expansion of trade routes, and the integration of Iberia into the Roman economic system. These changes had long-term effects on the region's population distribution.
• Founding of Roman Cities: The Romans established several new cities throughout Iberia, which became centers of administration, commerce, and Roman culture. These urban centers attracted people from surrounding rural areas, offering work, security, and Roman-style living. The growth of Roman towns and cities likely contributed to an increase in urban populations, although many of these cities were built on the ruins of previous settlements.
• Romanization and Integration: The process of Romanization gradually spread Roman culture, language (Latin), and legal systems across Iberia. Roman infrastructure, such as roads, aqueducts, and villas, also began to transform the landscape. Urbanization and the integration of rural areas into Roman economic networks likely led to an overall population growth over time, as Roman rule brought relative stability and economic prosperity, especially in areas along Roman roads and trade routes.
3. Economic Impact and Population Growth
While the initial years of Roman conquest caused significant disruption, the eventual integration of Iberia into the Roman economy led to improvements in infrastructure, trade, and agricultural productivity. These changes contributed to population growth in the long run.
• Agricultural Development: Roman rule brought new agricultural practices, tools, and the expansion of large estates (latifundia). These estates were worked by slaves, who were often captured during the conquest, but they also contributed to agricultural production. Improved farming techniques and the introduction of new crops likely boosted agricultural productivity, which could support a larger population.
• Increased Trade: The Roman Empire's vast trade network provided new economic opportunities for the Iberian Peninsula, especially in the production of olive oil, wine, and grain. Regions like Baetica (southern Hispania, including modern Andalusia) became key suppliers of olive oil to the Roman world. As trade flourished, the economy of Iberia improved, potentially leading to higher living standards and supporting population growth in urban and rural areas alike.
• Roman Infrastructure: The Romans constructed extensive road networks, bridges, and aqueducts across the peninsula, facilitating trade and movement of people. This infrastructure made the region more accessible and connected to the rest of the empire, which in turn contributed to economic and demographic growth.
4. Cultural and Social Changes
The Roman conquest also led to significant cultural and social changes that affected the demographic composition of Iberia.
• Roman Citizenship: Over time, many Iberian elites were granted Roman citizenship, which allowed for more direct integration into Roman society. This process of Romanization involved the adoption of Roman customs, laws, and language (Latin), and it helped to stabilize the population after the initial destruction caused by the wars. It is estimated that by the early 3rd century CE, a significant portion of the Iberian population had been granted citizenship.
• Slavery: The Roman Empire's demand for slaves, particularly from the conquered regions, meant that large numbers of Iberians were enslaved, especially during the early stages of the conquest. Over time, however, slavery remained an integral part of the Roman economy, particularly in agriculture and mining. Slaves were also imported into Iberia from other parts of the empire, which contributed to the region’s social stratification.
• Roman Military Presence: The establishment of Roman military camps and fortifications led to a large military presence in Iberia. Roman soldiers, many of whom were recruited from other parts of the empire, settled in Iberia after completing their service. This brought a substantial influx of foreign populations to Iberia, leading to greater ethnic diversity, particularly in the major cities.
5. Population Recovery and Growth in the Roman Era
While the immediate aftermath of the Roman conquest saw a decline in population due to warfare, enslavement, and displacement, the longer-term effects of Roman rule were generally positive for the region’s demographics:
• By the 1st century CE, after the majority of the military campaigns had ended and stability was established, population growth likely resumed. The total population of Iberia in the early Roman period has been estimated to have been around 6 to 8 million by the end of the 1st century BCE, indicating a recovery and increase from the pre-Roman population levels.
• The Roman Empire's stability, infrastructure, and economic integration supported urbanization and population growth, especially in areas like Baetica, Lusitania (modern Portugal), and Hispania Citerior (northeastern Spain). Romanization spread more widely, and Iberia became a prosperous part of the empire, contributing to its population growth.
Conclusion
The impact of the Roman conquest on the population of Iberia was initially destructive, with significant loss of life, enslavement, and displacement due to war. However, the subsequent establishment of Roman control, infrastructure, and economic integration eventually led to population recovery and growth. The demographic changes brought about by Romanization, urbanization, and improved agricultural and trade practices supported an overall increase in the population by the end of the 1st century BCE, with estimates suggesting a population of around 6 to 8 million people in Roman Iberia, compared to 3 to 4 million in the pre-Roman period.

Sources for this information ?
The information provided about the demographis of pre-roman Iberia and the impact of the Roman conquest on the population is drawn from a variety of historical, archaeological, and academic sources. Some of the key sources and scholars who have contributed to the understanding of pre-Roman and Roman Iberia, its population, and the effects of the Roman conquest include:
1. General Histories of Iberian Pre-Roman and Roman History:
• "The History of Rome" by Titus Livius (Livy): This ancient text provides insight into Rome’s military campaigns during the conquest of Iberia, particularly the Punic Wars and the Celtiberian Wars. Livy’s work includes descriptions of Roman strategies, victories, and the fate of defeated populations.
• "The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire" by Anthony Everitt: This book covers the broader context of Rome's rise and expansion, including its conquest of Iberia and the long-term effects on the region's population and culture.
• "Roman Spain: Conquest and Assimilation" by Leonard A Curchin : Curchin’s work explores the integration of Iberia into the Roman Empire and the social, economic, and demographic changes that occurred as a result.
2. Archaeological and Demographic Studies:
• "The Archaeology of the Iberian Peninsula: From the Paleolithic to the Present" by Katina T. Lillios : This academic work provides archaeological data on the early inhabitants of Iberia and traces the cultural and demographic shifts that followed Roman conquest.
• "The Human Factor: The Demography of the Roman Province of Hispania Citerior/Tarraconensis" by Alejandro Sinner: This book’s research provides information on the population of Iberia during the Roman period, including estimates of population size and the impact of Roman urbanization and trade.
3. Specialist Studies on Roman Conquest and Population Change:
• "The Roman Conquest of Spain" by Maciej Maciejowski : Maciejowski‘s research focuses specifically on the military campaigns and the consequences of Roman rule for the populations of Iberia, including estimates of casualties, slavery, and demographic changes.
• "Roman Iberia: Economy, Society and Culture" by Benedict Lowe : This work focuses on the economic transformation of Iberia under Roman rule and the population shifts associated with changes in the agricultural and trade systems.
4. Historical Inscriptions and Ancient Texts:
• Inscriptions from Roman Hispania: Epigraphic evidence from the Roman period in Hispania provides data on the Roman presence, including citizenship grants and records of military settlements, which help to understand the demographic changes. Many of these inscriptions are collected in databases such as the Hispania Epigraphica.
• Celtiberian and Iberian Inscriptions: Inscriptions and coins from Celtiberian and Iberian cultures reveal information about the pre-Roman population and the transition to Roman rule.
5. Secondary Literature on Slavery and Military Impact:
• "Slavery in the Roman World" by Sandra R. Joshel: This work explores the role of slavery in Roman society, including the importation of slaves into Hispania during and after the conquest. It sheds light on how slavery affected the local populations of Iberia.
• " Roman Hispania: The History of Ancient Rome’s Conquest of Spain and the Iberian Peninsula" by Charles River Editors : This work delves into the military aspects of the conquest of Iberia, including the tactics and consequences for the native populations of Iberia, helping to explain the population decline caused by war and displacement.
6. Studies on Roman Infrastructure and Urbanization:
• "The Romanization of the Iberian Peninsula" by M. T. Reynolds: Reynolds discusses the spread of Roman culture, language, and infrastructure across Iberia and its long-term effects on urbanization and population growth.
• " Urbanisation in Roman Spain and Portugal" by Pieter Houten : This book analyzes the urbanization process in Hispania and how it contributed to changes in the population distribution over time.
Conclusion:
The sources listed above provide a broad scholarly foundation for understanding the demographic shifts in Iberia during and after the Roman conquest. The overall decline in population during the conquest is primarily attributed to warfare, destruction, and enslavement, while the longer-term effects of Roman rule led to population growth and urbanization. Though no single source can provide definitive population numbers, the combination of historical accounts, archaeological evidence, and demographic models helps create a nuanced understanding of how Romanization impacted the population of Iberia.

 

[Historius]

Tautalus,

Thank you so much for your response. Those numbers seem quite in line with some of things I have seen, it is very good to see it synthesized. Based on a lecture by spanish history professor Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, he estimated the population of celtiberia as around 250k to 450k, not too far from the 500k low estimate in your answer. Also, the 4 million figure, growing into 8-9 million during roman hispania also coincides. Although, that number might be exaggerated, since some experts estimate the population of Iberia in the 5th century AD as being around 4-6 million, which agrees with the most conservative estimates.

Based on the numbers given on a youtube video about the roman conquest of Iberia, it seems that the number of Celt and Celtiberian battle deaths should number between 250-300 thousand during the entire 200 year period of roman conquest. It is hard to be precise since the video, although one of the few that detailed such numbers per battle, was not specifically about that aspect. Also, probably only the biggest battles were named, not smaller ones. Still, it seems like a probably number according to the warfare of the time. That is excluding exiled and enslaved people.

One of the questions that I have is not only about the total population of pre-roman Iberia, but also its make-up. Due to the fact that the Iberian cities were more urbanized, I suspected that they may have had more population, even if they occupied less area in Iberia, geographically. Based on the numbers on your response, and assuming they are correct, then it could almost be said that between iberians, basques and tartessians, they added up to about 60% of the population, while the indo-european celt, celtiberian, and others added up to about 40%, which I find interesting.

It would also seem that the "Celtic" portion of Iberia suffered the majority of the casualties against the romans, based on the fact that the Iberian cities, in general tended to be more aligned with Rome, and had more diplomatic ties even though many tens of thousands did rebel. I will have to double check the casualties on the Iberian side, but I do not believe they reached the same quantity as the celtic tribes did. I am fairly certain that was the case, although I would love to hear if there is more information on that.

 

[Tautalus]

The numbers presented by ChatGPT seem credible, I also checked the sources and they are authentic.
The non-indo-european part of Iberia (Iberians) was more developed and urbanized, so is not surprising that they have more population than the indo-european part (Celts, Celtiberians, Lusitanians).
In terms of wars the Iberians suffered in the Punic wars and in later revolts, but were quickly integrated into the Roman world.
The Conquest of the interior, of the Indo-European part, would have been more brutal and with more loss of life.
The conquest of Iberia took close to 200 years, the Indo-European peoples of Iberia were proud and independent, and one or two battles were not enough to resolve conflicts, so all these conflicts had a great impact on the numbers of its inhabitants.
Polybius says about the war in Iberia that it was remarkable by the “uninterrupted character of the engagements. For while wars in Greece and Asia are as a rule decided by one battle, or more rarely two, and while the battles themselves are decided in a brief space of time by the result of the first attack and encounter, in this war it was just the opposite. The engagements as a rule were only stopped by darkness […] winter indeed alone put a certain check on the progress of the whole war and on the continuous character of the regular battles, so that on the whole if we can conceive a war to be fiery it would be this and no other one”.

 

[Historius]

Agreed. I have been wondering lately as well, about what impact the roman conquest had in Iberia, genetically. Specifically, I believe the general consensus is that DF27, the most propagated R1B type in Iberia, got there very early, possibly during the bronze age with beaker folk. By 2500 BC, The entire peninsula became almost 100% DF27, even the Iberian areas. However, the later celtic groups like Hallstatt and La Tene were supposed to be heavier on the U152 and L21 variety, and they would have settled in the center, north, northwest and west of the peninsula, not so much in the Iberian area. According to Maciamo, on his page on Iberian genetics, R1b U152 shows up all over Iberia, but never at any higher than 5%. Based on maps, the same thing can be said of L21. I think that is remarkable. It is established there definitely was heavy inflow of steppe admixture during the Iron Age, bringing the bronze age average of 40% to about 50% at least. However, nowadays the steppe admixture levels in Iberia are calculated at around 30%. That is potentially a 20 point drop. So, concretely:

I wonder if it is possible that during Iron age Iberia, most of the celtic immigrants were U152 and L21, with some gallic DF27, and during the roman conquest, took the brunt of the casualties. That would explain the lower rates of U152, and L21 found in Iberia today, as well as a significant drop in steppe admixture percentage from the Iron age to the present. I wonder if the roman conquest fundamentally changed the composition of Iberia both in terms of R1b variety and autosomal composition. Between 200,000 and 300,000 Celtic and Iberian battle casualties in 200 years, is a very conservative estimate. The real number is likely higher, if we account for civilian casualties and enslaved population. Iberians on the coast would have lost less variety of R1b because presumably they were majority DF27 to begin with, with little later U152 or L21 settlement in their lands. In the "celtic" areas however, U152 and L21 would have been a numerous minority within a DF27 majority. However, there is very little trace of those haplogroups today. Maybe U152 and L21 did either the brunt of the fighting, or took more casualties. It could also be the case that DF27 took comparable casualties, but U152 and L21 were simply a large minority which was almost eradicated, while DF27 still thrived due to being propagated all over the peninsula, for longer.

Any thoughts on that theory?

 

[Tautalus]

The Celts were not a monolithic group but a collection of related tribes who spoke Celtic languages. They, like all populations, had a complex genetic history with contributions from various haplogroups.
If R-L21 is mainly associated with the Britons, both R-U152 and R-DF27 reflects the migration patterns of pre-Celtic and Celtic peoples across Continental Europe, each of them having an area where they are predominant.

R-U152 and R-DF27 are "brother" haplogroups, they have a distance time frame of 100/150 years to their ancestor clade R-ZZ11, according to FTDNA. The populations descended from each haplogroup should have shared a very similar culture and language.

The Celts that come to Iberia in the Iron Age were probably a majority R-DF27 people, like the Bell Beaker before then in the Bronze Age, with a minority of U152 and even L21. R-DF27 is also present as a majority haplogroup in southern France, suggesting historical connections with the Celtic populations in this area.
So I think that the present R1b clade distribution in Iberia was already in place in the Iron Age and that we cannot said that one specific subclade took the brunt of the casualties. R-DF27 is the major haplogroup of Iberians, with R-U152 and R-L21 being minor haplogroups, and has been so since the Iron Age.

However additional data is needed, for comparing Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Roman-era samples from Iberia to illuminate changes in R1b subclade distributions.
Regarding the autosomal composition, the major changes would have occurred essentially in the Roman era with the influx of Central/Eastern Mediterranean and North African populations.

 

[MOESAN]

It seems Y-R1b-DF27 was already in Iberia at BA and maybe some of them had been acculturated and had shifted to other languages later?

 

[Tautalus]

​

It seems Y-R1b-DF27 was already in Iberia at BA and maybe some of them had been acculturated and had shifted to other languages later?

Yes, R-DF27 must have arrived at Iberia in the BA with the Bell Beakers, and languages shifts do have occurred, while R1b-DF27 was prevalent, it did not correspond to a single linguistic group.

The linguistic panorama in pre-Roman times is complex, with the existence of several languages of Indo-European and non-Indo-European origin. Strangely, Y-DNA haplogroups and ancestry of steppe origin were present in both areas.
The Basque example is the best known, they have a high level of R1b despite speaking a non-Indo-European language. The best explanation given is that the matriarchal structure of Basque society, with Basque women being of indigenous and non-Indo-European origin, contributed to the preservation of their original language. How did this happen in the Iberian cultures of the eastern peninsula? Conquest by Indo-European males who were acculturated and lost their language? Perhaps. A situation similar to what occurred on the Italian peninsula with the Etruscans.​

 

[MOESAN]

It seems Y-R1b-DF27 was already in Iberia at BA and maybe some of them had been acculturated and had shifted to other languages later?

​

Yes, R-DF27 must have arrived at Iberia in the BA with the Bell Beakers, and languages shifts do have occurred, while R1b-DF27 was prevalent, it did not correspond to a single linguistic group.

The linguistic panorama in pre-Roman times is complex, with the existence of several languages of Indo-European and non-Indo-European origin. Strangely, Y-DNA haplogroups and ancestry of steppe origin were present in both areas.
The Basque example is the best known, they have a high level of R1b despite speaking a non-Indo-European language. The best explanation given is that the matriarchal structure of Basque society, with Basque women being of indigenous and non-Indo-European origin, contributed to the preservation of their original language. How did this happen in the Iberian cultures of the eastern peninsula? Conquest by Indo-European males who were acculturated and lost their language? Perhaps. A situation similar to what occurred on the Italian peninsula with the Etruscans.​

The briga linguistic element has been discussed, some people thinking it could have been loaned by people speaking another language than Celtic; I've no religion about it. It's curious that the 'Celtus' personal name seems more concentrated in southern parts, could it be the mark of a foreign introgression, numerous enough but not overwhelmingly dominant ? Concerning the north of Pyerenees, in fact the Aquitani spoke a language close enough to Vasconic and these maps with large territories considered as homogenous are tricky, because in Vasconia (part of Aquitania by the way), the Celtic tribes were intricated with roughly said "Vasco-Aquitanian" tribes and it was the same south Pyrenees in Vascones lands (here again Celtic tribes neighbouring local tribes). This intrication and the possible following inter-matings could be a trigger of the language shifting? I wonder if the language shift had not already taken place in southern "Gaul" since EBA??? Maybe not by force between Celtic and some Iberian dialects but as well between kind of proto-Celto-Italic-IE dialects and Iberian dialects... We are still in the fog here, I think.

 

[Historius]

The Celts were not a monolithic group but a collection of related tribes who spoke Celtic languages. They, like all populations, had a complex genetic history with contributions from various haplogroups.
If R-L21 is mainly associated with the Britons, both R-U152 and R-DF27 reflects the migration patterns of pre-Celtic and Celtic peoples across Continental Europe, each of them having an area where they are predominant.

R-U152 and R-DF27 are "brother" haplogroups, they have a distance time frame of 100/150 years to their ancestor clade R-ZZ11, according to FTDNA. The populations descended from each haplogroup should have shared a very similar culture and language.

The Celts that come to Iberia in the Iron Age were probably a majority R-DF27 people, like the Bell Beaker before then in the Bronze Age, with a minority of U152 and even L21. R-DF27 is also present as a majority haplogroup in southern France, suggesting historical connections with the Celtic populations in this area.
So I think that the present R1b clade distribution in Iberia was already in place in the Iron Age and that we cannot said that one specific subclade took the brunt of the casualties. R-DF27 is the major haplogroup of Iberians, with R-U152 and R-L21 being minor haplogroups, and has been so since the Iron Age.

However additional data is needed, for comparing Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Roman-era samples from Iberia to illuminate changes in R1b subclade distributions.
Regarding the autosomal composition, the major changes would have occurred essentially in the Roman era with the influx of Central/Eastern Mediterranean and North African populations.

I agree with the idea that DF27 was most likely in Iberia since the Bronze Age, and has remained the majority haplogroup until today, with U152 and L21 being minorities. However, the question I am raising is how large or small of a minority were they during the Iron Age, compared to post Roman Iberia, and present. I question whether "The Celts that come to Iberia in the Iron Age were probably a majority R-DF27 people". Although it is true that there was a big connection between Iberian Celts and the southern tribes in Gaul, the Iron Age migration into Iberia came from most other parts of Gaul, including the center, east, and north, especially the Belgae tribes. Probably less so from the northwest area of Brittany. The following information is paraphrased from an article I read on this Iberian history page a while ago. The article goes into more detail about which tribes settled where in the Iberian peninsula, but in general, it says:

Many different Celtic, and Celto-Germanic tribes migrated into different areas of Iberia. Some of the tribes were: The Cempsi, Saefes, Eburones, Cimbri, Germani of Oretania, Ophi, Pemani, Senones, Luggones, Santones, Biturges, Turoditurones, Boii, Dragani, Volcae, Lemovices, Nemetes and Turodi. The same website makes an interesting statement, which is that the last, and the one that probably added the most population in terms of numbers, were the Belgae. Among them were the Beliovaci, Suessiones, Nervii, Ambiani, and Veliocasses, which were joined by the Autrigones. From the Beliovaci, who settled in the Castilian Meseta, came the Vaccaei, Arevaci, Beli, y Tittii. The latter three, with the Lusones formed the bulk of the Celtiberi.

The map above shows the varied geographical origin of some of the tribes mentioned above, which is not even a complete list. Yes, I would agree that the tribes from the south of Gaul would have definitely carried majority DF27, but not so much the ones from the center, east and north of Gaul. If the blog was indeed correct and the most numerous Iron Age migrations came at later stages from the Belgae tribes, then I would expect them to have been majority U152, with a minority L21 and DF27. The same would apply to the rest, except the southern tribes. Supposedly about half the P312 in Belgium is U152. I wonder if, before the later Germanic U106 migrations into the area, the prevalence of U152 among the Belgae was even higher than the current distribution would suggest.

Today, the average U152 in Iberia is about 5%, and L21 probably has similar numbers. That doesn't seem to track with the Celtic migrations from all over Gaul and today's Belgium into Iberia back in the IA. It seems factual that DF27 became majority in Iberia early on, pre-Iron Age, probably due to a founder effect. However, the later, Iron Age migrations should have brought large numbers of U152, some L21 secondarily. R1B-U106 is also a possible candidate to include in this point, based on the original location of some tribes like the Eburones and Nemetes, which bordered Germania, as well as the fact that U106 is the most propagated germanic hg in Iberia, but I will leave that aside. My point is that the prevalence of U152 and L21 in Iberia seems too low. So I wonder whether the IA migrations were either not as Y-DNA varied (unlikely), not as numerous as previously thought (unlikely), or whether U152 and L21's numbers were significantly diminished due to the roman conquest. If it is true that the Belgae tribes mostly carried U152, mostly settled in the Celtiberian area, and the Celtiberians were notorious for their resistance against the Romans, for example, then it is quite plausible there was an important loss of U152 and L21 at that time, considering their low percentages today. The same idea would apply to other U152, and maybe L21, dominant tribes in Iberia originating from east, center and north Gaul. DF27 would have also suffered losses all over the peninsula, of course, but being the majority to begin with, it retained its dominant position. The map you posted showing R1B frequency in Iberia, I believe describes the modern population, not the Iron Age one. I wonder if pre-Roman R1b sub-clade frequencies in Iberia looked more evenly balanced, always with a DF27 majority, but with a much larger U152 and secondarily L21 presence than we see today.

 

[MOESAN]

I agree with the idea that DF27 was most likely in Iberia since the Bronze Age, and has remained the majority haplogroup until today, with U152 and L21 being minorities. However, the question I am raising is how large or small of a minority were they during the Iron Age, compared to post Roman Iberia, and present. I question whether "The Celts that come to Iberia in the Iron Age were probably a majority R-DF27 people". Although it is true that there was a big connection between Iberian Celts and the southern tribes in Gaul, the Iron Age migration into Iberia came from most other parts of Gaul, including the center, east, and north, especially the Belgae tribes. Probably less so from the northwest area of Brittany. The following information is paraphrased from an article I read in an Iberian history blog a while ago:

Many different Celtic, and Celto-Germanic tribes migrated into different areas of Iberia. Some of the tribes were: The Cempsi, Saefes, Eburones, Cimbri, Germani of Oretania, Ophi, Pemani, Senones, Lugones, Lemovices, Santones, Biturges, Nemetani, Turoditurones, Boii, Fragani, and Volcae. The same website makes an interesting statement, which is that the last and the one that probably added the most population in terms of numbers were the Belgae. Among them were the Belovaci, Suessiones, Nervii, Ambiani, Veliocasses, which were joined by the Autrigones. From the Belovaci, who setlled in the Castillian Meseta, came the Vaccaei, Arevaci, Beli, y Tittii. The latter 3, with the Lusones fromed the bulk of the Celtiberi.

The map above shows the varied geographical origin of the tribes mentioned above, which is not a complete list. Yes, I would agree that the tribes from the south of Gaul would have definitely carried majority DF27, but not so much the ones from the center, east and north of Gaul. If the blog was indeed correct and the most numerous Iron Age migrations came at later stages from the Belgae tribes, then I would expect them to have been majority U152, with a minority L21 and DF27. The same would apply to the rest, except the southern tribes. Supposedly about half the P312 in Belgium is U152. I wonder if, before the later germanic U106 migrations into the area, the prevalence of U152 among the Belgae was even higher than the current distribution would suggest.

Today, the average U152 in Iberia is about 5%, and L21 probably has similar numbers. That doesn't seem to track with the Celtic migrations from all over Gaul, and today's Belgium into Iberia back in the IA. It seems factual that DF27 became majority in Iberia early on, pre-Iron Age, probably due to a founder effect. However, the later, Iron Age migrations should have brought large numbers of U152, and L21 secondarily. My point is that 5% prevalence for U152 and L21 seems too low. So I wonder whether the IA migrations were either not as Y-DNA varied (unlikely), not as numerous as previously thought (unlikely), or whether U152 and L21's numbers were significantly diminished due to the roman conquest. If it is true that the Belgae tribes mostly carried U152, mostly settled in the Celtiberian area, and the Celtiberians were notorious for their resistance agaisnt the romans, for example, then it is quite plausible there was an important loss of U152 and L21 at that time, considering their low percentages today. The same idea would apply to other U152 and L21 dominant tribes in Iberia originating from east, center and north Gaul. DF27 would have also suffered losses all over the peninsula, of course, but being the majority to begin with, it retained a dominant position until today. The map you posted showing R1B frequency in Iberia, I believe describes the modern population, not the Iron Age one. I wonder if pre-roman R1b subclade frequencies in Iberia looked more evenly balanced, always with a DF27 majority, but with a much larger U152 and secondarily L21 presence than we see today.

The prevalence of Belgae (+ some rare Germanic tribes) in late IA among the newcomers into Iberia seems confirmed. But on what I read it seems a lot of these northern tribes or of sets of them continued their road until south Portuagl- southwestern Spain. It's right tht some of the R1b-U152 would have come with the Romans but southwestern Iberia is today the place of the denser presence of U152 in Iberia, so a part of this density could be attributed to these northern newcomers of IA.
Y-R1b-L21 is very weak if we consider Iberia as a whole but today its density on the northern Iberian coast and Basque country is about 18/20%, what is not negligible and could deserve some attention about its history there. I agree totally with the fact that today densties are not always the reflection of ancient ones.

 

[Tautalus]

The briga linguistic element has been discussed, some people thinking it could have been loaned by people speaking another language than Celtic; I've no religion about it. It's curious that the 'Celtus' personal name seems more concentrated in southern parts, could it be the mark of a foreign introgression, numerous enough but not overwhelmingly dominant ?

My opinion is that briga('hill, high place') is connected to the Lusitanian language and that Lusitanian is a branch of the Italo-Celtic family. Briga exists in Iberia and Gaul, while for example dunum ('fortress') exists in Gaul but is rare or non-existent in Iberia, which seems to indicate that briga is an older term representing a more ancient stage of the linguistic family that arrived in Iberia with the Bell Beaker.
Were there later Celtic cultural influences in this area? Probably yes.
The Celtius personal name are frequent in the West, in Lusitania for instance, but are lacking in Celtiberia. Whas it an ethnic name ? Was a person named Celtius a Celt that spoke a Celtic language ? Did it carry with it any specific cultural characteristic? We don't know.
The attribution of a definitive classification to the Lusitanian language would help to clarify some questions. It's a new branch of the Italo-Celtic? Is it more related to Celtic? With Italic? The main criterion for not including it in the Celtic family it is the existence of “p” in some words, for example porcum. Apart from that, the Celtic nature of the language is evident.
The inscriptions we have are from the Roman period, in the Latin alphabet. To what extent was it not already a language marked by some Latin influences?
The number of inscriptions found is too small to solve the issue, perhaps the discovery of new inscriptions will help solve the problem someday.

The prevalence of Belgae (+ some rare Germanic tribes) in late IA among the newcomers into Iberia seems confirmed. But on what I read it seems a lot of these northern tribes or of sets of them continued their road until south Portuagl- southwestern Spain. It's right tht some of the R1b-U152 would have come with the Romans but southwestern Iberia is today the place of the denser presence of U152 in Iberia, so a part of this density could be attributed to these northern newcomers of IA.

Today densities are not always the reflection of ancient ones, but it is curious that southwestern Iberia, the place with the actual denser presence of U152 in Iberia, was the territory of the ancient Celtici.

 

[Tautalus]

I agree with the idea that DF27 was most likely in Iberia since the Bronze Age, and has remained the majority haplogroup until today, with U152 and L21 being minorities. However, the question I am raising is how large or small of a minority were they during the Iron Age, compared to post Roman Iberia, and present. I question whether "The Celts that come to Iberia in the Iron Age were probably a majority R-DF27 people". Although it is true that there was a big connection between Iberian Celts and the southern tribes in Gaul, the Iron Age migration into Iberia came from most other parts of Gaul, including the center, east, and north, especially the Belgae tribes. Probably less so from the northwest area of Brittany. The following information is paraphrased from an article I read on this Iberian history page a while ago. The article goes into more detail about which tribes settled where in the Iberian peninsula, but in general, it says:

Many different Celtic, and Celto-Germanic tribes migrated into different areas of Iberia. Some of the tribes were: The Cempsi, Saefes, Eburones, Cimbri, Germani of Oretania, Ophi, Pemani, Senones, Luggones, Santones, Biturges, Turoditurones, Boii, Dragani, Volcae, Lemovices, Nemetes and Turodi. The same website makes an interesting statement, which is that the last, and the one that probably added the most population in terms of numbers, were the Belgae. Among them were the Beliovaci, Suessiones, Nervii, Ambiani, and Veliocasses, which were joined by the Autrigones. From the Beliovaci, who settled in the Castilian Meseta, came the Vaccaei, Arevaci, Beli, y Tittii. The latter three, with the Lusones formed the bulk of the Celtiberi.

The map above shows the varied geographical origin of some of the tribes mentioned above, which is not even a complete list. Yes, I would agree that the tribes from the south of Gaul would have definitely carried majority DF27, but not so much the ones from the center, east and north of Gaul. If the blog was indeed correct and the most numerous Iron Age migrations came at later stages from the Belgae tribes, then I would expect them to have been majority U152, with a minority L21 and DF27. The same would apply to the rest, except the southern tribes. Supposedly about half the P312 in Belgium is U152. I wonder if, before the later Germanic U106 migrations into the area, the prevalence of U152 among the Belgae was even higher than the current distribution would suggest.

Today, the average U152 in Iberia is about 5%, and L21 probably has similar numbers. That doesn't seem to track with the Celtic migrations from all over Gaul and today's Belgium into Iberia back in the IA. It seems factual that DF27 became majority in Iberia early on, pre-Iron Age, probably due to a founder effect. However, the later, Iron Age migrations should have brought large numbers of U152, some L21 secondarily. R1B-U106 is also a possible candidate to include in this point, based on the original location of some tribes like the Eburones and Nemetes, which bordered Germania, as well as the fact that U106 is the most propagated germanic hg in Iberia, but I will leave that aside. My point is that the prevalence of U152 and L21 in Iberia seems too low. So I wonder whether the IA migrations were either not as Y-DNA varied (unlikely), not as numerous as previously thought (unlikely), or whether U152 and L21's numbers were significantly diminished due to the roman conquest. If it is true that the Belgae tribes mostly carried U152, mostly settled in the Celtiberian area, and the Celtiberians were notorious for their resistance against the Romans, for example, then it is quite plausible there was an important loss of U152 and L21 at that time, considering their low percentages today. The same idea would apply to other U152, and maybe L21, dominant tribes in Iberia originating from east, center and north Gaul. DF27 would have also suffered losses all over the peninsula, of course, but being the majority to begin with, it retained its dominant position. The map you posted showing R1B frequency in Iberia, I believe describes the modern population, not the Iron Age one. I wonder if pre-Roman R1b sub-clade frequencies in Iberia looked more evenly balanced, always with a DF27 majority, but with a much larger U152 and secondarily L21 presence than we see today.

Yes, the map showing R1B frequency in Iberia describes the modern population, not the Iron Age one.

In the first half of the 20th century, Spanish historians had many theories about the origin of the Celtiberians. Bosch Gimpera theorizes, for example, that there were two waves of Celtic invasions. The first of these occurred around 900 BC, linking it with the Urnfield Culture of southern Germany that would enter Iberia through Catalonia, producing an autochthonous evolution until the middle of the 7th century BC. The second Celtic wave would occur through the Hallstatt groups of the middle and lower Rhine. This second wave would occur over time between the years 650 and 570 BC, the last of them being that of the Belgians.
I don't know where those Celtic tribes who invaded Iberia in the Iron Age came from. I doubt that any current historian, with the current availabe data, could indicate a specific area of origin. Classical authors never talked about this. Similarities can be established in archaeological culture, language, and tribal names, but this is not a clear indication of their origin.​

According to some classic authors, the Celtici from the southwest of the peninsula came from the Celtiberians and later some tribes moved to Galicia and Northern Portugal.

The people of these 3 areas were identified as Celts by ancient authors and in two of these areas, southwestern and northwestern Iberia, there is a modern high concentration of U152.

Does this mean that these people were a U152 majority? We have no evidence of this. To my knowledge, they have not found U152 in ancient Celtiberians. And in the core Celtiberian area in central-northeastern Iberia there is no modern high concentration of U152.
Many population movements have occurred on the peninsula since the Iron Age which makes it difficult to link modern locations of haplogroups with ancient peoples.
The question of knowing which is the main y-DNA haplogroup of the Iron Age Iberian Celtic peoples and if they suffered a higher demographic impact in the wars with the Romans will remain open until new data from new samples are analyzed.

 

[MOESAN]

Yes, the map showing R1B frequency in Iberia describes the modern population, not the Iron Age one.

In the first half of the 20th century, Spanish historians had many theories about the origin of the Celtiberians. Bosch Gimpera theorizes, for example, that there were two waves of Celtic invasions. The first of these occurred around 900 BC, linking it with the Urnfield Culture of southern Germany that would enter Iberia through Catalonia, producing an autochthonous evolution until the middle of the 7th century BC. The second Celtic wave would occur through the Hallstatt groups of the middle and lower Rhine. This second wave would occur over time between the years 650 and 570 BC, the last of them being that of the Belgians.
I don't know where those Celtic tribes who invaded Iberia in the Iron Age came from. I doubt that any current historian, with the current availabe data, could indicate a specific area of origin. Classical authors never talked about this. Similarities can be established in archaeological culture, language, and tribal names, but this is not a clear indication of their origin.​

According to some classic authors, the Celtici from the southwest of the peninsula came from the Celtiberians and later some tribes moved to Galicia and Northern Portugal.

The people of these 3 areas were identified as Celts by ancient authors and in two of these areas, southwestern and northwestern Iberia, there is a modern high concentration of U152.

Does this mean that these people were a U152 majority? We have no evidence of this. To my knowledge, they have not found U152 in ancient Celtiberians. And in the core Celtiberian area in central-northeastern Iberia there is no modern high concentration of U152.
Many population movements have occurred on the peninsula since the Iron Age which makes it difficult to link modern locations of haplogroups with ancient peoples.
The question of knowing which is the main y-DNA haplogroup of the Iron Age Iberian Celtic peoples and if they suffered a higher demographic impact in the wars with the Romans will remain open until new data from new samples are analyzed.

This map is curious. A big part of today Germany has showed a lot of Celtic place names and I doubt the concerned naming people coming from West would have invaded Germany after LaTène.

 

[Historius]

Yes, the map showing R1B frequency in Iberia describes the modern population, not the Iron Age one.

In the first half of the 20th century, Spanish historians had many theories about the origin of the Celtiberians. Bosch Gimpera theorizes, for example, that there were two waves of Celtic invasions. The first of these occurred around 900 BC, linking it with the Urnfield Culture of southern Germany that would enter Iberia through Catalonia, producing an autochthonous evolution until the middle of the 7th century BC. The second Celtic wave would occur through the Hallstatt groups of the middle and lower Rhine. This second wave would occur over time between the years 650 and 570 BC, the last of them being that of the Belgians.
I don't know where those Celtic tribes who invaded Iberia in the Iron Age came from. I doubt that any current historian, with the current availabe data, could indicate a specific area of origin. Classical authors never talked about this. Similarities can be established in archaeological culture, language, and tribal names, but this is not a clear indication of their origin.​

According to some classic authors, the Celtici from the southwest of the peninsula came from the Celtiberians and later some tribes moved to Galicia and Northern Portugal.

The people of these 3 areas were identified as Celts by ancient authors and in two of these areas, southwestern and northwestern Iberia, there is a modern high concentration of U152.

Does this mean that these people were a U152 majority? We have no evidence of this. To my knowledge, they have not found U152 in ancient Celtiberians. And in the core Celtiberian area in central-northeastern Iberia there is no modern high concentration of U152.
Many population movements have occurred on the peninsula since the Iron Age which makes it difficult to link modern locations of haplogroups with ancient peoples.
The question of knowing which is the main y-DNA haplogroup of the Iron Age Iberian Celtic peoples and if they suffered a higher demographic impact in the wars with the Romans will remain open until new data from new samples are analyzed.

Gimpera was one of a few Spanish historians, such as Almagro Basch, A. Schulten, J. Maluquer, A. Beltrán that categorized Celtic migrations into Iberia in waves. One of the most prominent models is the one with 5 waves, and some like Garcia Bellido counts 3 main waves: The pre-Celtic, the Hallstatt, and the Belgae. To that last one, Garcia Bellido attributed the biggest demographic and cultural impact during IA Iberia. Apparently, all the previously mentioned historians agreed on that assessment.

As to the origin of the tribes that invaded Iberia, I am also not aware of any historian that has all the answers for all tribes, but there are certainly some answers for some tribes. To go back to the example I have focused on: The Belgae. We do have a much clearer idea about which area they came from, and where they settled in Iberia. Julian Ruben Jimenez, who received the Mendez-Pinal prize from the Spanish Royal Academy of the Spanish Language for his philological and historical investigations, dedicated a book to this subject of investigating tribal origins. In his "Diccionario Toponímico y Etnográfico de Hispania Antigua" (Toponimic and Ethnographic Dictionary of Ancient Hispania) he details precisely such tribal origins outside of Iberia, and their destinations within Iberia, to the degree that they are known. This page is a sample of the information in his book, and discusses such migratory waves, their origins and destinations, as well as some linguistic themes. Even though the article is in Spanish, it can easily be translated.

Indeed, writers like Pliny the Elder have mentioned the Celtici tribe as being associated with the Celtiberians. However, I have not been able to find their specific origin, or the nature of their association with he Celtiberians. Were they cousins of the Belgae tribes that settled the Celtiberian area? Where they just similar in culture, or allies, and lived together with Celtiberians for a while before moving on to SW and NW Iberia? Who knows. It is agreed they did migrate into SW Iberia and NW Iberia eventually, where the U152 frequency happens to be higher, yet it is difficult to separate how much comes from the Celtici and how much from the Romans. In the map below, the higher rates of U152 do coincide with Celtici migration, but also with roman settlement. A good example of that is the entire eastern shore of Iberia, as well as and S/SW Iberia. Celtici tribal migration alone would explain higher rates of U152 in NW Iberia, more than in south and SW iberia because of the roman settlements, and not at all the Mediterranean coast of Iberia.

I have focused on the Belgae because of a few factors, such as that according to many historians they were very prominent, if not the most prominent, in settling Iberia during the Iron Age, because we do know where they came from, and because that area coincides with high rates of U152, as opposed to DF27. Your statement that "The people of these 3 areas were identified as Celts (Celtici, my note) by ancient authors and in two of these areas, southwestern and northwestern Iberia, there is a modern high concentration of U152." perfectly illustrates the issue im raising. A good follow up question to your statement then is: Why is that the case? Although I could not say it is definitive that the Belgae that settled Celtiberia were majority U152, there is a paper by David K. Faux for example, that maintains that the Belgae were indeed associated with the U152 haplogroup, and he bases that assertion by comparing the rates of U152 in England to the areas the Belgae settled there. There are also Eupedia threads such as this one where this is also mentioned, and stated as a very high probability. Basically, the association of Belgae tribes with La Tene Celts and with prominent rates of U152 is certainly there, and it is not new.

To reiterate, I question why the U152 rates are so low in Iberia today. Specifically, the Celtiberian area stands out since it was the recipient of most of the Belgae migration, if we are to believe historians and archeologists. Apparently, there were a few Belgae tribes that settled the Celtiberian area, but the Beliovaci were the single most numerous tribe that did so. It is also the one tribe whence the Vaccaei, Arevaci, Beli, y Tittii came from. That makes the Celtici migration into SW and NW Iberia almost a parallel issue since it does not explain the low rate of U152 in the center of the Iberian peninsula today, considering such large settlement by Belgae tribes that did stay in place, such as the ones I mentioned above, and others in previous posts.

I agree we do need more studies and more data to be able to give more definitive answers to the question of contrasting y-DNA haplogroups during IA iberia and modern Iberia, but that should not stop discussion and inquiry into such questions. The data that we do have, does beg some questions. The low rates of U152 in Iberia, and especifically in the areas where they should in theory be higher does not make sense, and points to a few possibilities. Either: (1) The Belgae were not U152 heavy and contained large amounts of DF27, (2) the Belgae migration numbers were smaller than previously believed, (3) they were dispersed accross the Iberian peninsula post roman conquest, or (4) originally Celtiberia was a high U152 area, but because of the roman conquest wars, they were severely reduced in number. I strongly favor the last option.

Option 1 does not seem likely to me because of the association between the original area the Belgae migrated from, and a high U152 frequency, then and now. Option 2 would not satistfy becuause the most prominent spanish historians agree that the Belgae were the most numerous, and the ones that brought the most properly "Celtic" material culture and language to the peninsula. That would only be explained by large numbers of people moving in. Option 3, would make some sense on paper, but it would beg the question of why would SW and NW Iberia be exceptions to that then. Option 4 makes the most sense to me, and I would love to hear any evidence, studies, data, and opinions that anyone has to offer that would support of contradict that theory.

 

[Robotnick]

I think in a lot of wars, especially in ancient times, the nobility often die off the most. It seems plausible that U152 was reduced in those regions of Iberia due to Celtiberian wars with the Romans, where the noble/warrior caste gets slaughtered at a high rate while the substrate population (being mainly peasants etc...) carrying mainly DF27 live on.

Even as late as WW1, the nobility of many European countries were significantly reduced in that war.