Ancient Geography Database

Well, I suppose we shouldn't take that very seriously then. I'm not even sure where I got it from, but it was most likely some comment in the www.celtiberia.net forum years ago - a discussion forum where many people interested in Ancient History and Ancient Spain in particular intervene, but just a discussion forum after all.

Yes, I'd consider that not very serious.

Why not just use the QazaqBAM of the Eastern Hemisphere with rivers, and then crop out Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa?

Well, technically we could leave Asia on it, since Ptolemy's knowledge extended as far as Indochina (which is depicted reasonably accurate for the sheer distance by which it was located away from him). It's the same (though less reliably) with Africa, for which his informations extend roughly to the Equator. It should be added, most of the knowledge regarding western Africa basically stems from the informations by Hanno the Navigator.
 
Last edited:

Sandmannius

Banned
In most of my free time today and yesterday I worked on this map showing all of the Belgic/Celtic and Germanic tribes in the modern day Benelux. I also made a guide for it in Microsoft Word, which says where the tribes where located, whom they were descended from, when they first mentioned in history, some odd infromation about each one of them and a little bit more.

Note: On this picture there are tribes that were exterminated by 50 BC and some that were formed in the 1st century AD. I did not include any of the later confederations like the Saxons and Franks. I also chose not to put the Frisiavones on the map, as they were likely just a bunch of Frisians that moved southwards. The seperate identity of the "Sturi" tribe is arguable, as some people view them just to be spread out Frisians, but some ancient scholars said that they were independent.

Anyways here it is, enjoy.

Celtic and Germanic Tribes.png
 
In most of my free time today and yesterday I worked on this map showing all of the Belgic/Celtic and Germanic tribes in the modern day Benelux. I also made a guide for it in Microsoft Word, which says where the tribes where located, whom they were descended from, when they first mentioned in history, some odd infromation about each one of them and a little bit more.

Note: On this picture there are tribes that were exterminated by 50 BC and some that were formed in the 1st century AD. I did not include any of the later confederations like the Saxons and Franks. I also chose not to put the Frisiavones on the map, as they were likely just a bunch of Frisians that moved southwards. The seperate identity of the "Sturi" tribe is arguable, as some people view them just to be spread out Frisians, but some ancient scholars said that they were independent.

Anyways here it is, enjoy.

Exellent job on the map, Sandmannius! Regarding the Franks and Saxons, I wanted to do an installment on that, and on how the Germanic tribes in general transformed between the 1st century BC and the eve of the Migration Period. Interestingly, Ptolemy is about the first to mention the Saxons in the 2nd century AD, but he doesn't mention any of the other major tribal confederations yet.

Also, regarding the Sturi, it's about the first time I hear about them.

EDIT: Regarding tribes that were wiped out or absorbed, the by far largest to be wiped out were the Eburones, and, with all likelihood, so were the Caerosi, Condrusi and Paemani (the other tribes that were labely by Caesar as "Germanic"). Same probably goes for the Toxandri, as they are only mentioned by Pliny.
 
Last edited:

Sandmannius

Banned
Exellent job on the map, Sandmannius! Regarding the Franks and Saxons, I wanted to do an installment on that, and on how the Germanic tribes in general transformed between the 1st century BC and the eve of the Migration Period. Interestingly, Ptolemy is about the first to mention the Saxons in the 2nd century AD, but he doesn't mention any of the other major tribal confederations yet.

Also, regarding the Sturi, it's about the first time I hear about them.

EDIT: Regarding tribes that were wiped out or absorbed, the by far largest to be wiped out were the Eburones, and, with all likelihood, so were the Caerosi, Condrusi and Paemani (the other tribes that were labely by Caesar as "Germanic"). Same probably goes for the Toxandri, as they are only mentioned by Pliny.

Damn it, my friend just was a total dipshit and unplugged my computer when he was trying to find a socket he could use, I was almost done with this reply, so now all I can give you a crappy rewrite. :mad:

First off, thank you, I might have missed a few of the tribes, but I think that I mostly got them all, please feel free to edit and to the map if you see anything that I might have overlooked. Second off, regarding the Sturi, Plinius once grouped them with the Marsaci, Frisiavones and several other peoples as an offshoot of the Frisian tribe. However, while it is generally believed that the Marsaci were (or rather became) a seperate identity, the Sturi most likely were not. Like the Sturi, the Frisiavones might not have actually excisted as a seperate tribe, they might have merely been the creation of some poorly translated messages. But, the Frisians did expand across the coast of the Netherlands rapidly after the first century AD, so who knows.

That will be a tedious but nonetheless extremely interesting topic, I wish you all the best of luck writing it. :D About your observation regarding the Saxons being around longer than most of the other tribal confederations, this seems to be true, as the identy we call the Saxons started swallowing tribes quite early on while most of the other confederations were made between the fourth and sixth centuries AD. However, there are exceptions as I'm sure you know. The main difference between the Franks and Saxons however were that the Franks were more of an alliance of tribes ruled by the Salians while the Saxons were a "super-tribe" of combined Germanic peoples. Also, several tribes working together like the Tencteri and Usipetes or the Ambrosini, Cimbri and Teutones are interesting as well. Will you cover those as well?
 
Last edited:
:S Nervii: pax ignoras hic populus...
| |
| Peace ignore this nation -> Nation: peoples with lex and culture and occasionally with stable territory
| |
| many nations are nomads in the history of the world
| |
Terrible peoples terrorifing many others peoples in north of Gaul Now there are nomad nations?
 
Last edited:
My big complaint with Benelux there I have to say is the modern coastline.
Puts things more in perspective with the contemporary coastline.

Regarding the Picts, it's the first time I hear this regarding the issue of intelligibility with Basque. I'd like to know where you got that from. Now, first off, the main problem is that the term "Picts" is an exonym coined by the Romans, and secondly, at least the inhabitants of the Lowlands were definitely (P-)Celtic-speaking peoples. In so far, the case for Pictish as a Pre-Indo-European language is rather spurious.
Yeah, I thought it had been discovered Pictish was probally a Celtic language?
 

Sandmannius

Banned
My big complaint with Benelux there I have to say is the modern coastline.
Puts things more in perspective with the contemporary coastline.


Yeah, I thought it had been discovered Pictish was probally a Celtic language?

The purpose of the map is to give you a rough idea of where the native tribes were located, not how Benelux looked like in the first century AD.
 
:S Nervii: pax ignoras hic populus...
| |
| Peace ignore this nation -> Nation: peoples with lex and culture and occasionally with stable territory
| |
| many nations are nomads in the history of the world
| |
Terrible peoples terrorifing many others peoples in north of Gaul Now there are nomad nations?

Huh? What? :confused:

My big complaint with Benelux there I have to say is the modern coastline.
Puts things more in perspective with the contemporary coastline.

To be fair, the map is intentionally anachronistic to begin with. What would be neat though would be a blendover of modern and ancient coastlines for reference purposes. ;)

Yeah, I thought it had been discovered Pictish was probally a Celtic language?

My grasp of the Celtic languages isn't forte, but there's a few "Pictish" tribal names which are readily identifiable as Celtic:

"Epidii" - compare with Gaulish "Epos" (Horse) and Modern Welsh "Ebol" (foal)
"Lugi" - possibly connected with Lugus (called "Lugh" in Irish), which was a major pan-Celtic deity. There's also other tribes elsewhere with strikingly similar names: the Luggones in Galicia and the (Germanicized?) Lugii in Silesia. I'm not necessarily saying that these were connected, but there's a possibly comparable case with the "Brigantes".
"Vacomagi" - "Vacos" (Slayer), compare with the Bellovaci of Gaul, as well as the Arevaci of Celtiberia.

Basically, this leaves us with two (in my opinion equally valid) hypotheses. Either that the Picts merely spoke a dialect of Brythonic, or that Pictish was a P-Celtic language that however was distinct from Brythonic and Gaulish.

EDIT: I must add, as far as I know, the idea that Pictish was a wholly non-Indo-European language primarily stems from "unreadable" Ogham inscriptions.
 
Last edited:
Special Supplementary on Hispania

This is not so much about geography, but more regarding name etymologies and various names regarding the Iberian Penninsula.

The etymology of "Hispania"

The popular etymology of the word "Hispania" is that it's purportedly derived from Punic meaning "Land of the Hyrax". The basis of this idea is that up to the Antiquity, rabbits were restricted to the Iberian penninsula (since they had become extinct elsewhere during the last ice age), and that the Phoenicians - not knowing rabbits purportedly mistook them for hyraxes (which they in turn actually knew from the Levante).

There is however a number of problems with this etymology. First off, no Punic text from which the word "Hyrax" (or 'rock badger') is attested, and it is attested only once in the Leviticus, thereby making the basis that it's supposed to exist in Punic somewhat dubious. In addition, the word for "rabbit" is attested in most Semitic language (Arabic 'arnab, Hebrew arnav, Neo-Aramaic arnowo, etc.). It would therefore seem utterly unlikely that if the Phoenicians saw rabbits that they mistook them for rock-badgers if they were fully aware of what a rabbit is and they already had a word for it (in which case, we'd probably have ended up calling Spain something like "Jarnab" instead!).

On the other hand, Hebrew texts consistently also refer to Hispania by a variation of the same word, that is, using the Latin-derived name. Why would the Hebrews use a Latin derived name if the word had originally Semitic roots? Therefore, a Phoenician origin would seem unlikely. Likewise, a Basque etymology (Ezpanna, "edge") would seem equally unlikely, as it would make little sense for the Basques to consider themselves to live at the edge of the world. One possibly etymology might be a connection with the Greek word "Hesperis" (West, Evening Star - compare "Hesperides"). By that etymology, "Hispania" would be the "Land of the West".

"Arganthonius", the legendary king of Tartessos

Herodotus mentions a legendeary king of Tartessos called "Arganthonius", which has been suggested as evidence that the Tartessians in fact spoke a Celtic language. However, the case for the name being of Celtic origin is weak at best. It is kind of obvious to assume the name had something to do with silver, but the root comes from the Proto-Indo-European *arg-ent-, which is attested in Avestan (erezata-), Old Persian (ardata-) and Armenia (arcat), as well as Celtic (Old Irish argat, Breton, arc'hant). Also, the name "Arganthonios" has been used for a mountain range in northwestern Anatolia. Since there root word appears in at least three different branches of Indo-European, and (apparently) at two different locations, the case for considering the name "Arganthonios" of Celtic origin is weak at best.

In addition, there is the geographical confusion of Herodotus to consider: the story claims that Arganthonius was an ally of the Phocaeans and gave them money to build a new defensive wall against the Median Empire. While the Greek colonies of Emporion and Massilia in the Western Mediterranean were founded by the Phocaeans, it should be noted that Arganthonios (the mountain) is found in the same general area as the city of Phocaea, and it would also seem rather unlikely for a ruler on the Iberian penninsula to give money to people in Anatolia. Wether Herodotus was confusing Tartessos with some ethnic group in Anatolia is impossible to tell, however, there is an enduring confusion in Antiquity between the terms "Tartessos" and "Tarshish".

Tartessos, Tarsos and the biblical Tarshish

The term "Tartessos" has been suggested as a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew (and with all likelihood, also Phoenician) "Tarshish", which is either derived from the Semitic root word for "refinery", or of foreign origin The problem with this is that it's doubtful that there were Phoenician colonies in Hispania by the time that the word "Tarshish" appears in biblical texts, and it does not explain why "Tartess-os" has a stop consonant and a sibiliant rather than two sibiliants as in Hebrew and Phoenician. This is something that cannot be easily explained. On the other hand, it would seem far more plausible that the Biblical "Tarshish" is actually the Anatolian "Tarsos".

Regarding the origin of the word "Tartessos", it would seem far more likely that is somehow related to the tribal names "Turdetani" and "Turduli", which could be derived from the same root word turd- (possibly from Proto-Indo-European *trozdo, meaning "thrush", but a completely different, non-Indo-European root word is also viable). It is however impossible to tell because we do not know what the original form was, in particular we know preciously little about the Tartessian language due to an abysmally small corpus that is preserved. What is also worthy of mentioning in this context is the mysterious origin of the gentilic suffic -tani, which isn't of Latin origin (neither is it of Celtic or even Iberian origin, for instance), but it is used for ethnic groups all across the Atlantic coast.

(many, many special thanks to Leo Caesius for all his linguistic insights)
 
Last edited:
Damn it, my friend just was a total dipshit and unplugged my computer when he was trying to find a socket he could use, I was almost done with this reply, so now all I can give you a crappy rewrite. :mad:

No worries. I guess that happens. ;)

First off, thank you, I might have missed a few of the tribes, but I think that I mostly got them all, please feel free to edit and to the map if you see anything that I might have overlooked. Second off, regarding the Sturi, Plinius once grouped them with the Marsaci, Frisiavones and several other peoples as an offshoot of the Frisian tribe. However, while it is generally believed that the Marsaci were (or rather became) a seperate identity, the Sturi most likely were not. Like the Sturi, the Frisiavones might not have actually excisted as a seperate tribe, they might have merely been the creation of some poorly translated messages. But, the Frisians did expand across the coast of the Netherlands rapidly after the first century AD, so who knows.

Interestingly, Ptolemy considers the Frisii part of the Bructeri, and (apparently) treats the Bructeri as a tribal confederation. It's a similar case with the Lugii.

That will be a tedious but nonetheless extremely interesting topic, I wish you all the best of luck writing it. :D About your observation regarding the Saxons being around longer than most of the other tribal confederations, this seems to be true, as the identy we call the Saxons started swallowing tribes quite early on while most of the other confederations were made between the fourth and sixth centuries AD. However, there are exceptions as I'm sure you know. The main difference between the Franks and Saxons however were that the Franks were more of an alliance of tribes ruled by the Salians while the Saxons were a "super-tribe" of combined Germanic peoples. Also, several tribes working together like the Tencteri and Usipetes or the Ambrosini, Cimbri and Teutones are interesting as well. Will you cover those as well?

Well yes, it's going to be very tedious, but it's definitely a topic worth it. I also wanted to highlighten the so-called "Northwestblock" a tad more (ie, the Celto-Germanic contact zone) in terms of ethnic affiliations (based on typonomy, where it's possible). Regarding the Franks and the Saxons, yes, it's very interesting to see how fundamentally different they were in that respect.

Regarding the Cimbri and Teutones, I definitely also want to cover Germania Magna in earlier centuries, especially also taking a look at what the southern (Celtic) parts of Germania Magna looked like in earlier centuries. Although it's not much (preserved, at least), there's also the notes by Pytheas of Massilia on the Germanic lands adjacent to the North Sea during the 4th century BC.

But of course, the downside is that this takes time. ;)
 
Tartessos, Tarsos and the biblical Tarshish

The term "Tartessos" has been suggested as a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew (and with all likelihood, also Phoenician) "Tarshish", which is either derived from the Semitic root word for "refinery", or of foreign origin The problem with this is that it's doubtful that there were Phoenician colonies in Hispania by the time that the word "Tarshish" appears in biblical texts, and it does not explain why "Tartess-os" has a stop consonant and a sibiliant rather than two sibiliants as in Hebrew and Phoenician. This is something that cannot be easily explained. On the other hand, it would seem far more plausible that the Biblical "Tarshish" is actually the Anatolian "Tarsos".

Regarding the origin of the word "Tartessos", it would seem far more likely that is somehow related to the tribal names "Turdetani" and "Turduli", which could be derived from the same root word turd- (possibly from Proto-Indo-European *trozdo, meaning "thrush", but a completely different, non-Indo-European root word is also viable). It is however impossible to tell because we do not know what the original form was, in particular we know preciously little about the Tartessian language due to an abysmally small corpus that is preserved. What is also worthy of mentioning in this context is the mysterious origin of the gentilic suffic -tani, which isn't of Latin origin (neither is it of Celtic or even Iberian origin, for instance), but it is used for ethnic groups all across the Atlantic coast.

(many, many special thanks to Leo Caesius for all his linguistic insights)

Based on that, it's possible that Tartessos was never found because it was never there, and Herodotus was confusing western Iberia (Spain) with the land of the same name that is ni the Caucasus, much closer to him.
 

Thande

Donor
Tartessos, Tarsos and the biblical Tarshish

The term "Tartessos" has been suggested as a Greek equivalent to the Hebrew (and with all likelihood, also Phoenician) "Tarshish", which is either derived from the Semitic root word for "refinery", or of foreign origin The problem with this is that it's doubtful that there were Phoenician colonies in Hispania by the time that the word "Tarshish" appears in biblical texts, and it does not explain why "Tartess-os" has a stop consonant and a sibiliant rather than two sibiliants as in Hebrew and Phoenician. This is something that cannot be easily explained. On the other hand, it would seem far more plausible that the Biblical "Tarshish" is actually the Anatolian "Tarsos".

Regarding the origin of the word "Tartessos", it would seem far more likely that is somehow related to the tribal names "Turdetani" and "Turduli", which could be derived from the same root word turd- (possibly from Proto-Indo-European *trozdo, meaning "thrush", but a completely different, non-Indo-European root word is also viable). It is however impossible to tell because we do not know what the original form was, in particular we know preciously little about the Tartessian language due to an abysmally small corpus that is preserved. What is also worthy of mentioning in this context is the mysterious origin of the gentilic suffic -tani, which isn't of Latin origin (neither is it of Celtic or even Iberian origin, for instance), but it is used for ethnic groups all across the Atlantic coast.

(many, many special thanks to Leo Caesius for all his linguistic insights)

But the name Tartessos, or the Phoenician original form of the word, could have been applied to several Phoenician settlements (we already know they did this with 'Carthage') so it doesn't rule out a connexion between Tarshish and Tartessos, it might just be a purely linguistic one rather than a geographic one.
 
Based on that, it's possible that Tartessos was never found because it was never there, and Herodotus was confusing western Iberia (Spain) with the land of the same name that is ni the Caucasus, much closer to him.

Yes and no. What definitely existed, and also existed on the Iberian penninsula was the archaeological culture ("Tartessian-Orientalizing Culture") in the Algarve and the Guadalquivir regions, and associated with it the "Tartessian" inscriptions from approximately the 8th through 6th centuries BC. However, yes, I agree that there's considerable doubt if and how these "Tartessians" were actually connected with this "legendary" kingdom/city of Tartessos. In particular, the peoples inhabiting the Algarve region were refered to as "Cynetes" or "Cunetes". But, because of the confusion, the "Tartessian" script is also refered to as "Southlusitanian" script, but unfortunately this is utterly confusing, too, since the "Tartessians" were utterly unrelated with the Lusitanians... :rolleyes:

But the name Tartessos, or the Phoenician original form of the word, could have been applied to several Phoenician settlements (we already know they did this with 'Carthage') so it doesn't rule out a connexion between Tarshish and Tartessos, it might just be a purely linguistic one rather than a geographic one.

Well, several of the ancient sources suggest variably that Tartessos was either at the site at which Gadir (Cadiz) or Onoba (Huelva) was built later on. Perhaps, it was "both". In so far, yeah, it might be that the confusion might be really just the Greeks being lost in translation.
 

Thande

Donor
The Iberia confusion thing is an attractive idea. I know of at least one OTL example of that: for years it was believed that the Welsh came from the Caucasus because the Venerable Beded mis-wrote Armenia instead of Armorica (Brittany).
 
The Iberia confusion thing is an attractive idea. I know of at least one OTL example of that: for years it was believed that the Welsh came from the Caucasus because the Venerable Beded mis-wrote Armenia instead of Armorica (Brittany).

Yes, I agree, it certainly is an attractive idea. If it is true, it also underlines that we know even less than we think to know about the "actual" 'Tartessians'. Regarding Bede, that is fascinating and amusing! Unfortunately, I only found a correct version of this quote:

Bede said:
In primis autem haec insula Brettones solum, a quibus nomen accepit, incolas habuit; qui de tractu Armoricano, ut fertur, Brittaniam aduecti, australes sibi partes illius uindicarunt.

Of course, nowadays, one might mix up "Armorica" and "America", which would produce and equally hilarious statement... :cool:

On the other hand, interestingly, one get's the impression that Bede actually knew the Geography of Ptolemy (or other ancient sources), because he used the following names:

Bede said:
Habet a meridie Galliam Belgicam, cuius proximum litus transmeantibus aperit ciuitas, quae dicitur Rutubi portus, a gente Anglorum nunc corrupte Reptacastir uocata, interposito mari a Gessoriaco Morynorum gentis litore proximo, traiectu milium L, siue, ut quidam scripsere, stadiorum CCCCL. A tergo autem, unde Oceano infinito patet, Orcadas insulas habet.

"Gessoriacum of the Morini" - Bolougne-sur-Mer
"Orcades Isles" - Orkney Isles
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
Regarding Bede, that is fascinating and amusing! Unfortunately, I only found a correct version of this quote:

I could only find the modern English translation from Wikisource.

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle said:
The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side; which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda, from whom they are named Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).
 
I could only find the modern English translation from Wikisource.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
The island Britain is 800 miles long, and 200 miles broad. And there are in the island five nations; English, Welsh (or British), Scottish, Pictish, and Latin. The first inhabitants were the Britons, who came from Armenia, and first peopled Britain southward. Then happened it, that the Picts came south from Scythia, with long ships, not many; and, landing first in the northern part of Ireland, they told the Scots that they must dwell there. But they would not give them leave; for the Scots told them that they could not all dwell there together; "But," said the Scots, "we can nevertheless give you advice. We know another island here to the east. There you may dwell, if you will; and whosoever withstandeth you, we will assist you, that you may gain it." Then went the Picts and entered this land northward. Southward the Britons possessed it, as we before said. And the Picts obtained wives of the Scots, on condition that they chose their kings always on the female side; which they have continued to do, so long since. And it happened, in the run of years, that some party of Scots went from Ireland into Britain, and acquired some portion of this land. Their leader was called Reoda, from whom they are named Dalreodi (or Dalreathians).

What I find also amusing is the statement that the Picts came south from Scythia. That's what I call genuinely geographically challenged. ;)

Now, off course, the "Dal Reodi" is the Dal Riata.
 
Part #18 - Supplementary on Pre-Roman Hispania (Ora Maritimae / Massaliote Periplus)

Time Period: 6th century BC

This installment is a bit problematic, and technically this is an understatement. In the 4th century AD, Avienus wrote a poem called "Ora Maritimae", which is based on a journal from the 6th century BC which is called the "Massaliote Periplus", which was a Massilian travel journal of the coasts of the Iberian penninsula. Now, the original journal is unfortunately lost to us, and it is obviously it's almost a thousand years between the journal and the poem. It is therefore doubtful that place and ethnic names would be faithfully transmitted. So, although we should take this with a grain of salt, we nonetheless might get a vague glimpse on the Iberian penninsula in the 6th century BC, which is why I wanted to include this information here. Note that this isn't just including the Iberian coast, but also parts of the coast of Gaul. Names that are in quotation marks are uncertain in their identification.

The Tartessian Strait - the strait of Gibraltar. The more common name in Antiquity was the "Pillars of Hercules", which is also found in the Ora Maritimae.

Calpe - The Rock of Gibraltar

Abila - Monte Hacho, Ceuta. The rock on the African side of the Straight of Gibraltar which is the counterpart to the rock of Gibraltar.

"Oestrymnicus" (it's denizens called Ostrymnides) - the term used for the Atlantic Coast. Apparently, not explicitly the Iberian Atlantic Coast, but it may refer to the entire Atlantic Coast. According to Avienus, these "Ostrymnides" were the original inhabitants of the region, until they were driven out by "the serpent", which apparently is a metaphor for invader peoples that arrived on the Iberian penninsula.

"Ophiussa" - "Snake Land". Another term used for the Atlantic region.

"Ligurians and Dragani" - Interestingly, as they are otherwise recorded, the Ligurians lived in northern Italy (where the region of Liguria still bears their name) as well as southeastern Gaul, yet in the Ora Maritimae, they are clearly placed on the Iberian penninsula. The "Dragani" are again a pun on the "serpents". Avienus places them along a "snowy ridge in the north". It is possible that he refers to the Cantabrians.

"Poetanion" - possibly the Ilha do Pessegueiro off the coast of Portugal. Avienus mentions it adjacent to a coast of the Sefes.

Malacaea - modern Malaga, a Phoenician colony.

"Sefes or Saefes" - a tribe living along the western coast, possibly the central Portugal.

"Cempsi" - a tribe living along the Atlantic coast, between the Sefes and the Cynetes.

Cynetes - the ("Tartessian"-speaking) people living in the Algarve region. Avienus gives the Ana river (Guadiana) as the border to the Tartessian territory.

Sacred Promontory - this refers to the Algarve promontory, which was typically depicted much larger in ancient maps. It should be noted that Ptolemy uses the same term.

Tartessos River - Avienus talks about a "Tartessos river", which, with all likelihood is the Guadalquivir, which commonly in Antiquity was called the Baetis, however. Interestingly, Avienus mentions that the territory of the Iberians begins at this river and extends all the way to the Pyrenees.

Gadir - modern Cadiz, a Phoenician colony. According to Avienus, the same as the city of Tartessos, and calls it an "opulent city of old age, but now a former shadow of herself".

"Cilbiceni" - an ethnic group living at the Cilbus river, which is usually identified as the Guadalete river.

"Etmanei" - a tribe living upstream along the Tartessos river.

"Ileates" - a people living north of the Etmanei (further upstream the river?), also bordering on the Cempsi.

"Massieni" - An ethnic group (ostensibly Iberians) living somewhere along the southern coast, adjacent to Phoenician settlements. This would place them approximately into the same area as the Bastetani.

Libicophoenices - "Libyan" (that is, African) Phoenicians. In other words, the Carthaginians. Avienus mentions settlements along the southern coast.

"Herna" - a Tartessian city mentioned by Avienus that it used to be located somewhere in/near Massieni territory.

Gymnetes - the inhabitants of the Balearic Isles.

"Ceretes and Ausoceretes" - tribes which according to Avienus formerly inhabited the lands now inhabited by the Iberians.

Hiberi - the Iberians (not to be confused with the Hibernians, which would be the Irish). The "Hiber" river is also mentioned, which is almost certainly the Ebro river.

Tarraco - Tarragona. This is clearly an anachronism, and an exonym, since the city was probably called "Kesse" or "Cissa" in the Iberian language.

Sordiceni - probably the Sordones, an Iberian tribe, living in the Rousillion area.

"Pyrene" - a town which according to Avienus once lay in the territory of the Sordiceni. It may be the same as the "Pyrene" mentioned by Herodotus, who in turn placed "Pyrene" near the source of the Danube. However, said city can be identified with the archaeological remains of the "Heuneburg" (see the entry on Vindelicia), which actually is located near the source of the Danube. OTOH, the name "Pyrene" would suggest a connection with the Pyrenees. Again, it is highly probable that Herodotus was confusing these two places.

Indigetes - an Iberian tribe.

"Ilerda" - a city mentioned to be located in/near the Pyrenees. Avienus calls it the "First City" of the Iberians.

Rhosycnus - probably the same as the Ruscionis river mentioned by Ptolemy, which would be the Tet River.

"Berybraces" - a tribe also mentioned living in the upper Ebro river region. The name might be a severe corruption of the name "Arevaci". If that is the case, the Berybraces were Celtiberians.

"Tyris or Tyrin" - a town mentioned by Avienus to be located at the river of the same name, which could be the Tiron, which is a tributary of the Ebro.

Hemeroscopium or Hemeroskopion - a Greek colony, modern Denia, Valencia.

Massilia - (modern Marseilles) the Greek colony.

Salyes - a Ligurian tribe, living near the Rhone area.
 
Last edited:

Thande

Donor
What I find also amusing is the statement that the Picts came south from Scythia. That's what I call genuinely geographically challenged. ;)

Now, off course, the "Dal Reodi" is the Dal Riata.

This may be connected with the Irish belief that their people came originally from southern Scythia and came to Ireland via Spain. (We know the second part at least is true).
 
This may be connected with the Irish belief that their people came originally from southern Scythia and came to Ireland via Spain. (We know the second part at least is true).

Good point. Actually, the Irish legends are very interesting, and I've speculated quite a bit on how they may actually connect with historic events. Clearly however, they were written down in a time when Ireland was already being Christianized, and therefore the Irish myths were intermingled with events like the Deluge and the exodus from Egypt. There is, however a few overt issues to consider which have sparked speculation with me... ;)
 
Top