847:
articles for modern countries help establish flow in history series. So someone interested in the history of modern Spain can trace the flow of history back to its very beginnings. It seems to me that the main reason for making this change is semantic and trivial: that there was no Spain in prehistory. While true, so what? I don't think the articles should be changed just to make this point. Also, the idea of lumping these together as "Prehistoric Iberia" is no less arbitrary than having separate articles based on modern borders. Both are just modern conceptions of geography. Why stop at Iberia? Why not just merge together everything into "Prehistoric Europe"? In short, I don't see what benefits we can from a merge that offset the cost of losing articles that contribute to the flow of country article series. Also, there definitely does not seem to be consensus yet for a merge, so please wait a bit longer before going through with this.--
891:"Prehistory articles for modern countries help establish flow in history series." you write, Bkwillwm, "So someone interested in the history of modern Spain can trace the flow of history back to its very beginnings." Yes, this is true, however, what I propose will in no way impede this. Most readers come to such articles via links on other pages. The links will still be there, the only difference will be that what they are directed to will be all that more full an article. Those interested in the history of Spain could come and read about prehistoric Iberia under the title
1265:"What's the status and outcome ...?" good question, The Ogre. I thought I'd addressed Bkwillwm's concerns decently. I'd been waiting for his reply but it's been three weeks. Discussion seems to be pretty slow on this question: are people just not interested? The discussion that has gone one shows a majority in favour of the proposal (including you & me) but I don't think that putting it to a vote would be a bad idea.
1218:
genetics of the prehistoric people of Iberia. In any case the bit about
Atapuerca is best viewed in the context of the article: what it is is an example of what was probably going on across the peninsular. How about the person just interested in finding out about the history of the Iberian Peninsular as a region in itself?
1113:
that it could easily reach that size alone, which means a merged article would have to leave out information. Of course, you might say we'll address that problem when we get to it. But we already have two articles that are reasonably well under way, why merge when we might have to spinoff articles
1072:
You make the point that "Iberia" is not a modern concept but that it has origins in ancient Greek. I think it is still a modern concept, regardless of its origin, since it is indeed a concept we have in modern times. Anyway, I think we should be writing
Knowledge based on the modern categorizations
121:
Source? AFAIK there is only one moment when the diffuse conglomerate called
Iberians could have been formed: in the Neolithic migration (and hybridation with locals). That was in the 5th milennium. In any case, we can't fully talk of Iberians with precision before they developed written language (in
1130:
I agree that we should be writing based on modern concepts rather than those of the ancient Greeks. The point I made about the concept of Iberia's having its origin in ancient Greek was rather a side point. Sure, let us use modern concepts but let them be the concepts which are most applicable to
857:
As I see it there is a fair bit to be gained by merging the three articles. The reduction of the number of articles from three to one if an advantage at all would not be the most significant one. No, we are not limited the way we would be were we writing a paper encyclopædia. Yes, we can have as
1124:
Why not when so merging will put us into a position from which to spin articles off under titles which make sense? There was no Spain, there was no
Portgual, no, this alone would be reason enough to merge them in my mind. Let's put things under logical titles ... but there is more to my argument
1084:
in that people actually write about it as a topic and it makes at least some sense (I'm sure you'd agree even if you think "Prehistoric Iberia" makes more sense). What seems to be the main issue is that Spain did not exist in prehistoric times. While true, there are many other examples of history
396:
Acceptable it may be to have articles on the prehistories of present day countries ... or rather on the prehistories of areas now contained within these ... but is this what we now have? Do read these two articles. Is one actually about prehistoric Spain as opposed to prehistoric
Portugal whilst
432:
Ogre, you write "there is also a lot of diffeentited national research, dealing with topics that do not affect both countries." well, I've got to say you'll be hard-pressed to find much of this in either of these articles. It's not merely "a lot of overlapping an mutual scholarship" which we see
234:
To me the reasoning that there was no
Portugal nor Spain in prehistoric times is king. I agree with the moving, since there is no real difference between say Alenteixo prehistory and the one in Huelva or Galician prehistory and northern Portugal's. This said, I also understand the motives for not
207:
I perfectly understand you reasoning, and tend to agree... but, however, must countries have an article in
Knowledge about their prehistoric time. Why should Iberia be different? Furthermore, even if there is a lot of overlapping an mutual scholarship, there is also a lot of diffeentited national
1217:
I don't belive that my proposed reorganisation will impede people's ability to find the information that they are after. No, "someone interested in
Portugal might not want to read all about Atapuerca" ... or he might. Someone interested in Spain, on the other hand, might want to know about the
1178:
When articles are about the same thing they should be merged. This is my real point. They should be merged even if they have later to be split ... even if they have to be split immediately. What we are dealing with is information. Information is best organised in a logical way. The internal
998:
You main point, Bkwillwm, seems to be that by merging these articles we will lose "articles that contribute to the flow of country article series." I understand how such a loss would be a concern, however, what I argue is that no such loss will really occur. There will still be an article (or
1211:
I don't see how merging the articles would cause information to left out. Mightn't a more full article attract more interest? Mightn't that article be in a better position to grow and expand. I don't think may editors think in terms of "Oh, this article is getting too big ... better not add
846:
I disagree with the proposed changes. What's to be gained by merging the three articles? The only reason I can think of is that it would reduce the number of articles from three to one. While that might be beneficial for print edition, we can have an unlimited number of articles. Prehistory
999:
articles) to contribute to this flow. Indeed, the merged article should do a better job of it seeing as it would be the combination of the best of all three. Moreover, if you suppose you can trace the flow of history of modern countries, I suggest you try to do so for
Portugal from
1312:
This I hope to be a rather black & white vote. I have left room for shades of grey though do leave your brilliant hues outside this box. Please discuss such issues as how and under what title(s) to reorganise the material if merged in a new section after this poll.
374:
attests. So, it would seem that the word is very much a geographical one and describes an area which did exist in prehistory. So in the normal sense of the word there certainly was a prehistoric Iberia irrespective of whether or not there were a single
Iberian culture,
184:. There was no Spain in prehistoric times. There was no Portugal either. It would be best to have these articles merged under a title which indicates the geographical region rather than the modern states. Hey, even the Spanish version has it this way:
942:
Bkwillwm, you write "the idea of lumping these together as 'Prehistoric Iberia' is no less arbitrary than having separate articles based on modern borders. Both are just modern conceptions of geography." I cannot agree with you here. The term
1093:). Having separate articles based on modern countries helps people interested in the history of a specific country to find information with greater ease. For example, someone interested in Portugal might not want to read all about Atapuerca.
1417:
I'd written that I would have hoped the poll to be wrapped up by the end of the month. Half-way through the month and I find that the merge had already been started. So I finished it off. I've closed the poll early because of this.
1160:
but do accept your statement that people actually write about it as a topic. I believe they'd also write about prehistoric Iberia ... in fact what I'm arguing is that this is exactly what they have been writing about under these
414:
and you'll find that, yes, it does make mention of a few archeological sites which do happen to be in Spain but these are simply examples peppering an article which, in the main, is really about prehistoric Iberia. Closely read
867:
Three articles, one article, a couple of dozen articles, merge the lot under some bigger umbrella. It's not the number of articles which is concerning me but their content. I could cope with three articles but I'd argue that
1184:
I'm afraid that I find the argument that there exist "history articles here tracing the course of a country's history even in periods when it did not exist" somewhat unconvincing. I have to say it seems like a bit of a
1108:
is all that large now, concentrating everything into one article could cause information to be left out in the future. Knowledge articles generally run 40 to 60 KB at the most. I think there's enough on the topic of
1197:
topic. Perhaps it wasn't but the case is simply that nobody's come up with a better way. Perhaps somebody has but it's been rejected, forgotten, neglected, etc. I'd prefer to concentrate on how best to organise
728:
it would seem that this time period would usually be counted as prehistoric so, let's merge them all ... at least until the article expands enough to split in three: stone age, bronze age & iron age.
674:
The Ogre, good question. I don't think article size would be an issue here: were we to merge them all, I think we'd still be under 30 kB. But the main question would be whether the title fits. Would
221:
I guess I agree with the Ogre. There was also no prehistorical Iberia, but only several different cultures and times. It seems acceptable to have articles on the prehistory of present day countries.
46:. It urgently needs proper text. This kind of article is bad within a concept of a 💕 as both articles will develop independently. Please help turning the chronology into a normal article. Thanks.
1316:
I would hope to have this survey wrapped up by the end of next month, however, we must keep in mind that Knowledge runs on consensus rather than majority vote ... or at least that's the theory.
452:
split in two. Such articles should be based on geographical regions which had meaning in prehistory not on arbitary present-day political boundaries. There should, for example, be no seperate
132:
migration. They remained connected to continental Europe till c.600 BCE when the NE seems to have been re-Iberized. C. 700 they migrated westwards into the plateau and the Atlantic coasts.
446:
This is by no means any surprise: there was, after all, no Spain and no Portugal in prehistoric times. "Why should Iberia be different?" It most certainly should not. Nor do we have
1179:
organisation of each of these articles is logical: it's chronological. If this topic (i.e. prehistoric Iberia) is to be organised into different articles, let's follow that logic.
858:
many articles as we like. The simple reduction of the number of articles is not an advantage in & of itself. On the other hand, nor is it a case of the more the merrier. We
754:
This was a suggested merge not a page move so I am removing it from the WP:RM page as your advert has been there for more than five days. Good luck in whatever you decide to do. --
153:
The following is the discussion which lead to the creation of "Prehistoric Iberia". The merger had been mentioned on all three talk pages. The following is the main discussion.
489:
Just as a side thought: suppose the Basques gain independence, are we going to split this article to account for the fact that there'd be another seperate country in Iberia?
924:
is also actually about prehistoric Iberia. Do have a good read of these articles if there be any doubt in your mind that this is what the articles are actually about.
1169:
really is the main issue here as I see it. All three of these articles are actually about Iberia. It's not a question of having a little overlap: they're all
397:
the other be about prehistoric Portugal as opposed to prehistoric Spain? I put it to you that they are both about one and the same thing: prehistoric Iberia.
43:
1173:
the same thing. There was no Spain, there was no Portgual, thus the articles have become articles about the more general topic of prehistoric Iberia.
951:
so it's not all that modern and does predate Spain and Portugal but more importantly it's a question of physical verses political geography.
1242:
What's the status and outcome of this discussion. I began being against the proposed merge, but know I'm for it. Does anyone want a vote?
1090:
735:: "10th Century BC ... Development of Tartessos, the first Iberia State mentioned in writing sources." That seem like history to me.
1309:. Please indicate your position below preferably with a breif explanation (or a more detailed explanation in another section).
349:
could only reasonably be interpreted as meaning the Iberian Peninsula (or aforementioned part thereof) in prehistoric times.
1212:
anything to it." No, if it starts going beyond 40 KB, let's split it. Isn't that the normal flow of things around here?
345:
would be sufficent to indicate that none of the more modern senses (including the Ancient Greek one) are intended. Thus
274:
989:"Why stop at Iberia?" you ask, Bkwillwm, "Why not just merge together everything into 'Prehistoric Europe'?" Because
1422:
1361:
1320:
1269:
1222:
1057:
829:
768:
739:
702:
627:
493:
268:
192:
62:
755:
558:
472:
460:
135:
If I get no replies and I have some time, I'll make a whole review of the article some time in the future. --
553:
17:
598:
593:
682:
prehistoric? If not, perhaps the best solution would be to merge this with the corresponding section of
126:
The Celts of Europe entered Spain through two separate migrations in the ninth and seventh centuries B.C.
35:
The following was moved from "Talk:Pre-Roman Portugal" and "Talk:Prehistoric Portugal" (identical posts).
603:
583:
466:
454:
145:
Merger of "Pre-Roman Portugal", "Prehistoric Portugal" & "Prehistoric Spain" to "Prehistoric Iberia"
876:
519:
Note: So as to encourage further discussion I've put a note about this proposal on the following pages.
937:. It's no coincidence that the titles under which they'd be moved under this logic would be the same.
908:
My purpose goes beyond making any trivial or semantic point. There was no Spain in prehistoric times
870:
1299:
1101:
1004:
882:
815:
694:
657:
563:
266:. I believe you'd agree there was an Iberian Peninsular in prehistoric times. Perhaps a title like
244:
174:
1085:
articles here tracing the course of a country's history even in periods when it did not exist (e.g.
933:
to a title which better fits the topic it deals with. Similarly I'm proposing to do the same with
419:
and you'll find that the text hardly even mentions Portugal: it's clearly about prehistoric Iberia.
1305:
1253:
1097:
1086:
990:
821:
809:
661:
649:
180:
1291:
The following is a survey of opinions as to whether or not users support the proposed merger of
1293:
1110:
1105:
803:
653:
578:
370:
165:
788:
to the proposal. Seems quite logical and would make a more complete and interesting article.
916:
is actually about prehistoric Iberia. Similarly there was no Portugal in prehistoric times
688:
376:
313:
976:
are unavoidably modern. Such article titles as the ones we now have make as much sense as
1431:
1382:
1370:
1329:
1278:
1260:
1246:
1231:
1118:
1066:
851:
838:
792:
777:
758:
748:
711:
668:
636:
502:
247:
240:
225:
216:
201:
139:
71:
50:
1425:
1364:
1323:
1272:
1225:
1060:
832:
789:
771:
742:
705:
630:
543:
538:
496:
195:
65:
1379:
1257:
1243:
1186:
1115:
948:
848:
665:
588:
568:
548:
321:
213:
47:
306:
678:
be an appropriate title for the whole thing? Is that the time period covered by
305:
may refer to the Iberian Peninsula or that part of it once inhabited by the Pre-
136:
1428:
1367:
1326:
1275:
1228:
1063:
835:
774:
764:
Thank you ... I guess merge is the better term. I'll have to merge-tag them.
745:
724:
708:
633:
573:
499:
222:
198:
68:
208:
research, dealing with topics that do not affect both countries. Therefore I
1419:
1358:
1317:
1266:
1219:
1054:
1046:
1043:
1037:
1034:
1028:
1025:
1020:
1017:
1011:
1008:
826:
765:
736:
699:
624:
490:
189:
59:
96:
1040:
1031:
1023:
1014:
1000:
968:
in prehistoric times but the region would still have existed. The terms
718:
448:
380:
309:
129:
1100:
because that article is already too large. I agree, and, while neither
862:
have as many articles as we want ... we can also have as few as we want.
656:
encompasses a period that the "Portuguese" articles differentiated into
364:
1131:
the period in question. Ancient or modern, the concept of Iberia is
297:
476:
article and/or various other more specific but meaningful articles.
119:
The Iberians arrived in Spain sometime in the third millennium B.C.
324:
word and goes on to give a number of more modern uses of the word.
1405:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
964:
were coined yesterday. The region would not have been called
1096:
You responded that these articles should not be merged into
648:
Hello Jim. If the merge goes through, what shall we do with
1189:-type argument. Perhaps that was the best way to organise
368:
is the Iberian Peninsular as the first line of the article
433:
here. What we have are two articles about the same thing.
128:. That's plain wrong. Celts entered c. 1300 BCE with the
278:
might be clearer but I still feel that the more consise
111:
The following was moved from "Talk:Prehistoric Spain".
88:
The following was moved from "Talk:Prehistoric Spain".
1411:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
1343:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
929:
So what I'm really proposing is to move the text of
801:I intend to go ahead with this plan. I will move
731:What's puzzling me, though, is this quoted from
97:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Prehistoric_Spain
8:
1073:of the world more than the ancient Greeks'.
301:is a disambiguation page which states that
44:Timeline of Portuguese history (Pre-Roman)
886:would make the more logical trillogy.
7:
1091:History of Italy during Roman times
275:The Iberian Peninsula in prehistory
186:Prehistoria en la Península Ibérica
212:with you merge proposal. Sorry...
42:This article is a partial copy of
24:
1076:"Prehistoric Spain" differs from
1337:The following poll is archived.
235:merging, so I am in a state of
99:" Category: WikiProject Spain
1:
956:Let us assume that the terms
852:11:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
839:02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
793:00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
778:17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
759:15:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
749:01:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
712:17:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
669:13:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
637:09:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
503:06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
362:Indeed, the usual meaning of
269:Prehistoric Iberian Peninsula
248:18:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
226:02:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
217:17:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
202:06:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
140:08:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
51:01:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
664:. Should we merge them all?
1447:
1432:05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
1383:13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
1371:08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
1330:08:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
1279:20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1261:17:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1247:17:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
716:Having just checked up on
72:05:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
1232:08:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
1152:make any more sense than
1119:17:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
1067:07:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
473:Prehistoric North America
461:Prehistoric United States
122:the 1st mielnnium BCE).
1408:Please do not modify it.
1340:Please do not modify it.
1144:I still don't feel that
895:. Anyone searching for
559:Talk:History of Portugal
1256:should be also merged.
1187:"What about article x?"
993:is big enough as it is.
554:Talk:Pre-Roman Portugal
18:Talk:Prehistoric Iberia
1357:- as discussed above.
599:Talk:Iberian languages
594:Talk:Iberian Peninsula
337:Putting the adjective
604:Talk:History of Spain
584:Talk:Iberian language
316:. It also says that
1300:Prehistoric Portugal
1252:I also believe that
1154:Renaissance Pakistan
1150:Prehistoric Portugal
1102:Prehistoric Portugal
1078:Renaissance Pakistan
978:Renaissance Pakistan
935:Prehistoric Portugal
922:Prehistoric Portugal
816:Prehistoric Portugal
756:Philip Baird Shearer
658:Prehistoric Portugal
564:Portal talk:Portugal
417:Prehisotric Portugal
175:Prehistoric Portugal
320:could refer to the
295:The Knowledge page
1306:Pre-Roman Portugal
1254:Pre-Roman Portugal
1098:Prehistoric Europe
1087:Prehistoric France
962:Iberian Peninsular
901:Prehistoric Iberia
899:will also land in
893:Prehistoric Iberia
822:Pre-Roman Portugal
810:Prehistoric Iberia
733:Pre-Roman Portugal
680:Pre-Roman Portugal
676:Prehistoric Iberia
662:Pre-Roman Portugal
650:Pre-Roman Portugal
467:Prehistoric Mexico
455:Prehistoric Canada
347:prehistoric Iberia
282:would be adequate.
280:Prehistoric Iberia
264:Iberian Peninsular
181:Prehistoric Iberia
58:It has been done.
1294:Prehistoric Spain
1146:Prehistoric Spain
1111:Prehistoric Spain
1106:Prehistoric Spain
931:Prehistoric Spain
914:Prehistoric Spain
897:Prehistoric Spain
877:Bronze age Iberia
804:Prehistoric Spain
684:Prehistoric Spain
654:Prehistoric Spain
579:Portal talk:Spain
412:Prehistoric Spain
371:Iberian Peninsula
166:Prehistoric Spain
1438:
1410:
1376:Strongly support
1355:Strongly support
1342:
1158:Mediæval Nunavut
1082:Mediæval Nunavut
982:Mediæval Nunavut
871:Stone age Iberia
689:Pre-Roman Iberia
377:Iberian language
314:Iberian language
312:, who spoke the
95:Retrieved from "
1446:
1445:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1415:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1351:
1338:
1289:
1240:
1202:inforamtion on
1193:information on
883:Iron age Iberia
825:there as well.
695:Iron Age Iberia
470:articles but a
172:be merged with
160:I propose that
147:
105:
82:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1444:
1442:
1414:
1413:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1373:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1333:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1214:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1181:
1180:
1175:
1174:
1163:
1162:
1141:
1140:
1127:
1126:
1070:
1069:
1051:
1050:
1007:times through
995:
994:
986:
985:
953:
952:
939:
938:
926:
925:
905:
904:
888:
887:
864:
863:
844:
843:
842:
841:
796:
795:
781:
780:
752:
751:
729:
714:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
601:
596:
591:
586:
581:
576:
571:
566:
561:
556:
551:
546:
544:Talk:Lusitania
541:
539:Talk:Gallaecia
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
381:Iberian people
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
251:
250:
239:, if you may.
237:mild agreement
231:
230:
229:
228:
162:this article (
158:
157:
156:
155:
146:
143:
116:
115:
114:
113:
104:
103:Some questions
101:
93:
92:
91:
90:
81:
78:
77:
76:
75:
74:
40:
39:
38:
37:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1443:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1412:
1409:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1363:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1341:
1335:
1334:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1314:
1310:
1308:
1307:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1286:
1280:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1237:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
992:
988:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
950:
949:Ancient Greek
946:
941:
940:
936:
932:
928:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
889:
885:
884:
879:
878:
873:
872:
866:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
840:
837:
834:
831:
828:
824:
823:
818:
817:
812:
811:
806:
805:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
791:
787:
783:
782:
779:
776:
773:
770:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
734:
730:
727:
726:
721:
720:
715:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
697:
696:
691:
690:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
638:
635:
632:
629:
626:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
605:
602:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
589:Talk:Iberians
587:
585:
582:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
569:Talk:Portugal
567:
565:
562:
560:
557:
555:
552:
550:
549:Talk:Hispania
547:
545:
542:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
475:
474:
469:
468:
463:
462:
457:
456:
451:
450:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
418:
413:
410:Closely read
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
382:
378:
373:
372:
367:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
304:
300:
299:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
281:
277:
276:
271:
270:
265:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
227:
224:
220:
219:
218:
215:
211:
206:
205:
204:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
182:
178:and moved to
177:
176:
171:
168:
167:
163:
154:
151:
150:
149:
148:
144:
142:
141:
138:
133:
131:
127:
123:
120:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
102:
100:
98:
89:
86:
85:
84:
83:
79:
73:
70:
67:
64:
61:
57:
56:
55:
54:
53:
52:
49:
45:
36:
33:
32:
31:
30:
26:
19:
1416:
1407:
1404:
1375:
1354:
1339:
1336:
1315:
1311:
1304:
1298:
1292:
1290:
1241:
1203:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1170:
1166:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1136:
1135:rather than
1133:geographical
1132:
1095:
1081:
1077:
1075:
1071:
991:that article
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
944:
934:
930:
921:
920:the article
917:
913:
912:the article
909:
900:
896:
892:
881:
875:
869:
859:
845:
820:
814:
808:
802:
785:
753:
732:
723:
717:
693:
687:
683:
679:
675:
647:
471:
465:
459:
453:
447:
416:
411:
369:
363:
346:
342:
338:
317:
302:
296:
279:
273:
267:
263:
259:
236:
209:
185:
179:
173:
169:
164:
161:
159:
152:
134:
125:
124:
118:
117:
110:
94:
87:
41:
34:
27:Proper text!
1005:Prehistoric
947:comes from
652:? You see,
339:prehistoric
1399:Discussion
1125:than this.
813:and merge
725:Prehistory
574:Talk:Spain
241:Mountolive
1137:political
918:therefore
910:therefore
790:Maurice27
262:I intend
130:Urnfields
1380:The Ogre
1258:The Ogre
1244:The Ogre
1116:Bkwillwm
1114:later?--
1089:and the
974:Portugal
849:Bkwillwm
719:Iron age
666:The Ogre
449:Hispania
310:Iberians
214:The Ogre
210:disagree
80:Retrived
1349:Support
1161:titles.
692:... or
341:before
48:Gameiro
1389:Oppose
1206:topic.
1001:Modern
966:Iberia
958:Iberia
945:Iberia
880:&
365:Iberia
343:Iberia
318:Iberia
303:Iberia
298:Iberia
260:Iberia
137:Sugaar
1394:Other
1171:about
970:Spain
786:agree
322:Greek
307:Roman
223:Velho
16:<
1303:and
1287:Poll
1204:this
1200:this
1195:that
1191:that
1167:This
1104:nor
1080:and
972:and
960:and
819:and
722:and
660:and
464:and
245:Talk
1238:So?
1156:or
1148:or
1003:to
980:or
860:can
807:to
686:to
379:or
272:or
258:By
1378:-
1297:,
874:,
784:I
698:.
458:,
243:|
188:.
1429:p
1426:m
1423:i
1420:J
1368:p
1365:m
1362:i
1359:J
1327:p
1324:m
1321:i
1318:J
1276:p
1273:m
1270:i
1267:J
1229:p
1226:m
1223:i
1220:J
1139:.
1064:p
1061:m
1058:i
1055:J
1049:.
1047:l
1044:a
1041:g
1038:u
1035:t
1032:r
1029:o
1026:P
1021:n
1018:a
1015:m
1012:o
1009:R
984:.
903:.
836:p
833:m
830:i
827:J
775:p
772:m
769:i
766:J
746:p
743:m
740:i
737:J
709:p
706:m
703:i
700:J
634:p
631:m
628:i
625:J
500:p
497:m
494:i
491:J
383:.
199:p
196:m
193:i
190:J
170:)
69:p
66:m
63:i
60:J
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.