ANTONIO GÓMEZ RINCÓN – UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID antonio.gomez.rincon@estumail.ucm.es FAR OVER THE MISTY MOUNTAINS COLD: IDENTIFYING EMIC FRONTIERS IN IRON AGE CANTABRIA INTRODUCTION When Augustus decided to conquer the North of Iberian Peninsula he had to face some people that, for centuries, were far from the historical development of Rome. They only appear in ancient sources as terrible warriors. Their name, cantabri, probably make reference to the high mountains where they used to live. We know cantabri as enemies of Rome. If we want to make an emic approach to those populations, to know if there was a Cantabrian identity before Rome, we should do an exhaustive study of the available data. In this paper, I analyse the cartography of hillforts during the Second Iron Age (specifically between 29 and 19 BC -date of Cantabrian Wars-) in the territory of Roman Cantabria. Its features would allow us to verify if Cantabria existed as an emic identity. This paper is based on some initial hypothesis. Firstly, that Cantabrian identity would be political. Secondly, as a political identity would have its own projection in territorial exploitation and development of new urban settlements. Thirdly, that exploitation and domain would be exercised from hillforts archaeological sites, as we know their great importance in the Cantabrian Wars (Flor. Ep. 2.33). Fourthly, and consequently, that different models of exploitation would mean different identities. Maps 1.1 and 1.2 show the first problem that should be faced in this project. There are several problems in the ascriptions of some sites to the Cantabrian Wars (Aja Sánchez et al. 2008: 78). Map 1.1 shows a compilation of the sites linked with Cantabrian Wars by some different authors. Map 1.2 is self production through QGIS software, after Aja Sánchez selection and my own one, based on pottery dating, demographic continuation, and other chronological reasons. Most of hillforts are placed in actual province of Cantabria, but some of the better known and actually bigger ones are placed in the North of Burgos and Palencia. Ascription of part of Asturias and Leon to Roman Cantabria is based in epigraphic documents, but we do not know any hillforts during that period in these regions. It can be seen that most hillforts are placed in three specific regions, West (Liébana), Centre (Besaya) and South (Campoo), around the main regional basins. Other hillforts are placed in minor basins and mouth of rivers. There are no clear connections between the different groups of hillforts. It follows the same model of those placed in West and Central Asturias (Map 1.3), so we are not able to speak about a specific model for cantabri populations. Probably, every important basin is a main political centre. Below I analyse two specific examples, Liébana and Campoo, in order to consider the frontier concept since a regional perspective. Map 1.1 – Hillforts during 29-19 BC in Cantabria following Peralta, Bohigas and González-Echegaray after Aja, 2008: 85 Map 1.2 – Probable hillforts in Cantabria during 29-19 BC Map 1.3 – Hillforts in Asturias, after Valdés, 2007: 28 LIÉBANA In this case, the sites seem to make a polygon around river Deva. I suggest three hypothesis to understand this model: as a colonization of the territory with specific purpose; as a territory planning after some political changes; as an autonomous development of different groups until they reach some equilibrium. In the first and the second cases, and probably in the third one, it would have been necessary a common political identity based in territorial exploitation. Apparently, that could support the proposal made by Schulten (1962) and González Echegaray (2004) of egalitarian relationships between groups. However, that hypothesis does not face the different sizes of the sites. It is probable that, the bigger the archaeological site is, the more populated would have been. That could imply more territorial necessities, and probably more ability to control it. Based in that hypothesis I have designed the Map 2.2 with QGIS. I have made a buffer in every settlement which radius is equal in kilometres to hectares of the site; as a working hypothesis, those areas would show the ability of every hillfort to have influence over landscape and other human groups. Following that, Los Cantones would probably extend its domain over Lerones and La Peñuca, and perhaps over Sebrango and La Corona. We are not able to know the specific relations between los Cantones and the rest of Liébana hillforts without a study of the material culture of every hillfort, but we can reject the hypothesis of equality between hillforts. Map 2 - Liébana CAMPOO Sites in Campoo are placed along the basins of rivers Hijar, Izarilla and Ebro. On the other hand, Santa Marina and Los Peños are along river Camesa, so, probably projected to the South, towards the most important hillforts of Bernorio, Amaya and La Ulaña. As it can be seen, it is a region more dense than Liébana. The hillforts should be in connection with the South-East lands. They would have fluent communications with Celtiberia, including their presence in Numantia (App. Hisp. 80). Map 3 has been developed with the same structure than Map 2, but the result is qualitatively different. We can observe a more complex scenario, with more decentralized powers. As in Liébana, we have no reason to suppose egalitarian relationships between the hillforts. Las Eras de Cañeda and Las Rabas could be the most powerful settlements. Under the influence of the first one, there are more and bigger sites. It is probable because of proximity and enormous size of Bernorio (120 hectares) that Las Rabas, Santa Marina and Los Peños were frontier places to Bernorio, even to Amaya (175 hectares) and La Ulaña (280 hectares). On the other hand, El Castro seems to be a quite more independent hillfort. Map 3 - Campoo BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES CONCLUSIONS This project is valid until new archaeological sites would be studied. However, we could make some sure assertions. Firstly, that from geographic analysis there is no evidence that allows us to speak about a prehistoric Cantabria, as a political unit. That does not exclude a linguistic, religious or other cultural feature identity. More probably, it would be inserted in a wider Atlantic framekwork, with their own local features. Neither it does not rule out specific identities developed through diplomacy: we know that pacts of those people reached Celtiberia and Aquitania. Besides, that hillforts were placed in really specific locations, to facilitate communication of resources and people. Consequently, every group of hillforts would develope a common political-territorial identity. Lastly, different sizes of the sites permit us to speak about hierarchical relations and we can reject egalitarian relationships kin-based, as it has been argued by some scholars in the past. On the other hand, we do not have good documentation of the territories between different group of hillforts. But, after the Greek and Roman authors, we can understand those spaces as frontiers, as cultural transitions between different political centres. Then, it is possible that over this sustrate could be created the Cantabrian identity, an identity that clearly existed in the epigraphic documents of the High Roman Empire. AJA SÁNCHEZ, J.R.; CISNEROS CUNCHILLOS, M.; RAMÍREZ SÁDABA, J.L. (2008) Los Cántabros en la Antigüedad. La Historia frente al Mito. Universidad de Cantabria. Santander. GONZÁLEZ ECHEGARAY (2004) Los Cántabros. Santander. SCHULTEN, A. (1962) Los Cántabros y los Astures y su guerra contra Roma. Madrid. VILLA VALDÉS, A. (2007) “Mil años de poblados fortificados en Asturias” in Astures y Romanos, Nuevas Perspectivas. Real Instituto de Estudios Asturianos. Oviedo. APPIAN. Wars in Spain. FLORUS. Epitome Rerum Romanorum Frontiers of the European Iron Age with a regional focus on Central Italy 20th - 22nd September, 2013. Magdalene College and the McDonald Institute, Cambridge