Lusitanos

RESUMEN
Los veinte años que transcurren entre los mandos de Cayo Mario (114 a.C.) y Licinio Craso (93 a.C.) en la Ulterior, coincidente el de este último con el proconsulado de Tito Didio en la Citerior, representan un período de fuerte inestabilidad y disensión en las fronteras de las provincias hispanas. Se reflexiona sobre el desarrollo del último conflicto celtibérico-lusitano en el marco del imperialismo romano de finales del siglo II a.C., sus implicaciones territoriales y el ambivalente papel jugado por las poblaciones locales, cuyos apoyos y refracciones a las políticas de los magistrados romanos traducen la fractura y complejidad del momento, el doble lenguaje de guerra y paz que Roma se vio forzada a simultanear.

ABSTRACT
The twenty years extended between the commands of Caius Marius (114 BC) and Licinius Crassus (93 BC) at the Ulterior province, the former being contemporary to the proconsular rule of Titus Didius at the Citerior province, meant a period of high instability and dissension in the Hispanic frontiers. The development of the last Celtiberian-Lusitanian conflict within the Roman imperialism of the late second century BC is considered here, regarding its territorial implications and the ambivalent role played by the local populations. Their loyalties and rejections to the politics of the Roman magistrates show both the rupture and complexity of that time, the double speak on war and peace that Rome was forced to combine.

PALABRAS CLAVE
Celtíberos. Lusitanos. Ulterior. Citerior. Imperialismo romano. Fronteras. Bandolerismo. Auxiliares. Deditio de Alcántara. Cayo y Marco Mario. Tito Didio. Colenda. Tamusia.

KEYWORDS
Celtiberians. Lusitanias. Ulterior. Citerior. Roman imperialism. Frontiers. Bandolerism. Auxilia. Deditio of Alcántara. Gaius and Marcus Marius. Titis Didius. Colenda. Tamusia.

Resumo
Aceita-se tradicionalmente que os povos da Ibéria teriam esquecido as suas línguas maternas e passado a falar latim. Dessa suposta mudança teria nascido o "latim popular", e a partir dele teriam evoluído as diversas línguas atuais. Procura-se neste texto, relembrando o trabalho de D. Francisco de S. Luiz Saraiva, mostrar que essa possibilidade não é realista, e mostrar também que todos os elementos disponíveis apontam em sentido contrário: ao tempo da queda do Império Romano do Ocidente os povos rurais (portanto a maioria de população) continuariam a falar a sua língua materna, e apenas nas cidades e aquartelamentos se falaria latim mais ou menos distante do latim clássico.
Abstract
It is traditionally believed that the inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula forgot their mother tongue and started speaking Latin. From this supposed change was born "popular Latin", and from this "popular Latin" the various current languages would have evolved. In this text, it is intended, with the support of the works of D. Francisco de S. Luiz Saraiva, to show that this possibility is not realistic, and to show that all the available elements point in the opposite direction: at the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, rural dwellers (therefore the majority of the population) would continue to speak their mother tongue, and it was only in the towns and barracks that Latin would be spoken.

En una inscripción de Plasencia recientemente publicada se ha propuesto reconocer los teónimos en dativo Solidi, Labbo y Lacissabricobo, el segundo de los cuales está atestiguado también en la inscripción lusitana del Cabeço das Fráguas. Sin embargo, creemos que la interpretación adecuada de esta inscripción debe ser como una secuencia de fórmula onomástica personal con genitivo patronímico Solidi, seguida de un teónimo con su epíteto, ambos en dativo plural (Labbo Lagissabrigobo), lo que implica un cambio respecto del análisis lingüístico tradicional del teónimo Labbo.

O conhecimento da língua antiga falada pelo povo do ocidente peninsular, que contaminada tardiamente e por via erudita pelo latim, veio a dar origem ao português moderno, permite apontar possibilidades de interpretação de alguns termos que surgem nos textos latinos antigos. É o caso das designações de “Lusitano” e de “Montes Hermínios”. Nestas linhas tenta-se explicar a possível origem e o significado desses termos. Assim, admite-se a possibilidade de “lusitano” se referir apenas aos habitantes das serras de xisto a norte do Tejo, e “Montes Hermínios” significar na língua local “fazer quartel nas montanhas”.

Aun expresada en episodios intermitentes, o precisamente por ello, la aportación de García y Bellido al entendimiento de la expansión romana en la Península Ibérica y en concreto al impacto de Roma en las formas de vida de las gentes hispanas, resulta de indudable personalidad e interés. Como en otros tantos campos en los que su huella es pionera, también aquí algunas de sus reflexiones resultan precursoras del avance de la investigación más reciente. Del legado de García y Bellido en el estudio de lo que al poco de su fallecimiento se tipifica como imperialismo romano en la investigación de la España antigua, nos ocuparemos en las siguientes páginas. Y lo haremos guiados de la semblanza que nuestro autor ofrece de Viriato, paradigma de la resistencia hispana frente a Roma.

RESUMEN
Se presenta una reflexión sobre el llamado “bandolerismo lusitano”, arraigado tópico en la historiografía antigua sobre el Occidente de Iberia y su legado moderno, a partir de la relectura crítica de las fuentes clásicas y la contextualización del mundo lusitano meridional en el horizonte del imperialismo romano del siglo II a.C. La propuesta pretende confrontar el discurso retórico del narrador romano con el pragmatismo de una hegemonía en disputa sobre un espacio de frontera; entendida ésta en su doble dimensión territorial y mental.

ABSTRACT
A reflection on the so-called "Lusitanian banditry", a rooted topic of western Iberia in the ancient historiography and its modern legacy, is presented on the basis of a critical (re)reading of the classical sources together with the contextualization of the southern Lusitanian world within the horizon of the 2nd century B.C. Roman imperialism. The proposal aims to face the rhetorical discourse of the Roman narrator with the pragmatism of a competed hegemony into a frontier area; being understood the latter one in its double dimension, territorial and mental. 

PALABRAS CLAVES
Bandolerismo. Lusitanos. Imperialismo romano. Hispania Ulterior. Guerra. Tópico historiográfico. Frontera. 

KEYWORDS
Banditry. Lusitanians. Roman imperialism. Hispania Ulterior. War. Historiographical cliché. Frontier.

Según las fuentes clásicas, los lusitanos eran propensos al bandidaje, y como tales les trataron las tropas romanas. Una relectura detallada de las fuentes, junto a un trabajo de arqueología espacial, hace pensar que quizá no fueron tanto bandidos como poblaciones trashumantes.

the aim of this paper is to offer an overview of the use of the Latin alphabet to write the so-called fragmentary languages of Hispania during Antiquity. The Latin alphabet was used to record texts in other languages: Iberian, Celtiberian, and Lusitanian in the Iberian Peninsula. The use of the Latin alphabet to write the so-called fragmentary languages represents a step before complete Latinisation.

The Mediterranean expansion of the Roman Republic conformed to a multipolar scenario and a complex interaction displayed on it. In the case of its projection in the Iberian Peninsula, the prevailing view in the historiography of an unidirectional and organic Roman imperialism against a substantially receiver ‘indigenous world’ is being explained in favour of a process defined ultimately by the multilineality and multivocality of actors and agendas, as the progress of the investigation infers. 
In a horizon as the present one, in which hegemonic powers, city-states, peoples and confederations of varied substrate and different articulation compete, an approach that takes into account the perspective of International Relations (IR) seems to fit, since it is a discipline whose theory is stimulating the analysis of the Hellenistic-Roman expansionism.  The adaptation of the so-called ‘realist theory’ to the ancient Mediterranean under the premise of a framework of relationships defined by militarism, anarchy and interstate rivalry owes much to A. Eckstein.  In short, the exegesis is that ‘Rome was responding, as any state does, to the harshly undisciplined nature (i.e. anarchy in its literal sense) of interstate relations, in which a state has to fight to maintain its security against rivals or else cave in to the dominance of a stronger one’.  A variation of the ‘realist theory’ is constructivism, which relates to T. Mommsen’s defensive imperialism and has in R. Burton its principal representative.  From this approach, diplomacy through the particular handling of amicitia, and not military conquest, would be the core mechanics in the Roman interaction with other states. 
From these debates, we will discuss the impact of Carthaginian and Roman imperialism on the westernmost areas of domain of the Roman Republic, that is, Hispania Ulterior, on the following pages. This analysis will be conducted by means of the personality of the inhabitants of the hinterlands of the peninsular southwest, the Lusitanians, and their picture of political relations and hostilities against Carthaginians and Romans and their respective allies and neighbours. The time frame of this study moves between the creation of the Carthaginian domination of the Barcids in Iberia (237 BC) and the final defeat of Carthage in the Third Punic War (146 BC): a scenario for competence and succession of hegemonies defined by military interventionism, instability and alignments of varied order. In this scenario and time, the Lusitanians play an important role in geostrategic, political and military terms. And yet, their profile at the crossroads of two imperialisms has been underserved or evaluated marginally in research.