First Congress of Historians of Navarre

In 2012 it will be the fifth centenary of the conquest of Navarre by Castile (and Aragon, and with English help taking positions in Bayonne to prevent French intervention). Technically the centennial milestone can go for almost a decade because until 1521 the conquest was not consolidated but 1512 is the fateful date of the first invasion and the one recorded in most history books, which in many cases do not mention any of the rest, be it background or aftermath.

In preparation of this date, the historical town of Biana (Viana), where Prince Charles was imprisoned by his cruel father and where Cesare Borgia fought his last battle as captain of Navarre, Nabarralde has organized the First Congress of Historians of Navarre, which took place this weekend.

Gara newspaper reports on it, mentioning the most important insights:

From the organizers, Joseba Asiron, said in the conclusions that we already lost in 1512, there is no way we will lose again in 2012. He also appealed to dismantle the systematic manipulation by a partial and interested historiography.

Jean Louis Davant discussed the role of France, the main ally of Navarre, in the conflict, saying that France looked for its own interests and that, in any case, helping Navarre was truly complicated.

Iñaki Sagredo dealt with the military aspects of the invasion, saying that the modern Castilian army, which occupied some 13 kilometers, cut like a knife through butter through the many but obsolete Navarrese fortifications.

Floren Aoiz explained how the myth of "free adherence" to Castile was built not so much by the invaders but by the Navarrese aristocrats (late Navarre had suffered a feudalizing evolution, unlike the earlier one where noblemen were nothing but appointed governors), who hoped that way to retain their privileges.

Cartoon by Oroz (source)
The Spanish invader (left) is saying: "C'mon, smile man... You don't want to be remembered like that by the Fifth CentenaryCommittee?!!" In the right corner the maimed arm reads "Low Navarre".

Peio Joseba Monteano, who has just published a book on the conquest, focused on the Battle of Noain, in 1521, where the last hopes of recovering freedom were defeated. He analyzed why the defeat of Asparros (Bearnois general very much criticized for disbanding the infantry too early).

Mikel Legorburu addressed the struggle from the Navarrese Parliament for the preservation of the signs of identity of the Kingdom, such as the heraldry in coins and the insistence of numbering the monarchs by the Navarrese and not the Castilian count. He said that, in order to recover the identity of Navarre as independent state, we should address Ferdinand VII as Ferdinand III, as there were no Ferdinand monarchs in Navarre before the Castilian conquest.

Pello Esarte dismantled the myth of civil strife among Navarrese as trigger of the invasion of 1512, blaming it instead to the ambition and plotting of the Trastamara monarchs (antecessors of the Habsburgs) and described the Beaumont faction as mere mercenaries of the Aragonese monarchs.

Jon Oria dwelt in the intellectual heights of the surviving Lower Navarre (and Bearn, Foix, etc.) after the invasion under Queen Marguerite (left), a close friend of Anne Boleyn and a precursor of Reformation, whose court caused Shakespeare to write that "Navarre will be the wonder of the World".

Mikel Sorauren discussed how Navarrese identity has been kidnapped and diluted by the Spanish Empire, which imposes a historical imaginary that is not the one of the country. Similarly, Bixente Serrano Izko explained how Spaniards have treated Navarre and how much this historical European country has been relegated to the background. However he said that in the last 23 years (i.e. since 1987) independent research is flourishing.

José Luis Orella dealt with the pretexts used by Castile-Aragon, which issued fake Papal bulls that justified the conquest.

The congress closed with a homage to the later author Pablo Antoñana, native of Biana, and also remembering the figure of the just deceased Aragonese musician, author, documentalist and nationalist politician José Antonio Labordeta, who died yesterday.

Besides pure history, the congress also had room for some present-day initiatives:

Nafarroa Bizirik (Navarre Alive) suggests that the work of historians must be conjoined with the awareness of the people and the reality of a popular movement that rescues Navarrese history and identity.

Gorka Palacio is promoting a Basque-language wiki to gather all the information on Navarrese history (nafarroa@wikispaces.com).

Idoia Arrieta said that we have been very much careless on how the conquest is taught to children, not really explaining how the state was removed from history by the force of arms.

Luis Martínez de Garate (Nabarralde) made a similar point to that of Nafarroa Bizirik, suggesting that there is a subtle difference between what is in the history books and what the people knows and, in this sense, he made an appeal to recover collective memory, closing with the famous sentence of Pio Baroja:

For what they were, we are.
For what we are, they will be.

70th anniversary of the murder of Leon Trotsky

Lev Davidovich Bronstein, best known to history as Leon Trotsky, was murdered today, 70 years ago in Mexico City by Catalan Stalinist Ramón Mercader, who infamously used a pickaxe for the crime (and almost failed).

Trotsky led, together with Lenin and other bolsheviks, the Russian Revolution which, for the first time in history, brought a party of the Working Class to power. He was particularly relevant in organizing the Red Army, which became able to withstand not just the reactionary White forces but also the invading armies of Western powers that landed at several locations at the Russian coasts in support of the reaction.

It was also responsible however for the eventual destruction of the Anarchist Free Territory in Eastern Ukraine, one of the two almost successful Anarchist large-scale socio-political experiences in the 20th century (the other was the revolutionary zone in Catalonia and Eastern Aragon during the Spanish Civil War).

But surely Trotsky is best remembered as the main leader of the genuine Revolutionary Bolshevik faction after the death of Lenin, which was eventually defeated by the nationalist and fascistoid tendency lead by Stalin. As such, Trotsky was expelled from the party and exiled. Trotsky first had to go to the remote Alma Ata (now Almaty in Kazakhstan), then to Turkey, France, Norway and eventually Mexico, after European authorities decided they did not want such a revolutionary leader in their territories.

In Mexico he was hosted by the famous couple of revolutionary artists Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. Soon after breaking with Rivera, he moved to his final residence a few blocs away, where the infamous Mercader found and killed him.

Trotsky and US trotskyists in Mexico, 1940, soon before his death

As disillusion grew on Stalin's authoritarian and criminal tendencies, Trotsky became the main reference for genuine Leninism, which was often also called Trotskyism. The current was formalized in 1930 as the Fourth International. This current however has been often marred by schisms and sectarianism, although has also inspired many genuine revolutionary leaders such as Che Guevara.

Crucial concepts in Trotskyism are that the revolution should be permanent and international, that Stalinist USSR was not a genuine but a deformed or degenerated workers' state. Nowadays some Trotskyist sectors favor the creation of a new Fifth International, idea now promoted by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.

For further reading on Trotsky and Trotskyism, you may find useful Trotsky.net and the commemorative series at In Defense of Marxism.

Geopolitics of the 21st century: shares of global wealth in 2015

This map represents the share of the World Domestic Product (Purchase Power Parity) in 2015, according to the latest (2010) estimates by the IMF (direct source: Wikipedia). Countries with less than 1% of WDP(PPP) not shown.

Click to enlarge
(In lighter blue: countries closely allied with the USA)

By 2015 the Chinese GDP(PPP) will be almost as large as that of the USA and China should overcome the USA in this measure before 2018. Another thing is the nominal GDP but this depends a lot of the artificially-set exchange rate of the renminbi (yuan).

By 2015 India will also be the third global power measured in these macroeconomic figures, having displaced Japan but still a long way to go to rank in the 1st tier. Otherwise the list of 19 countries concentrating more than 1% of global wealth is exactly the same as today but the order will have changed somewhat in favor of developing countries, with much higher growth rates and much better resistance so far to the global economic crisis.

In fact the crisis seems to be largely a crisis of the imperial World order: a clear sign of decline of the neo-European imperial system inaugurated some 500 years ago. It is also a sign of decline of the Anglosaxon-dominated industrial global economy of the last 2-3 centuries, a subset of the previous and its apogee.


A century ago...

Besides that, the situation also reminds me of the other great systemic crisis we know well: the one triggered by Germany surpassing Britain in GDP at the beginning of the 20th century, leading to the two World Wars and, eventually, the global hegemony of the USA.

There are many differences, of course, but there are also similitudes.

Some of the differences are that:

• the main scenario now is not in Europe but in Asia,
  
• that the USA (in the role of early 20th century Britain) is not deploying anything like splendid isolation, but rather has a huge imperial system and is the active self-designed paladin of the old world order, encompassing a large list of wealthy and powerful countries, notably Japan and Germany.
  
• that nuclear weapons make a world war most unlikely to happen as such
• that the rising stars have huge numbers of people to feed and keep content (one thing is GDP and another very different one GDP per capita)
• that China is far from being the militarist power Germany was and favors instead soft power

In my opinion, the comparison is still valid anyhow and has the following "casting":

• The USA in the role of Britain, the established but declining first global power
• China in the role of Germany (including Austria-Hungary), the dynamic but somewhat isolated challenger
• India in the schizophrenic role of both France and, specially, Italy: the third power in the geostrategic scenario: a more modest rising star with high dependence on who controls the seas
  
• Russia as herself and the Ottoman Empire: the semi-colonies of Germany (China) which made up somewhat for its lack of overseas territories

It's very approximate but you get the idea, right? Not sure if Japan should play the role of France or what but India and Italy give me much of the same vibe indeed, including the parallel between the Hymalayas and the Alps, as well as the fact that, much like Italy became relevant in parallel to Germany, India has done the same in parallel to China.

Europe definitively seems to have no major role, specially as it's far away from the Asian scenario. The only chance it could have would be through a real political and military union but that is far from happening. That's probably one of the reasons why Europe is being hit so hard in this economic crisis: it has lost some of its strategic relevance and is therefore disposable.

So which are the new Balcans? Obviously the Greater Middle East, including Central Asia. SE Asia could also play such role to some extent but also that of Scandinavia if they are luckier.

The parallel is, admittedly, only valid to some extent but it is still valid.

What really made me think of this parallel is the fact that for the first time in many many decades, the established global power is going to be soon replaced in the macroeconomic realm by someone else, exactly what provoked WWI.


So what?

These macroeconomic figures are no trivial fact: they represent real power much better than any other data. You can have as many recruits as you wish (soldiers, spies, lobbyists, etc.) but in order for them to be effective you have to be able to pay them, train them and specially equip them. Nowadays GDP generally gives a much more real measure of military prowess than number of troops or any other such figure. The same is true in the plane of economic and political influence.

Then... should we expect a WW-III? I hope not and I do not think so (nuclear deterrence). But we should expect localized wars in the line of Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as political instability (coups, revolutions) associated to this global confrontation each day more apparent.

Then is it more like a Cold War II? Yes, I think so. However, the USSR was never in position to really challenge the USA as China is right now. On the other hand, the USSR had a much more solid and exportable ideology China has abandoned in favor of capitalist competition (but consider Nepal, the Indian Maoists and even the Thai Red Shirts). Finally China is being careful of not overspending in the military department, as the USSR did with catastrophic results, as well as not to challenge prematurely the US hegemony and allow the Empire to get stuck itself in its own new editions of the Vietnam War, knowing that it cannot win them and that they'll cost it dearly.

But China also has its own challenges: in order to succeed economically, it must exploit mainly its own population in a phenomenon I call "internal colonialism". This is obviously bound to produce growing discontent, whose unavoidable revolutionary results are by the moment being deferred by means of certain redistribution of the newly acquired national wealth. China also faces major ecological problems, which are partly its own and partly interconnected with the rest of the world, such as global warming. Another problem is their partial dependence of its main rival as market for its products. Additionally, China has some unsolved geostrategic issues, notably securing access to the oil resources, along with the chain of US military bases/allies offshore, specially Taiwan.

Well, interesting and intriguing scenario the one we are heading into, right?

Phoenicians don't seem to have practiced ritual infanticide often

This research seems to largely contradict the propaganda by Jews and Romans, their historical enemies.

Jefferey H. Schwartz et al. Skeletal Remains from Punic Carthage Do Not Support Systematic Sacrifice of Infants. PLoS ONE 2010. Open access.


Abstract

Two types of cemeteries occur at Punic Carthage and other Carthaginian settlements: one centrally situated housing the remains of older children through adults, and another at the periphery of the settlement (the “Tophet”) yielding small urns containing the cremated skeletal remains of very young animals and humans, sometimes comingled. Although the absence of the youngest humans at the primary cemeteries is unusual and worthy of discussion, debate has focused on the significance of Tophets, especially at Carthage, as burial grounds for the young. One interpretation, based on two supposed eye-witness reports of large-scale Carthaginian infant sacrifice [Kleitarchos (3rd c. BCE) and Diodorus Siculus (1st c. BCE)], a particular translation of inscriptions on some burial monuments, and the argument that if the animals had been sacrificed so too were the humans, is that Tophets represent burial grounds reserved for sacrificial victims. An alternative hypothesis acknowledges that while the Carthaginians may have occasionally sacrificed humans, as did their contemporaries, the extreme youth of Tophet individuals suggests these cemeteries were not only for the sacrificed, but also for the very young, however they died. Here we present the first rigorous analysis of the largest sample of cremated human skeletal remains (348 burial urns, N = 540 individuals) from the Carthaginian Tophet based on tooth formation, enamel histology, cranial and postcranial metrics, and the potential effects of heat-induced bone shrinkage. Most of the sample fell within the period prenatal to 5-to-6 postnatal months, with a significant presence of prenates. Rather than indicating sacrifice as the agent of death, this age distribution is consistent with modern-day data on perinatal mortality, which at Carthage would also have been exacerbated by numerous diseases common in other major cities, such as Rome and Pompeii. Our diverse approaches to analyzing the cremated human remains from Carthage strongly support the conclusion that Tophets were cemeteries for those who died shortly before or after birth, regardless of the cause.

Shlomo Sand on the invention of the Jewish People

Interesting interview with this Israeli historian that you can read at Rebelión (in Spanish) or at l'Humanité (in French). I know of no English version but I'll translate some excerpts here. He deals with his book When and How Was the Jewish People Invented?

I am very much Israeli, of Jewish origins. My cultural baggage is not European but especially Israeli. My first words of love were in Hebrew! It is very interesting to find out that Zionism does not acknowledge the Israeli people but still talks of "Jewish people", therefore neither Arab nationalism nor Zionism acknowledge the fact that in the Near East a society, a culture, even, it can be said, a new people that speaks a distinct language has arisen.

(...)

The exodus from Egypt never happened. (...) As historical document the Bible is not valid. I began researching when did the Bible became a historical book.

(...)

The first model [of Jewish nationalism] is the idea of the German nation. A national idea that is not republican, that is not civic, that relies on the notion of "where do we come from?" instead of using that of "where do we go from here", like the national ideas of France and the USA.

Therefore a lineal, totally imaginary, national history was created, beginning with the Bible.

(...)

I am not really sure that there was a Judaistic monotheism before the destruction of the Second Temple, before the destruction of the Kingdom of Judea. There are many archaeologists who think that there was never a large Kingdom of Israel. (...) The Bible is nothing but a mobilizing text to create a God-chosen people.

(...)

All children in Israel know that Tito exiled the Jews in the year 70 AD. (...) Can you believe that there is not a single book on the exile? Specialists know therefore that there was never any exile (...)

Ben Gurion, a great Zionist, believed until the late 1920s that the real descendants of the Judeans (term I use in my book) were the Palestinian peasants who never left the country. There were elites who migrated but, as always happens in history, the large masses of food producers never went anywhere.

(...)

So, if Jews were not really exiled, where did they live? I had not paid any attention to the fact that the Kingdom of Judea forced all its neighbours to convert. First by the sword, like any other religion, and then by persuassion too. Judaism proselytized until the triumph of Christianism. Then it became a religion enclosed in itself. (...) Jewishness is not any essence: it is a great religion. (...) I think that the origin of 80% of modern Jews is in Eastern Europe, notably Khazars and Slavs.

(...)

In Israel we have a regime that is deeply undemocratic, because it does not intend to serve the society but to the Jewish ethnicity throught the World.

(...)

It is the first time that a non-Zionist candidate to the post of Tel Aviv major gathers 34% of votes [communist Dov Khenin].
.

Ancient Canaan city razed by Hebrews

There is a news item at Science Daily telling of the finding of a tablet with what appears to be a woman ruler, probably the "Mistress of Lioness" who asked in vain for help to her Egyptian overlords when the area was being plundered by tribes of wandering Hebrews and other peoples in the Late Bronze Age (c. 1350 BCE). In her letter she said that her city was in danger because of the threat of bands of barbarians and rebels.

The city, located west of Jerusalem, was anyhow razed and was later known as Beit Shemesh (Hebrew name) or similar variants, meaning House of Shemesh, the Canaanite Sun goddess.

What I find more interesting anyhow is not in the article though. Beit Shemesh is, following Wikipedia, the first city in the country that shows clear signs of Jewish domination, notably bones of only "kosher" animals, unlike in surrounding cities of the same time. This strongly suggests that Beit Shemesh was one of the first Jewish conquest in the country, what in turn seems to idicate that the barbarians and rebels that the Queen wrote about were no other but the Hebrews. Nearby Jerusalem is only believed to have been conquered centuries later, c. 1000 BCE, by the semi-mythical King David.

The period of the Late Bronze Age and even the very beginnings of Iron Age was one of strife and confusion through all West Eurasia, with the obscure Sea Peoples' pillages, the destruction of Troy and Ugarit, the collapse of the Hittite Empire, the expansion of the Urnfield culture peoples, the vanishment of the oldest and long-lived West European civilization, Zambujal, and also the conquest of Canaan by a bunch of sectarian warlike nomads: the Hebrews.

The Jewish domination of Canaan, later known as Palestine, lasted only about one thousand years. After the Roman conquest and genocidal quelling of revolts, the country was fully integrated into the Eastern Roman Empire, and then conquered by the Muslim Caliphate and various successors. Most of the inhabitants became Christians first and then Muslims and are now known as Palestinians (the bulk of modern Jewish ancestry seems actually to be in the diaspora converts from, especially, Asia Minor and Khazaria instead). 

Update (Nov. 2012): see this article on the Jewish and Philistine period (a bit messy, specislly wrong usage of English words like ancestors but still of some interest).

.

The Zionist Story (documentary film)

Made by Israeli film-maker Ronen Berelowich, The Zionist Story is a critical view of Zionism and a realistic history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

















Found at Filasteen. Originally from Pulse.
.

Palestine before Israel

A very interesting, and at moments beautiful, documentary blogpost I just found at Lawrence of Cyberia: Those People in Gaza: Where Do They Come From, And Why Are They So Mad?

Using a historical (somewhat critical) Zionist text as leit motiv and many historical photos (mostly from Palestine Remembered) the article uncovers the history of Palestine in the early 20th century, and how the inhabitants of Gaza are largely the descendants, when not the same people, we see fishing, farming, trading, celebrating, studying... in pre-Zionist Palestine.



And how the Zionist terrorists massacred them, took their homes and lands, pushed them into exile and built a European colony called Israel upon the ruins, trying to erase all memory of the people who lived and thrived there.
.

Time travel postcards

Now that another year comes formaly to an end, one may happen to ask, or even just accidentally stumble as I did, where were we 10 or 20 years ago, more or less. Not sure about you but these two images tell me where I was and that we made some difference by not being just passive sheep:
.

The one above has no date but I'm pretty sure is like 18 years ago, more or less. The people who are occupying the tank (blocking a military parade or maneouvre in Gasteiz, what eventually took the tanks out from the streets) belonged to the same organization I was in. I can perfectly recognize the one facing the camera. I was not in that one but were in others...
.

This one instead has a date and is like 12 years ago, center of Bilbao. Again I can recognize one of the main actors, a very outgoing and militant man. Homosexuality was, as you can see already more or less normalized by then - though there's always someone looking odd.

Nothing was like that when I was born, or even when I was a teen ager... we made a difference. We got the once arrogant army hiding into their barracks, we got the bishops to see their churches empty, we got ties and formal adresses very much supressed, we got informal sexuality to be much more common and accepted everywhere...

It is possible to make a difference. You just have to be right, get organized and persist. Things change... a lot. What you see now was made, is made, by people like you and me. For good or bad we are the actors of this story: we are the ones that make things happen.


__________________________

Images borrowed from this quite interesting collection of covers and content from the historical Basque Autonomist magazine Resiste. Now continued in electronic format as Eutsi (name that then was used for monographic issues only).
.

Ethnically speaking, who rules Spain?

It is a very interesting question to make. After all, it is a country divided along ethnic lines that one could well argue that never finished its unification process, where the periphery, particularly Basques and Catalans, often feel opressed by an ethnic Castilian/Spanish rule.

But in theory all Spanish citizens are equal. And that has been largely the case since 1715, when the new Bourbon monarch supressed the self-rule of the realms of the Crown of Aragon, after the War of Spanish Succession. While it is often argued by Spanish historians that Spain was founded in the late 15th century, the reality is that it was only formed as a unitarian state (with the Basque exception) with this first Bourbon monarch, Philp V, more than 200 years later, after the other European posessions of the crown were lost (mostly to Austria).

I have been checking the origins (place of birth and/or where the family was estabilished) of all Prime Ministers (and the few non-monarchical chiefs of state) of Spain since this Philip V, founder of Spain as we know it (and also first to estabilish the charge of Secretary of State, that would later become Prime Minister - or "President of the Goverment", as the office is nowadays officially known in Spain). Skipping the interim ones and those who ruled less for than a full month (most of which are hard to find out about their origins, as they are widely unknown) , they make a total of 115, of which 95 can be safely known their origins and these were within modern Spain.

But before jumping to conclussions, let's define (admittedly with some arbitrariety) which are the ethnicities of Spain. I avoided to use the 15 (and two colonial bits of Morocco) modern Autonomous communities as such. It could have been a criteria but really many of those communities are just but capricious subdivisions of Castile with little or no distinct personality. Instead, I followed a more historical approach:

Above you can see the Iberian peninsula (then known as Spain) as it used to be in the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. Then (and later on with the Habsburg dynasty) Castile was a unitarian kingdom, divided in provinces (in some cases called "kingdoms" because of historical reasons but with no autonomy) but Aragon was instead a federative crown formed (in Iberia) of four realms: Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia and Mallorca (Balearic Islands). Additionally (we will ignore Portugal here) there was Navarre and the three western Basque provinces that, even if annexed to Castile, were almost totally autonomous.

The Spanish constitution of 1978 recognizes four "historical nationalities": Basque Country, Catalonia, Galicia and Andalusia. The first two had autonomy historically but the latter two did not: Galicia is the "Portuguese speaking" (ok, ok, "Galician-speaking" but it's the same) part of the kingdom of Castile and, well, Andalusia... they have a strong accent and once were Muslims. In fact there was some controversy on wether Andalusia was a "nationality" but I will admit that they have their peculairities. So excepting Galicia and Andalusia, as well as the Basque Country, I will consider all the historical Kingdom of Castile (or Castile and Leon) as a single ethnical unity: Castile. I will also consider apart the Canary Islands because they are, in my opinion, more of a historical nationality than Andalusia and, as colonial posession, they definitively deserve a place apart.

I will also consider separate ethnicities here the four realms of the crown of Aragon (now each a separate autonomous community) and the Basque Country (Navarre included).

Comparing with the official administrative division active for the last few decades, then I will consider the following ethnicities:

- Galician: Galicia
- Andalusian: Andalusia
- Catalan: Catalonia
- Aragonese: Aragon
- Valencian: Valencian Community
- Balear: Balearic Islands
- Basque: A.C. of the Basque Country and F.C. of Navarre
- Castilian: Asturias, Cantabria, Castile-Leon, La Rioja, Madrid, Extremadura, Castile-La Mancha and Murcia

I know it's arguable but it's also quite reasonable.

So where are the 115 historical Spanish prime ministers from? Voilá:

- 47 Castilian
- 26 Andalusian
- 7 Galicians
- 4 Valencians
- 3 Basque
- 3 Catalans
- 2 Aragonese
- 2 Balearic
- 1 Canarian
- 6 from other European origins (mostly in the 18th century: 2 Italians, 2 French, 1 English and 1 Irish)
- 6 from former colonies (mostly in the 19th century: 2 from Argentina, 2 from Cuba, 1 from Mexico and 1 from the Philippines)
- 8 I could not locate their origins with certainty

So there are 20 PMs that are useless for our purpose (foreigners, creole Spaniards or of unknown origin). But we can still consider the remaining 95.

The first element that strikes is that 73 prime ministers (76.8% of all) are either Castilian or Andalusian, while only three are Catalans (and two of them were presidents of the First Republic). There are only three Basques too but Basques are quite less in number than Catalans. Without even getting into figures yet, I know that Catalonia can be compared with Andalusia by population, and the Basque Country with Galicia. And it is quite striking that the Andalusian PMs are almost nine times the Catalan ones.

But let's compare data: population vs. number of Prime Ministers. We can get a discrimination ratio (positive or negative) from those figures.

- Castile (as defined above) has 14.9 million people, 33.5% of the Spanish total, but it has 49.5% of the historical rulers. It has an excess (possitive discrimination ratio) of +48%.
- Andalusia has 7.84 million inhabitants, 17.9% of Spanish citizens... but it had 27.4% of the prime ministers. It has a discrimination ratio of +53%.
- Catalonia has 7.00 million people, 15.9% of Spain's total but only 3.16% of the historical rulers. Its discrimination ratio is -80%. Would it not have been for the failed First Republic, it would have been much worse.
- Valencia has 4.69 million people, 10.6% of the total but only 4.21% of historical PMs. Its discrimination ratio is -60%.
- Galicia has 2.76 million people, 6.3% of the total and 7.37% of historical rulers. Its discrimination ratio is +17%.
- The Southern Basque Country has 2.72 million people, 6.2% of Spain, but only 3.16% of the historical rulers. Its discrimination ratio is of -49%.
- The Canary Islands have 1.97 million people, 4.5% of Spain, but only 1.05% of the historical rulers (one). Their discrimination ratio is almost as bad as that of Catalonia: -77%.
- Aragon has 1.27 million people, 2.9% of Spaniards, and had 2.11% of rulers. Its discrimination ratio is -28%.
- The Balearic Islands have 980,000 inhabitants, 2.2% of Spanish citizens, and had 2.11% of PMs. Its discrimination ratio is nearly null (in spite of being Catalan speakers): -4%.

From these figures we can see that there are the following categories:

1. Most favored ethnicities: Andalusians and Castilians
2. Almost neutrally treated ethnicities: Galicians, Balears and Aragonese
3. Clearly discriminated ethnicities: Catalans, Canarians, Valencians and Basques

Maybe Catalans and Basques have the biggest share of economic power (as from the gross internal product of these countries) but when it comes to political power, they are among the most discriminated against ethnicities of Spain, together with Valencians (largely Catalan-speakers) and Canarians (the first and last overseas colony). Castilians (Andalusians included) rule the country clearly.

Raw data and maps from Wikipedia (English and Spanish language versions).

The Galactic Center marks astrological eras

The Galactic Center, also known as Sagittarius A is a huge black hole: a gigantic dark star that is the Sun of Suns in the Milky Way. Despite its size and importance It's not very apparent because even light has to bow to its huge attraction.

Due to precession of equinoxes, the Galactic Center (GC), otherwise virtually static in the firmament, moves 1º14' per century - and it does so in a normal forth (not retrograde) motion, like all other astrological objects of relevance except the Lunar nodes. It takes 2,432.4 years for the GC to cover a whole sign of the Zodiac. Right now the GC is in late Sagittarius, being at 26º52' in the year 2000 (now at 26º58').

It's been noticed that many people of historical relevance had important aspects, not necesarily harmonious, to the GC. But I will not dwell in this matter here.

Many astroogers believe in conventional astrological eras, based in the precession of 0º Aries as it was when the Western and Indian astrologies diverged, some 2,000 years ago, at the end of the Hellenistic period. This is a very arbitrary decission: after all precession is irrelevant for Western Astrology (not so for Jiotisha, the Indian tradition). Precession alone is meaningless for Western Astrology and more that date that correlates with no celestial object that I know of. These are the astrologers that talk of the "Age of Aquarius" and all that nonsense.

Instead the GC is a most important celestial object. A true objective referent. So I say we are not in the Age of Pisces, we are in the Age of Sagittarius: the age of expansion, knowledge (and religion too). It fits much better with the period that begun two decades after the failure of Hannibal against Rome and also few years before Rome conquered virtually all in the Mediterranean. It fits well with a period that started with the Jewish rebuiliding of the temple of Jerusalen (commemorated in Hannuka), continued with the preaching of Jesus and Muhammad and eventually derived in the age of discoveries, the age of reason and the age of space exploration. All very very Jovian, really.

But the Age of Sagittarius desn't stand alone in this self-sustaining logic. The ages before it, at least till the end of the last glaciation, are very coherent as well. The following overview is surely Eurocentric and my apologies to all for such a narrow aproach.


The Astrological Ages as defined by the Galactic Center:

· 178 BCE - 2254 CE: Age of Saggitarius (already commented)

· 2610 - 178 BCE: Age of Scorpio - Begins with the apogee of Megalithism and the foundation of several civilizations in Iberia, Malta and the Cyclades, as well as the Semitization of Mesopotamia. It continues through the late Chalcolitic (Copper Age), with the consolidation of Indo-Europeans in Central Europe (Corded Ware) and the Bell-Beaker phenomenon (traders?). It then enters in the quite violent Bronze and Iron ages, culminating in the Persian and Macedonian empires, among other stuff.

· 5042-2610 BCE: Age of Libra - Unlike warlike and ambitious Scorpio, sign of radical changes, Libra is a more civic sign. The Age of Libra actually begins with the foundation of the first commonly acknowledged civilization: Sumer (Eridu, El Ubayd). It's also the apogee of the great Neolithic expansion, when it reaches the shores of the Atlantic. These beginnings are followed by the expansion of Megalithism, as well as the developement of the oldest European states (Balcans), inspired by Troy (founded c. 3000 BCE), as well as the rise of dynastic Egypt. The last centuries announce the Age of Scorpio to come, with the first Indo-European and Semitic incursions in their respective historical areas.

· 7474-5042 BCE: Age of Virgo - Virgo holds a spike, Virgo is Ceres... and hence the Age of Virgo is that of Neolithic. While the first Neolithic surely began before 7500 BCE, it is in this period when it consolidates and initiates its expansion. The famed town of Catalhöyük, with its magnificient home-temples of bulls, lionesses and mother goddesses was founded just at the beginning of this age, while some transitional Mesolithic-Neolithic cultures like ancient Jerico or Göbekli Tepe instead arrive to their end. In this period, Neolithic technology, cultures and way of life spread widely around the Near East.

· 9906-7474 BCE: Age of Leo - Leo is ruled by the Sun and therefore the Age of Leo began with the end of the Ice Age. It is the period of transition to Neolithic (Mesolithic) in the Near East, while the rest of the world remained in the so-called Epipaleolithic stage. The beginning of this era is also that of the oldest known pottery with the Jomon culture of Japan (ancient Ainus).

The matter becomes less clear when we enter the Paleolithic period as such. As cultures last for several of these ages often and also the chronology becomes less and less precise as we look back. Also there is no certainty (as far as I know) that Earth's woble (the cause of precession) has not changed in such long spans of time.

Anyhow here there is an outline (again for Europe mostly):

· Magdalenian period: GC in Taurus, Gemini and Cancer. The beginning of Cancer is roughly coincident with the end of the expansion of Magdalenian, while the transit through Gemini corresponds maybe with the greatest cave art (Taurus??).

· The Solutrean period is fully coincident with the transit of the GC through Aries. It's also the last glacial maximum, when cold possibly depopulated most of Central Europe.

· The Gravettian period spans, depending of the region, through the signs of Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius and Pisces. In some areas it last (Epigravettian) until the arrival of Neolithic. It is the period of Cro-Magnon people (properly, or narrowly, speaking).

· The Aurignacian period spans through Libra and Scorpio (extended in some areas until Gravettization and even beyond).

· Earliest Aurignacian possibly begun in Central Asia much earlier. The chronology is imprecise partly because of the novelty and partly because of issues with C-14 for such early dates. It may be some time between the previous Pisces and Aries transits of the GC (but with great uncertainty: Aquarius and Taurus are also possible).

· The great expansion of H. Sapiens in Asia (from their early settlements around the Arabian Sea maybe) is also uncertain (too few fossils) but may have begun some time around 60 or 50 milennia BCE. Too large a span to say anything with GC astrology.

· But the great Toba eruption, that may have triggered the migration out of Africa, has a quite precise date: c. 74,000 BCE. That seems to be during a transit of the GC by late Taurus. Then with Gemini the travel would have begun maybe.