[3] In the present state of world affairs, it is not uncommon for cynical representatives of great powers to sketch boundaries of new small states on flat maps, ignoring the peoples involved, their wishes, or their habitual associations. Perhaps the average person, thinking of Western Europe, is apt to assume that in a world of quick and radical change most small states have been established in this way. It is often overlooked that there are durable states, with persistent boundaries that represent more than mere colored outlines in an atlas, whose frontiers mark the limits, not only of an area of land, but of a population that has long been associated with that territory. The habits and values of such people have been established in relation to the land upon which they have lived, to the climate affecting it, and to the soils and vegetation that respond to a complex of factors belonging to that specific territory. Economy, transport, and human associations of all sorts become involved with the specific milieu and are to some extent limited by it.

The populations of neighboring states, which have developed [4] under variant physical and historical conditions, have become associated with their land through an individual set of cultural practices which, though useful where they have evolved, may not be fitting elsewhere. In short, culture has roots, not only in men's minds, but in the land upon which it develops. Once having taken shape, a culture complex thrives best in its own type of surroundings. When peoples migrate, taking with them their attitudes and values, they choose areas for settlement that broadly meet their habitual needs, areas that are physically reminiscent of that from which they came.

However, culture is not a static thing. It is always changing. Although in a conservative area the trend and degree of change may be imperceptible to any one generation, it is rapid and obvious with migration. No matter how diligently a human group may seek lands which are precisely the same as those from which it came, success can be only partial. No piece of land is exactly the same as a second, any more than one man is the exact duplicate of another. Migrants make adjustments in their new environment, and in so doing create new values and attitudes. Thus the new territory is the birthplace of a new culture group, related to that of the older territory, yet with its own distinct characteristics.

This book is concerned with Portugal, but Portugal is a small part of a semi-isolated peninsula which seems to be, and is, in many respects, a natural unit. Yet a Portuguese is not a Spaniard. No Portuguese would say otherwise, and probably few foreigners who know both nations would disagree. Spaniards, however, may take exception to such a statement, for the belief is traditional in Spain that the unitary quality of the peninsula is the important fact and that differences are negligible. Spaniards point to physical areas common to both Spain and to Portugal and to the mutually shared historical experiences under the Romans, the Visigoths, and the Moslems. In view of these facts, they say it is culturally contradictory, economically disadvantageous, and politically inexpedient that one small section be divorced from the rest of the peninsula. The Portuguese reply to the Spanish contention is apt to be something [5] like this -- "Of course we are part of the peninsula, and we obviously share common peninsular traits with Spaniards, but the peninsula is not homogeneous. Our part of it is unique, and our habits and attitudes are distinct. We make up an independent unit with good reason."

As a part of the peninsula, Portugal has shared with Spain both physical areas and cultural experiences, the latter especially in prehistory and in early historical times. These cultural experiences are profoundly important to both nations, and the evidence of their importance is still to be found on both sides of the political border. In an attempt to describe the unique personality of the Portuguese state it will be necessary to describe, as a part of that personality, the introduction and development of many of the cultural qualities that belong also to Spain. But Portugal is unique, and in stating this one has also said that Spain is unique. Each one may be distinct either by its own unique experiences or by the lack of the experiences of the other. The problem of Portuguese individuality must be attacked not only through a study of Portugal, but also in seeking the fundamental bases of individuality and uniqueness in Spain as well. In limited fashion, but sufficiently to establish Iberian differences, it is hoped, the physical and historical conditions of Spain will be treated. For example, one chapter of this book is devoted largely to Greek trade along the coasts of the area of present Spain, and in it hardly a word is said about Portugal. This is necessary, for a unique Spain is part of the evolution of a disparate Portugal. That Portugal took almost no part in Greek trade is as important to its distinction as is the earlier "castro" or hilltop fort culture that was mostly Portuguese and Spanish only in minor degree.

The question must be answered, however, as to how Portugal came to a sense of its own distinct character, and then, conscious of its individuality, was able to establish its independence from the other four-fifths of the peninsula. Is Portugal clearly different from Spain physically? If so, what has been the effect of this difference upon the development of culture regions? Or are those Portuguese authors correct who claim [6] that their country is a unit only because of the accidents of history, or the inspiration and determination of individual leaders?

The problem would be far simpler if the Portuguese, in almost complete unanimity as to their individuality, did not differ so widely as to its genesis. Divergent opinions are almost as numerous as the individuals expressing them. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the great Portuguese historian, Alexandre Herculano, maintained with vigor that credit should be given to Portuguese nobles and kings, whose personal decisions led to the political independence of Portugal. ⁽¹⁾ His conclusion was commonly accepted throughout the latter nineteenth century, and indeed has strong support today. Professor Aristides de Amorim Girao, the eminent geographer at the University of Coimbra, says flatly that the strong arms of the early Portuguese are to receive credit, and that the physical nature of the area has had little or nothing to do with the case. ⁽²⁾

Other scholars in late years have supported quite another point of view. Many believe that there are important physical differences which, although not compulsive, have contributed substantially to the Portuguese individuality finally reflected in independence. Hermann Lautensach, the German geographer, who has worked long and productively in Portugal, conceives of Portugal as being distinct geomorphologically, in the complex of its vegetation, in climate, in population distribution, and in other factors essentially based upon a unique physical nature. He would make no claims for an environmental determinism, but points to what he believes to be an especial physical constitution in Portugal that was the foundation upon which a discrete culture area developed. ⁽³⁾

[7] It is not a simple problem to compare and assess the opposing contentions and to try to reach a reasonable conclusion as to merits and deficiencies. Many things are involved -- more, obviously, than can be properly handled by one author, and many more than can be satisfactorily treated in one book. So I shall make no attempt to fit within the accustomed categories "historical geography" or "political geography." Especially in the case of political geography I shall not attempt to consider many of the materials that are conventionally used, since they are not, in my opinion, pertinent to the subject of the book -- Portuguese individuality.

The Portuguese state is the logical expression of a unique culture area which had evolved early in history and took clearly defined form before the sixteenth century. For this reason, economic and historical development prior to that time will be given the most attention. The materials used will be those which seem to have the greatest bearing upon the problem and which offer most aid to its understanding.

This study will maintain the point of view that there was a culture area in the northwest of the peninsula distinct from that of the interior, and that although a human decision was the immediate cause of Portuguese political independence, such a decision would have been fruitless had there not been [8] persistent historical and cultural differences between the northwest periphery and the great interior tableland, the meseta. It was in the northwest, where physical differences between the meseta and the Atlantic border are the most obvious, that the culture hearth and the political state of Portugal were first established. (Fig. 2.) To understand the development of Portuguese individuality this fact must always be kept in mind. The south is a later appendage, and the thesis that physical differences are basic to present political differences cannot be maintained for this region, as political factors may have had greater importance there.

Although the association of physical areas with culture regions will be made, there will be no attempt to support the view that the physical area inspired or compelled culture growth. All of Iberia has been affected by numerous migratory [9] groups. It will be the contention of this book that, insofar as we know, these migratory groups have selected areas suitable to their values, experience, and habits of use and wont. In short, selection has been made in terms of environmental suitability to technological equipment and habitual preferences.

Central Europeans migrating into the Iberian peninsula have made their greatest mark upon the rainy northern and northwestern regions of Iberia, areas similar to those from which they came. Mediterranean migrants from either Europe or Africa who moved into Iberia concentrated in the lands fringing the sea. This fact gives a large degree of physical unity -- and considerable cultural unity -- to its bordering shores. However, in Iberia there is a great body of land lying between the green north and northwest and that southern fringing area which can be called Mediterranean. This great central tableland, the meseta, is a blend of Europe and Africa. The concept that "Africa ends at the Pyrenees" is not without merit, but to avoid distortion one might also add that Europe ends at the Sierra Morena, just to the north of the Guadalquivir River. The meseta is a world in itself. Its climate is unique in Europe. The blend of European with African cultures has created a culture both complex and unique. Perhaps it is the mixture of Central European and Mediterranean (both European and African Mediterranean) cultures in the meseta that has made it -- bleak, harsh, and sparsely populated as it is -- the center of control of Iberia through much of the time since the breakdown of Rome.

Cultural differences between Mediterranean Iberia (the south and northeast) and Central European Iberia (the north and northwest) reach beyond historical or archaeological evidence. But insofar as we have knowledge, they seem to have always been equated in their distribution with the major physical differences within the peninsula. As the association of physical areas with culture groups will be stressed, it should be well to outline, at the outset, those traits of the physical landscape that have bearing upon the subject, such as topography, climate, [10] soils, and vegetation. In dealing with them it should be remembered that Portugal is the subject of primary interest -- especially northwest Portugal where the state took form -- and that other areas are considered only when they have bearing upon the major concern. Later chapters dealing with historical development will also treat the northwest as the center of attention.

1. Alexandre Herculano, História de Portugal (7th ed.), I, 36-40.

2. A. de Amorim Girao, Condicoes geográficas e históricas da autonomia política de Portugal, pp. 19-20, 30; "Imposibilidade de sustentar pela geografia a separaçao política entre Portugal e Espanha," Biblos, V. (1929), 304-314; "Origines de l'etat Portugais," Revue Géographique des Pyrénées et du Sud-Ouest, XI, Nos. 3-4 (1940), 155-158.

3. Anyone concerned with the geography of Portugal should, at the outset, express gratitude to Hermann Lautensach for his many excellent publications. With reference to the ideas expressed in this introduction see the following: "Geopolitisches von der Spanisch-Portugiesischen Grenze," Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, V (1928), 371-374 (in this article he forswears any complete dependence of the political unit upon "natural" factors; see especially p. 372); "Die Iberische Halbinsel als Schauplatz der geschichtlichen Bewegung," Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin, Nos. 3-4 (June, 1948), pp. 101-123, especially p. 120; "Lebensraumfragen der Iberischen Völker," Lebensraumfragen Europäischer Völker, I, Europa, 493-536, especially p. 509; "Der politische Dualismus der Iberischen Halbinsel," Zeitschrift für Geopolitik, VI, No. 2 (1929), 782-788. In many of his articles, Lautensach specifically disavows a crude environmentalism. However, it is impossible for a reader not to infer from his selection and treatment of materials his belief in the fundamental importance of physical factors. This attitude is even more obvious in his "A Individualidade geográfica de Portugal no conjunto da Península Ibérica," Boletim da Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa, XLIX (1931), 362-409.