Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Fiera

Schulten's guess is that these ships didn't come from Tarsis/Tartessos, but rather that they were ships of the Tarsis type or kind, that is, ships capable of making long journeys ('cause the only ships able to effectively sail to Tarsis/Tartessos had to belong in this kind). So, these ships actually sailed from the Red Sea to the East (probably India or Eastern Africa) and came back filled with the monkeys and the ivory. And these voyages had nothing to do with Tartessos apart from the fact that the kind of ships were the same (most likely Phoenician ships, anyways).

Fine now. In my eyes this is totally untrelated to our discussion though.

That can't be true, since turkeys appear in the Bible.

In the Bible? I guess it's never late to learn something new.

For Lisbon, it's just speculation, since I haven't read any work about it. For other colonies, the fact is well known: Tarraco, Malaka and others are good examples, I think.

So, re: Lisdbon which is what we were yalking here this is a speculation. Fair enough.

Very simple: 'cause Greek texts talk about the power of Tartessian Kings ("Arganthonios allowed the Phoceans to settle anywhere they wished in his kingdom", etc), and didn't speak a word about "confederations" or the like.

Still walking in circles, for you Herodotus et al is like the Bible However archeological data make more plausible the second option. Should I understand thus that you also agree that the Tartessian kings taught the world how to obtain honey, to sow and many other things? Btw, what do you finally think, were the Tartessian kings powerful or not?

As far as I know, the oldest rests found in Rhode belong to the Romans, is that what you mean? But I don't know whether archeological inquiries have proved absolutely impossible the existence of an older Greek city under these ruins. Is that the case?

Yes, that's what I meant. But we are making more circles here. According to the Archeology, Rhodes was not built before Emporion. Yet, you still wonder whether this is absolutely impossible or not Why do not you work with the solid data you currently have?

[Fiera]

Arrgh!!! Where is my long response to your last post? It seems that the server has eaten it! I'll have to rewrite it...

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Fine now. In my eyes this is totally untrelated to our discussion though.

Yes, but it was you who brought up this point, by stating that Schulten thought Iberia was rich in ivory, which is not the case.

Still walking in circles, for you Herodotus et al is like the Bible However archeological data make more plausible the second option. Should I understand thus that you also agree that the Tartessian kings taught the world how to obtain honey, to sow and many other things? Btw, what do you finally think, were the Tartessian kings powerful or not?

I'll tell you what I gather from the honey myth: the Tartesians were very probably a (foreign and) more developed elite than the native population of the region. Thus, they taught them agricultural techniques, a new language, writing, etc. It should not be hard for this elite to become rulers of the land, implementing with time a centralized form of government.

According to the Archeology, Rhodes was not built before Emporion. Yet, you still wonder whether this is absolutely impossible or not Why do not you work with the solid data you currently have?

Again, very simple: because before Schliemann unveiled Troy, no one believed in his existence, as they couldn't believed no rests had been yet found. BTW, Schliemann found not only one Troy, but ten (one over the older one), IIRC.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Fiera
As most foreign colonies in Ancient Iberia, Lisbon could have been initially settled by Celts. This happened a lot: maybe in the beginning the settlement was just a little village made of huts, placed in the inner land, not in the coast, as the Celts were not a seafaring people. Then, a foreign expedition reached this spot, they built a factory or colony, with docks and facilities lying right at the coast, and with time, the two population centers ended up mixing, of course under rule of the foreign traders, who were far more developed than the indigenous people.

Fiera, JB, this is actually a very accurate assessment. There are countless examples of this occuring (with the Celts, no less) throughout europe in Roman times - Noviomagus -> Nijmegen (where I lived in the Netherlands), Lugdunum -> Lyon, Koln, London, Scheveningen, etc etc etc all have a history like this. The Romans built a fort near a Celtic/other settlement, more of the locals moved there, eventually a city formed. The people were drawn by the invaders' superior technology and exotic materials for which they could trade, and as labor. Later the Romans left, and the cities remained as important centers.

How or why would the Tartessans have risen above their neighbors? Harlan hits the nail on the head, so to say. Not only material wealth, but one good leader could nudge them ahead of other Iberians. A kingdom could get established in a short time. Whether this is due to adoption of superior ways learned from foreigners or purely the work of a charismatic local cannot be known. But in any case, they needn't have come from elsewhere.

That said, humans have been migrating for the entire history of our existence. The notion of a true homeland is only possible if a window of time is chosen. They are indigenous to Iberia unless they were already advanced before they arrived, in my opinion. It is mostly a question of definitions. The Etruscan example is a good one to look at. Both the indigenous and the foreign explanations fit, but the issue probably won't get resolved until somebody can decode their language.

Regarding the Tarsis ships, even if it is off the main discussion: Goods moved incrementally in ancient trade. For example, you sure as heck would never have encountered a Chinese man bringing silk to Venezia! He traded it to Samarkand, from which it was traded to Persia, from there to Babylonia, to Tyre, to Venezia. If they were laden with ivory and turkeys, it only means they exchanged goods when they dropped anchor along the african coast (which, by the OT way, was also wooded 5000+ years ago).

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Regarding the Tarsis ships, even if it is off the main discussion: Goods moved incrementally in ancient trade. For example, you sure as heck would never have encountered a Chinese man bringing silk to Venezia! He traded it to Samarkand, from which it was traded to Persia, from there to Babylonia, to Tyre, to Venezia. If they were laden with ivory and turkeys, it only means they exchanged goods when they dropped anchor along the african coast (which, by the OT way, was also wooded 5000+ years ago).

Yes, that's a pretty consistent explanation too.

Thing is, I can't see strong reasons why the byblical Tarsis and Tartesso sshouldn't be the same city, or kingdom. Jay Bee, I think it's time for you to provide us with arguments. If not Tartessos, what was this byblical Tarsis? Where was it?

It couldn't be Tarso in Minor Asia, as this city was very near Israel, and thus, the Byble wouldn't speak of it as of a long distant country.

[Harlan]

One comment about turkeys. Turkeys are indeed from the New World. However, what's probably happening here is that it is being used as a generic word for foul. In a similar way, researchers are tripped up trying to figure out if corn was in the Old World before Columbus, because the word corn was (and still can be) a generic term for grain.

Regarding the Greek colony of Rhode: my Spanish book talks about places to visit near each city it lists. It has this to say:

"L'Escala, near San Martin de Ampurias, is the archaological site of Empuries or Emperion, the colony founded in the seventh century BC. Ruins of another early colony are not far away, also near the coast south of Empuries."

So who's to say there's no evidence? I don't know if that is Rhode, but simply because ruins haven't been found don't mean they won't be found. I keep up on archeology news pretty closely and at least a dozen lost cities around the world have been found in the last year alone.

Jesus, I'll answer your "why couldn't Tartessos be a loose collection of villages" if you also answer the things you let fall by the wayside!

Of course, anything is possible, it could be such a collection of villages. However, advanced civilization always goes hand in hand with increased political organization. I don't think you'd dispute that the Tartessian area appears to be the most advanced part of Iberia. It is for instance, the only area with its own written language prior to 500 BC. We have evidence of cities in other, less developed parts of Iberia going back to this era.

It would be quite incredible given all that we know, that there were no cities in the Tartessian region at that time. If you look at other cases around the world, it would be probably a completely unique case to develop such a culture without having any urban development! As has been pointed out before, a diversified economy that can create the examples of artwork we've seen dug up and labelled Tartessian simply isn't possible without an urban component - again, it would be the only case in history. More likely than a collection of villages would be a collection of city states. The only reason not to believe that is the written accounts of the Greeks.

As to a possible Lydian founding of Tartessos. If that's the case, surely a connection between the Lydian and Tartessian written language would have been found already and compared (as was done with Lydian and Etruscan), given that fragments of both survive. No? Perhaps there was a Lydian influence, but it was too light to be reflected in the language.

Speaking of Lydia, its interesting to point out that Peter James' theory of Atlantis heavily involves an ancient and powerful Lydian kingdom and city called Tantalis. Here's the link again to that, for those who may have missed it:

http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/james/

The Greeks themselves believed that Lydia was the ancestral home of the Mycenaeans. So perhaps the Lydians being the precursors to the Phoenicians in places like Tartessos isn't so crazy after all.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

It seems I am always commenting on generalities and asides. O well, here it goes again...

Corn, Harlan, is indeed a new world plant - central Mexico to be specific. Corn before maize was a word used to refer to any grain harvested for food. Thus you would have rye corn or wheat corn to take to the mill. Due to its overwhelming presence in US agriculture, and US ag's world dominance, the word has long since come to refer to the maize plant. Other new world common foods: potatoes (andes), tomatoes manioc/cassava sweet potato cocoa(central america), peanuts ananas/pineapple(south america), tobacco (north america).

Regarding names in the Bible, remember that one people may have a completely different name for somebody than their own neighbors. Cretan/Keftiu is a fine example. That Tartessa and Tarsis of the Bible share some sounds is absolutely no reason to think they may be the same. They might be, but I suspect Schulten may have been looking for extra source material and jumped to a conclusion. Other places, such as Tarsus, are closer phonetically. Furthermore, names change thru translation. For example, Kart-Hadesh was called by the Romans Cart-Hago, which has in english been rendered as Carthage, with the th melding into one sound.

Fiera, just because the Bible says they are far away does not mean Turkey is too near. Remeber, for many Israelites, the Lebanon was far away. Today we would laugh at that notion.

[Jay Bee]

Fiera, Marquis, Harlan,

I was going to write lenghty posts to reply to your latest comments but later realized it was not actually necessary. I mean, all what I was going to write I have already written it several times.

All what you three are arguing is perfectly fine, these are great stories. But speculations do not make truths. The case of Olisipo. I do not disagree with what Fiera and marquis have related, who with a minimal history training could? But the question still remains: did that actually happen in Olisipo? Or is it that all Celtic cities evolved the same way? One can make all kinds of speculations and assumptions, that is perfectly valid as a method of work. But the truth requires objetive evidence. It is unstatisfactory to state that city A most likely grew in a way only because we know cities B, C, D, and E grew the same way. It may be right, of course, but that is not an absolute truth. So, one needs to go there and investigate, gather the proofs and validate the story. And if one does not gather the proofs, he has to admit that what he's saying, however reasonable, it still is a speculation.

With Tartessos we have the same scenario. Classic texts say one thing which may appear as reasonable as you want (this is not totally the case anyway) and archeology cannot confirm it. Archeology can only support a lesser beautiful, lesser challenging and lesser interesting story. Archeology only supports the view of Tartessos as an abstract geographical concept that may imply a social order completely distinct from the powerful monarchy described by you know who. Pretty boring, you can't make a movie with that! However with the ancient Greek/Roman descriptions... add to that Shulten's original contributions and: what we have here is a blockbuster!

Thus, it is sad but not highly surprising that most descriptions of Tartessos from non-professional sources take as truths things that remain unproven at this point. Re-read Harlan's first post and Fiera's encyclopaedia quotes for a couple of examples.

The case of Rhode is much the same. Rhode ruins have actually been found, and dated. They clearly say that Rhode was not founded before Emporion. Thus the classic texts say one thing, archeology says another. Sorry, I am a scientist, I take the latter. Of course, as Fiera says, older ruins may remain hidden underneath the discovered ones... yeah, I bet no one thought of that before Still, this may be true, of course it may be! But until these older ruins are found and/or new, solid evidence is presented, one has to work with what he has.

PS. Harlan, I was under the impression that it was you, not me, who was letting things fall by the wayside

PPS. About the turkeys, Fiera was referring to peacocks. Peacocks are called 'king turkeys' in Spanish.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Fiera, just because the Bible says they are far away does not mean Turkey is too near. Remeber, for many Israelites, the Lebanon was far away. Today we would laugh at that notion.

Not that far, having in mind that the Phoenicians were sailing to Cádiz and probably to the British Isles at that time. And furthermore, the Byble text implies that the round trip we are talkimng about took three years. Would a voyage to the south coast of Minor Asia take three years? I don't think so.


Oh, and yes, the "turkey" problem was my fault. I translated freely from the Byble, I should have used the word peacock instead.

[Jay Bee]

Speaking of phonetic similarities, would you believe me if I told you that the suggestion was made that Atlantis and the Aztecs had a common origin? Reason? The Aztecs were also called Aztlanites You can find all kinds of nonsense out there (if you have time to waste on that, of course)

[Harlan]

Jesus,
The thing you seem to fail to understand or agree to, is the frequent use of inference by historians. You don't need to see the ruins of Tartessian cities to know they're there, if you have sufficient circumstantial evidence. Entire civilizations have been deduced from several artifacts, and widely accepted. The central Asian example I brought up before is one such case. In a similar way, whole human precursor species have been deduced and widely accepted from finding only a couple of teeth!

That being the case, stop the presses, cos I have some new information. I've been looking at another book I got out of the library, called "Phoenicians", by Glenn E. Markoe. It is copyright 2000, so it can shed light on recent discoveries.

The book is written by a serious academic, and heavily annotated with footnotes, which I can provide if asked. His interest obviously is on Phoenicians, but a good amount of Tartessian material comes up incidentally. Below are some select quotes from a much longer section:


The chronology of early Phoenician contact with the Iberian peninsula remains the subject of scholarly controversy... [Most evidence] of Phoenician extends back no further than the eighth century BC, but initial trade exploration may have begun long before, as isolated finds now suggest. Such early commercial activity may have been motivated by a Phoenician interest in the Atlantic tin trade, which was already operative under native Iberian control, in the ninth century BC.

Early on, Cadiz established an enclave on the northern shore of the Guadalete estuary at the indigenous Tartessian settlement of Castillo de Dona Blanca, which served as the island city's continental port and transit station for mainland trade. Excavations conducted there over the past two decades have revealed extensive traces of Phoenician presence.

[Talking about mineral sources] As archaeological research has demonstrated, the siliver bearing lead ores from these mines were processed and subsequently smelted at the native Tartessian sites of Tejada la Veija and San Bartolome, respectively. Trade activity at Tejada is evinced by the urban character of the native walled settlement, which housed stone-built warehouses and facilities for the grinding and washing of the ores.

[Note to Jesus - still looking for Tartessian cities? ]

[The book then talks about the main deposits in Rio Tinto, shown to be directly controlled by Tartessians and not Phoenicians.] The metal was then transported, in the form of ingots or crude ore, down the Rio Tinto to the native coastal port of Huelva, where the final processing occurred; excavations in the center of the modern town have revealed the emplacement of actual smelting furnaces dating to the eighth and seventh centuries BC.

Beyond Huelva, evidence of Phoenician occupation along the Atlantic coast has proved elusive. Recent excavations, however, have revealed the presence of a substantial settlement of seventh century date at Alcacer do Sal near the mouth of the River Sado. The presence of this site, located some 400 kilometres north of the Guadalquivir basin, lends credence to the supposition that the Phoenicians had established a series of coastal emporia up to and beyond the Algarve coast of Portugal.

As one might expect, Phoenician cultural impact is particularly apparent in the cemeteries of the Tartessian aristocracy (at Huelva and Setefilla), who benefited directly from the Phoenician silver trade. Many of the luxury objects in gold and silver that accompanied these burials are strongly influenced by oriental models; others were direct imports, manufactured in regional Phoenician workshops. The latter were probably issued as diplomatic gifts to secure trasit rights into the mineral-rich Andalusian interior.

[Talking about imports into Tartessos] The quantity of imports was enormous. In one excavation in Huelva a single trench 6 by 4 metres produced sherds from 1400 Greeks pots drawn from a number of centres in the east Mediterranean, including Athens and the islands of Chios and Samos. The earliest date to the second half of the seventh century, but the majority were of the sixth century. If the density of material from this single excavation was consistent throughout the occupied area, it must imply that many hundreds of shiploads of goods entered this port.

Elsewhere in Tartessian territory rich burials are rare, but around the northern periphery of the kingdom a number have been found. One group, at Carmona, were provided with finely carved ivories. Another find, at Alisada, comprised an astonishing range of gold jewellry, much of it locally made, but incorporating a Syrian amethyst seal and an Egyptian ear ring. These rich burials probably represent the wealth of local elites who, by controlling the flow of commodities through their territories to the coastal ports, were able to grow rich.

----

Now honestly, Jesus, does any of that sound like a "loose
collection of villages?" Do you still stand behind the below statement you made a few days ago:

"No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one. Tartessos is sometimes referred to as a city, a kingdom, a region, a river... as you pointed it's sometimes even equated to the biblical Tarshish... in summary, nobody knows what Tartessos actually was, if it was something at all. That the people living in what is today Western Andalusia were far more advanced than the rest of the Iberian tribes and clans, absolutely. That these people were the mythical Tartessian kingdom as described by Schulten. Absolutely not. The paragraphs you quoted belong to the legend, there are no remains to prove that Tartessos existed. Only mouth-to-mouth tales."

What more do you want, to satisfy you?!?!?

My point with Rhode is there is another Greek ruin near Emperion, not a Roman ruin. Could that be Rhode? I don't know, but don't say there aren't other Greek ruins around that area.

[Harlan]

By the way, does anyone have a copy of the book Spain at the Dawn of History : Iberians, Phoenicians and Greeks by Richard Harrison? Seems like that would help answer lots of questions.

I came across something in the Phoenicia book that reminded me of our Rhode controversy.

According to tradition, the colony of Lixus in Morocco goes as far back in time as Gadir. However, excavations show the ruins only date to the first century BC. On closer inspection, however, scattered remains of Phoenician pottery in the nearby hills go back at least another 700 years. It is thought that the original site slipped into the sea and they had to move. In this case, they know the probable site of the first Lixus, but the underwater research still needs to be done.

This kind of thing happened all the time. For instance, in doing research for my Vikings scenario, I found that every single early Viking Scandanavian town (except Ribe) had to move or be abandoned after several hundred years at the most, because of land either rising or falling.

If a similar thing happened with Rhode, it would be much harder to know, because how could one say if scattered remains in the area were connected to Emporion or Rhode, since they were so close to each other?

[Jay Bee]

Harlan, you keep eluding my point. I have never denied the inference of historians. As I said long time ago in this thread, the historians are the ones who put us in the right track Isn't it that of enough importance? What I have been trying you to agree/understand/accept/whatever, is that ancient texts
by themselves prove nothing. You and Fiera seem to be telling me that just because Herodotus and others said it said it, it must be true. "Independent confirmation" is something that you do not seem to consider as necessary.

When I said "a loose collection of villages" I was putting you in one extreme of the arch of possibilities (the other end being a magnificent kingdom). You can throw at me all the circumstantial evidence you want, that will not change the fact that archeology suggests a scenario somewhere in between a "loose collection of villages" and "a magnificent centralized kingdom" (I would even dare to say closer to the former). And that is a fact, just like the couple of teeth are solid facts. That comparison is wrong, sorry. From a couple of teeth one can get a reasonable estimate of the body from which it came. From an ancient text we can't. Were Adam and Eve hairy or not?

As to the Tartessian cities, look at the Iberian cities thread. You'll see I wrote several in there. But the point is, none of these were Tartessos City. I already mentioned a few days ago that the ruins of 'Tartessian' towns had been found, all of them being ruled out as Tartessos City. Since Tartessos City has not been found, it resides at present in the realms of legend, my all-time point in this thread. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge? Yes, I still stand behind the statement I made a few days ago. The funny thing is that most scholars would agree with me. The one million dollar question for you is:

1) Are you gonna place a Tartessos City in your scenario?

If the answer to 1) is yes, then I have two other related questions:

2) why?

3) where in the map are you going to place Tartessos City?


I would really like you to answer those.


All what you've telling me speaks about the existence of an advance culture in the so-called Tartessian area, that the scholars call "the Tartessian cultural ambit", something that neither I nor anyone else has ever denied. You haven't written a single line to back up the existence of Tartessos City and all what it might have represented in political terms.

See, we are walking in circles again, you put an enormous faith in unconfirmed things. Didn't you say you were not religious?


PS. The paragraphs you quoted are written in the style we have all agreed these things should be written. What does it say about the political organization of Tartessos? You haven't quoted anything about that.

PPS. Re Rhodes, when did I say there were no other Greek ruins in the Emporion area?

[Harlan]

Jesus, I believe it is you who are eluding my point. When you say: "No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one," I have then asked, several times, what qualifies as proof, and what would satisfy you as proof. It seems the only thing that will satisfy you is finding the ruins of the "city of Tartessos".

In my book, the existence of that city or not ultimately isn't very important - it would only be icing on the cake. There is enough evidence in my opinion that Tartessos was advanced enough culturallly and technologically to be a kingdom that that city isn't necessary.

"The ancient texts by themselves prove nothing" I agree with. But combined with field work that generally backs up what they're saying (cutting the exaggerations down to size), then they mean something. Looking at all the evidence, it seems clear to me that the Tartessians had moved beyond the level of tribal organization. Whether that was one unified kingdom or a set of city states is an open question, as I have mentioned before. They could easily have operated like the Etruscans at the same time, which was a loose alliance of city states sometimes fighting with each other, but presenting a united front when faced with an outside challenge.

If you can't agree with that, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

"1) Are you gonna place a Tartessos City in your scenario?

If the answer to 1) is yes, then I have two other related questions:

2) why?

3) where in the map are you going to place Tartessos City?"

I sent you an email to this effect already - did you get it? Yes, I think I will place Tartessos as a city, for several reasons. One, cos its fun. Two, the game requires each civ to have a capital. Three, because I have seen several different sources say their capital city was either at Huelva or between that and the Rio Tinto mines, so I think one or the other is the best guess. It also makes sense that if you're going to control the large flow of minerals, the best place to do it is from right on the path of their journey. Of course, there's a great room for doubt, but I'd place the likelihood of such a thing existing as better than 50/50. Back in those days, a large and "grandiose" city could have had 10,000 people - I'm not talking about the second coming of Rome or something.

"PS. The paragraphs you quoted are written in the style we have all agreed these things should be written. What does it say about the political organization of Tartessos? You haven't quoted anything about that."

The thing I keep trying to stress is the more impressive the cultural evidence, the more likely the increased political organization. The Phoenician book says, and I quoted, amongst other things, that the evidence is there the Tartessians controlled the tin trade with England at least at one point. That itself is huge, something a loose collection of villages could not accomplish. We can also ascertain from the sheer volume of imports and ships coming into Tartessos that there is something more than a collection of villages. No collection of villages receives such tremendous wealth and fails to quickly urbanize. If you disagree, please show other examples from history. The Vikings are good examples where quick wealth turned villages into towns.

I have asked for other examples from you in the past, for instance to show examples where Herodotus was plain wrong, and you have not done so. I keep throwing more evidence at you, and yet you claim your stance has not budged at all. You haven't been throwing opposing evidence at me, just naysaying. I don't think that is being a good scientist, making the best judgment of the known facts. I think you're simply being stubborn.

[Jay Bee]

Harlan,

Jesus, I believe it is you who are eluding my point. When you say: "No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one," I have then asked, several times, what qualifies as proof, and what would satisfy you as proof. It seems the only thing that will satisfy you is finding the ruins of the "city of Tartessos".

Every time that I see one of your responses I become more and more convinced that we are not talking about the same things. Finding the ruins of Tartessos City is the best way to prove Schulten's theories, which is ultimately the reason this thread was open. You kept on leaving aside the Schulten debate and focusing on something we all had agreed with from the very beginning. I posted this several times: there is a thing called 'Tartessian cultural ambit' and another one called 'the kingdom of Tartessos'. The first one is very well documented. The second one is not. You are always talking to me about the first one, despite I told you that I did not disagree at all with you. Regarding the second, you just trust Herodotus' accounts, which have no independent confirmation.

In my book, the existence of that city or not ultimately isn't very important - it would only be icing on the cake. There is enough evidence in my opinion that Tartessos was advanced enough culturallly and technologically to be a kingdom that that city isn't necessary.

Right, your opinion. And you may be perfectly right on there. However, many scholars think that finding that city would validate the classic texts. That's why Schulten spent his life trying to locate Tartessos.

"The ancient texts by themselves prove nothing" I agree with. But combined with field work that generally backs up what they're saying (cutting the exaggerations down to size), then they mean something.

This sentence summarizes the problem quite well:

"Cutting the exaggerations down to a size". Who or what decides what is an exaggeartion and what is not?

"field work that generally backs up what they're saying". Again, field work has not generally backed up what they're saying. This is what you refuse to admit. I guess *generally* is the operative word in here, right?

Looking at all the evidence, it seems clear to me that the Tartessians had moved beyond the level of tribal organization. Whether that was one unified kingdom or a set of city states is an open question, as I have mentioned before. They could easily have operated like the Etruscans at the same time, which was a loose alliance of city states sometimes fighting with each other, but presenting a united front when faced with an outside challenge.

Right, you are saying with other words what I have been telling you all along! The classic texts say it was a powerful highly centralized kingdom. Now you admit this might not be so. Had you acknowledged this a few days ago, we could have saved a lot of writing Sorry to say this again, but we were not arguing about the Tartessian culture, but about the Tartessian kingdom, as described by the classics and Schulten.

I sent you an email to this effect already - did you get it?

No, I did not.

Yes, I think I will place Tartessos as a city, for several reasons. One, cos its fun. Two, the game requires each civ to have a capital. Three, because I have seen several different sources say their capital city was either at Huelva or between that and the Rio Tinto mines, so I think one or the other is the best guess.

OK about the first two, they are perfectly valid reasons, as long as you make the appropriate statements in the readme .

About the third, best guess you wrote. So, you are making guesses, good. That also should go to the readme. Many other sources also say it could have been Seville (as Fiera mentioned) or even Cadiz.

One thing that I can help but asking is that if you make such an exception that contrasts so sharply with your quest for historical accuracy, why is it that important for you that cities/settlements/etc in other parts be as accurate as possible? You could also go by guesses on these areas. I swear I do not see the difference. Most peole would not notice.

It also makes sense that if you're going to control the large flow of minerals, the best place to do it is from right on the path of their journey. Of course, there's a great room for doubt, but I'd place the likelihood of such a thing existing as better than 50/50. Back in those days, a large and "grandiose" city could have had 10,000 people - I'm not talking about the second coming of Rome or something.

That's a very relieving paragraph. Knowing your pro-Herodotus stance, 50/50 is a lot.

The thing I keep trying to stress is the more impressive the cultural evidence, the more likely the increased political organization.

Who has disagreed with you on this?

The Phoenician book says, and I quoted, amongst other things, that the evidence is there the Tartessians controlled the tin trade with England at least at one point. That itself is huge, something a loose collection of villages could not accomplish. We can also ascertain from the sheer volume of imports and ships coming into Tartessos that there is something more than a collection of villages. No collection of villages receives such tremendous wealth and fails to quickly urbanize. If you disagree, please show other examples from history. The Vikings are good examples where quick wealth turned villages into towns.

This paragraph makes me wonder whether you skipped a very important part of my previous post: When I said "a loose collection of villages" I was putting you in one extreme of the arch of possibilities (the other end being a magnificent kingdom). You can throw at me all the circumstantial evidence you want, that will not change the fact that archeology suggests a scenario somewhere in between a "loose collection of villages" and "a magnificent centralized kingdom.

Fortunately we have seemed to agree recently that "Something more than a loose collection of villages" does not necessarily mean a highly centralized kingdom.

I have asked for other examples from you in the past, for instance to show examples where Herodotus was plain wrong, and you have not done so.

Great! First, the burden of proof is not on me. I am not the one who's saying that a powerful, highly-centralized kingdom existed. Second, that Herodotus was right or wrong in other things adds little to this debate. No matter how right was this man in other affairs, everything needs an independent confirmatory evidence. Please understand that I am not saying that Herodotus was a liar, I am saying that Herodotus' record is just another circumstantial evidence but not an objectiveproof. Of course you probably will think I am being stubborn. But this is how science works.

I keep throwing more evidence at you, and yet you claim your stance has not budged at all. You haven't been throwing opposing evidence at me, just naysaying.I don't think that is being a good scientist, making the best judgment of the known facts. I think you're simply being stubborn.

I told you, you are throwing circumstantial evidence, which is perfectly fine and I may agree with but does not add to the central point of this debate. I do not have to throw you opposing evidence cos the burden of proof is not on me. You are asking me to prove you that winged elephants do not exist. You are the one who believes the existence of a highly centralized kingdom, so prove it with substance, not with circumstantial evidence. I really do not understand how can you refuse this way of thinking. And then it is you who call me stubborn! I think you are not listening to me. The only you have is Herodotus accounts. I guess you'll admit this is an unverified account. That's good enough for you but it isn't for me and for so many scholars. Where is the stubborness here?

Do me a favor. Forget for a moment the so-called 'Tartessian cultural ambit' and keep in mind only the political factors attributed to Tartessos (powerful, highly centralized kingdom with center in Tartessos City). Read that first post of mine in reply to your first post. Call me again stubborn, but I do not see where I was wrong there. Perhaps I should have re-phrased it better, I admit that.