Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Jay Bee]

About the English tin, please read what I found in The Enclopedia of the Ancient World by Michael Grant. There is an obvious influence of Schulten's work on this account, but fortunately things are stated with a lot of objetivity imho.

Tartessos - A region and kingdom of southwestern Spain, centered on the lower and middle reaches of the river Baetis (itself sometimes know as the Tartessos, now the Guadalquivir), although the name was also on occasions applied to the whole of Spain and even to Western Europe in general.

The kingdom's commercial relations with the Phoenicians and the procurement of tin from Callaecia (Galicia, NW Spain) and perhaps also with Brittany and Britain contributed to its proverbial wealth...

(the entry is one page long)


What I am trying to point out here is that from this account, tin trade between Tartessos and Britain is another what if. Harlan, your quote read more cathegorical than this, right? I think that your comment that "that itself is huge, something a loose collection of villages could not accomplish" needs re-wording in view that, depending on sources the tin trade with England is not a well established fact as you seemed to think.

Again, I am not saying it did not occur I am merely pointing out yet another unsolved mystery about Tartessos. I would not want to be wrong on this, but didn't Schulten have something to do with this theory as well? Fiera?

I said it before and I say it again, someone throws in a lot of very challenging but unproven facts with which to create a wonderful story about a magnificent kingdom in Andalusia. Despite the lack of support, the attractiveness of the idea and/or the prestige of its author makes it spread and spread. There comes a time in which, due to its popularity, becomes a de facto truth. I can assure you that this has happened so many times in science. To me Schulten's theories seem to have followed that path judging from the amount of different sources that quote things that only he said. Then people believe them just because they are popular.

Check out these theories:

1) Tartessos City, center of a powerful highly-centralized kingdom
2) Tartessian founders, not indigenous Iberians
3) Tartessos = biblical Tarshish
4) Tartessos destroyed by Carthage

if the tin story is from Schulten as well, we could add that as 5)

What do we have here? A collection of extraordinairily beautiful, challenging ideas. Most of them, if not all, highly controversial at best. This is what I have been arguing against from the beginning, Harlan, not the likelihood that an advanced culture flourished in the Tartessian area.


PS. About the turkeys, I cannot locate my source so I must admit I was wrong on that.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee

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.

No, sorry, the ancient do not exactly say this. Especially for the "powerful" part, who you're always insisting on adding to both ancient descriptions and to Schulten's opinions.

They talked of a wealthy king, of an incredibly rich in minerals country, and even of a big city crossed by water channels, but not a single word about "power" or "might".

And it's not a matter of semantics, Jesús, it's a matter of concepts. I've got the feeling that you somehow tend to exaggerate what the ancient texts and Schulten said about Tartessos, thus deeming it as incredible or impossible.

Maybe it's never too late to re-read Herodotus or Schulten?

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Again, I am not saying it did not occur I am merely pointing out yet another unsolved mystery about Tartessos. I would not want to be wrong on this, but didn't Schulten have something to do with this theory as well? Fiera?

See? You're doing it again!

The truth is that Schulten is not the first to talk about the Tartessians sailing to Britain. In fact, it's Avienus who recorded these voyages in the 6th century BC.

And I'm afraid we are gonna make a new circle here, since you'll respond to me that Avienus' text doesn't add any certainty to the matter; but I would like to ask you: why would Avienus made up such a thing? I mean, if the Tartessians were little more than a bunch of cattlers and peasants living in little villages, why would Avienus record that they sailed to Britain for tin to make bronze with it?

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Fiera

No, sorry, the ancient do not exactly say this. Especially for the "powerful" part, who you're always insisting on adding to both ancient descriptions and to Schulten's opinions. They talked of a wealthy king, of an incredibly rich in minerals country, and even of a big city crossed by water channels, but not a single word about "power" or "might".

Well, I will have to grant you that It's been a lot of time since I read Schulten. This and my more recent readings did the rest.

And it's not a matter of semantics, Jesús, it's a matter of concepts. I've got the feeling that you somehow tend to exaggerate what the ancient texts and Schulten said about Tartessos, thus deeming it as incredible or impossible.

I can't grant you this one however. I have never said that what Schulten or the classics said about Tartesos was incredible and impossible. I said archeology cannot support it. I hate repeating mysef so much. As I already acknowledged, maybe in the heat of the debate I may have gone a bit too far in my anti-schultenism. But so did you with your pro-schultenism.

Maybe it's never too late to re-read Herodotus or Schulten?

Well, that's an excellent suggestion. I'm gonna buy Schulten's book tomorrow. May I however suggest you to get the Skeptical History of Spain? Oh, but still this does not change the fact that Schulten's trojan horse (Get the joke!) remains unproven.

[Jay Bee]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Fiera

See? You're doing it again!
The truth is that Schulten is not the first to talk about the Tartessians sailing to Britain. In fact, it's Avienus who recorded these voyages in the 6th century BC.

What am I doing again? I acknowledged I did not know, it was you who stated previously that Schulten supported this. I was just asking!

And I'm afraid we are gonna make a new circle here, since you'll respond to me that Avienus' text doesn't add any certainty to the matter; but I would like to ask you: why would Avienus made up such a thing? I mean, if the Tartessians were little more than a bunch of cattlers and peasants living in little villages, why would Avienus record that they sailed to Britain for tin to make bronze with it?

No, I won't answer that, it gets too tiresome. Also I'm not going to bring back again the Eldorado example cos I know you don't believe it. I will ask you however this: who has said that the Tartessians were little more than a bunch of cattlers and peasants living in little villages? Let me ask you a similar one, how did the Guanches reach the Canaries if they did ignore all about sailing? It's too late and I'm too tired, really...

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
I can't grant you this one however. I have never said that what Schulten or the classics said about Tartesos was incredible and impossible. I said archeology cannot support it.

"Cannot?" As in: "it's impossible that archeology supports it?"

Thing is I still feel like you thought that Schulten theories are unbelievable. Mostly due to your comparisons of them with Hollywood movies, etc. But I guess those were more humorous comments than anything else, weren't they?

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
What am I doing again? I acknowledged I did not know, it was you who stated previously that Schulten supported this. I was just asking!

OK, I know it. Sorry, I was just kidding!

Also I'm not going to bring back again the Eldorado example cos I know you don't believe it.

But it's not the same thing! I'm quite surprised you don't see the difference.

What Avienus wrote was a Geography essay, written as a poem, but still a "guide" for sea voyagers all along the Mediterranean. It was no rumour or tale going mouth to mouth among the Indians, it was the Greek equivalent for today "science". At the very least, it was written with a purpose to be useful to others: that you can't deny.

Unfortunately, it was written so much time ago that we can't verify its sources, but we can be sure of its purpose and nature, and why did Avienus add that info.

He was telling people interested in reaching Britain to trade with tin, that the Tartessians knew how to do these voyages, or that they sailed regularly to Britain, etc.

Let me ask you a similar one, how did the Guanches reach the Canaries if they did ignore all about sailing? It's too late and I'm too tired, really...

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe they used a land bridge, same as the people crossing the Bering Strait? But quite irrelevant to our discussion.

In fact, excuse me for not replying to your first question: I didn't 'cause I thought it would take us to a new discussion, as in "you're implying that I said something I didn't - yes, but you implied it - no, you're implying I implied it, etc"...

[Harlan]

Jesus,
I too wonder if we arguing about the same thing. In fact, a few posts ago, I asked, "what exactly are we arguing about?"

For starters, as I mentioned before, I don't know anything about Schulten, and the little I've heard about him makes me doubt him as a completely reliable source, though he may well and probably does have some good ideas. Despite the thread title, I'm not here to defend Schulten or his ideas. Confusion over the thread title was probably made clear a few posts back, but I just want to affirm that (whereas it seems Fiera supports Schulten more than I do, so perhaps the two of you can continue arguing that).

I do believe we have disagreement about the nature of Tartessos, a question that can be looked at completely independent of whether a man called Schulten ever existed or not. At last check you're saying that your position is between it being a "'loose collection of villages' and 'a magnificent centralized kingdom' (I would even dare to say closer to the former)." So, in other words, you still are very doubtful that the Tartessos region had cities in it, even while you maintain most of the rest of Spain did, at that point in time.

I'm frankly very puzzled by that! I think the archeological evidence is clear that there were urban centers. Why would Tartessos be the only part of (at least) Southern or Western Spain at that time not to have cities, and remain a "collection of villages"?!?!? If there's any native place in Iberia to have cities, I think the best bet would be on Tartessos to be the first.

Now, to clarify about these points:

"1) Tartessos City, center of a powerful highly-centralized kingdom
2) Tartessian founders, not indigenous Iberians
3) Tartessos = biblical Tarshish
4) Tartessos destroyed by Carthage"

I don't consider any of them the central issue, and I'm not trying to argue any of them except possibly as interesting tangents. In fact, I've never said one word about "Tarshish", and my stance leans towards Tartessos being basically indigenous.

I would phrase my question this way: did the Tartessos area possess cities by the year 600 BC, and were those cities presenting a joint front to outsiders, at least on foreign policy and trade issues?

Do you agree that statement has a high probability of being correct or not? If you agree, then we really have nothing to argue. (As you can see, points 1-4 could all be false and that statment could still be true)

However, it seems to me that statement is incompatible with the decription of a "loose collection of villages", or leaning closely to the village statement, and your general tone throughout your posts. Perhaps you've overreacting to some of the more absurd things claimed in the name of Tartessos, and swinging too far in the other direction?

I furthermore see a false dichotomy between the phrase "Tartessian cultural gambit" and "Tartessian kingdom". Yes, we both agree that the Tartessos region had an interesting and advanced culture. However, I keep bringing up cultural evidence because it simply has never happened that a society reaches a certain level of advancement and fails to urbanize and develop more advanced forms of government. So the question is, how advanced is advanced when we discuss the culture? One simply cannot separate the cultural from the political on this issue. That's why I find the statement "there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one" to be absurd, because ALL the cultural evidence can tell us much about the level of political organization. I keep stressing this, but seemingly to no avail. For instance, the connection between a written language and political organization is one example I hope anyone can understand, especially given that we know the prime force for the development of written language around the world was to support governmental bureaucracy.

However, if we put Tartessos into the same political level as other advanced civilizations of the time, there are many different forms it could take, from city states that fight each other to large empire (BTW, Etruscia is an interesting example: no capital, no king, yet politically unified from an outsider's point of view). One can argue about that, and really the only way to prove this particular point one way or the other is through written sources. But all of these imply an urban civilization already past tribal forms of government. There's no such phrase as "village states" - political organization on a village or near village level is a completely different thing.

To put it another way, to me it really is ALL about level of culture, and the exact form of political organization (if sufficiently advanced) is less important (provided as I said above, it presents a joint front to outsiders, at least on foreign policy and trade issues).

Are we clear now?

[Harlan]

Here's some info from a book (Oxford Illustrated Prehistory of Europe) on possible trade routes to England:

That the Atlantic exchange network had been long established is amply demonstrated by the discovery of Irish bronze spearheads from a seventh-century shipwreck in the estuary near Huelva - the main port of Tartessos.... While copper and gold were undoubtedly significant exports, it was tin which captured the notice of classical authors. The Roman poet Avienus, in his poem Ora Maritima incorporates tantalizing scraps of information gleaned from an ancient account of the Atlantic seaways, known as the Massaliote Periplus, which is believed to date to the sixth century BC. This sailor's manual described the journeyings of the Tartessians and Carthaginians from the southern ports of Iberia northward to Brittany, Ireland and Britain in search of high value trade goods...

Given the extemt of the exchange networks, it is highly likely that ports-of-trade were established on suitable harbours where exchanges could take place. In one famous account Pliny describes the British island of Ictis, joined to land at low tide, where the natives brought ingots of tin for exchange. Plentiful evidence for such flourishing trading bases in England have been found.

The communities of the Atlantic zone varied considerably in their social and economic structures. In Galicia the existence of many large hill-forts suggests a degree of complexity and centralization in the social system. But further north, in Brittany, Cornwall, Wales and Ireland, the basis of the settlement pattern was the small defended homestead, representing the single family unit. Some elite trinkets like glass beads and bracelets have been found in them, but the economic basis was probably more the exploitation of food resources and the herding of cattle. For all the documentary evidence of Atlantic exchange systems, luxury goods from the Mediterranean are notoriously rare.

---

I'll add some comments of my own to this. Tin was mined and traded from the Cornwall from around 2500 BC, but originally mostly or entirely for local uses. Around 1100 BC, evidence of an Atlantic sea trade route immerges. Oftentimes, one can figure out where tin and other metals come from through slight differentiations in the metal from source to source, and Cornwall tin starts showing up in Tartessos and the Med beyond from around that date. I think all sources agree that the people in Cornwall had no naval technology to enable them to bring it down, someone had to go pick it up.

IMHO, given the amount of Cornish tin found in the Tartessos region, the question isn't was Tartessos involved in the tin trade. Rather, it is how soon did they get involved, and how far up the chain did they go? For instance, they might have just been involved in one leg of the journey. Given the lack of evidence in England its hard to know, if you discount ancient written accounts. If you discount Tartessian long distance involvement entirely, then you're likely saying it was at least Phoenician from very early on (1000 BC or so). Those in France at that time were no more able to transport it by ocean than those in Cornwall, and someone had to get it across the Channel. That link I posted earlier has ancient written sources saying Corunna in Galicia was the last stop of the land-hugging part of the journey, then a straight shot across the open sea (which makes sense given the geography).

By the way, one reason for that lack of evidence is because most of the trade bases there are now underwater. There used to be 12 Scilly Isles (ie, the Cassertides), now there are only 6 much reduced ones. The larger number of isles lasted till at least the early Middle Ages.

Talk about an unfair trade deal, looks like the Cornwall locals got majorly ripped off for a really long time! I guess they just weren't advanced enough to do any better, not even generally being organized into villages at that (pre-Celtic) point. That makes Stonehenge (started c. 2000 BC) in a nearby area all the more remarkable.

I would also point out that this is a good example of ancient authors having access to even older texts, that are now lost. Herodotus for one, is very clear in differentiating between things he feels are strongly grounded in evidence, and things he has heard from questionable sources. For the later he will often literally say, I cannot vouch for this information, it is only something I've heard. In my opinion, that is what makes him the "father of history" and not just some guy passing on rumours and legends.

[Harlan]

One more thing. Regarding how people got to Ireland and Britain in the first place if they weren't good mariners - that one's easy - they walked. And when the land bridge ended about 5000 BC, I must admit they were good enough sailors to get across the Channel, certainly at the narrow point near Calais, which was only 12 miles across then.

Regarding the Canaries though, the water is far too deep for any land bridge in the human era. I know nothing about those people, but I do know the nearest island is visible from mainland Africa (says so in my Phoenicians book). So you could even get on a log, knock on wood, and strike out for land. I can't believe they had NO naval ability whatsoever. Much larger bodies of water were crossed many tens of thousands of years earlier by primitive people. One recently discovered boat of sorts (a carved out log) was even dated to almost 1,000,000 BC!

[Jay Bee]

Fiera:

Re Schulten-Hollywood. You would agree with me that Hollywood could do a big thing with Tartessos, uh?

Re Eldorado. It tells the history of a mythical kingdom rich beyond belief. Sounds familiar? (not that I have omitted any reference to power and might this time)

Re Canaries. Irrelevant, I agree, but I brought it up cos it's another Ancient Mystery for which we have no clue at all (to the best of my knowledge).

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Re Schulten-Hollywood. You would agree with me that Hollywood could do a big thing with Tartessos, uh?

With the Tartessos myth, probably. Not with Schulten's book, though. It would quickly fall of the hands of Hollywood screenwriters...

Schulten's work is far more erudite than you seem to think, there are even quotes that I'm not able to read, 'cause Schulten included them in ancient Greek, with Greek characters!

Re Eldorado. It tells the history of a mythical kingdom rich beyond belief. Sounds familiar? (not that I have omitted any reference to power and might this time)

Familiar, yes. But again, is it the same? Do we know the existence of texts belonging to any of the cultured Amerind civilizations, giving detailed info about it, and, if that's the case, do they supply Eldorado info with a "utilitarian" purpose? I don't know, but I don't think so, especially since long distance trade had not a great development among Incas, Mayas or Aztecs, all of them highly isolationist cultures.

Re Canaries. Irrelevant, I agree, but I brought it up cos it's another Ancient Mystery for which we have no clue at all (to the best of my knowledge).

So you like Ancient Mysteries after all! Then, why this fanatical skepticism towards Tartessos? If not anything else, Tartessos is Spanish ancient history greatest enigma...

And this make me wonder, how would your stance change after the finding of the city itself, or after the archeological confirmation that Olba (Huelva) was, indeed, the Tartessos ancient texts were referring to?

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Fiera
Schulten's work is far more erudite than you seem to think, there are even quotes that I'm not able to read, 'cause Schulten included them in ancient Greek, with Greek characters!

So what? Schulten was a philologist (if that word means actually something in English), not an archeologist. Plese, don't misunderstand me. Schulten was a precursor and his work has undoubtedly been the cornerstone of all modern studies on Tartessos. It will not be me who denies the historical significance or erudition of his work. But at the sime time, by lending his prestigious name, he should be charged with having allowed unsupported speculation to spread to a point where time and popularity have converted it into "unquestioned" truth. That's what I do not like of Schulten's work and what you refuse to admit as wrong. Whether he was or not aware of how much his ideas would be twisted in the years to come is an entirely different question.

So you like Ancient Mysteries after all!

Who does not?

Then, why this fanatical skepticism towards Tartessos

Simple, cos speculation and facts are two entirely different things. He, he would you say yours is fanatical devotion?

If not anything else, Tartessos is Spanish ancient history greatest enigma...And this make me wonder, how would your stance change after the finding of the city itself, or after the archeological confirmation that Olba (Huelva) was, indeed, the Tartessos ancient texts were referring to?

How dare you ask this to a skeptic? Of course I would change my way of thinking, it would be absurd and foolish to do otherwise! Yours however is a win-win situation. If the ruins are found you were right, if they are not found you are still right cos no one can prove they did not exist. Was that an accurate assessment?

[Jay Bee]

Harlan,

Yes, it seems we were agreeing from the beginning more than we both thought.

Re Schulten. Yes, I had realized you did not enter the Schulten debate. But somehow I thought you had not realized that I had been talking about his theories all the time.

I am replying to the rest with the quote feature. It's easier.

I do believe we have disagreement about the nature of Tartessos, a question that can be looked at completely independent of whether a man called Schulten ever existed or not. At last check you're saying that your position is between it being a "'loose collection of villages' and 'a magnificent centralized kingdom' (I would even dare to say closer to the former)."

.

Position that I still hold with two important precisions. First, the first time I introduced that sentence I used the word 'confederation', not 'collection'. (10/12 @ 12:52). The first word has a sociopolitical connotation that the second lacks, imho. Then you started using 'collection' and I did not pay enough attention to realize that my sentence could be interpreted in a different manner.

About the use of villages, okay, okay, my mistake, call it cities if you wish. Given the relative size of ancient settlements, to call them villages, towns or cities makes no much difference to me. I may be wrong, but to me this is mostly a semantical question.

So, in other words, you still are very doubtful that the Tartessos region had cities in it, even while you maintain most of the rest of Spain did, at that point in time.

Not at all. I have never doubted that. I actually acknowledged the finding of Tartessian city ruins at least twice in this thread, plus the city list I gave you in the other thread. Again, I think this is merely a semantical problem. As I am not a native English speaker it's likely that I have failed to use these words properly and that confused you. I am sorry if that happened.

My point has always been that no ruins of the Tartessian capital have not been found and that casts obvious doubt as to the real existence of such a city. Isn't that logical? That for you is a tagential point in this discussion. I understand that. But it is not for me cos it does not allow one to tag Tartessos as a centralized kingdom, and suggests a different scenario. I said previously that: "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" (please do not take the term 'powerful' in military terms but rather as a "pretty stable form of government"). What's wrong with this sentence?

I would phrase my question this way: did the Tartessos area possess cities by the year 600 BC, and were those cities presenting a joint front to outsiders, at least on foreign policy and trade issues? Do you agree that statement has a high probability of being correct or not? If you agree, then we really have nothing to argue.

I do not think that I have ever disagreed with that. As a matter of fact, doesn't this possibility, goes quite well in between 'a highly centralized kingdom' and 'a loose confederation of cities'?

(As you can see, points 1-4 could all be false and that statment could still be true)

Correct but, as I think you realize now, the above statement is not what I was arguing against.

However, it seems to me that statement is incompatible with the decription of a "loose collection of villages", or leaning closely to the village statement, and your general tone throughout your posts.

See the rsponse above. Change 'loose collection of villages' to 'loose confederation of cities'. Does that sound better?

Perhaps you've overreacting to some of the more absurd things claimed in the name of Tartessos, and swinging too far in the other direction?

Let's put it this way: my natural skepticism towards this kind of things grows exponentially when I read descriptions of Tartessos in which unproven speculation is not clearly labeled as such and instead is passed on as if it were solid facts (just like that first paragraph from your book) I a not a scholar after all, you know

I furthermore see a false dichotomy between the phrase "Tartessian cultural gambit" and "Tartessian kingdom". Yes, we both agree that the Tartessos region had an interesting and advanced culture. However, I keep bringing up cultural evidence because it simply has never happened that a society reaches a certain level of advancement and fails to urbanize and develop more advanced forms of government. So the question is, how advanced is advanced when we discuss the culture? One simply cannot separate the cultural from the political on this issue. That's why I find the statement "there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one" to be absurd, because ALL the cultural evidence can tell us much about the level of political organization. I keep stressing this, but seemingly to no avail.

You seem to be unveiling yourself the myth of Tartessos! What I have kept stressing to obviously no avail, is that without a Tartessos city, the claim that the political system in Tartessos was a highly-centralized kingdom cannot be verified. If a Tartessos City never existed, then the name of Tartessos may well come from a geographical landmark, and thus equating a Tartessian kingdom with the culture that fluorished in a Tartessian geographical location is wrong. As I think we both agree know the Tartessian culture could have flourished just as well in the absence of a capital center and thus under a different form of government. Did I explain myself better this time?

However, if we put Tartessos into the same political level as other advanced civilizations of the time, there are many different forms it could take, from city states that fight each other to large empire (BTW, Etruscia is an interesting example: no capital, no king, yet politically unified from an outsider's point of view). One can argue about that, and really the only way to prove this particular point one way or the other is through written sources. But all of these imply an urban civilization already past tribal forms of government. There's no such phrase as "village states" - political organization on a village or near village level is a completely different thing.

Except for the written sources comment, amen to the rest. I really deplore the introduction of the word 'village' to this thread. It only added more confusion to this already confusing debate. I was not necessarily meaning a tribal form of government.

To put it another way, to me it really is ALL about level of culture, and the exact form of political organization (if sufficiently advanced) is less important (provided as I said above, it presents a joint front to outsiders, at least on foreign policy and trade issues). Are we clear now?

To me, your position is. I hope you have finally understood mine.

----
About the tin trade with England, I have no stance on the matter. I simply brought this up to show that depending on the source the account varies. I also hope you understand where I was trying to get at.

--------------
About the Canaries, as I said to Fiera, this is another ancient mystery. The existence of strong currents surrounding the archipelago make it almost impossible to reach them from the coast just with a log. The Guanches did really have no clue about navigation. No contact had been made between tribes from different islands. Of course I am talking about the natives the Europeans found in the XIV century. How or why this knowledge was lost? Who knows.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
So what? Schulten was a philologist (if that word means actually something in English), not an archeologist.

Archeology and philology have gone together all the way since the times of Champollion and Grotefend (who deciphered cuneiform writing). Even if this was not the case, I still believe Schulten was more an archeologist with a huge knowledge of philology, than a philologist with a huge knowledge of archeology.

The fact that he devoted his life to effectively locate archeological Tartessian rests, is what supports this view. The only thing is that he was more succesful (or even brilliant, if you want) as a philologist than as an archeologist.

And I think I can see there the reason why you (and others) do not completely trust him. Philology is one of these "abstract" subjects, whose conclusions don't reach the level of reliability, trustworthiness, or inmediate evidence granted by "real" sciences, such as Physics or Chemistry. On the contrary, Archeology is much closer to those.

Had Schulten found archeological proof, he'd be today as greatly acknowledged as the luckier (but less erudite) Schliemann. All what Schulten could find (apart from two ancient cities, none of which were Tartessos) was names, words. We can't touch them, or put them into a museum. However, and as you admit yourself, these names found by Schulten were in the right direction. All archeology evidence related to Tartessos (if only to Tartessos cultural ambit, as you prefer) is due to Tartessos previous work.

As you implied, before Schulten's work, no one believed in the existence of an early and advanced culture in southern Spain.

But at the sime time, by lending his prestigious name, he should be charged with having allowed unsupported speculation to spread to a point where time and popularity have converted it into "unquestioned" truth. That's what I do not like of Schulten's work and what you refuse to admit as wrong. Whether he was or not aware of how much his ideas would be twisted in the years to come is an entirely different question.

So looks like you're blaming of what others actually did or said later. I think that's quite unfair, especially when you deliberately state that Schulten's good intention is irrelevant.

Again, my advise can be only point you to Schulten's works. Not only regarding Tartessos, which is in fact the only controversial part of his work, but regarding any of his studies on ancient Spain. "Los cántabros y astures y su guerra con Roma" will surely be an interesting reading, and it will probably change your mind about Schulten's "irresponsability".

Simple, cos speculation and facts are two entirely different things. He, he would you say yours is fanatical devotion?

No, but I seem to feel more interest by the "loose ends" that ancient texts regarding these matters mean. Your stance, however, seems to be: "given these texts alone, we can't prove anything, so these texts can't be true".

Yours however is a win-win situation. If the ruins are found you were right, if they are not found you are still right cos no one can prove they did not exist. Was that an accurate assessment?

Probably accurate, but please understand that it's not a matter of being right or not. It's a matter of trying to push our history knowledge forward, as pedantic or arrogant as it may sound.