Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 03-02-2001 06:17 PM Proofs?

well, I am a scientist... call it professional deformation

quote: Of course no one has any proofs of the existence of Tartessos, if there were any we wouldn't be here talking about it.

Ergo, we should conclude that Tartessos is probably little more than a myth. My point. I win. Thanks Waku


Well, having accepted this, let's move on to what I think is/should be the point of this discussion: how close to reality is the myth of Tartessos? Which is exactly based upon? To me Tartessos is pretty much like the legend of Eldorado or the Seven Cities of Gold. But I am usually very skeptical
[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 02, 2001).]

[Waku]

Schulten din't have any proof of the existence of Troya till he found it, and he always believed it existed.

Tartessos is the same.

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 03-02-2001 06:56 PM Schulten din't have any proof of the existence of Troya till he found it, and he always believed it existed. Tartessos is the same.

That's not logical Captain Belief does not make facts; proofs do. Therefore, until somebody finds proof of the existence of Tartessos, Tartessos does not exist. That's logical, I presume.

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 03-02-2001 06:56 PM Schulten din't have any proof of the existence of Troya till he found it, and he always believed it existed. Tartessos is the same.

I am confused. Waku, when you say Troya, do you mean Troy, in Asia minor?


------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Jay Bee]

quote: I am confused. Waku, when you say Troya, do you mean Troy, in Asia minor?

Yes, he does. Troya is, obviously, Spanish for Troy. You haven't participated yet, cpoulos. I think we all are eagerly awaiting for your opininon


[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 02, 2001).]

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-02-2001 09:03 PM Yes, he does. Troya is, obviously, Spanish for Troy. You haven't participated yet, cpoulos. I think we all are eagerly awaiting for your opininon

Well, my confusion was based on Waku's response. Heinrich Schliemann found Troy, not Adolf Schulten. That said, let us move foward. The search for the city that Plato describes has been found. It is Thera, in the Aegean sea. Plato misinterpreted the writings of Solon. The eclipse of Atlantis had occured 900 years before Solon, not 9,000. Atlantis was not 800,000 square miles, but 80,000. There is another tranlation mistake by Plato: The greek word for "greater than" is very similar to the word for "midway". So Atlantis was midway between Libya and Asia, not greater than Libya and Asia. And were the pillars of Hercules really the strit of Gibraltar? Two promontories on the coast ot Greece, near Crete, are also called Pillars of Hercules. Thera erupted in about 1500 BC, wiping out the Minoan civilization(Who were the Atlantians), and the survivors may have been the Sea People, invaders who tried to conquor Eygpt and the Levant. Thera is the modern island of Santorini, and it's ruins are still 9/10ths covered. That was what Schulten was searching for. I don't know the theory of Tartessos. Could you guys tell me a little about it?


------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Waku]

Sorry guys, cpoulos is right Troy was found by Schliemann not by Schulten. But in spite of my lack of rigor that post was intended to show that he found it reading what it was considered till then as a Legend, but it was in fact The Cronicle of a War: The Iliad.

In my opinion Thera, Santorini and Atlantis are the same place but I don't think it has anything to do with Tartessos.

Cpoulos, the only sites about Tartessos I've found are in spanish (sorry again ): http://www.ucm.es/info/arqueoweb/numero0/tesis0.htm http://www.ucm.es/info/antigua/tart.htm

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 03-03-2001 10:08 AM Sorry guys, cpoulos is right Troy was found by Schliemann not by Schulten.

No poblemo, the two names are quite similar and besides... están locos estos germanos!

quote: But in spite of my lack of rigor that post was intended to show that he found it reading what it was considered till then as a Legend, but it was in fact The Cronicle of a War: The Iliad.

I won't deny that there is a great truth behind this seentence (fortunately, I'd say ) Without faith there is no chance for the stroke of a genius. How was that sentence? "They did not know it was impossible, so they did it". I guess I will never find Tartessos myself

quote: In my opinion Thera, Santorini and Atlantis are the same place but I don't think it has anything to do with Tartessos.

Everybody knows that Atlantis and the Canary Islands are the same thing. Look at the last adventure of Asterix if you do not believe me! (too many references to asterix lately, uh?)

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 11:02 AM Everybody knows that Atlantis and the Canary Islands are the same thing.

I take it the theory is that the canaries are atlantis? If it is, then I have answered it. If not, then a little help....


------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Jay Bee]

quote: I take it the theory is that the canaries are atlantis?

Yep, it's yet another unsupported theory

quote: If it is, then I have answered it. If not, then a little help

No help needed, you did answer it I like the theory that the Canaries could have been Atlantis... even the Civ2 creators seem to believe in it; see where they placed Atlantis in the scenario that is included in the Fantastic Worlds add-on

[Waku]

RE: ATLANTIS

I've read a bit about Atlantis (remember Cadiz is one the places claiming to be Atlantis) and I am absolutely sure Thera is Atlantis. Most of evidences point at Thera, but, of course, if someone prove is in Canary Islands...

[Jay Bee]

Fiera,

For good or bad, I think we are entering the philosophical realm. For something to be deemed true, it has to be supported by facts. It's that simple. No facts, no truth. What is left is speculation, hypotheses, belief, faith. You cannot write History based only on speculations, hypotheses, beliefs and faith. I hope you agree with this. Schulten's theories about Tartessos remain unsupported, thus we cannot built History with them. We will build working hipotheses, or legends, sagas, etc

quote: La existencia de un documento escrito asegurando una cosa no prueba nada por sí sola, pero que no encontremos vestigios materiales de lo afirmado por el documento tampoco prueba que ello no sea más que un mito, y eso, como científico, tienes que reconocerlo.

Of course! The absence of proofs proves nothing! This is what I have been telling you all along! If there is no proof, you cannot say Tartessos did exist! Let's put a *silly* example. Greek texts talk about sirens, centaurs, minotaurs, cyclops, etc... did any these creatures ever exist in reality? If I understood your logic, you would conclude that in spite of the absolute lack of evidence in favor of the existence of such creatures, nobody can affirm that they did not exist. Is that a fair statement of your thinking?

quote: pero cuando un pueblo registra un mito, está haciéndose eco de un hecho real.

I think what you mean is that myths are in general loosely based on real facts that could not be undertood at the time the myth was created. I agree with that. For example, a very hard rainfall is taken as the beginning of the Flood myth. The problem is to distinguish what is real (true) in the myth and what is not. That's precisely the job of a Historian. And this job cannot be accomplished without searching for solid proofs.

quote: Digresiones aparte, , y volviendo a cómo debe pensar un historiador, creo que Schulten acertó plenamente al aportar la mención de Polibio a un "reino de los tartesios" en las cláusulas del segundo tratado romano-cartaginés.

Let me ask you this: what if Polibio was merely creating literature when writing what he wrote. What if he was lied about all this or he himself made up the details? This is circumstantial evidence. It's not enough.

quote: Esto indicó que existía un "reino tartésico" y que ambas repúblicas tenían, o habían tenido, relaciones con él.

I agree. In your own words Polibio's text is an indication. Exactly what I have been telling you all along


Too long already. I'll address Waku's comment in a different post

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 03-03-2001 12:59 PM I think the best way to rebate this is a good example: Nowadays historians considere proved that the Phoenicians successfully circunnavegated Africa only because Herodotus didn't believe it: They (the phoenicians) reported that as they sailed around Africa they had the sun on their right. Herodotus refuses to believe this possible 'but perhaps others may.' The phoenicians were sailing in the Southern Hemisphere.

He, he, rather than rebating my point, I think that your example proves it. Herodotus put us on the right track (indication, hint) and the Sun's movement provided the proof that was needed.

[Waku]

If u don't know how the sun moves you can't say the phoenicians didn't do it.

that is...

if u don't know where Tartessos is you can't say it didn't exist

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Waku on 03-03-2001 02:24 PM If u don't know how the sun moves you can't say the phoenicians didn't do it. that is... if u don't know where Tartessos is you can't say it didn't exist

He, he, nice try, pero no cuela

If you don't know where Tartessos is, you can't say it did exist.


(estás haciendo como hogfather en la thread de los indios americanos )