Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Waku]

It seem we are not gonna agree JB, and as I think the "problem" is very complex I'll try to summarize what I've got:

-Greek/Roman historian and geographers talk about a place called Tartessos located to the west.(Herodotus, Avienus, Anacreonte, etc.)

-Bible talk about a place called Tarschich (Tarssis) located to the West under phoenician control (free after the fall of Tyre by assirians).

(same place? dunno)

...to be continued

[RobRoy]

Sorry for crashing into an ongoing discussion without necessarily having all the background, but I can't resist unresolvable historical debates.

I'm confused, however, as to the exact nature of the question, however. Could some patient soul explain to me:

- Are we specifically defending/questioning the theories and suppositions of Adolf Schulten's works regarding Tartessos, as the thread title suggests? In whole or in part?

- Or are we doubting whether some other attritubutes frequently associated with Tartessos are feasible or whether they are purely speculative?

- Or are we doubting whether tribes and/or cultures and/or towns called Tartessian ever actually existed at all?

- Or are trying to determine where, precisely, Tartessos was located, be it town or region, or what areas the culture encompassed or influenced?

- Or are we trying to determine whether it can be tied to the biblical Tarshish?

I was under the very strong impression that there is abundant archeological data regarding the existence of tribes who have been given the name "Tartessian", which generally includes the Turdetani. They, supposedly, prospered from trade with the Phoenicians, until destroyed by them (circa 500BC). I also had long operated under the assumption that the region near Sevilla was the strongest candidate for the central site(s) of Tartessos.

But are we talking about aspects of this Tartessos, or some more mythical one?

Seems to me the Troya analogy is a good one. There is clearly evidence of some pre-Phoenician Iberian culture in the region. But what exactly can be said about it, and how much is myth is certainly debatable.

[Waku]

quote: Originally posted by RobRoy on 03-03-2001 03:58 PM Sorry for crashing into...

You are welcome.

answer to question 1: Yes
answer to question 2: Yes
answer to question 3: Yes
answer to question 4: Yes
answer to question 5: Yes

quote: Originally posted by RobRoy on 03-03-2001 03:58 PM I also had long operated under the assumption that the region near Sevilla was the strongest candidate for the central site(s) of Tartessos.

I think it's closer to the sea (Doñana National Park?)

[Prometeus]

Sorry, but a name is only "flatus vocis"... working on scen ( and reading history ) i learned two things well:

1) names can be easily usurped to create economic relations or to gain prestige and political power ( an example: european Western Avars, that were not related to asiatic Eastern Avars, usurped that name to gain utigurs and Kutrigurs' aid against Byzantium and southern Slavs, especially Antes... );

2) archeological proofs can be deviating sometimes; the Golasecca-Insubrian quaestio in Northern Italy docet - they were Celts or not? Only when they found that "lepontian" inscrpition with that celtic name put in genitive form( "kaisios" ) placed into an insubrian settlement they were able to stab that Golasecca tribes, Insubrian and Lepontians were the same. Not to mention this destroyed the equivalence La Tenè = Celts... indeed, Golasecca facies owned very unique features.

A single name is too litle to surely identify an unknown tribe, not to mention that phoenicians never used vowels in their inscriptions, so i think that unless archelogists will have as we say in romanesque dialect "'na 'nticchia de' culo" ( english: a bit of fortune... ) to find a town with an indigenous inscription - and i mean like Seutopolis in Thracia, where they found a peace theatry with Macedonians right in that place mentioned by greek historicians ( the Dionisus' temple ), so they were able to surely identify that town as Seutopolis - tartessos will be confined into fogs of Limbo and Legends Land.

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 11:58 AM 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

Mick Uhl made that scenario, and a large number of the historical ones in FW add on. I know of him, he was board wargame designer for Avalon Hill since the 1970s, and always had rather exotic ideas. Back on point: Plato transcribed Solon's work, which in turn transcribed Eygptian sources. Thera even fits the physical descriptuion of Atlantis before it's eruption (City on an island, surrounded by sea, which in turn was surrounded by mountains). The city was constructed on a volcano, whose cone had blown off in pre-history. The ruins have the features Plato discribes (In-door plumbing, hot and cold running water, sewer system). Unfortunatly, scholars still can't read Linear A, their langauge (The Minoans, or as Plato called them, the Atlantians). It is believed that Thera was the Minoan(Atlantian) capitol. Back to the Canaries question: Have any of the features I discribed (plumbing and such) ever been found there that date from at least 1500 BC? If there are, I never heard of it. This doesn't preclude that Phonicians settled there. The Phonicians are most likey the survivors of the Minoan(atlantian) culture, as they suddenly appear in the Levant at that time, and where the best seafares of the anciet world. So you see, from this logic, that the Canares could have been settled by the Minoan/Atlantian/Phoniecians, but it can't be the seat of their power, and thus, cannot be the Atlantis of Plato. I hope this clears this up some, but I suspect it will ony add confusion to this discussion.


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

[Jay Bee]

Well, let's summarize the debate til this point. It looks as though there were two 'irreconciliable' factions here (plus the 'inevitable' neutrals ).

1) those who accept the existence of Tartessos on the sole basis of ancient writings that cannot be verified as truthful (Fiera, Waku)

2) Those who do not discard that Tartessos might have existed but can't accept the existing evidence (to call it something) as a valid one (Jay Bee, Prometeus)

3) the Neutrals, who haven't yet aligned with one of the previous groups (cpoulos, Masis, RobRoy). Importantly though, Masis has presented some cogent evidence that Tartessos was, with all likelihood, not the Biblical Tarshish.


Despite his deep alignment with the believers, Waku recognized in a previous post that there is no conmclusive proof for the existence of Tartessos. All we have is circumstantial evidence. Fair enough?

As I proposed before, I'd like to orient the debate into more advantageous avenues. Specifically, how close to reality is the myth of Tartessos? Which is exactly based upon? It is undeniable that there is lots and lots of writings about Tartessos. Are all of them opportunistic, or they only point out to the fact that, no matter what Archeology may (not) say, Tartessos is truly the origin of Hispania?

I'd also like the 'believers' to explain to me why they find so plausible the Tartessian myth in comparison with similar myths such as Eldorado or the Seven cities of Gold

Let's finish this post by stating that, regardless of whether Tartessos existed or not, it has been pivotal to Spain's history. The myth/reality of Tartessos was the main reason that moved the Greeks to visit the peninsula and hence, to push Hispania up onto the pages of History (MarkG would like this )


[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 03, 2001).]

[Waku]

IMHO There are enough evidences (not proofs) to say that phoenicians and greeks found in SW Spain a kingdom (called Tartessos by greeks) more advanced than the rest of the iberian tribes.

[Fiera]

Not my thinking, I'd say, but rather your thinking, since you've been the one to make the statement that History is only made with solid proofs. As I'm trying to tell you, History may work with logics in the absence of proofs...

Ningún historiador ni académico podrá quejarse de tu trabajo si, investigando sobre un tema poco claro, que no ofrece "pruebas" materiales, estudias todas las fuentes documentales disponibles y extraes de ellas una conclusión lógica y coherente. Tenemos que vivir con ello. Si no, hay muchas cosas que no podríamos aceptar.

Pero la lógica lleva a dar la razón a los historiadores romanos, por las razones que todos sabemos: parece ser que los cartagineses terminaron su presencia en Sicilia, y que se dedicaron a la explotación minera de España, presumiblemente para pagar las sanciones que les habían impuesto los vencedores romanos

Estos dos últimos hechos vienen a ser confirmaciones tan débiles como pruebas, desde el punto de vista de lo material, como las que Schulten propuso para respaldar la existencia de Tartessos. Pero a mí me valen, igual que les han valido a todos los historiadores hasta la fecha, que yo sepa.

Perdona que me haya puesto un poco pesado con el tema, pero creo que esta es quizá la discusión más interesante que he tenido nunca en Apolyton.

[guess what? I did it again. I am really sorry for being so sloppy. I was able to slavage most of your original post. I am so embarrassed ]

[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 03, 2001).]

[Chris 62]

Jay Bee, can we get some help with that $#*&!@ Babelfish translator? It stopped before it reached Fiera's long post! I asked about in the Apolyton forum, but was ignored! What good is it if it can't be used in a whole thread? Maybe they would listen to a moderator....

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by RobRoy on 03-03-2001 03:58 PM I was under the very strong impression that there is abundant archeological data regarding the existence of tribes who have been given the name "Tartessian", which generally includes the Turdetani. They, supposedly, prospered from trade with the Phoenicians, until destroyed by them (circa 500BC).

I am glad you joined in, RobRoy, that's exactly the theory that I'm trying to support here...

Interesting that you brought the Turdetani. The Greeks and Roman had documented ralations with them, so I guess their existence it's enough "proved" this way. Well, they were a rather developed people, unlike other Iberian tribes. It is, once again, very logical, to think that they inherited a civilized legacy from older peoples that lived in their territory, like the Romans inherited some of their art from the Etruscan, etc.

Schulten states this as well.

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-03-2001 06:32 PM Jay Bee, can we get some help with that $#*&!@ Babelfish translator? It stopped before it reached Fiera's long post!

I'm sorry, cpoulos, I'll try to use English from now on...

Anyways, the Babelfish is not any good at translating long an complez sentences, so you would probably still lose a lot of the meaning of what I wrote...

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 03-03-2001 06:35 PM It is, once again, very logical, to think that they inherited a civilized legacy from older peoples that lived in their territory, like the Romans inherited some of their art from the Etruscan, etc.

It is very logical as well to think that they inherited a civilized legacy from their frequent contacts with the Phoenician neighbors and the Greek traders. The Etruscan pottery that Schulten used as a proof to demonstrate Etruscan presence in Hispania was found in a Turdetanian city (I can't remember its name now).

quote: Schulten states this as well.

My scen 'Celts & Iberians' does it too

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by cpoulos on 03-03-2001 06:32 PM Jay Bee, can we get some help with that $#*&!@ Babelfish translator? It stopped before it reached Fiera's long post! I asked about in the Apolyton forum, but was ignored! What good is it if it can't be used in a whole thread? Maybe they would listen to a moderator....

Yeah, it does not work with a whole thread, Try cutting & pasting short paragraphs. That should do the trick. Although, as Fiera correctly stated the translation is often meaningless

[Jay Bee]

quote: Not my thinking, I'd say, but rather your thinking, since you've been the one to make the statement that History is only made with solid proofs. As I'm trying to tell you, History may work with logics in the absence of proofs...

Logics... interesting. You find it logical that Argantonio, king of Tartessos reigned for over 80 years? That's what Herodotus wrote. I see it again as a philosophical problem. What's the barrier between logical vs ilogical thinking? Who or what draws that barrier? To Prometeus and me the answer is pretty straightforward

quote: Ningún historiador ni académico podrá quejarse de tu trabajo si, investigando sobre un tema poco claro, que no ofrece "pruebas" materiales, estudias todas las fuentes documentales disponibles y extraes de ellas una conclusión lógica y coherente. Tenemos que vivir con ello. Si no, hay muchas cosas que no podríamos aceptar.

I could not agree more with that. However, a logical course of action would then to recognize our own limitations and state our 'conclusions' with the appropriate cautionary measures. It was you, not me, who said that Schulten had given definite proof for the existence of Tartessos. Do you still maintain that?

quote: Pero la lógica lleva a dar la razón a los historiadores romanos, por las razones que todos sabemos: parece ser que los cartagineses terminaron su presencia en Sicilia, y que se dedicaron a la explotación minera de España, presumiblemente para pagar las sanciones que les habían impuesto los vencedores romanos.

History is written by the victors, we all know that. Is it our mission to simply accept that or rather investigate deeper in search of definite answers? There are many dark points in our history, we all know that too, e.g. contrary to popular belief Almanzor did not die in Calatañazor, what really happened in Roncesvaux? Did the Guadalete battle really take place in the Guadalete? Did Pelayo ever exist? etc, etc. To settle for the most logical explanation is okay as a starting point but does not satisfy my curiosity.

quote: Estos dos últimos hechos vienen a ser confirmaciones tan débiles como pruebas, desde el punto de vista de lo material, como las que Schulten propuso para respaldar la existencia de Tartessos. Pero a mí me valen, igual que les han valido a todos los historiadores hasta la fecha, que yo sepa.

Agreed. However do not miss the fact that, unlike the First Punic War example, Schulten's theories about Tartessos are highly controversial.

quote: Perdona que me haya puesto un poco pesado con el tema, pero creo que esta es quizá la discusión más interesante que he tenido nunca en Apolyton.

Oh no, al contrario, esto esta cantidad de entretenido. Tu tienes tu punto de vista y yo el mio y es divertido confrontarlos. Si todos estuviesemos de acuerdo, de que cogno podriamos discutir? Yo llevo en Apolyton desde el principio y coincido tambien en que esta es la discusion mas interesante que he tenido aqui. Quise extender la fun a otra thread (atlantis), esta vez en clave de broma, pero lamentablemente no ha funcionado. Y es que nunca segundas partes fueron buenas.


[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 03, 2001).]

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 07:29 PM Logics... interesting. You find it logical that Argantonio, king of Tartessos reigned for over 80 years? That's what Herodotus wrote.

No. Again, using logics, historians have thought of two possible facts that made Herodotus write that: either Argantonios reigned for a very long time (not necessarily 80 years, he could have reigned for 60 years however), or there were two or three "Tartessian" kings called Argantonios, who Herodotus took for the same person. Using my own intuition and logics, I am for the first choice.

quote: I see it again as a philosophical problem. What's the barrier between logical vs ilogical thinking? Who or what draws that barrier? To Prometeus and me the answer is pretty straightforward

I think you just have to dismiss fantastic elements, and retain what's essential. As Waku pointed out, several ancient authors talked about an advanced kingdom in SW Spain. Nothing fantastic about it, IMO. But those authors gave some details about the Kingdom /ie Arganthonio's long life) that are unbelievable for us. Those I don't take seriously, as no one would, but, tell me, why would have anyone (sailors, travellers, whatever) invented the existence of such a Kingdom? Then again, that's not logical to me.

quote: I could not agree more with that. However, a logical course of action would then to recognize our own limitations and state our 'conclusions' with the appropriate cautionary measures.

Right. History are not like Mathematics. I think we all accept that. It seems to me that you're asking for such a clear evidence of the existence of Tartessos as Pythagore's Theorem.

quote: It was you, not me, who said that Schulten had given definite proof for the existence of Tartessos. Do you still maintain that?

Well, I talked about quite defined proofs. Which is rather confusing, I confess...

What I meant is that all written sources lead towards the evidence that a Kingdom, and possibly a city too, called Tartessos by the Greeks, indeed existed. That's what Schulten defends in its book. I still maintain that.

quote: To settle for the most logical explanation is okay as a starting point but does not satisfy my curiosity.

OK. Are you ready to join me in an archeologiccal expedition to find Tartessos' ruins then?

quote: However do not miss the fact that, unlike the First Punic War example, Schulten's theories about Tartessos are highly controversial.

So were Schliemann's theories about Troy...

quote: Yo llevo en Apolyton desde el principio y coincido tambien en que esta es la discusion mas interesante que he tenido aqui.

Gracias, tío. ¡Para mí es un honor!


[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 03, 2001).]