Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Jay Bee]

Fiera, while I was posting my reply you posted your second one. Really, what you posted proves nothing. I believe there is 99.99% agreement among scholars that Tartessos is not the biblical Tarshish. That speaks badly of the EB quote. Apart from saying that Tartessos was a town, the rest however I can easily agree with.

Abot the second, equating Tartessos with Seville... well that says it all... the biblical quotations again, the references to Schulten's theories... wonderful



Don't you see now how dangerous is to spread unconfirmed data wrapped up to look like as if they were solid facts? The way those excerpts read it looks as though the Tartessian kingdom was a reality beyond any doubt. Most scholars think otherwise, and I think you too. Don't you see why uncontestable, solid proofs are needed to tell the naked truth?

On a different but somehow related topic, could you tell me why most of the world believe the disaster of the Armada as being the end of Spain's maritimal power? Would you agree with that? It's the same thing. You may repeat a lie one thousand times -- it's still a lie.

Do we talk about Hollywood 'historical' movies now?

[alf]

Siento escribir en español, pero mi ingles solo me llaga para hacer señales de humo.
Doy y acabo, ya que creo que cada uno ha expresado sus opiniones y no habrá manera de que nadie asuma el planteamiento del otro, mi punto de vista:
- No se puede tomar como puntos de apoyo estas enciclopedias... en general ninguna enciclopedia cuando hablamos de temas tan indocumentados. Cada enciclopedia tiene criterios diferentes sobre temas historicos, yo he visto explicaciones diferentes entre Larouse y la Britanica, que me dejaron perplejo hace años. asà que para mi no es un argumento estas enciclopedias, sobre todo cuando se lee "PROBABLEMENTE", probablemente destruidos por los cartagineses, probablemente identico que Tarsis en la biblia.
- Las teorias de este hombre no tienen justificación arqueológica suficiente y ninguna documental.
- Schulten da por cierto y de forma rotunda situaciones que no tienen ningun argumento documental y aqui hay que ser muy pero que muy cuatelosso, dubitativo... incrédulo. Dice, "no hay duda alguna de que los cartagineses fueron fueron los que aniquilaron a Tartessos". Para el profesor Antonio Blanco Frejeiro, catedratico de arqueologia en Sevilla y mas tade en Madrid, miembro de la real academis de historia y de Deutches nosequemas, creador de la revista Habis en Sevilla sobre arqueologia y filologia, autor de unos cuantos libros y mas cosas que por no extenderme no cito, ... es decir un tio de prestigio, dice referida a esa frase de Schulten, "...lo dicho no pasa de ser una especulacion tan gratuita como si atribuveramos aquellas catastrofes a a una sublevacion general de los oprimidos por las clases dominantes, o a una invasion de celtiberos y lusitanos..."

Conclusion, salvo que un dia haciendo espiritismo, hable con Argantonio, para mà Tartessos, se mueve en una nebulosa imposible de definir.
Asà que siguiendo mis criterios escepticos y mi debil animo en la fe, estoy mas de acuerdo con JB... si he traducido algo bien, ja,ja,ja

T

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
1) I know is purely a question of semantics but, don't wealth and prosperity precede and/or accompany might?

Nope, today's Switzerland is a wonderful example of a wealthy, but not might, country. In the Ancient times, the Phoenician cities were incredibly rich but tiny when compared to huge land empires like the Egyptians, the Assyrians or the Persians.

you also forgot to mention that, as alf tried to explain, most scholars regard Schulten's treatise on Tartessos as little more than an adventure book. Seminal, interesting and enlightening, right, but fictional after all.

You see, I happen to lack the books regarding Schulten's work as fantasy in my bookshelf. However, the respected historians whose books I own and have read, like GarcÃa Bellido and Blanco Freijeiro, haven't written a single line regarding Schulten as a novel writer.

[alf]

Originally posted by Fiera
... Blanco Freijeiro, haven't written a single line regarding Schulten as a novel writer.

Como nuevo no, pero como equivocado en muchas cosas sÃ.
Vaya... para qué seguir? ya sabemos la opinion cada uno de todos los otros... como paso con FII, todos hemos aprendido algo de los otroos, yo al menos, todos nos mantenemos fortificados en nuestros planteamientos....en mi opinión aqui ya hemos gastado teclado y neuronas suficientes como para dar el punto final.
Bueno... es una opinión poco valorable, ciertamente.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Really, what you posted proves nothing.

I know. However, I decided to post it in order to show a highly respected source talking about Tartessos. However you and alf have just deemed it as nothing.

I believe there is 99.99% agreement among scholars that Tartessos is not the biblical Tarshish. That speaks badly of the EB quote.
Abot the second, equating Tartessos with Seville... well that says it all... the biblical quotations again, the references to Schulten's theories... wonderful

First of all, you're wrong about that proportion. And secondly, haven't you read the words "probably" and "may have been"? That's exactly what Harlan said references to the Tartessian subject should include.

Finally, what's so bad about equating Tartessos with Seville. Even if the early Seville wasn't Tartessos, there are Tartessian archeological rests in its outskirts (Tesoro del Carambolo, in Camas), so Seville was most likely part of the Tartessian kingdom.

Don't you see now how dangerous is to spread unconfirmed data wrapped up to look like as if they were solid facts?

Sorry, I don't think I've been doing that.

The way those excerpts read it looks as though the Tartessian kingdom was a reality beyond any doubt. Most scholars think otherwise, and I think you too. Don't you see why uncontestable, solid proofs are needed to tell the naked truth?

The naked truth, that's a funny line: we can not even tell the naked truth about what's happening in Afghanistán today. We've gone over this dozens of times, but seriously: how can you expect mathematical theorems to back historical knowledge?

Regarding the Armada, it's too Off-Topic, however we can talk about that via email or PM (in Spanish, preferably).

[Jay Bee]

alf:

I think it's important to translate your post (oh my God!) for Harlan and Marquis. There I go:

[quote[

Originally posted by alf

Sorry to write in Spanish, by my English is no good enough for this.
I believe everyone has expressed their opinion on the subject and that it's hard that the two parts find points in common. Thus, the following is just my particular opinion.

-I do not think encylopaedia quotes are the best source for topics as obscure as this. Each encyclopaedia has its very own criteria about history. I have already seen so many shocking divergences between Larousse and Britannica... it's especially revealing the use of 'probably' before "destroyed by the Carthaginians", and "identical to Biblical Tharsis".

-Schulten's theories lack a minimal archeological basis.

-Schulten totally accepts situations that have no documental proof at all. I think it is important to be very cautious in this matter and he wasn't. He said: "there can be no doubt that the Carthaginians destroyed Carthage". For Prof. Antonio Blanco Frejeiro (professor of Archeology and departmental chair in the University of Seville and later in Madrid, member of the Spanish Royal Academy of History, founder of the Habis journal on archeology and filology among many other things --- in a few words, a very prestigious guy) states about Schulten's comment on Tartessus vs Carthage: "what he said is just as gratuitous a speculation as if we attribute the destruction of Tartessos to a popular revolt of the lower against the upper classes, or to a Caltiberian or Lusitanian invasion"

My conclusioN; Unless one day we are able to communicate with the ghost of Argantonius (King of Tartessos, the one Herodotus talked about), Tartessos hides inside a cloud that is impossible to define.

Thus, following my skeptical tendencies and my weak trust in faith, I agree with JB... assuming of course that I have translated your posts correctly, ha, ha.

___________
(I have 'liberally' translated some sentences at certain parts. I did that in order to preserve Alf's original intentions. Those may easily be lost when you translate from one language toanother. Fiera, tell me if you disagree with anything I wrote and I will gladly change it).

[Fiera]

Originally posted by alf
Como nuevo no, pero como equivocado en muchas cosas sÃ.

Veo que conocéis a Blanco Freijeiro, y supongo que respetaréis su obra y su opinión, lo suficientemente autorizada en estos temas, creo yo. Pues bien, estoy pasando a Word un artÃculo suyo sobre Tartessos (publicado en la Historia de España de Historia 16, si lo tenéis en casa me ahorro el trabajo).

Creo que os va a dar alguna que otra sorpresa, vista vuestra actitud a este respecto.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Jay Bee
Fiera, tell me if you disagree with anything I wrote and I will gladly change it).

Agreed!

BTW, sorry Marquis and Harlan for posting my last message in English. However, it isn't really that relevant to the discussion that it deserves translation.

I was talking about a Blanco Freijeiro (Spanish historian) article regarding Tartessos, whose most relevant parts I plan to translate to English and post here.

[Jay Bee]

Just a few clarifications

Originally posted by Fiera
I know. However, I decided to post it in order to show a highly respected source talking about Tartessos. However you and alf have just deemed it as nothing.

please read again our reasons

First of all, you're wrong about that proportion.

You really think so?

And secondly, haven't you read the words "probably" and "may have been"? That's exactly what Harlan said references to the Tartessian subject should include.

Oh please Fiera, that's clearly not enough. "Probably" suggests a somewhat high degree of certainty (at least in Spanish). I do not think Harlan was meaning that at all. The fair approach would have been "according to Greek classic texts", "legend suggests", "however archeological proof to back up those claims is still lacking", and sentences in the like.

Please acknowledge that the passages you quoted suggest a degree of certainty that is far from reality.

Finally, what's so bad about equating Tartessos with Seville. Even if the early Seville wasn't Tartessos, there are Tartessian archeological rests in its outskirts (Tesoro del Carambolo, in Camas), so Seville was most likely part of the Tartessian kingdom.

Sevilla is clearly Not Tartessos and that's what your quote says. It's bad cos it's false. That Seville was within the Tartessian ambit, fine, I agree. But that's not what the quote says.

The naked truth, that's a funny line: we can not even tell the naked truth about what's happening in Afghanistán today. We've gone over this dozens of times, but seriously: how can you expect mathematical theorems to back historical knowledge?

Uh, mathematical theorems? Historical knowledge? I do not follow your thoughts here.

Regarding the Armada, it's too Off-Topic, however we can talk about that via email or PM (in Spanish, preferably).

yes it is, but I hope you understood my analogy

[alf]

A ver Fiera... ojalá esté equivocado, pero me parece q empieza a haber aqui un poco de mal rollo... quizá me equivoque, aj alla.
mi idea es que estos debates no son hagan "picarnos"... yo valoro y muchisimo tus opiniones, tu capacidad de analisis, tus criterios, tu forma de entender este apartado de la historia.... aunque no lo comparta.
Tengo dos libros de este tio, uno, la historia de Sevilla y la cosa no es que no crea el buen mozo en Tartessos, es que hsitoriadores capaces, disienten en determinados apartados... alla cada uno... como nosotros, pero q estas diferentes valoraciones u opinionnes no nos lleven a mosquearnos.
Si en algo te ofendà con mis comentarios, perdona, eres un "tio legal" y seguramente mucho mas instruido en temas historicos (y en todos ya que yo soy muy bruto), solo que creo que no deberiamos seguir discutiendo ya que cada uno por su forma de entender la historia, por su idiosincrasia, alcanza un punto de vista para él cierto pero que no tiene que serlo forzosamente para los demas.. en fin, que no te tomes este fuerte trabajo de copiar ese articulo, que yo tambien tengo.
Vaya, ya sabemos cada uno la opinion del otro, dejemoslo estar.
Venga, cuentame cuando te vienes a Bilbao....

[Jay Bee]

I agree (again) with alf, it's not worth the effort to translate all that article. I do not have it with me but I have read it.

It's interesting that I got dragged myself into a debate with three of the guys I most admire and respect in Apolyton (you, Harlan and Marquis). I have no interest at all to get into a 'bad rollo' with anybody and much less with any of you.

So let's summarize: some of you believe the 'legend' of Tartessos. Some of us don't. Let's get out for some birras!

[alf]

Venga invito yo... soy el mas mayor, el mas alto, el mas feo.... y el mas tonto, ja,ja,ja
Ya es raro q JB esté de acuerdo conmigo en algo... o yo con él, ja,jaja, he metido el dedito en la herida???? jua,jua,jua

[alf]

Veras q no miento... ni con la invitaciona Bilbao y a las cervezas... aun no me has contestao, tio.

[Jay Bee]

Apt way to end this debate?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

JB, fret not about getting into a rollo with me, I enjoy these sorts of debates!

To clear the air (ha ha) around Manhattan: The Dutch bought Manhattan for beads. The problem was that the sellers were not the people who actually used the island. In other words, both parties got something for nothing. The inhabitants of Manhattan, of course, got nothing but trouble.

I've not read Schulten, so what I know about Tartessa comes from this thread...
I side with Fiera and Harlan, but understand completely JB and Alf's position. The problem is indeed how to define what occured in history - calling it truth implies that it is known and real. In the case of Tartessa, this does not apply. The reconstruction of history entails piecing together various clues. What cannot be refuted:

1. A realm of at least some importance existed in southwestern Iberia c. 1000bc., based on archaeological finds.
2. These people were known to the neighbors, i.e. Romans and Phoenecians, possibly others.
3. Certain artifacts, including writing, exist that confirm some form of uniform society in this area. That is, they have a unique style or material and workmanship.

These clues tell us that a people in southwest Iberia achieved a level of culture and influence to warrant the attention of others. That is what is told by the hard evidence. This is as certain as the sun rising each day.

What I write next is not proven, but follows from the proven statement. Any peoples with uniform cultural artifacts, foreign trade, writing, and local influence had specialized workers. They thus necessarily had workers who did not produce food, but rather specialized in crafts, arts, services. This required an organized government, altho it offers no clue as to what form it might have taken.

Next we come to suppositions. This is where we enter the realm of assumptions based on the proven facts of other ancient kingdoms. They may or may not apply to Tartessa, but they come closer than anything else to a general rule. This is where the historian takes the facts, and ties them to other facts (e.g. trade with Britain) with likely connections based on the whole knowledge of the area involved and the time period. The neighbors refer to these people as Tartessans, and name them a kingdom. The nearer in time and geography the source texts are, the more reliable they are. These old historians are not the proof of existence, but simply add verification (and in this case, a name) to what is known. Foreign trade tells of either unique materials or sufficient demand to warrant difficult travel by either the Tartessans themselves or others (e.g. Phoenecians). Remember, sea travel in this era was not for the faint-hearted or unskilled.

If Schulten's work has been derided, he may have taken his suppositions too far. That is, by defining what the government form was, claiming that they traded with Britain, stating that they were powerful, or other such speculation.

Anyway, this shows how the existence of Tartessa can be accepted as proven. The name is arbitrary, what they accomplished is implied from what is left lying about on the ground, but they DID exist.