The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
Originally posted by Harlan
One problem with this thread is Fiera and Jesus are so busy writing here that neither can help me determine which cities actually existed in Iberia in 500 BC .
This is what I've found, it's not exactly what you want but I still think they can be of some help:
Originally posted by Harlan
The climates were much different then, as Jesus acknoledges in his 216 BC scenario, covering most all of Iberia with forest
Waku,
Thanks for the links. I'm afraid I am language challenged, but I'll try my best to stumble around the sites .
Jesus,
I hope you do get Ancient Mysteries. I've recommended it and or given it as a gift to friends, and uniformly the response has been, wow, what a great book. Its also very well written, making an easy read. Peter James should pay me to be his publicist!
Regarding the forested nature of Iberia in your map, I think you may have gone a little bit overboard there. I have some maps showing the "natural" vegetation of Europe, and I don't recall Iberia being quite so forested, though I'll have to double check. What was your evidence in choosing that coverage?
AKAIK, the Etruscans were just getting developed in Italy at the time or after the time they're supposed to be colonizing Iberia. That doesn't compute.
"I havent haad a chance to reply to the message you posted yesterday" - Its never too late!
Regarding Bible stuff, the general trend lately has been more towards thinking the Biblical accounts of David, Jericho etc are wrong. But I think this is the result of mistaken chronologies and thus faulty assumptions - in other words, garbage in garbage out. There's also a lot of politics and religious or anti-religous bias going on. For the record, I'm not a relgious man, but I do believe the Bible and most other ancient "legends", "myths" and so on have far more real history in them than people normally give them credit for. The astounding Black Sea discoveries last year and this year (I gave a link to that earlier) are just one example.
Given that you are Christian, I think you'll find some things in James' book particularly interesting, esp. the stuff about Exodus, the "day the sun stood still", and the age of Jesus at his death.
Two more questions to throw out there for anyone:
1. Were the Celtoiberians a mixture of Celts and Iberians, or pure Celts with just a confusing name, as that language web link mentioned?
2. What's the history of Lisbon? I did a little surfing on the web, and found several claims from tourist boards and the like that the town was settled by Phoenicians around 1200 BC, which also doesn't compute. That would be even older than Cadiz. Also saw claims that it was a Carthaginian colony until the Romans, which sounds doubtful.
Originally posted by Harlan
The more I hear about this Schulten, the less I like. There was an "old school" of scientists who thought that anything great had to have come from the Near East. So everything advanced, including Mayan, Indian, etc had to come from them. Looks like Schulten is that way. Why couldn't the Tartessians be an indigenous culture? What possible evidence would connect them with the Etruscans?
I'd also like to think that Tartessians are an indigenous culture , but, first of all, why were they more advanced than any of their indigenous neighbours? Don't rush to answer "thropugh contact with Phoenicians and Greek", 'cause all southern and eastern Iberian tribes had these contacts as well.
Anyways, Schulten uses mainly philological (sp?) causes to explain the fact. Turta or Tursa, which according to him, was the original name of the capital of the Tartessians, would mean "City of the Tirsenians".
Please note also that Schulten think that Tartessos was a Tirsenian foundation, not a Etruscan foundation. Etruscan cities were founded by the Tirsenians, a people from Minor Asia.
Anways, Schulten aside, there is plenty of on the ground evidence to be fairly confident of a Tartessian kingdom. I agree completely with Marquis' analysis - given what we know from other places in the world with similar levels of development, it would be very surprising indeed if no central organized government arose there.
One problem with this thread is Fiera and Jesus are so busy writing here that neither can help me determine which cities actually existed in Iberia in 500 BC .
Yes, I keep on making my mind to put together a city list for you, but I always end up using my free time to this thread. Anyways, I've received your map. Basically, you need to put a couple more of Greek colonies on the eastern coast, and probably take away Tarraco (whose importance came later, with the Roman colonization).
I'll elaborate on this, as I happen to have found the perfect book for this a GarcÃa Bellido's work based upon Strabón's (sp?) Geography, and other Greek descriptions of the Iberian Peninsula.
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
Originally posted by Jay Bee
Look at the title of this thread. We were supposed to debate about Schultenm weren't we?
Sorry, the title of the thread is confusing, due to my fault. We are debating about Tartessos. Of course, we cannot do so without having Schulten in mind.
I will always defend him for the reasons you posted above (his courage, etc.) and because I think that two third parts of what he wrote 65 years ago is being universally accepted today. The rest is still not necesarilly wrong. Perhaps we will find definite proof that the Carthaginians didn't destroy Tartessos, perhaps we will find definite proof about the oppositte. But still, it's a incredibly interesting matter, one that shouldn't be overlooked by Spanish historians and archeologists, as we still can find answers to thousands of questions regarding Tartessos.
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
Originally posted by Jay Bee
Oh well, the reason why Schulten suggested Tartessos was rich in ivory is because of a report praising the enormous amount of ivory that could be found in biblical Tarshish
I've been re-reading the "Tarschisch" chapter in Schulten's book, and I haven't been able to find where does he state that Iberia was rich in ivory.
However, what he states is that the name "Tarsis ships" was a common name to refer to any ship making long voyages (since the voyage from Tyre to Tartessos was one of the longest at the time), thus the biblical reference to the Tarsis ships bringing ivory, monkeys and turkeys doesn't mean that these ships were coming from Tarsis, but that they were big ships, capable of long voyages, instead.
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
Originally posted by Harlan
I hope you do get Ancient Mysteries. I've recommended it and or given it as a gift to friends, and uniformly the response has been, wow, what a great book. Its also very well written, making an easy read. Peter James should pay me to be his publicist!
Another great book, which I'm sure you all know, but I'd like to recommend you nonetheless, it's C.W. Ceram's "Gods, Graves and Scholars". You'll see there that all arecheology discoveries had to overcome the opposition of the "traditional school", so to speak, and most, if not all, discoverers were deemed as fools by his colleagues or even by the whole society.
The greatest example is maybe that of the Hitites, a civilization about whom nothing at all was known sixty or fifty years ago, and his mention in the Bible was deemed as an invention by the Bible authors, before archeological findings were achieved.
Regarding the forested nature of Iberia in your map, I think you may have gone a little bit overboard there. I have some maps showing the "natural" vegetation of Europe, and I don't recall Iberia being quite so forested, though I'll have to double check. What was your evidence in choosing that coverage?
There's an old tradition, that comes from Herodotus IIRC, that assured that there were so many trees in Iberia, that a squirrel could travel from the southern end to the northern end of Iberia without actually touching the ground.
AKAIK, the Etruscans were just getting developed in Italy at the time or after the time they're supposed to be colonizing Iberia. That doesn't compute.
I think you didn't understand Sculten's statement. As I already explained above, Schulten thought that both the Etriscan cities and Tartessos were founded by the Tirsenians. If this is the case, a parallel developement for the Etruscans and Tartessians does compute.
1. Were the Celtoiberians a mixture of Celts and Iberians, or pure Celts with just a confusing name, as that language web link mentioned?
I think it's generally accepted that they were an ethnic mixture of both peoples.
2. What's the history of Lisbon? I did a little surfing on the web, and found several claims from tourist boards and the like that the town was settled by Phoenicians around 1200 BC, which also doesn't compute. That would be even older than Cadiz. Also saw claims that it was a Carthaginian colony until the Romans, which sounds doubtful.
According to the myth, Olissipo (Greek/Roman name for Lisbon) was founded by Odisseus or Ulysses, so if we believe there is some truth behind myths, Lisbon would be a Greek foundation, and 1200 bC would be a consistent foundation date. Cadiz could have well been founded at that time or even before, though the most accepted date is 1100 bC.
However, it seems that Lisbon (as anything west of the Hercules columns) was under control of Phoenicians at the time of first recorded Greek voyages to Iberia. So it should definitely be a Phoenician or Carthaginian city in your map.
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
Why would the Tartessians be more advanced than other Iberians? Three great reasons that don't need the Tirsenians. One, an incredible amount of mineral wealth, possibly the greatest in the entire ancient world. Two, the mineral wealth is located near fertile valleys and excellent ports to boot. Three, outstanding strategic geographical position. Near the mouth of the Mediterranean, the Tartessos area could have been much like Gibraltar in later times. Especially since it seems tin trade from Cornwall and other points north happened early, you'd virtually have to stop in the Tartessos region if going by ship.
From what I understand, the very origins of the Etruscans are extremely shaky and controversial, so Shulten is going pretty far out on a limb on this one.
Regarding forest cover of Iberia, I've got a map on my website showing that a rectangular area roughly from Almeria to Valencia to Madrid to Seville is mostly naturally without trees, plus most of the valley of the Ebro River. But that would still leave room for a squirrel to jump from tree to tree from north to south!
Regarding Lisbon, there are limits to how much truth I'm willing to squeeze from myths! The Ulysses part sounds very iffy. From what I understand (but I could be wrong), there is little to no archeological evidence showing Phoencian colonization in Iberia or even in the Cathage region prior to the 800s BC. I also have probably a dozen maps of Greek and Phoenician colonies in the Med from ancient through Punic War times from different atlases, and not a single one shows Olisipo/Lisbon as Greek or Phoenician, ever. So I'm still wondering. Logically, it would make sense to have a colony there, if there was a reaching towards the tin of Southern England. We might also expect a colony on the north coast of Iberia and/or French coast too. But what's the evidence?
One thing is that the Phoencians could have kept any geographical knowledge past the Pillars of Hercules hush hush, to prevent outsiders from finding their source of tin. They were well known in ancient times to keep trade secrets very closely. Maybe that's why maps don't show this kind of thing???
By the way, I just typed in "Tirsenian" with or without plural into a search engine, and got back absolutely zero.
Here's what the Columbia Encyclopdia has to say about the origin of the Etruscans:
"There are three theories that seek to explain the obscure origin of the Etruscans. Their language and culture differed markedly from that of other ancient peoples of the Italian peninsula at the time—Villanovans, Umbrians, and Picenes. As a result, many scholars long upheld the tradition of Herodotus that the Etruscans migrated to Italy from Lydia in the 12th cent. B.C. to escape a severe famine. Other scholars have argued that the Etruscans are an ancient people, indigenous to Italy, whose customs are merely distinct from other Italian peoples. The third theory—that the Etruscans came down from the north through the Alpine passes—has been largely discredited."
My instinct tells me this is yet another case of Herodotus turning out correct - the Lemnian inscription looks hard to refute. What's the difference between Lydians and Tirsenians?
The book I just got from the library has a few things to say about Tartessos. Here's the interesting part:
Greek historians said the kingdom encompassed all of southern Iberia, and included some 200 towns and villages (Spanish place names with Tartessian origins end in -ippo, -uba, -igi, and -urgi).
[Note this map from one of the websites pointed out by Waku:
The outliers may just be coincidence, or mean some kind of fleeting control. Take those away and you're left with the Guadalquivir River valley and a bit of southern coast. One interesting one is Olisipo - could that have been a Tartessian colony for the tin route?]
Later, Strabo described an extensive network of canals near the mouth of the Guadalquivir River.
The chief task for researchers is to find the location of the sumptous capital, if indeed one existed. Greeks used the name Tartessos for the river and the territory, but never for a city. Nevertheless, Schulten and others placed it at the mouth of the Guadalquivir, perhaps buried under tons of silt deposited over the centuries (most of the Las Mirsmas swamps were formed over the past 3000 years). A more likely site is the mouth of the Rio Tinto, which has run red since antiquity from copper deposits in the interior. Yet despite the many puzzle pieces, Tartessos continues to elude us.
[Later, when talking about the Carthaginians, the book has this to say:]
[Around 500 BC,] the Phoenician colony at Gadir called on their Carthaginian cousins to help put down some Tartessian sabre-rattling. Their capital was taken with the help of a new technological marvel, the battering ram, and "disappeared, as if sunk into the sea", according to Greek reports. Thereafter, Carthaginian soldiers were paid in Tartessian silver. From this point Carthage was firmly in control of the entire southern coast, and under these secretive conquerors even the memory of Tartessos soon began to fade. Within decades, historians were confusing it with Gadir and other mysterious points beyond the Pillars. The secrecy was so complete that one later writer could only affirm that "Beyond the Pillars of Hercules no wise man can tread, and no fool either... Beyond lies darkness."
----
See what I mean about the Phoenicians being secretive? Perhaps Carthaginian control of Olisipo/ Lisbon, if at all, only dates from after Tartessos' destruction.
Note, Jesus, that the Carthaginian destruction of Tartessos appears to be based on Greek reports, and wasn't total speculation by Schulten. Too bad what those reports were aren't specified in this book.
2) The Celtiberians were not a mixture of Celts and Iberians. This is another of those things that repeat after repeat make people believe it without any basis. The Celtiberians were the Celtic tribes living closest to the Iberians. Hence they were more influenced by the Iberians than any other Celtic tribe. That there was blood mixing is very logical to think of but the main sustrate was Celtic, as their customs, language, etc clearly tell us. Also the Greeks referred to the terrain occupied by these Celts as the "Celtic Iberia". That language web link was pretty much correct.
3) Re: Iberia covered by forest. Fiera said it all. Either you believe the Greek sources or you don't (It's good to agree with you on something Juan ).
4) AFAIK Lisbon was a Celtic settlement, not Phoenician and much less Greek.
5) Strabo tells us that the Romans also tried unsuccesfully to locate Tartessos City. They were supposed to be closer in time than Schulten et al, right?
6) Fiera, the main point around which all of Schulten's thoeries hinge is the existence of a highly centralized Tartessian kingdom based on a Tartessos City. That remains unproven, no matter how you look at it. There is not even the slightest archeological proof to back that up, so don't tell me that 2/3 of what he said holds ground and is accepted by many, cos it simply is an exaggeration. I found it funny that you say that archeologists should take into account Schulten's theories when he provided nothing for the archeologists to start upon.
7) Fiera, this statement shocks me for two things"I'd also like to think that Tartessians are an indigenous culture, but, first of all, why were they more advanced than any of their indigenous neighbours? Don't rush to answer "through contact with Phoenicians and Greek", 'cause all southern and eastern Iberian tribes had these contacts as well".
First, it shocks me not because I think it's wrong, but because I may totally agree with it. I was going on that direction when asked Harlan (and he did not answer yet), why can't you think of a loose confederation of small villages instead of a centralized kingdom? Second, aren't you disagreeing if a bit with Schulten here?
8) I still have the feeling that for you guys the concepts Tartessian cultural ambit and Tartessos city kingdom mean the same and "who cares if they were not in reality". In other words you do not seem to care if there are proofs or not, it is all reduced to a question of faith (Fiera even says he will always defend Schulten). Harlan, where are you gonna place Tartessos City in your map? Seville, Huelva, Cadiz, Doñana?
9) Much debate about Tartessos City but, what about other Iberian mysterious cities? I previously mentioned Hemeroskopeion, but Rhode is perhaps a better example. The classic texts talk about a Greek Rhode being founded in Hispania before Emporion and even before Massalia in France. Sounds familiar? This theory has been very much disproven by the archeology. Ergo, classic texts sometimes 'lie'.
Originally posted by Harlan
Why would the Tartessians be more advanced than other Iberians? Three great reasons that don't need the Tirsenians. One, an incredible amount of mineral wealth, possibly the greatest in the entire ancient world. Two, the mineral wealth is located near fertile valleys and excellent ports to boot. Three, outstanding strategic geographical position. Near the mouth of the Mediterranean, the Tartessos area could have been much like Gibraltar in later times. Especially since it seems tin trade from Cornwall and other points north happened early, you'd virtually have to stop in the Tartessos region if going by ship.
Yes, I quite agree with your explanation, but still, as Jay Bee would say, there's room for doubt, especially ¡cause the eatsrn coast of AndalucÃa, under Phoenician control since 800 bC (with Phoenician colonies such as Malaka, Sexi, Abdera or Baria, that you have to include in your map) was not as developed as the western coast.
From what I understand, the very origins of the Etruscans are extremely shaky and controversial, so Shulten is going pretty far out on a limb on this one.
Yes, I know. Besides, I must confess my knowledge about the Etruscans is not much, so I confess I'm just showing you Schulten's arguments, without taking any stance about them.
I also have probably a dozen maps of Greek and Phoenician colonies in the Med from ancient through Punic War times from different atlases, and not a single one shows Olisipo/Lisbon as Greek or Phoenician, ever. So I'm still wondering. Logically, it would make sense to have a colony there, if there was a reaching towards the tin of Southern England. We might also expect a colony on the north coast of Iberia and/or French coast too. But what's the evidence?
I'll check my sources. IIRC, I didn't read this in Schulten, but somewhere else.
One thing is that the Phoencians could have kept any geographical knowledge past the Pillars of Hercules hush hush, to prevent outsiders from finding their source of tin. They were well known in ancient times to keep trade secrets very closely. Maybe that's why maps don't show this kind of thing???
Well, Schulten states that the western route to the Cassiteride Islands, across the Hercules Column, was first kept secret by the Phoeniacians, and later by the Carthaginians. There was an "interregno" (Tartessos highest power moment, according to him), during which this route was open to Greek sailors, but after Tartessos destruction and the Battle of Alalia (535 bC), Carthaginians closed this route again.
BTW, Harlan, have you thougt about starting your scenario right after the Battle of Alalia, instead of 500 bC?
By the way, I just typed in "Tirsenian" with or without plural into a search engine, and got back absolutely zero.
Yes, I know, I translated the name directly from the Spanish "Tirsenos", which is probably only used by Sculten anyways.
My instinct tells me this is yet another case of Herodotus turning out correct - the Lemnian inscription looks hard to refute. What's the difference between Lydians and Tirsenians?
I think they are most likely the same people. Schulten does say that Lydia was homeland to the "Tirsenians".
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
Originally posted by Harlan
One interesting one is Olisipo - could that have been a Tartessian colony for the tin route?
Yes, assuming that the tin route was controlled by the Tartessians during the 7th and 6th centuries bC, as Schulten thinks.
Nevertheless, Schulten and others placed it at the mouth of the Guadalquivir, perhaps buried under tons of silt deposited over the centuries (most of the Las Mirsmas swamps were formed over the past 3000 years). A more likely site is the mouth of the Rio Tinto, which has run red since antiquity from copper deposits in the interior.
This is just my opinion: I'm not particularly against a location of Tartessos City at the mouth of the Guadalquivir. The swamps could be forming after its destruction, and even we can think that the formation of swamps in the land around Tartessos was one of the reasons for its decadency.
[Around 500 BC,] the Phoenician colony at Gadir called on their Carthaginian cousins to help put down some Tartessian sabre-rattling. Their capital was taken with the help of a new technological marvel, the battering ram, and "disappeared, as if sunk into the sea", according to Greek reports. Thereafter, Carthaginian soldiers were paid in Tartessian silver.
Which Greek text is this exactly? I had read that the battering ram was invented by a Carthaginian wise man at the siege of Gadir, instead.
"Beyond the Pillars of Hercules no wise man can tread, and no fool either... Beyond lies darkness."
Yes, one of the Carthaginian "terror war" techniques was surely the invention and spreading of monster tales about the Atlantic Ocean, which, if you think about it, were still active and scaring people and sailors at the Age of Discovery, 2000 years later.
See what I mean about the Phoenicians being secretive? Perhaps Carthaginian control of Olisipo/ Lisbon, if at all, only dates from after Tartessos' destruction.
That's my opinion, too.
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
Originally posted by Jay Bee
1) Fiera: turkeys from Tarsis???
Let's see... turkey means "pavo", right? They didn't come form Tarsis anyways, they were just brought from the east by Tarsis ships, that is, large ships. I'm not quite sure whether you did get my explanation about this above. Perhaps it was too confusing.
4) AFAIK Lisbon was a Celtic settlement, not Phoenician and much less Greek.
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.
5) Strabo tells us that the Romans also tried unsuccesfully to locate Tartessos City. They were supposed to be closer in time than Schulten et al, right?
So? At the time of Romans, far less was known about the babylonians or Assyrians than what we know today.
6) Fiera, the main point around which all of Schulten's thoeries hinge is the existence of a highly centralized Tartessian kingdom based on a Tartessos City. That remains unproven, no matter how you look at it. There is not even the slightest archeological proof to back that up, so don't tell me that 2/3 of what he said holds ground and is accepted by many, cos it simply is an exaggeration. I found it funny that you say that archeologists should take into account Schulten's theories when he provided nothing for the archeologists to start upon.
7) Fiera, this statement shocks me for two things"I'd also like to think that Tartessians are an indigenous culture, but, first of all, why were they more advanced than any of their indigenous neighbours? Don't rush to answer "through contact with Phoenicians and Greek", 'cause all southern and eastern Iberian tribes had these contacts as well".
First, it shocks me not because I think it's wrong, but because I may totally agree with it. I was going on that direction when asked Harlan (and he did not answer yet), why can't you think of a loose confederation of small villages instead of a centralized kingdom?
Yes, that possibility also exists. Balnco Freijeiro seems to be more for it, even though he deem Arganthonios and other Tartessian kings as historical. However, the King may well be chosen among local chieftains, or something.
Second, aren't you disagreeing if a bit with Schulten here?
I don't think so, but even if it's the case, I can have my own opinions, can't I?
In other words you do not seem to care if there are proofs or not, it is all reduced to a question of faith (Fiera even says he will always defend Schulten).
Note the difference between "Schulten, the man" and "Schlten, his theories". I will defend without any doubt the first. If he's proved plainly wrong, I will still defend him for his courage and pioneer way of thinking. You have made a pretty similar statement yourself.
9) Much debate about Tartessos City but, what about other Iberian mysterious cities? I previously mentioned Hemeroskopeion, but Rhode is perhaps a better example. The classic texts talk about a Greek Rhode being founded in Hispania before Emporion and even before Massalia in France. Sounds familiar? This theory has been very much disproven by the archeology. Ergo, classic texts sometimes 'lie'.
We would enter into long and similar to this one debates, and I for one would need a great amount of reading before being able to have a stance about any of these.
Originally posted by Fiera
Let's see... turkey means "pavo", right? They didn't come form Tarsis anyways, they were just brought from the east by Tarsis ships, that is, large ships. I'm not quite sure whether you did get my explanation about this above. Perhaps it was too confusing.
You lost me here. If, according to you, Tarsis and Tartessos are the same city, do you mean that Tartessian ships sailed east to find turkeys? Clearly I have missed something My surprise was that I always thought the turkey is an American species but I don't really know.
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.
Is this facts or mere speculation? You don't make that distinction clear and I think it's important.
So? At the time of Romans, far less was known about the babylonians or Assyrians than what we know today.
I seem te recall someone (dunno remember who) speculated on the difficulty of locating a 3000 yr old city. I might have misunderstood. My point was that the Romans were trusting the same sources as Schulten. And let's not forget that even today the geographical descriptions of Herodotus, Plinius or Polibius are pretty well consistent with the geography of W. Andalusia. One might rationalize that these similarities were stronger in times of the Romans.
I did not expect you to agree I was referring to Tartessos City exclusively. He found nothing, absolutely nothing. But I agree that my post sounded too arrogant, I just got carried away by the heat of the debate and wrote something unfair. I did not mean to say that he did not deserve repect and acknowledgment. Actually I implied the opposite a few posts ago.
Yes, that possibility also exists. Balnco Freijeiro seems to be more for it, even though he deem Arganthonios and other Tartessian kings as historical. However, the King may well be chosen among local chieftains, or something.
Oh, at last a point of convergence! If this possibility also exists why is it less likely than the existence of a centralized government at Tartessos City? Why do you take this as a mere posibility and the other as a quasi-certainty? This is exactly what I have been trying you to tell me since we started this thread
I don't think so, but even if it's the case, I can have my own opinions, can't I?
Of course. I seemed to understand that you stated that Schulten believed in a non-indigenous origin of the Tartessians.
Note the difference between "Schulten, the man" and "Schlten, his theories". I will defend without any doubt the first. If he's proved plainly wrong, I will still defend him for his courage and pioneer way of thinking. You have made a pretty similar statement yourself.
Oh well, I could not agree with you more. Sorry for the misunderstanding. But you haven't addressed my concern in this regard.
We would enter into long and similar to this one debates, and I for one would need a great amount of reading before being able to have a stance about any of these.
That was a very smart answer. But I gathered that your stance on those ghost Greek cities is the same as Tartessos City
See what I was saying above? Why? Just because the ancient texts say it so? You do not seem to have given a thought to my Rhode example above.
PS. I was reading an Archeology treatise to find those cities Harlan's looking for and got pleasantly relieved to see the elegant way the author gets over these archeology vs classic text discordances: "(Insert author's name here) wants us to believe that...." Brilliant line indeed
Originally posted by Jay Bee
You lost me here. If, according to you, Tarsis and Tartessos are the same city, do you mean that Tartessian ships sailed east to find turkeys? Clearly I have missed something
OK, I didn't make myself enough clear. I'll try to explain the whole thing again, but if you still can't understand me, blame it on my English!
Schulten believes that Tarsis and Tartessos are the same name, and thus the same city. Only that Tarsis (in fact, Tarschisch) is the semitic name, and Tartessos is the Greek name. Just like we have Lisboa/Lisbon/Lissabon, etc. today.
The bible talks about "Tarsis ships" that each three years came back to Israel (at the time of Solomon) filled with gold, silver, monkeys, turkeys and ivory.
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).
My surprise was that I always thought the turkey is an American species but I don't really know.
That can't be true, since turkeys appear in the Bible.
Is this facts or mere speculation? You don't make that distinction clear and I think it's important.
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.
Oh, at last a point of convergence! If this possibility also exists why is it less likely than the existence of a centralized government at Tartessos City? Why do you take this as a mere posibility and the other as a quasi-certainty?
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.
Of course. I seemed to understand that you stated that Schulten believed in a non-indigenous origin of the Tartessians.
Actually, he did.
That was a very smart answer. But I gathered that your stance on those ghost Greek cities is the same as Tartessos City
I need to read more about them. However, the GarcÃa Bellido book I talked to Harlan about, may provide some answers to this.
See what I was saying above? Why? Just because the ancient texts say it so? You do not seem to have given a thought to my Rhode example above.
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?
"An intellectual is a man who doesn't know how to park a bike"
- Spiro T. Agnew
.
.
Tweet
Comment