Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Jay Bee]

quote: 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. I think you just have to dismiss fantastic elements, and retain what's essential.

Fine, but you haven't answered my question. Who or what draws the line between what is and what is not logical? Intution is too subjective I think, as is dismissal of fantastic elements. One needs reproducibility.

quote: 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.

No one has denied that. There is lots and lots of circumstantial evidence in favor of Tartessos. But circumstantial evidence does not provide a final answer to the problem.

Let's try this way: ancient writings are consistent with the existence of an advanced kingdom in SW Spain. Another of my weird examples: the front teeth of a rabbit are consistent with it being a rodent... however a rabbit is not a rodent. See my point? Chances still are, as slight as you want them to be, that Tartessos was an invention. That's been my point.

quote: tell me, why would have anyone (sailors, travellers, whatever) invented the existence of such a Kingdom? Then again, that's not logical to me.

No, you tell me, why would have the Amerindians invented the existence of Eldorado and Cibola? More to the point, why would have the conquistadors lied when affirmed thy had seen them?

quote: Right. History are not like Mathematics.

But Archeology and Geography are! And that's why History can't (shouldn't)live without these!

quote: 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.

And I agree with that 100%. I do not think anybody disagrees with that, although many would rather write 'notion' instead of 'evidence'. A very minor change anyway. However I have boldfaced the word 'possibly', just in case somebody may miss this word

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

Wouldn't it be fun? We might spend the rest of our lives though!



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

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 09:13 PM Let's try this way: ancient writings are consistent with the existence of an advanced kingdom in SW Spain.

Right. Put it that way if you want to. Given that consistency, all I can say is that the Kingdom of Tartessos is more likely to have existed than to ever have not.

quote: No, you tell me, why would have the Amerindians invented the existence of Eldorado and Cibola?

They had plenty of reasons... to send the Conquistadors far away from their homes, in a quest that would never end, to have them happy in the hope they would get to find gold, thus preventing getting killed, etc, etc...

quote: More to the point, why would have the conquistadors lied when affirmed thy had seen them?

Notoriety, mercy, and much more reasons... Please remember that nor the Conquistadors neither the Amerindians were writing history, as Herodotus, Labienus and Polibius(sp?) were. They lied for an advantage, a profit, whatever... But Herodotus couldn't get any profit out of inventing Tartessos, the way I see it...

quote: But Archeology and Geography are!

Archeology like Mathematics??? You must be kidding now...

And Geography... well, you know, land borders change, continental mases may have moved along the centuries... so and so on...

But I agree that History shouldn't live without them.

quote: And I agree with that 100%. I do not think anybody disagrees with that, although many would rather write 'notion' instead of 'evidence'. A very minor change anyway.

It seems like we an getting to some agreement points then.

You asked how close to reality was the myth of Tartessos. You agree 100% with the fact that all written sources lead towards the notion/evidence ( ) of its existence as a city and/or a Kingdom, so... that's the answer you were looking for.

quote: Wouldn't it be fun? We might spend the rest of our lives though!

Lol! That would be a dream of a life anyway, at least for me!


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

[Jay Bee]

quote: Right. Put it that way if you want to. Given that consistency, all I can say is that the Kingdom of Tartessos is more likely to have existed than to ever have not.

Well, that statement sounds a bit weird to me from a scientific point of view but I know that you trust more the logic and intuition

quote: They had plenty of reasons... to send the Conquistadors far away from their homes, in a quest that would never end, to have them happy in the hope they would get to find gold, thus preventing getting killed, etc, etc... Notoriety, mercy, and much more reasons... Remember that they were not writing history, as Herodotus, Labienus and Polibius(sp?) were. They lied for an advantage, a profit, whatever... But Herodotus couldn't get any profit out of inventing Tartessos, as I see it...

Herdotus may be not... but what about his sources? What about the travellers/traders who visited Tartessos. Let's not forget that regardless of whether Tartessos existed or not, Southern Andalusia was extraordinarily rich in metals (that is a fact ). Don't you see the greed factor in here? Basically a good bunch of the reasons you have given me re eldorado might be applicable here as well.

quote: Archeology like Mathematics??? You must be kidding now...

I did not explain myself very well here . You said (more or less) that in the absence of proofs History applies logical thinking plus intuition. I meant to say that Archeology does not work like that and thus it'd be closer to Maths.

quote: And Geography... well, you know, land borders change, continental mases may have moved along the centuries... so and so on...

Exactly. How can you study all that? thanks to the solid logic & intuition or thanks to what has been learned thru the scientific method?

quote: But I agree that History shouldn't live without them.

Uffff!!!

quote: It seems like we an getting to some agreement points then. You asked how close to reality was the myth of Tartessos. You agree 100% with the fact that all written sources lead towards the notion/evidence ( ) of its existence as a city and/or a Kingdom so... that's the answer you were looking for.

Hmmm, not exactly.... then the question would remain as to how close to reality all these written sources are, so we'd back to the begining Arguments such as those made regarding Turdetania is what I would like to see discussed. For example, what does it mean that the Turdetans coined currency with the (reputedly) Tartessian eight-pointed star, etc, etc...

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 10:31 PM What about the travellers/traders who visited Tartessos. Let's not forget that regardless of whether Tartessos existed or not, Southern Andalusia was extraordinarily rich in metals (that is a fact ). Don't you see the greed factor in here? Basically a good bunch of the reasons you have given me re eldorado might be applicable here as well.

But don't you see the difference between both cases? As you've kindly stated, AndalucÃa's wealth in metals was a fact, but the wonderful El Dorado could never be found. In the Tartessos tales, the greed factor was motivated for something that actually existed.

Let's give one more step, with help of intuition.

If there was only metals, but not a rich city, neither a developed Kingdom, travellers would have just said something like: "I've seen mountains where copper fills the rivers with enormous plenty..."

They wouldn't have invented the Kingdom and the city. There was no need to do so. In fact, travellers' tales about the Pyrenees told more or less what I said above (but with silver, I think?). They didn't mention a city or a very rich king, because there weren't any of them. The region was of enough interest to the Greeks for its natural riches, so there was no need to invent kingdoms or populated cities.

You follow my logic, don't you? Como decimos nosotros, cuando el rÃo suena, agua lleva.

quote: Arguments such as those made regarding Turdetania is what I would like to see discussed. For example, what does it mean that the Turdetans coined currency with the (reputedly) Tartessian eight-pointed star, etc, etc...

Right. Fair enough, I'll try to look for something about that.

BTW, I've just remembered something which might be interesting. Tacitus quoted, in the narration of an episode very similar to Fuenteovejuna, happened whilst the Roman conquest of Iberia, the next sentence, suposedly said by an Arevaccean to a Roman officer:

"Here exists yet the Ancient Spain". (Again, my translation...)

Roman sources have repeteadly showed us that the inhabitants of Iberia were very proud of its old laws and traditions... Isn't that somewhat revealing too?

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

[Fiera]

Sorry, guys, I'm gonna speak in Spanish for I can't make myself enough clear in English...

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-02-2001 05:46 PM Ancient texts are made of stories, legends and myths. They may provide us with indications, hints, but let alone, prove nothing. Following the same logic, we should all agree that Earth was created in 6 days, that there was a Flood that lasted 40 days and 40 nights, etc, etc.

Repito lo que dije, porque para mà es importante:

La historia se hace con lo que otros pueblos, anteriores a nosotros, escribieron.

No se puede hacer historia de aquellos perÃodos de los que no conservamos documentos escritos. Se puede hacer ArqueologÃa, pero no Historia. Los arqueólogos pueden encontrar una ciudad o un asentamiento, pero sin vestigios escritos, nunca sabrán cómo se llamaba esa ciudad, cómo se llamaban sus reyes, a qué otras ciudades sojuzgaba y cuáles eran sus aliadas, etc. Eso es lo que nos cuenta la historia.

De ahà la importancia de cualquier fuente escrita. Lo que ocurre es que, gracias al influjo sucesivo de empirismo y positivismo, corrientes a las que imagino que tú como cientÃfico te adhieres , empezó a dudarse de aquello que estaba escrito pero no confirmado con hechos o pruebas "tangibles".

Se pensó que la guerra de Troya era un mito sólo porque nadie encontraba las ruinas de la ciudad. Se pensó que no sólo eran ficticios los personajes de la IlÃada, sino también los acontecimientos en ella narrados, y hasta la propia ciudad, centro de la narración. Pero, si las ciudades aqueas citadas por el poema, como Esparta, Argos o Micenas sà habÃan existido, ¿por qué no iba a haber existido Troya?

Asà penso Schliemann, y, modestamente, yo opino que asà debe pensar la historia. La existencia de un documento escrito asegurando una cosa no prueba nada por sà 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 cientÃfico, tienes que reconocerlo.

Respecto al ejemplo del diluvio, te diré que textos de diferentes civilizaciones como la sumeria, la la del Indo y la hebrea registran una prolongadÃsima lluvia que causó grandes inundaciones. Los arqueólogos han encontrado ciudades sumerias en Mesopotamia sepultados bajo el lodo traÃdo por las inundaciones. La gente que vivÃa en aquellas ciudades, o bien murió, o bien tuvo que ir a refugiarse a regiones más montañosas. Está claro que no duró cuarenta dÃas, eso es accesorio, pero cuando un pueblo registra un mito, está haciéndose eco de un hecho real.

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. ¿Qué sentido tendrÃa incluir en un tratado polÃtico-comercial una region misteriosa, mÃtica y conocida sólo de oÃdas por los firmantes del mismo? Esto indicó que existÃa un "reino tartésico" y que ambas repúblicas tenÃan, o habÃan tenido, relaciones con él.

Respecto a lo de Tartessos destruÃda por los cartagineses, dáme tiempo, que lo busque en el libro y te diré en qué se basaba...

Sorry again for using Spanish in this post, but doing it in English would have taken me very long...



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

[Waku]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-02-2001 05:46 PM Ancient texts are made of stories, legends and myths. They may provide us with indications, hints, but let alone, prove nothing.

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.

[Henrik]

Couldn't you make a scenario about this place/kingdom/city, it is would be a great subject for a fantasy/semi-historical scenario.

[Jay Bee]

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 03-04-2001 06:44 AM Couldn't you make a scenario about this place/kingdom/city, it is would be a great subject for a fantasy/semi-historical scenario.

That's an excellent idea Henrik. Any takers? (*looks shamelessly to Waku and/or Fiera* )

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-04-2001 08:40 AM That's an excellent idea Henrik. Any takers? (*looks shamelessly to Waku and/or Fiera* )

Errr... I must confess that I did once a scn called Tartessos, but without FW and events... The map was horrible, and I'm afraid I don't keep the files anymore...

I got all the info from Schulten's book and from GarcÃa Bellido's "España y los españoles hace 2000 años". I remember the tribes were the Tartessians, the independent Phoenicians (Gadir, Malaka, Sexi and other cities), the Iberians, the Ligurs, the Celtics, the Greeks, the Etruscans and the Carthaginians. The objective was either conquer Tartessos (as the Carthaginians) or defend Tartessos till the end of the game. Tartessos and the Greeks were allies, while the Carthaginians had an alliance with the Etruscans, but were in war with the independent Phoenicians, as it's believed that, after the Conquest of Tiro by the Babylonians (around 580 b.C., I seem to remember), Carthago took command of all the Phoenician colonies in southern Spain that were isolated from its metropolis, possibly after making war with them.

It was a fun idea, but I had very little experience with Civ2... would there be any interest in such a scn, or you take it as a too fantastic idea?

[Jay Bee]

quote: would there be any interest in such a scn, or you take it as a too fantastic idea?

No, I personally find it quite appealing. In addition it would not be very time-consuming, as most of the graphics are available and the storyline is well defined.

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by Fiera on 03-04-2001 12:36 PM Whay do you experts think? Shall I open a separate thread to gather ideas about the scn, so we can keep the historical discussion here?

Well, I'm no expert in scenario design, but this was on my list of scenario requests. It can be done, and the way to go with tech is to let different civs research different tech trees. Tartessos foe example, should have nothing but future tech, but have everything it needs in the begining, and just try to stay alive. The Greeks and Cathigians/phonecians (depending on which you prefer) could be searching for almost everything, but have a good defensive unit, so that they would be hard to wipe out, but they would have to research for offensive units, and so on. A new thread would probaly be better, as this is now over 50+ posts, and people might miss it, buried so far down.


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

[Fiera]

That's true. I don't keep the scn file, but I keep the units I made for it. Look at the Battering Ram, the Phoenician ship and the Hoplite at my Units section.

Re-making this scn is an interesting idea. It would take to its end the absence of early, "pre-of Celts and Iberians" scenarios about the PenÃnsula...

Now I'm not very sure, but I think I didn't include any tech research in the game, it was thought more as an exploration + conquest game for the Carthaginians... However, if played as the Tartessians, some research could be interesting...

Whay do you experts think? Shall I open a separate thread to gather ideas about the scn, so we can keep the historical discussion here?

[Jay Bee]

A new thread about this scenario would be an excellent idea. Go ahead please. I asume you are interested in resurrecting your previous exercise If you finally go I might be able to help you out (to get the scenario not too Schulten-oriented, he, he , j/k)

[Henrik]

I offer my help too (you haven't seen any of my scenarios yet, but I have a scenario in playtesting stage about the period 1655-1660)...
I could maybe help whit this kind of scenario too?

[Harlan]

Hi,
This is a long dead discussion, I realize. However, its new to me. Jesus I can't believe you don't "believe" in the Tartessus kingdom! Do you realize this puts you on the same side as Ribannah on this? Speaking of which, I posted the below in the big thread about including Spain in the game. It was taken from an encyclopedia (forget which one, that was a long time ago already). The point is, it is not as controversial as you think - this entry accepts it as fact.

Tartessus

Tartessus was the first indigenous historical kingdom in Spain, based in the Andalusia region. This kingdom grew wealthy and advanced surprisingly early, mostly due to the large mineral wealth nearby. Its founding remains unknown, but the Phoenicians established a colony in Cadiz in 1100 B.C. to trade with it. Cadiz was founded 500 years before more famous Phoenician settlements like Carthage, and in fact is the first city on mainland Europe, since the capital and other cities of the Tartessians remain unknown.

The Tartessians had a writing system (as yet untranslated) but almost no literature has survived. The Tartessians are mentioned frequently by the Greeks and Romans however, and are even mentioned in the Bible (as the Tarshish). The Tartessians traded widely along the African and European coasts, including trade with the British Isles for the tin found there.

The Tartessians kept a record of written laws, had advanced farming practices, knew how to manufacture metals, and developed large urban centers. Their kingdom was destroyed around 500 B.C. by the Carthaginians. The Carthaginians occupied the coastal areas, and inland the Tartessians were replaced by other, smaller Iberian kingdoms.