Tartessos? Help me defend Schulten's theories!

[Jay Bee]

No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one. Tartessos is sometimes referred to as a city, a kingdom, a region, a river... as you pointed it's sometimes even equated to the biblical Tarshish... in summary, nobody knows what Tartessos actually was, if it was something at all. That the people living in what is today Western Andalusia were far more advanced than the rest of the Iberian tribes and clans, absolutely. That these people were the mythical Tartessian kingdom as described by Schulten. Absolutely not. The paragraphs you quoted belong to the legend, there are no remains to prove that Tartessos existed. Only mouth-to-mouth tales.


PS. Ribannah makes up her own proofs. I just say there is no solid, objective proof at all I think that even the most ardent defenders of Tartessos in this thread would be willing to accept that.

[Harlan]

A few other thoughts on this issue.

I think a problem you have is the high standards of proof that you're setting on this issue. The fact is, sometimes there's lots of data about a particular time and place, and we can demand a high level of evidence to support arguments. Other times, there's practically nothing to go on.

Take the case of the history of India. Because of the tropical climate and the Indian disinclination to record any writing in stone (with the notable exception of Asoka), there are virtually no records whatsoever for Indian culture from a thousand years ago and before, except what outsiders said of them, or stories and religious texts passed down the generations. Does this mean there was no civilization in ancient India? Of course not. But people studying this have to lower their standards of evidence in order to be able to say anything at all.

The situation is the same with Tartessos. We know there was a Tartessos language, because some fragments have survived. But no one can read it, and there are only a few tantalizing fragments. For whatever reason, the town sites are unknown, esp. that of the capital. Compared to other parts in Europe and the Middle East that have been so well researched, this is quite unusual. But compared to some other parts of the world, this is not unusual at all. For instance, right now there is some amazing research going on in Sudan that could completely transform our understand of ancient Egypt (the new thinking being that much of the culture comes from the ancient kingdom of Kush).

Kush was simply forgotten/overlooked as a research area. Unfortunately, the evidence for Tartessos probably could have been found a few decades ago, but now it may be too late. For instance, I saw a really interesting thing once about the bay of Cadiz. In the 1950's, some scuba divers took a look down there, and were completely blown away by the sheer number of ancient wrecks, many going back to the BC's. Literally wrecks on top of wrecks, as far as the eye could see. Unfortunately most of that was destroyed only a few years later by landfill projects.

Another example: just this year a few tablets of an unknown and very ancient language were found in Central Asia. Scientists say this could completely change our notions of what the first civilizations were, and add another one to Egypt, Mesopotamia, Indus and Chinia. We have far more to go on with Tartessos that with that previously unknown Asian culture.

Although evidence is scanty, there is enough evidence to make a reasonable leap that there was an important kingdom in Tartessos. The mere fact that there was a unique written language there is pretty incredible, in my opinion. The fact that it is mentioned by other people at the time and in slightly later times I think is something you reject unfairly as mere fables.

Sure, some things were exaggerated a tad, like the length of a king's reign, but don't use that to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Herodotus in particular had a very good ability to sort out fact from fiction. Time and time again things he described were assumed to be completely BS, only to be proven later. A good example: he tells a story about some young men from Libya who journeyed across the Sahara desert to see what was on the other side. What he describes though didn't jibe well with our geographical knowledge however. But then it turns out that the climate changed greatly in the thousands of years since then. There was a large lake and a swampy region just to the north of Lake Chad that existed in those times and scientists have only recently discovered the lake beds for. Given that, the description of the lands south of the Sahara, times travellled and distances, match remarkably with this new knowledge.

Herotodus has such a remarkable record in fact, that if he says it was so, I'd say the burden of proof should be to prove that he was wrong, not the other way around. The few times he's been found wrong, he'd put a caveat saying along the lines "I don't know how good this info is, but I'll pass it along anyways". Remarkably, even many of those turned out to be true, like the Phoencian circumnavigation of Africa.

Herodotus lived from roughly 484 to 425 BC. When he was a child, people would have still been alive who'd seen the Tartessos Kingdom before its destruction with their own eyes. Less time would have elapsed than between the life of Jesus and the writing of the Book of John, for instance. For him, that was far from some ancient fable lost in the midsts of time, though the founding of Tartessos could fall in that category.

[Jay Bee]

I do not think the problem is that I'm setting high standards on this particular isue. I could also give lots of examples about things that were long believed to be (possibly) true because of the existence of written records that have now been proven utterly false. The best example is the Old Testament.

I am afraid I may have been misunderstood here. I have never denied the existence of a highly developed culture in W. Andalusia. The Turdetans, heirs of that culture, have left tons and tons of findings to prove that beyond any doubt. What I have questioned is all the hype about the existence of a kingdom rich beyond belief, wise beyond belief, etc, etc.

You have mentioned the destruction of the kingdom by the Carthaginians. That's just a working hypothesis that Schulten threw away based on the abrupt end of news on the Silver Country after the Carthaginians took over Phoenician cities in Iberia. One might argue with the same basis that the latter was just due to the fact that the Carthaginians went there, saw nothing and the fairy tale thus evaporated. Anyway, the story that the Carthaginians destroyed Tartessos has been taken as a fact for many and printed and reprinted as such in many books. Why? Only Cos Schulten said it.

About the Tartessian alphabet, I am not aware that such an alphabet existed but I can be wrong, of course. I mean, that the Tartessians had their own, unique alphabet. My understanding is that all Iberian tribes along the Mediterranean border shared the same alphabet and that it was completely lost because of the introduction of Latin. The hypothesis has put forward that Euskara, the language of the Basques, is actually the ancient Iberian language, which the Basques were able to preserve from the Roman assault. See, there are theories for almost everything. I think it is the duty of the Historians to separate the truth from the myth. A herculean task sometimes, I know


PS. I previously compared the mythical kingdom of Tartessos with the more recent myth of Eldorado. Fiera did not buy into it but I still think the comparison is reasonable. There are still people who believe that Eldorado hids somewhere in the Amazon jungle waiting for someone to rescue it back to the books of history.

[Harlan]

Typing in keywords Tartessos and language, here's what I found just now, from a linguistics website. Note Tartessian is several centuries older than anything else in Iberia. This website doesn't go into it, but there does not seem to be any connection between Tartessian characters and Punic - i.e., they didn't seem to just copy from the Phoenicians.



Tartessian: The oldest aboriginal texts known, from VII-VI b.C., are written in Tartessian, a language about which very little is known. These inscriptions, written in a peculiar semi-syllabic writing system, have been found in the SW of the Peninsula, in the general region where Tartessos is supposed to have been. The latest texts can be dated in the IV century b.C.

Iberian: More than 1000 Iberian inscriptions are known. The older ones can be dated V-IV b.C.; they are mostly written in a semisyllabical system. Iberian was spoken in the Eastern regions and beyond the Pyrenees; it vanished in Roman times, though it was possibly spoken even in IV a.D.
As for now, these texts cannot be translated, despite the opinion, held by many, that considers Iberian and Basque to be the same language.This view is more than a hundred years old, but has been supported by few linguists.

Southern Iberian: Another group of inscriptions, dating from VI b.C onwards, found in Southern regions, are written in a variant of the semisyllabic writing. Their language is generally thought to be Iberian, or a variety of Iberian.

Basque: Basque is not recorded before Middle Ages, but we do have some information about Aquitanian, spoken by the French side of the Pyrenaean ridge (I b.C.). It's quite possible that Aquitanian was a language related to Basque, if not just the same language.
Basque is first attested in the Xth Century, in the 'Glosas Emilianenses', side by side with Romance glosses. In fact, many speakers of the neighbouring Romance languages (Castilian, Navarro-Aragonese and Gascon) were bilingual, and some traits are shared just by them (e.g. there's no /v/ sound in any of them).
The territorial extension of Basque is now smaller than in the Middle Ages. Presently it's one of the two official languages in the Spanish Basque Country (Euskadi), but for a majority of Basque people it's not a language learned from their parents. Basque is also spoken in North Navarre and by the other side of the Pyrenees.
Eight dialects of Basque are usually singled out. The official language is called euskera batua, that is unified Basque.
Basque is not a Romance, not even an Indoeuropean language. No relationship with other languages can be confidently assessed; among other proposals, links have been suggested with some of the Caucasian languages (whether with the Kartvelic or the Septentrional stock), with Hamitic (Numidian, Berber), with Iberian, etc. None of these proposals has been widely adopted.

Celtiberian: There are some texts in a Celtic (Indoeuropean) language, written between II b.C. and II a.D., using mostly the Iberian writing system, some of them in Latin abecedarium. Though not well understood, this language is unmistakably identified as Celt. Celtiberians got their name because they were the Celts arounf the Iberus river (cast. Ebro), not because they were a mixture of Celts and Iberians. Their language came to an end around IV-V a.D.

Lusitanian: Dating from Roman times ( I a.D.), a few inscriptions have been found in the West (Spanish Extremadura and Portugal), written in another Indoeuropean language, Lusitanian. Some consider also Lusitanian to be Celt, but usually it's thought to have been more a 'sister' than a 'daughter' to Celt. The languages spoken in the NW were probably more related to Lusitanian than to Celtiberian

[Harlan]

Jesus,
I see your point about how people can go overboard about Tartessos. Just looking it up on the web right now, I see all kinds of wacky theories connecting it to Atlantis and even stranger things. One reference says at one of these mystical sites that it controlled all of Iberia and France!

I also don't know how it came to an end, or what the evidence that the Carthaginians did it is. The starting date of advanced civilization there I also see as very open to question. But given the incredible mineral wealth and all the other signs of advanced culture, plus the lack of foreign colonization, the truly remarkable thing would be if there was no kingdom there, but just a culture.

Actually, I WOULD like you to provide examples of things we once believed true based on ancient records but are now proved false. Of course differentiate between things we've known as myths and legends all along. The Bible I think is an excellent example of purported myths and legends that are turning out to be much truer than we think. Check out:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Scien...ood000914.html

as one example of many. The stories of Jason and the Argonauts, the Odessey, Gilgamesh and so on are time and time again proving to be much better records of actual history than once believed.

The "myth" of El Dorado is yet another that has basis in fact. The details escape me, but there was a native culture deep in the jungle of Venezuela that had a tradition of dropping all of their offerings to their Gods into a lake with very steep sides (actually a volcanic crater). I saw a Discovery channel show on this a few years back where they were now dredging the bottom of this lake and coming up with truly incredible amounts of gold. It is now believed by some researchers that this culture was vaguely known by other pre-Columbians and was the basis for the El Dorado story.

Of course thats not to say some or most of the hype around El Dorado wasn't an attempt to make the Spanish go somewhere else, or self serving adventurer claims. But like most ancient tales, it appears to be an elaboration of real truth, and not something completely made up.

[Jay Bee]

The Tartessian alphabet do not mind to admit that I ignored the existence of a VII-VI BC alphabet distinct from the 'proper' Iberian alphabet. That clearly adds to the existence of a highly developed culture in that area at that time, but I never denied that.

Can you post the full link? I am interested to learn about how different is the Tartessian to the 'proper' Iberian and/or Southern Iberian.


BTW, isn't 3 AM in California right now?

[Jay Bee]

I think it is better if I 'reply with quote' to better answer to your comments

Originally posted by Harlan
Jesus,
I see your point about how people can go overboard about Tartessos. Just looking it up on the web right now, I see all kinds of wacky theories connecting it to Atlantis and even stranger things. One reference says at one of these mystical sites that it controlled all of Iberia and France!

Oh well, thanks. That's pretty much what I have been telling all along! There are theories for almost everything, some are true, others are flase and others are so beautifully false that people believe them.

I also don't know how it came to an end, or what the evidence that the Carthaginians did it is. The starting date of advanced civilization there I also see as very open to question. But given the incredible mineral wealth and all the other signs of advanced culture, plus the lack of foreign colonization, the truly remarkable thing would be if there was no kingdom there, but just a culture.

That's perfectly fine, I think this is basically Fiera's view as well. But opinions do not make facts

Actually, I WOULD like you to provide examples of things we once believed true based on ancient records but are now proved false. Of course differentiate between things we've known as myths and legends all along.

When I mentioned the Bible I was not thinking about the flooding or Adam and Eve. I was thinking about the accounts of Hebrew life in Egypt when they were never there, the tales of the conquest of Jericho and 31 (not sure of the number) other cities which never happened. Very related to our discussion, the
greatness of David or Solomon, when they were much closer to local chieftains than to mighty kings...

For non-biblical examples I would have to go to my books

The Bible I think is an excellent example of purported myths and legends that are turning out to be much truer than we think. Check out:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Scien...ood000914.html
as one example of many. The stories of Jason and the Argonauts, the Odessey, Gilgamesh and so on are time and time again proving to be much better records of actual history than once believed.

Myths usually start with reality. I think we all acknowledge that. BTW, I just read that the story of the flood in the Bible could have been copied verbatim from Gilgamesh.

The "myth" of El Dorado is yet another that has basis in fact. The details escape me, but there was a native culture deep in the jungle of Venezuela that had a tradition of dropping all of their offerings to their Gods into a lake with very steep sides (actually a volcanic crater). I saw a Discovery channel show on this a few years back where they were now dredging the bottom of this lake and coming up with truly incredible amounts of gold. It is now believed by some researchers that this culture was vaguely known by other pre-Columbians and was the basis for the El Dorado story. Of course thats not to say some or most of the hype around El Dorado wasn't an attempt to make the Spanish go somewhere else, or self serving adventurer claims. But like most ancient tales, it appears to be an elaboration of real truth, and not something completely made up.

Yes that's absolutely true. The thing is that the story tellers exaggerated the thing so much that what probably was simply an indian village became the "mightiest kingdom human eyes had seen in the Western Hemisphere". It is likely that a similar thing happened with Tartessos. That's what I have been trying to say from the beginning. I am sorry if you interpreted that my position was that the Tartessiam myth was completely made up. That would have been a very Ribannahian argument.

[Fiera]

Oh, back to a lovely old thread!

Harlan has mostly expressed, in a few posts and in a much better English than I was able to, my stance about the Tartessos problem, so I won't add much to it.

However, I'd like to reply to some of Jesús' points, and I apologize if I'm repeating things I already said seven months ago:

No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one.

I think that you're referring to architectural findings, not to archeological proofs, since these include vases, jewelry, swords, armour pieces, etc., who have indeed been found, in a large number.

Of course, the vases don't show the word "Tartessos" on its surface, but they have been dated through scientific means (you know more than I do about that) as belonging to the 8th and 7th Century bC.

The only existence of these items around that date, and the evidence that they are made of native materials, it's proof enough to state there was a developed civilization in Western AndalucÃa at the time. That said, I think it’s fair we agree to give it the name of Tartessos, even though the very city of Tartessos has not been found.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Thanks for reviving this thread, Harlan! I'd not seen it before. Something struck me in this discussion. There seems to be a consensus that myth is based on some truth but is fanciful.

Myths are cute, basically untrue stories to westerners who have no concept of an oral tradition. So much value is placed on writing that the value of the spoken word is actually degraded! However, the truth is that myths are history. What separates them is how they record history.

Westerners are accustomed to thinking of history as a collection of dates, events, and background to explain the course of what unfolded. In the world of myths, symbology is paramount. The obvious downfall of this method of recording is that it requires a listener who understands what the symbols mean - once a culture vanishes, their myths (even if preserved) become cryptic. For example, characters in myths are often symbols of time. Fox is the protaganist in a story - he does a few things, there is interaction with other characters, and the story ends. Chances are that fox and his interactions tell when the meaning of the story applies - fox represents something in the heavens that can be pinned down in time by when he (literally) interacts with the other characters' sky equivalents. The theme of the story records the event of importance. In other words, who in the story often tells when, what happens remains simply what happened.

Astronomy, unlike in Civ, was the world's first science. (read the book 'Hamlet's Mill' for some good, albeit dry, info) This is almost universal, be it the Inca, the Chinese, the Celts, or anybody. All peoples had constellations, stars, or at least planets to which they adhered names and meaning. Saturn is almost universally the god or hero or giant who gives people intelligence - "fire" in the Greek version. This wasn't the fire over which they cooked the souvlaki, but fire, one of the four elements, representing intelligence and spirit. Why is this? Because Saturn (the planet) is the basis for keeping time while watching the sky. It meets Jupiter every 20 years, a little farther around the horizon (~9 degrees or so).

Anyway, back to my train of thought. Because time can be recorded, it was originally recorded in the same language in which it was comprehended. Just as abstractions of math and philosophy make sense to the human mind, knowing the cycles of the residents of the sky is easily remembered and worked in the mind. What I am trying to convey is that myth is history, but in a language that cannot be completely understood by outsiders. (Note that this excludes fables, stories with a moral meaning)

[Marquis de Sodaq]

back on topic...

D'accord, Fiera! That we haven't found the buildings does not rule out the proof thru other materials that have been found.

Back a few posts there was discussion about whether Carthago may have wiped them out. Who knows? They could just as easily moved into Iberia after the Tartessans collapsed. Filling the void, as it were.

The discussions about Atlantis are best pinned down by Chris62 - the Minoan civ is overwhelmingly the best candidate for a myriad of reasons. These people may have been the parent culture of the Phoneceans (conjecture, as far as I know), who settled Kart-Hadesh and Gades. Cadiz isn't Atlantis, but may retain some of the tradition from the people who actually were from Atlantis.

JB, the Bible is turning out to be a wealth of historical information as archaeologists continue to discover on the ground things from both testaments. OT: Have you read 'Who Wrote the Bible?"? It covers who wrote the pentateuch and the political situations during those times that explain why things were recorded as they were. Very interesting book.

Euskara is likely the oldest living language in europe. It is related to nothing else, altho some have tied it to Caucasus languages and even Chinese based on some unique grammatical characteristics. They may even predate the Celtic 'invasion' of europe many thousands of years ago. No matter what the truth, they certainly get a tip of the hat for longevity.

[Jay Bee]

The following is from Diodorus Siculus, a Roman historian I believe. I'm translating directly from Spanish so excuse the possible errors:

"The natives (Tartessians) ignored the use of the silver and the Phoenicians, after realizing that, bought all the silver from them in exchange for objects of little or no value. And that's the reason why the Phoenicians, when they traded in Greece and Asia Minor with all that silver, obtained great fame and prestige".


Sounds like the Europeans buying Manhattan to the Indians for a few necklaces and bracelets This description is not very compatible with the Tartessians being so mighty and thus contrasts with the descriptions made by Herodotus, Polibius and others. Whom to believe? I am not questioning the veracity of this passage nor saying that I agree with what is contained on it. I think I'm just giving an example that sometimes written documents lack the necessary objectivity. Thus they have to be taken as "suggestive of", not as a proof of anything.

To the risk of bore you with my repeats, I have never denied the existence of an advanced native culture in W. Andalusia which traded with Phoenicians and Greeks. What I vehemently deny is the existence of the mythical kingdom of Tartessos on the sole basis of written accounts.

[Harlan]

Jesus,
We know that you don't think the foreign reports of Tartessos are trustworthy, the Tartessian language cannot be understood, and artifacts cannot definitely tell us if Tartessos was a culture or a kingdom. Ruins of a huge town could be found tomorrow, and you could still say that's just evidence of a culture, not a kingdom. So, the important question is what evidence would satisfy you that there was a kingdom there?

One can build a solid case with enough circumstantial evidence, and many people have been convincted with just that. If there's enough smoke, an intelligent person could figure out there's a fire!

Your statement "No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one" is a bit silly, because understanding of the political organization can only come from written records, not ruins. To use the ancient India example again, one could find dozens of ancient cities in the jungle, but it would be entirely unclear if those were a bunch of city states or one large empire unless one has written records. In this tartessos case we DO have written records by outsiders, but those aren't good enough for you for some reason.

As I said before, the most impressive evidence to me is that of language. In each area, the first uses of language correspond with the bureaucratic needs of kingdoms to help organize their kingdom. Later it would spread from a tiny bureaucratic elite to the recording of business transactions, and then finally to colloquial uses, like Herodotus' history. But there is a clear worldwide pattern of language invention/adoption tied with government bureaucracy needs.

I think you need to take a closer look at the current evidence for the destruction of Jericho and kingdoms of David and Solomon. What's being found is there is a solid basis of truth that has been elaborated on. The David and Solomon case is probably a better example than you realize, because there was a kingdom there, not just a glorified tribe, just as there really was a Tartessian kingdom.

A really good book I'd recommend to everyone without question is called Ancient Mysteries by Peter James. Definitely a reasoned look at many ancient controversies by a serious academic - no "In Search Of" type hokey sensationalism.

Marquis,
I'm highly impressed that you've read Hamlet's Mill. Tough reading to get through. Ancient Mysteries talks about the significance of that book at length. Peter James also has his own theory of Atlantis that is mentioned in that book, and that he's written a whole separate book about. To me, that's the most likely theory so far. This theory places Atlantis in the interior of Western Turkey, of all places. Clearly the least "sexy" of any of the Atlantis theories, even compared to the Thera theory, which is in my opinion why it hasn't become better known.

[Harlan]

An interesting thing to throw out there, re: Tartessos. Tin was quite rare in the ancient world, but a vital ingredient for the bronze of the Bronze Age. The tin from the Cornwall region of England is known to have been traded down into the Mediterreanan since 2500 BC. Other tin sources in Brittany, northern Spain and the Tartessos region itself are known to have been mined and traded since before 1000 BC. It is further known that the Atlantic sea route to move this tin was used since at least 1100 BC.

The question is, who sailed from England to the Eastern Med prior to the Phoenician colonies established about 800 BC? Large quantities of Cornwall tin have been found in southern Spain. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to speculate that the Tartessians may have been trading long distances before the Phoencians ever arrived, though at this point it can only be speculation.

Regarding the Roman quote, there's nothing surprising about that at all. I think we can all agree that southern Spain was chock-a-block in mineral wealth. So the local cost of these minerals would have been quite low, compared to their prices far away. For outsiders, it could have seemed like they were giving the stuff away, in a relative sense. Much of the profit would come in the moving of the items from where they're cheap to where they're expensive. The journey would have been long and fraught with risk.

In the same way, the cost of tin in Cornwall would likely have been several orders of magnitude cheaper than what they sold for in the Eastern Med. If the locals knew what they were selling for over there, that still wouldn't have helped raised prices much at all, due to our understanding of prisoner's dilemma and commons dilemma economics.

We still see many examples of this in the world today. Raw materials at their source point are often many times lower than what they cost on the other side of the world. The locals aren't being taken in - that's just what the market can bear. Its like the proverbial trying to sell snow to the Eskimos.

[Jay Bee]

Originally posted by Harlan
Jesus,
We know that you don't think the foreign reports of Tartessos are trustworthy, the Tartessian language cannot be understood, and artifacts cannot definitely tell us if Tartessos was a culture or a kingdom. Ruins of a huge town could be found tomorrow, and you could still say that's just evidence of a culture, not a kingdom. So, the important question is what evidence would satisfy you that there was a kingdom there?

Ruins of huge towns, exactly that. All what has been found to date are ruins from small settlements which are not consistent with the existence of a great kingdom over there. You say this could be found tomorrow. If it is, then we'll have to change the account as has been done many times in the past. If such a town(s) was to be found be sure I would not still say that's just evidence of a culture, not a kingdom. I am shocked that you may think that way. Ruins and the objects found within them may tell you many things, really.

One can build a solid case with enough circumstantial evidence, and many people have been convincted with just that. If there's enough smoke, an intelligent person could figure out there's a fire!

I think you are very wrong here. Law may work on circumstantial evidence, I do not deny it, That's probably why so many convicted people have later been found innocent. Science, good and solid science, doesn't work on circumstantial evidence. I am again surprised that you have made such a statement. Well, you will probably argue that History is not a science. I'd accept that.

Your statement "No Harlan, there isn't a single archeological proof for the existence of the kingdom of Tartessos. Not even one" is a bit silly, because understanding of the political organization can only come from written records, not ruins.

That's okay but ruins of a mighty palace may tell you how important that 'king' was. Objects, tombs, etc... again, ruins and what comes with them may tell you many things. Also, what kind of written records are you talking about? Those found in situ, or those left by people whose verosimilitude cannot be assessed?

To use the ancient India example again, one could find dozens of ancient cities in the jungle, but it would be entirely unclear if those were a bunch of city states or one large empire unless one has written records. In this tartessos case we DO have written records by outsiders, but those aren't good enough for you for some reason.

I cannot tell about your Indian example because my knowledge on that topic is zero. About the writings, read again the passage I posted above. We do not know if Herodotus, Polibius, Strabo, Diodorus and others were telling the truth, were just telling what others told to them without verifying the source, or were just making up some details. I am really surprised that you do not accept this line of thinking. It's not that all they came up independently to the same conclusions, it's that 1 was using the accounts of 2, 2 was using the acounts of 3, etc, etc...

I think you need to take a closer look at the current evidence for the destruction of Jericho

As a believer, it would really make me happy that you refute what I am going to write. The conquest of Jericho by the Hebrews occurred in the XIII century BC. Archeology suggests that Jericho likely did not exist at that time and if it existed, it was little more than a non-fortified settlement and not the mighty walled-town the Bible describes. Same with most other cities conquered by the Hebrews at that time. My conclusion is that the Hebrews never conquered Canaan by military means as the Bible relates.

and kingdoms of David and Solomon. What's being found is there is a solid basis of truth that has been elaborated on. The David and Solomon case is probably a better example than you realize, because there was a kingdom there, not just a glorified tribe, just as there really was a Tartessian kingdom.

From what I know there is no irrefutable evidence that either David or Solomon ever existed. There is no evidence for a unified Hebrew monarchy with capital in Jerusalem at that time. It is surprising that if such a monarchy existed, its neighbors did not documented it in any form. Solomon is said to have married the daughter of a Pharaoh of unknown name. No Egyptian source has been found to verify this.

Please do not take from this that I am saying that the Old Teastament is bull****. Nothing farther from my thought. What I am trying to say is that the Bible is only loosely based on historical facts and that a good part of it is exaggeration, and prefabricated truth. In the absence of independent confirmatory evidence, the Bible should be taken by what it is, a religious book not a historical treatise. The ancient texts by Herodotus et al, however interesting, have the same problem; independent evidence has not been found to accept that what they say is the truth.



We are not going to reach an agreement on this. You, like Fiera, think that circumstantial evidence gathered from unverified sources is meaningful to tell History. I, as a scientist, can't.

PS. The general tone of your last post made me think that perhaps I hurt your feelings by something that I wrote. If that's true please accept my apologies, I think it's pretty obvious that I'm not trying to bash anything or anyone.

[Fiera]

Originally posted by Harlan
The question is, who sailed from England to the Eastern Med prior to the Phoenician colonies established about 800 BC? Large quantities of Cornwall tin have been found in southern Spain. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to speculate that the Tartessians may have been trading long distances before the Phoencians ever arrived, though at this point it can only be speculation.

Yes, this is one of Schulten's theories. In fact, he thought that these people, sailing to England as early as 2000 bC, were probably of Minoic origin.

We still see many examples of this in the world today. Raw materials at their source point are often many times lower than what they cost on the other side of the world. The locals aren't being taken in - that's just what the market can bear. Its like the proverbial trying to sell snow to the Eskimos.

Yes, I fully agree with your explanation on how silver was a common and very cheap good to the Tartessians. In fact, this is a historical feature that can be very easily depicted into your Civ3 scn, given that Civ3 will deal with resources in this way, more or less.