 |
| |
|
|
Fiera
|
 |
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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 mí es importante:
La historia se hace con lo que otros pueblos, anteriores a nosotros, escribieron.
No se puede hacer historia de aquellos períodos de los que no conservamos documentos escritos. Se puede hacer Arqueología, 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 ahí 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 científico 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 Ilíada, 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 sí habían existido, ¿por qué no iba a haber existido Troya?
Así penso Schliemann, y, modestamente, yo opino que así debe pensar la historia. La existencia de un documento escrito asegurando una cosa no prueba nada por sí 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 científico, 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 prolongadísima lluvia que causó grandes inundaciones. Los arqueólogos han encontrado ciudades sumerias en Mesopotamia sepultados bajo el lodo traído por las inundaciones. La gente que vivía en aquellas ciudades, o bien murió, o bien tuvo que ir a refugiarse a regiones más montañosas. Está claro que no duró cuarenta días, 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 tendría incluir en un tratado político-comercial una region misteriosa, mítica y conocida sólo de oídas por los firmantes del mismo? Esto indicó que existía un "reino tartésico" y que ambas repúblicas tenían, o habían tenido, relaciones con él.
Respecto a lo de Tartessos destruída 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).]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
RobRoy
|
|
Sorry for crashing into an ongoing discussion without necessarily having all the background, but I can't resist unresolvable historical debates.
I'm confused, however, as to the exact nature of the question, however. Could some patient soul explain to me:
- Are we specifically defending/questioning the theories and suppositions of Adolf Schulten's works regarding Tartessos, as the thread title suggests? In whole or in part?
- Or are we doubting whether some other attritubutes frequently associated with Tartessos are feasible or whether they are purely speculative?
- Or are we doubting whether tribes and/or cultures and/or towns called Tartessian ever actually existed at all?
- Or are trying to determine where, precisely, Tartessos was located, be it town or region, or what areas the culture encompassed or influenced?
- Or are we trying to determine whether it can be tied to the biblical Tarshish?
I was under the very strong impression that there is abundant archeological data regarding the existence of tribes who have been given the name "Tartessian", which generally includes the Turdetani. They, supposedly, prospered from trade with the Phoenicians, until destroyed by them (circa 500BC). I also had long operated under the assumption that the region near Sevilla was the strongest candidate for the central site(s) of Tartessos.
But are we talking about aspects of this Tartessos, or some more mythical one?
Seems to me the Troya analogy is a good one. There is clearly evidence of some pre-Phoenician Iberian culture in the region. But what exactly can be said about it, and how much is myth is certainly debatable.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Prometeus
|
 |
of Old Europe - "In America we don't trust"
Jun 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
Sorry, but a name is only "flatus vocis"... working on scen ( and reading history ) i learned two things well:
1) names can be easily usurped to create economic relations or to gain prestige and political power ( an example: european Western Avars, that were not related to asiatic Eastern Avars, usurped that name to gain utigurs and Kutrigurs' aid against Byzantium and southern Slavs, especially Antes... );
2) archeological proofs can be deviating sometimes; the Golasecca-Insubrian quaestio in Northern Italy docet - they were Celts or not? Only when they found that "lepontian" inscrpition with that celtic name put in genitive form( "kaisios" ) placed into an insubrian settlement they were able to stab that Golasecca tribes, Insubrian and Lepontians were the same. Not to mention this destroyed the equivalence La Tenè = Celts... indeed, Golasecca facies owned very unique features.
A single name is too litle to surely identify an unknown tribe, not to mention that phoenicians never used vowels in their inscriptions, so i think that unless archelogists will have as we say in romanesque dialect "'na 'nticchia de' culo" ( english: a bit of fortune... ) to find a town with an indigenous inscription - and i mean like Seutopolis in Thracia, where they found a peace theatry with Macedonians right in that place mentioned by greek historicians ( the Dionisus' temple ), so they were able to surely identify that town as Seutopolis - tartessos will be confined into fogs of Limbo and Legends Land.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 11:58 AM
No help needed, you did answer it I like the theory that the Canaries could have been Atlantis... even the Civ2 creators seem to believe in it; see where they placed Atlantis in the scenario that is included in the Fantastic Worlds add-on
|
Mick Uhl made that scenario, and a large number of the historical ones in FW add on. I know of him, he was board wargame designer for Avalon Hill since the 1970s, and always had rather exotic ideas. Back on point: Plato transcribed Solon's work, which in turn transcribed Eygptian sources. Thera even fits the physical descriptuion of Atlantis before it's eruption (City on an island, surrounded by sea, which in turn was surrounded by mountains). The city was constructed on a volcano, whose cone had blown off in pre-history. The ruins have the features Plato discribes (In-door plumbing, hot and cold running water, sewer system). Unfortunatly, scholars still can't read Linear A, their langauge (The Minoans, or as Plato called them, the Atlantians). It is believed that Thera was the Minoan(Atlantian) capitol. Back to the Canaries question: Have any of the features I discribed (plumbing and such) ever been found there that date from at least 1500 BC? If there are, I never heard of it. This doesn't preclude that Phonicians settled there. The Phonicians are most likey the survivors of the Minoan(atlantian) culture, as they suddenly appear in the Levant at that time, and where the best seafares of the anciet world. So you see, from this logic, that the Canares could have been settled by the Minoan/Atlantian/Phoniecians, but it can't be the seat of their power, and thus, cannot be the Atlantis of Plato. I hope this clears this up some, but I suspect it will ony add confusion to this discussion.
------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jay Bee
|
 |
Valladolid, CA
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
Well, let's summarize the debate til this point. It looks as though there were two 'irreconciliable' factions here (plus the 'inevitable' neutrals ).
1) those who accept the existence of Tartessos on the sole basis of ancient writings that cannot be verified as truthful (Fiera, Waku)
2) Those who do not discard that Tartessos might have existed but can't accept the existing evidence (to call it something) as a valid one (Jay Bee, Prometeus)
3) the Neutrals, who haven't yet aligned with one of the previous groups (cpoulos, Masis, RobRoy). Importantly though, Masis has presented some cogent evidence that Tartessos was, with all likelihood, not the Biblical Tarshish.
Despite his deep alignment with the believers, Waku recognized in a previous post that there is no conmclusive proof for the existence of Tartessos. All we have is circumstantial evidence. Fair enough?
As I proposed before, I'd like to orient the debate into more advantageous avenues. Specifically, how close to reality is the myth of Tartessos? Which is exactly based upon? It is undeniable that there is lots and lots of writings about Tartessos. Are all of them opportunistic, or they only point out to the fact that, no matter what Archeology may (not) say, Tartessos is truly the origin of Hispania?
I'd also like the 'believers' to explain to me why they find so plausible the Tartessian myth in comparison with similar myths such as Eldorado or the Seven cities of Gold
Let's finish this post by stating that, regardless of whether Tartessos existed or not, it has been pivotal to Spain's history. The myth/reality of Tartessos was the main reason that moved the Greeks to visit the peninsula and hence, to push Hispania up onto the pages of History (MarkG would like this )
[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
Not my thinking, I'd say, but rather your thinking, since you've been the one to make the statement that History is only made with solid proofs. As I'm trying to tell you, History may work with logics in the absence of proofs...
Ningún historiador ni académico podrá quejarse de tu trabajo si, investigando sobre un tema poco claro, que no ofrece "pruebas" materiales, estudias todas las fuentes documentales disponibles y extraes de ellas una conclusión lógica y coherente. Tenemos que vivir con ello. Si no, hay muchas cosas que no podríamos aceptar.
Pero la lógica lleva a dar la razón a los historiadores romanos, por las razones que todos sabemos: parece ser que los cartagineses terminaron su presencia en Sicilia, y que se dedicaron a la explotación minera de España, presumiblemente para pagar las sanciones que les habían impuesto los vencedores romanos
Estos dos últimos hechos vienen a ser confirmaciones tan débiles como pruebas, desde el punto de vista de lo material, como las que Schulten propuso para respaldar la existencia de Tartessos. Pero a mí me valen, igual que les han valido a todos los historiadores hasta la fecha, que yo sepa.
Perdona que me haya puesto un poco pesado con el tema, pero creo que esta es quizá la discusión más interesante que he tenido nunca en Apolyton.
[guess what? I did it again. I am really sorry for being so sloppy. I was able to slavage most of your original post. I am so embarrassed  ]
[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by RobRoy on 03-03-2001 03:58 PM
I was under the very strong impression that there is abundant archeological data regarding the existence of tribes who have been given the name "Tartessian", which generally includes the Turdetani. They, supposedly, prospered from trade with the Phoenicians, until destroyed by them (circa 500BC).
|
I am glad you joined in, RobRoy, that's exactly the theory that I'm trying to support here...
Interesting that you brought the Turdetani. The Greeks and Roman had documented ralations with them, so I guess their existence it's enough "proved" this way. Well, they were a rather developed people, unlike other Iberian tribes. It is, once again, very logical, to think that they inherited a civilized legacy from older peoples that lived in their territory, like the Romans inherited some of their art from the Etruscan, etc.
Schulten states this as well.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jay Bee
|
|
Valladolid, CA
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Not my thinking, I'd say, but rather your thinking, since you've been the one to make the statement that History is only made with solid proofs. As I'm trying to tell you, History may work with logics in the absence of proofs...
|
Logics... interesting. You find it logical that Argantonio, king of Tartessos reigned for over 80 years? That's what Herodotus wrote. I see it again as a philosophical problem. What's the barrier between logical vs ilogical thinking? Who or what draws that barrier? To Prometeus and me the answer is pretty straightforward
quote:
Ningún historiador ni académico podrá quejarse de tu trabajo si, investigando sobre un tema poco claro, que no ofrece "pruebas" materiales, estudias todas las fuentes documentales disponibles y extraes de ellas una conclusión lógica y coherente. Tenemos que vivir con ello. Si no, hay muchas cosas que no podríamos aceptar.
|
I could not agree more with that. However, a logical course of action would then to recognize our own limitations and state our 'conclusions' with the appropriate cautionary measures. It was you, not me, who said that Schulten had given definite proof for the existence of Tartessos. Do you still maintain that?
quote:
Pero la lógica lleva a dar la razón a los historiadores romanos, por las razones que todos sabemos: parece ser que los cartagineses terminaron su presencia en Sicilia, y que se dedicaron a la explotación minera de España, presumiblemente para pagar las sanciones que les habían impuesto los vencedores romanos.
|
History is written by the victors, we all know that. Is it our mission to simply accept that or rather investigate deeper in search of definite answers? There are many dark points in our history, we all know that too, e.g. contrary to popular belief Almanzor did not die in Calatañazor, what really happened in Roncesvaux? Did the Guadalete battle really take place in the Guadalete? Did Pelayo ever exist? etc, etc. To settle for the most logical explanation is okay as a starting point but does not satisfy my curiosity.
quote:
Estos dos últimos hechos vienen a ser confirmaciones tan débiles como pruebas, desde el punto de vista de lo material, como las que Schulten propuso para respaldar la existencia de Tartessos. Pero a mí me valen, igual que les han valido a todos los historiadores hasta la fecha, que yo sepa.
|
Agreed. However do not miss the fact that, unlike the First Punic War example, Schulten's theories about Tartessos are highly controversial.
quote:
Perdona que me haya puesto un poco pesado con el tema, pero creo que esta es quizá la discusión más interesante que he tenido nunca en Apolyton.
|
Oh no, al contrario, esto esta cantidad de entretenido. Tu tienes tu punto de vista y yo el mio y es divertido confrontarlos. Si todos estuviesemos de acuerdo, de que cogno podriamos discutir? Yo llevo en Apolyton desde el principio y coincido tambien en que esta es la discusion mas interesante que he tenido aqui. Quise extender la fun a otra thread (atlantis), esta vez en clave de broma, pero lamentablemente no ha funcionado. Y es que nunca segundas partes fueron buenas.
[This message has been edited by Jay Bee (edited March 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Fiera
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Bee on 03-03-2001 07:29 PM
Logics... interesting. You find it logical that Argantonio, king of Tartessos reigned for over 80 years? That's what Herodotus wrote.
|
No. Again, using logics, historians have thought of two possible facts that made Herodotus write that: either Argantonios reigned for a very long time (not necessarily 80 years, he could have reigned for 60 years however), or there were two or three "Tartessian" kings called Argantonios, who Herodotus took for the same person. Using my own intuition and logics, I am for the first choice.
quote:
I see it again as a philosophical problem. What's the barrier between logical vs ilogical thinking? Who or what draws that barrier? To Prometeus and me the answer is pretty straightforward
|
I think you just have to dismiss fantastic elements, and retain what's essential. As Waku pointed out, several ancient authors talked about an advanced kingdom in SW Spain. Nothing fantastic about it, IMO. But those authors gave some details about the Kingdom /ie Arganthonio's long life) that are unbelievable for us. Those I don't take seriously, as no one would, but, tell me, why would have anyone (sailors, travellers, whatever) invented the existence of such a Kingdom? Then again, that's not logical to me.
quote:
I could not agree more with that. However, a logical course of action would then to recognize our own limitations and state our 'conclusions' with the appropriate cautionary measures.
|
Right. History are not like Mathematics. I think we all accept that. It seems to me that you're asking for such a clear evidence of the existence of Tartessos as Pythagore's Theorem.
quote:
It was you, not me, who said that Schulten had given definite proof for the existence of Tartessos. Do you still maintain that?
|
Well, I talked about quite defined proofs. Which is rather confusing, I confess...
What I meant is that all written sources lead towards the evidence that a Kingdom, and possibly a city too, called Tartessos by the Greeks, indeed existed. That's what Schulten defends in its book. I still maintain that.
quote:
To settle for the most logical explanation is okay as a starting point but does not satisfy my curiosity.
|
OK. Are you ready to join me in an archeologiccal expedition to find Tartessos' ruins then? 
quote:
However do not miss the fact that, unlike the First Punic War example, Schulten's theories about Tartessos are highly controversial.
|
So were Schliemann's theories about Troy...
quote:
Yo llevo en Apolyton desde el principio y coincido tambien en que esta es la discusion mas interesante que he tenido aqui.
|
Gracias, tío. ¡Para mí es un honor!
[This message has been edited by Fiera (edited March 03, 2001).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jay Bee
|
|
Valladolid, CA
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
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
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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
|
|
Valladolid, CA
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
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
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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, Andalucía'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 río 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
|
|
Proud Member of the Spanish Gang
Mar 2000
time: 06:14
|
|
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 García 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?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlan
|
|
Berkeley, CA, USA
Aug 2005
time: 21:14
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-03-2001 10:23
Maybe they would listen to a moderator....
|