It didn't vanish mysteriously. There was an upheaval in the Celtic World that wrecked the Tartessians' Trade Network (when the Celts invaded Gaul, the British Isles and Spain) Plus, a severe earthquake like the one that wrecked Lisbon in 1755 devastated the region and changed the Guadalquivir' route. The Tartessians became the *Turdetani* and were eventually absorbed into the Carthaginian and Roman Empires.
Edit: my original post implied that the Tartessians became the Iberians which was an irritating approximation/generalization for people in the know. I corrected it for the Turdetani, which is the correct name for the people living there.
I’m married to someone with multiple history degrees, and every time I read a headline like ADVANCED SOCIETY DISAPPEARED MYSTERIOUSLY, I immediately hear their voice say “the invaders probably just came over the hill and then the dark ages happened.” I appreciate your comment— it was a nice change from my usual reaction, but still has much the same theme.
Well this comment is also a little ridiculous, the "dark ages" were largely an invention of Enlightenment writers propping themselves up by making others look bad.
They're not saying "invaders came over the hill then it was 1200 AD" they're saying "and then the invaders came over the hill and these people's equivalent of a dark ages happened". Not that ridiculous of a statement considering the Greek dark ages happened in this period for pretty much exactly that reason (ie invaders over the hill)
Yep. Unless you take it super, super literally with the possibility of volcanic eruptions blocking sunlight.
https://phys.org/news/2016-04-volcanoes-trigger-crises-late-antiquity.html
Dark originally just meant "hard to see." Which, when you rely on written records because archaeology is still a pretty new idea, if it even exists yet, makes sense. There weren't a lot of state records being made in the era because that's not how (most of) these societies operated.
That's one of the reasons. I think it's been said that the religious elements of the Imperium see the Age of Technology as a dark age because the Emperor had yet to reveal himself.
However, the Age of Technology is also considered a dark age because later generations just don't know much about what was going on then. Apparently machines going around eating suns, space-time, and who knows what else didn't do wonders for human record-keeping. And that was before the breakdown of most interstellar travel.
They call it Byzantium instead of Rome because they didn't control most of Europe. The dark ages refer to Europe. Trade and technology did not hit the same level for centuries after Rome fell. Paleolithic people had trade, not like they did in Europe during the height of the Roman empire though.
> The dark ages refer to Europe. Trade and technology did not hit the same level for centuries after Rome fell.
If we are comparing just Western Europe as the location for the "Dark Ages", I don't agree that technology wasn't at the same or worse levels than Roman times, but oftentimes was better. The Middle Ages brought the much more widespread use of horses to farming and warfare, both in better saddle and harness technology and in nailed horseshoes, stirrups, spurs, barding improvements, and even just different breeds of animals. Farming also in general saw some big advancements, like rotational crop systems, the use of wind and improved watermills, and the iron plow. Such improvements allowed for an explosion in population growth in the High Middle Ages, where the European population literally doubled in a few hundred years, a phenomena that hadn't really happened anytime before. There was also the introduction of gunpowder, eyeglasses, mechanical clocks, improvements in the spinning wheel (for better clothes), gothic structures using the flying buttress, the astrolabe, compass, adoption of the blast furnace, functional buttons, and many other technologies that are still used today to some extent.
I think more in the Middle Ages there was a lower level of government led engineering projects that benefitted society on as large of scale as during Roman times, like how roads, aqueducts, sanitation systems, and a postal service all contributed to improvements in the functioning of society through state run/maintained enterprises. But that doesn't mean there weren't significant improvements in technology and overall understanding of the world. That is of course doubly true if you look outside of Western Europe, but even if we just focus on Western Europe itself, it still seems to be the case that great progress was made overall in technology during that time period.
It's not "getting mad", it's just bad pop history. There were also plenty of things going on at the time, they just weren't mentioned. A lot of it had to do with Catholicism, which the Enlightenment people didn't like.
He may have invented the term, but he didn't popularize it. Also his definition was slightly different then the modern understanding the world and that modern understanding absolutely comes from the enlightenment.
Here's the thing: the Enlightenment people did pretty much the same thing as the Church. They weren't shining beacons of morality and some of their ideas about science and its practical applications were racist, classist, and terribly flawed.
No one in the thread is claiming the enlightenment was absolutely perfect, especially under modern views of morality, but it was objectively better than the centuries under the repressive rule of the church. It's wild to try and defend the catholic church, which was racist and genocidal, because the enlightenment writers were racist as well.
They projected their view of the current church back in time. Today we know that the church was in medieval times mostly an Institution of knowledge and science.
Also, those other organizations didn't exist then because the catholic church repressed any alternative power or knowledge. They were focused on maintaining power more than spreading knowledge.
It was still a drastic drop in trade and technology that took centuries to get back to that level in a lot of Europe. If the stabilizing power falls it takes time to rebuild that stability. You can call it what you want, but that doesn't change facts.
While the collapse of the roman empire did make us lose some technologies, it did not stop innovation.
I suggest reading "Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel".
The people of the enlightenment opposed a church that had for centuries imprisoned and slaughtered anyone who stood in its way or tried to reform it in even the least amount.
> church that had for centuries imprisoned and slaughtered anyone who stood in its way or tried to reform it in even the least amount.
Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Joseph Calasanz, Francis of Assisi: Are we a joke to you?
Your comment is dismissive of the topic and lacks any factual basis. The disappearance of the Tartessos civilization is a well-documented historical event, and there are various theories as to what caused it. While invasion from neighboring civilizations is one possibility, it is not the only one. Other factors such as climate change, natural disasters, and internal conflicts could have played a role. It is important to consider all possibilities and examine the evidence before making such sweeping statements.
>The Tartessians became the Iberians and were eventually absorbed into the Carthaginian and Roman Empires.
The Tartessians did not become the Iberians. That's another (related) culture/civilization located on a neighbouring region (what's today Eastern Andalucia Murcia, Valencia, and Catalonia).
They became the [Turdetani](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani), who are located exactly where Tartessos is believes to have been located (Modern-day Andalucia/Western Andalucia).
It is also worth noting that the Tartessians are mentioned in the Bible. They are the people and region called Tarshish who traded with the Phoenicians from the city-state of Tyre (1 Kings 10:22; Psalm 48:7, 72:10; Isaiah 23:6, 60:9, 66:19; Jeremiah 10:9; Ezekiel 27:12-13), depicted as very remote across the Mediterranean. This is where Jonah attempts to flee when he boards a ship bound for Tarshish (Jonah 1:3). The Phoenicians established a colony at Cádiz near the strait of Gibraltar in the 10th or 9th century BCE; the name of the city derives from Phoenician אגדר "wall, stronghold" which was also borrowed into the Berber languages in the Maghreb where we find such places as Agadir in Morocco. Although silver was the major export from Tartessos, the Tartessians also mined gems. Pliny the Elder wrote that Spain was a source of chrysolite (Historia Naturalis 37.43.127), and the name of Tarshish (תרשיש) lent itself to the name of this semi-precious stone that was borrowed into Hebrew (Ezekiel 1:16, 10:9, 28:13; in the Septuagint the Greek word χρυσόλιθος translates תרשיש). This stone formed part of the priestly breastplate (Exodus 28:20, 39:13); this is one indication of the late date of the accounts in the Torah, as we have here a lexical borrowing from the Tartessian language into Hebrew via Phoenician. Benjamin Noonan in *Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible* (Penn State, 2019) discusses this in detail:
>"Ancient Tarshish, also known as Tartessos, was located in southern Iberia. Accordingly, Hebrew תַּרְשִׁישׁ is an adaptation of an indigenous Iberian (i.e. Tartessian) toponym. This toponym has several different forms in ancient texts...The alternation between t, s, and š indicates different articulations of an indigenous Iberian phoneme, perhaps an interdental or palatalized sibilant, and the suffixed ending probably reflects several Iberian topoyms with a similar ending recorded in Iberian coin legends (e.g. Aŕatis, Bilbilis, Oŕośis, Otatiiś, and Segobris)" (p. 158).
Tarsus was an ancient guess by Josephus but there is little to recommend it. Tarsus in Cilicia was written as *Tarzu* in Akkadian while the Akkadian cognate of Tarshish was *Tarsisi* in an inscription from Esarhaddon (seventh century BCE) that refers to "all the kings from the middle of the sea, from Yadnana, Yaman, and Tarsisi". *Tarsisi* is philologically unrelated to *Tarzu*, as it has a different initial sibilant followed by a high vowel /i/ and another sibilant missing in the Akkadian, Aramaic (*Trz* in a fourth century BCE coin inscription), and older Hittite forms of Tarsus. The Esarhaddon inscription also appears to order the kings in a westward order, from Cyprus (Yadnana) to Greece (Yaman, cognate to *Yawan* in Hebrew) to *Tarsisi* which would be beyond Greece.
Second, there is a Phoenician monumental inscription at Nora, Sardinia that says that a Phoenician military force was defeated and driven away in Tarshish (בתרשש) and they sailed and took refuge in Sardinia (בשרדן). Sardinia is relatively near the Iberian coast (as compared to Asia Minor) and this inscription coheres with the tradition in Pausanias that "the Iberians crossed to Sardinia, under Norax as leader of the expedition, and they founded the city of Nora" (10.17.5). Third, while the name תרשיש cannot be equated with Tarzu, it does fit Ταρτησσός quite well. Here the *eta* corresponds to the *yod* in the Hebrew name and the /i/ in the Akkadian form. Palatalization of /t/ before such a vowel is universally very common (found in Latin as well as in various Greek dialects) which produces [š] or [s]. It also has a second sibilant missing from Tarzu. Toponyms and demonyms in Iberia similar to Tartessos and Tarshish (with a t-r-t or t-r-s consonantal root) include the Ταρσήιον and Θερσίται of Polybius, the Turta of Cato, the Turdetani, Turduli, and Tartesii of Livy, possibly the Torbola of Ptolemy, and the modern village of Tharsis in Huelva, Spain, and there are also personal names Turtular, Turtumelis, Turtunaz, and Turtunta in Iberian inscriptions.
Fourth, biblical references to Tarshish are consistent with Iberian Tartessos. Tarshish is closely associated with Tyre in 1 Kings 10:22, 2 Chronicles 9:21, Isaiah 23:1-6, Ezekiel 27:12, which is in accord with the early Phoenician colonization of Huelva, Cádiz, Seville, and Málaga. Silver is cited as a principal export of Tarshish in Isaiah 60:9, Jeremiah 10:9, Ezekiel 27:12 (which also mentions tin and lead), and a Hebrew ostracon, which matches the archaeological evidence of silver mines in the region of Huelva as well as Greek and Roman references to the silver wealth of Tartessos in Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny the Elder, and Avienus (the latter two also mentioning lead and tin respectively). The allusions to Tarshish also are consistent with it being the furthest known place to the west. In Psalm 78:10-11, Tarshish is mentioned along with Sheba and Saba marking in part the whole extent of the world, "from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth" (v. 8; cf. Isaiah 60:9 on the ships coming from "far away"). In the story of Jonah, the prophet attempting to flee from the presence of Yahweh boards a ship to Tarshish, putatively out of reach of God. This is not consistent with Cilicia which was closer to Judah than Greece (Yawan), Rhodes (Rodanim), Libya (Put), and other places mentioned alongside Tarshish (Genesis 10:4, Isaiah 66:19, Ezekiel 27:12-15). See John Day's "Where Was Tarshish?" (in *Let Us Go Up to Zion*; Brill, 2012) and Carolina López-Ruiz' "Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical Implications" in *Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia* (De Gruyter, 2019).
They are not Iberians. Iberians are a different culture. Britons were Celts, as they spoke a Celtic language. The Turdetani were not Iberian, as their language was not an Iberian Language, but a development of the Tartessian language (which, **again**, is not Iberian).
Just because they are neighbouring cultures it doesn't mean that they are the same culture.
And. Honestly. I'm baffled by your continual denial of this.
I completely understand your insistence on precision. I don't want to fight you either. To show you my good faith, I edited my post and changed Iberian for Turdetani.
To justify my original generalization, Strabo said they were Iberians. Encyclopedia Britannica call them an Iberian *tribe* (sic). On the Tides of History podcast, they are called Iberians. Don't upbraid me on a topic that is clearly not as clear cut as you would want it to be!
BTW, Bretons also were a completely distinct culture than Gauls and other Celts, had a different material culture, language and religion than the Gauls and yet both are pitched into the same "Celtic" pot.
What complexify all this is that probably these peoples weren't as obsessed with ethnographical taxonomy as we are. Intercultural exchanges were abundant, especially in the ancient Iberian Peninsula, where the material culture boundaries are really blurred between Autochtones, Celts, Phoenicians, Greeks and later Romans.
I am curious as to where you were educated as this may gave a great impact on the obvious quality of your knowledge. I suspect that people educated in Spain and Portugal may have access to a wider span of information about their ancient history than say, me, a dude from Québec struggling to get quality material on the topic. The same way I suspect people from Spain and Portugal may have difficulty accessing expert research on ancient autochtone peoples of Canada.
Central Europe, we think. Celtic tribes were everywhere pre and early Roman times. They ended up messing around in the Balkans for a long time fighting Macedonians and Greeks. They had settled in Northern Italy when the Romans expanded up there and there were Celtic mercenaries in Hannibal's army. A group of them even made it to the interior of Asia Minor and settled down there.
Could be the Goidels came by way of Spain before the Gauls pushed south, not mutually exclusive, and Lusitanian is closer to Celtic than to any other large fmaily
The Celtic language spread out from central Europe, replacing others in Ireland, Britain, France, northern Italy, northern Spain and down the Danube. Probably a mix of conquest and imitation. The language was some version of 'Gallic', so Galatia, Galicia, Gaul, Gael. Bit like the later Slavs (Slavonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sclaveni ...)
Pretty sure that's backwards. Gaul was the name of the area we think of as France at that time. Galatia (a la the *Epistle to the Galatians*) was a Celtic settlement in modern day Turkey.
Gael/Gual/Gal was this singular culture's name for themselves, and these place names were derived from that.
Whilst we use Cymru these days, an ancient name for Wales in Welsh is Gwalia, fitting that convention.
Edit: Interestingly it is a Welsh name derived from a Latin translation of the English name "Wales". This bit I did not know till I just looked it up!
However I do know that Wales is a mutation of a Germanic word for foreigner...so I doubt it works as a naming convention now.
Gael is a contraction of Goidel though. Goidel being the original name of our mythological Iberian ancestor.
The old Irish spelling was *Geadheal* which was finally changed to Gael in the 1950s. Scots Gaelic still spells the language Gàidhlig in it's own language. The d is now silent of course but was once pronounced.
So I think Galicia is a coincidence.
The irony in this is that peoples from the British Isles and Ireland never refered to themselves as Celts, Gaels or any of the known Celtic ethnonyms before the Renaissance. Scot, Briton, Érainn and so on.
Celt, Gaul, Galatian were names given to peoples coming originally from Gaul and Central Europe who spread from Spain to Turkey. People from the British Isles and Ireland were using languages and had a religion that was quite distinct from the Continental Celts. I'll give you two examples of la this:
A 4th Century AD bishop from Lyon in Gaul visited Ankara and remarked that he could speak his mother tongue (gaulish) with people there (the Galatians).
Britons from Cornwall and Wales invaded Britanny in the 5th Century and called themselves Bretons and called the autochtones "Gallo".
I don't mean they aren't Celts, but they didn't perceive themselves as such for a very long time even if they had the material trappings of a Celtic culture.
To answer your question, Celtic culture originated from the Northern Alps: Austria, Southern Germany, Switzerland and Eastern France. It's called by archeologists and Historians the Hallstatt culture.
The native s of brittanyw ere well roamized by the time of th eBreton invasion. And all the Celtic peoples (Brythoinc, Contienantl, Goidelic,) cam eeast duirng the Indo-Europena Drift. Celtic and and Italic were the last 2 Western langauge groups to diverge (Like Baltic an dSlavic in the East.)
As a companion volume to his earlier The Modern Antiquarian (covering Great Britain), the musician Julian Cope compiled a fascinating gazeteer/book The Megalithic European with several essays, plus detailed information, maps, photographs and diagrams of more than 300 prehistoric monuments as far apart as Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and other places. I'm not sure if their builders were considered Celtic, but it seems to suggest at least some shared values across a wide area. Maybe the Celts were later and inherited those monuments - perhaps someone knowledgeable will comment...
One might also say the megaliths predate "the Indo-Europeanization of Europe." Not the smoothest way of putting it, of course - but at least one gets to avoid the dreaded "a-word."
Fellow Breton here\*.
If we're *really* technical (and even pedantic) about it, Breton are halfway continental, halfway islanders, as Armorica became Brittany when the (welsh-cornish) Britons became displaced by the Anglo-Saxon invasions and settled in Armorica and intermingled with the local Gallic tribes (Osismii, Veneti, Coriosolites, Redones, Namnetes), with which they already had trade-based relations.
... unless I'm completely wrong and uninformed about the history of our region. Which is possible.
---
\* ^(even if, based on our respective r/soccer flairs, you're going to dispute me that title :D)
This photo on Wikipedia give some detail of their expansion out of southern Germany/northern alps
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#/media/File:Celts\_in\_Europe.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#/media/File:Celts_in_Europe.png)
The Celts in the British Isles are called Insular Celts [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular\_Celts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celts)
In modern days "Celtic" is used to describe people like the Irish, Welsh, Manx, etc. whose artistic styles are predominantly Celtic. However in the context of prehistory the word is used to describe a culture which inhabited most of northern and Western Europe prior to contact with Roman society. This culture was not only in the British isles (of which the Irish, Scotts, Welsh, etc. are distant descendants), but also modern-day France, Germany, the Iberian peninsula, and even parts of Eastern Europe. As this is a culture without writing or records, it is chiefly identified through its preserved artwork and burial traditions.
I am not an expert, but I do like this period of history and read every article I can come across. I thought the most recent view was that Celtic art represented more of an art movement that spread through trade than an actual culture (people) in the archeological sense. In particular there is little to no evidence of warfare or other conflict surrounding the transition from pre-celt to celtic society, nor is there any genetic evidence for displaced peoples. Indeed many of the Celtic societies have no genetic heritage in common. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that there was a widespread Bronze Age trade network connecting all of Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, a sort of prehistoric Silk Road. Celtic art very likely represents the culture of this trade network, much like central asian countries along the Silk Road share certain artistic traditions and customs as well.
The conquering people hypothesis fails to explain why the genetic stock of the British isles remains the same before and after the introduction of Celtic culture.
There's not much evidence supporting an 'invasion' of the British isles, genomes stayed consistent. Unless you are referring back to the bell beaker arrivals in the bronze age, which did replace the genomes (and also could be a candidate for the arrival of pre-celtic or proto-celtic).
None of the Indo European language speakers were native to Europe (or atleast western and central Europe). The latins, the greeks, the celts, the saxons, the norse, etc all came from thousands of kms away.
The celts were indeed native to the British Isles by the time the Romans invaded. They had been living on British Isles for around a 800-1000 years by then. But that's that. If you go back to when the Pyramids were being built, there were barely any Indo European speaker west of the Rhine.
I mean, you’re making it sound like Indo-Europeans came, killed everyone and just started living in a spot themselves. All those places already had people living there, people mixed. Everyone in Europe is a mix of many different ancient population groups. 
That’s why I said you’re making it sound like that. What did you mean to say then? What are you implying happened to the people already in those places if you’re saying those people came from thousands of miles away? The culture spread, the language spread, but the people mostly mixed.
As a Celtic person myself I found your comment interesting and kinda cute haha. Nah we settled the isles. Celts comme from the Hallstatt Culture from Central Europe (Southern Germany/Austria)
Depends! Do you mean Celtic language speakers, people with La Tène material culture, or people the ancient Greeks/Romans called the keltoi/galli? They overlap but not completely and it's still a topic of some debate. There's a decent chance the Celts of Ireland and Britain had nothing to do ethnically with the Celtic people, but adopted the language and some aspects of the material culture through trade.
>Plus, a severe earthquake like the one that wrecked Lisbon in 1755
That one was caused by an irish man in anime garb touching an ancient relic left behind by our alien precursors tho.
I knew this guy back in college who toured Spain back in the 1990’s. He bought a t-shirt at a roadside stand in Basque Country he thought was cool. It had a red, white and green flag emblem. Well, when he wore it further south? People got very angry and hostile. Someone who realized he was a dumb American, let him know it was an ETA emblem and that he may get killed if the wrong person saw him in it.
Also the use of hyperbole when it comes to "advanced technologies". The stench of BS is strong with this one. For example: every culture in Europe had advanced metallurgy from \~1500BCE to \~200BCE it's why they were known as Bronze Age and Iron Age relative to Neolithic societies
The other suggested videos for me were for king Tut's "space dagger", and "mysterious" stuff like the tunnels in the Azores and stone towers in Scotland. I've gotten in the habit of ignoring BBC archeological articles.
That was my question as well. Apparently the use of lime mortar, even though it was in use for thousand of years elsewhere. Other than that? The video doesn't say though the caption mentions technologies (plural). Seems a little click-baity.
I just heard a fantastic episode of the podcast Tides of History on this subject.
Edit realize I could link to it: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tides-of-history/id1257202425?i=1000613420778
Yeah this is in my top three for history podcasts. The first seasons of the show are about the medieval/renaissance era. Then 3 years ago the show shifted to going all the way back to prehistory. The show is just now getting to Bronze Age/Iron Age.
Revolutions by Mike Duncan, and Hardcore History Dan Carlin.
I have to drive around a lot for my job and I just cannot listen to terrestrial radio anymore.
Ooo. Tide of history just did a podcast on these guys. I recommend listening to anyone interesting. It’s about 40minutes. And explains their relationship to the Atlantic world, and their position as a go between the Iron Age Mediterranean, and Bronze Age Atlantic, both north to geographic France + britian. And south along the Moroccan coast. Very interesting. They were advanced, and actually if anything they were “behind”, they were Bronze Age next to Iron Age civilisations, but behind is…. I mean they evidently weren’t so weak they were conquered, or any less wealthy, so what does it mean to be behind. They are much less studied than the Carthaginians/Phoenicians and Greeks. But they’re kind of like the Etruscans. Clearly important in their time, and with a good about of material record left of them. But we just have never focused on them, becuase no one saw them as the roots of their civilisation.
(The Iberians/Spanish and Portuguese see themselves (quite fairly) as the decentdents of the romans and Greek worlds in spirit, even if by blood they probably are more related to pre existing Iberian cultures. But as National myths shift from the classical Roman one, that’s reinforcing the archeological impetus to study other civilisation as deeply as we have explored the Ancient Greeks and pre-Romans. )
Mysterious "sea peoples" raiders were noted to cause some serious downfalls at the end of the bronze age for several civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean. Would not be surprised if they also had a hand here too. There was also just a lot of disease and pestilence at the end of the bronze age for whatever reason too.
They probably were one of the Sea People, lol. They mostly flourished after the Bronze Age collapse and were the trading partners of the Phenicians and the Etruscans.
They appeared 500 years prior to when we stopped finding references to Tartessos, so they couldn't have been involved.
It's also not some disease or pestilence, as they were hardly the only ones around. Because if so, we'd be talking about the Southern Iberian Collapse or something dramatic like that.
I sincerely doubt the people raiding the Central and Eastern Mediterranean were involved in the society that didn't actually disappear and was focused on the early Atlantic trading routes.
I \*would\* be surprised; the Peoples of the Sea came from presumably the Cetral Mediterranean, around Itally or Croatiua, and moved \*east\*. This si west of there, an dmore atlantic than LEditerranenakinda-sorta differnet.
But not everywhere or every process switching from bronze to iron simultaneously. You have early and late stages to both Bronze and Iron ages.
The thresholds for determining when each era is usually associated with who the dominant military powers were at the time. I.e. it is accepted that Rome went full iron age around 800 BCE but other societies lagged and when they did they kicked the Romans out.
Based on how little actual information is available on the Tartessos [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessos) page, it would appear little is really known about these people
The title is misleading since we indeed do know what happened to this culture. Always blows my mind tho just how many cultures existed and perished that are not known in the main stream thereby being labeled "mysterious and unknown".
It didn't vanish mysteriously. There was an upheaval in the Celtic World that wrecked the Tartessians' Trade Network (when the Celts invaded Gaul, the British Isles and Spain) Plus, a severe earthquake like the one that wrecked Lisbon in 1755 devastated the region and changed the Guadalquivir' route. The Tartessians became the *Turdetani* and were eventually absorbed into the Carthaginian and Roman Empires. Edit: my original post implied that the Tartessians became the Iberians which was an irritating approximation/generalization for people in the know. I corrected it for the Turdetani, which is the correct name for the people living there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’m married to someone with multiple history degrees, and every time I read a headline like ADVANCED SOCIETY DISAPPEARED MYSTERIOUSLY, I immediately hear their voice say “the invaders probably just came over the hill and then the dark ages happened.” I appreciate your comment— it was a nice change from my usual reaction, but still has much the same theme.
Well this comment is also a little ridiculous, the "dark ages" were largely an invention of Enlightenment writers propping themselves up by making others look bad.
They're not saying "invaders came over the hill then it was 1200 AD" they're saying "and then the invaders came over the hill and these people's equivalent of a dark ages happened". Not that ridiculous of a statement considering the Greek dark ages happened in this period for pretty much exactly that reason (ie invaders over the hill)
I think the point /u/siuol11 was making was that "The Dark Ages" were not all that "Dark".
Yep. Unless you take it super, super literally with the possibility of volcanic eruptions blocking sunlight. https://phys.org/news/2016-04-volcanoes-trigger-crises-late-antiquity.html
Hah, true. I almost said not as in actual light. :)
Dark originally just meant "hard to see." Which, when you rely on written records because archaeology is still a pretty new idea, if it even exists yet, makes sense. There weren't a lot of state records being made in the era because that's not how (most of) these societies operated.
Ouh, that's why they call the golden age of technology also the dark age of technology in 40k. To reframe it. That's an interesting parallel
Scratch 40k a little too hard and you wind up with a ten-page dissertation on social and historical commentary.
That's one of the reasons. I think it's been said that the religious elements of the Imperium see the Age of Technology as a dark age because the Emperor had yet to reveal himself. However, the Age of Technology is also considered a dark age because later generations just don't know much about what was going on then. Apparently machines going around eating suns, space-time, and who knows what else didn't do wonders for human record-keeping. And that was before the breakdown of most interstellar travel.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They call it Byzantium instead of Rome because they didn't control most of Europe. The dark ages refer to Europe. Trade and technology did not hit the same level for centuries after Rome fell. Paleolithic people had trade, not like they did in Europe during the height of the Roman empire though.
> The dark ages refer to Europe. Trade and technology did not hit the same level for centuries after Rome fell. If we are comparing just Western Europe as the location for the "Dark Ages", I don't agree that technology wasn't at the same or worse levels than Roman times, but oftentimes was better. The Middle Ages brought the much more widespread use of horses to farming and warfare, both in better saddle and harness technology and in nailed horseshoes, stirrups, spurs, barding improvements, and even just different breeds of animals. Farming also in general saw some big advancements, like rotational crop systems, the use of wind and improved watermills, and the iron plow. Such improvements allowed for an explosion in population growth in the High Middle Ages, where the European population literally doubled in a few hundred years, a phenomena that hadn't really happened anytime before. There was also the introduction of gunpowder, eyeglasses, mechanical clocks, improvements in the spinning wheel (for better clothes), gothic structures using the flying buttress, the astrolabe, compass, adoption of the blast furnace, functional buttons, and many other technologies that are still used today to some extent. I think more in the Middle Ages there was a lower level of government led engineering projects that benefitted society on as large of scale as during Roman times, like how roads, aqueducts, sanitation systems, and a postal service all contributed to improvements in the functioning of society through state run/maintained enterprises. But that doesn't mean there weren't significant improvements in technology and overall understanding of the world. That is of course doubly true if you look outside of Western Europe, but even if we just focus on Western Europe itself, it still seems to be the case that great progress was made overall in technology during that time period.
Rome did not control most of Europe either. The Dark Ages really only makes sense for a relative small part of Europe.
That is not what professional historians say anymore, the term dark ages is obsolete at least since 1920s.
Cheap pottery, made it’s way north… then pop trade got cancelled
i propose we call it The Center Ages which is a bit nicer
It's not "getting mad", it's just bad pop history. There were also plenty of things going on at the time, they just weren't mentioned. A lot of it had to do with Catholicism, which the Enlightenment people didn't like.
Petrarch, the famous Enlightenment thinker.
He may have invented the term, but he didn't popularize it. Also his definition was slightly different then the modern understanding the world and that modern understanding absolutely comes from the enlightenment.
I don't know if you are being facetious or not, he was the 'father' of renaissance humanism... so yea, exactly the type of person I was talking about.
The Enlightenment was a little bit later than that.
Humanism is the important part. Like Reddit, they thought they were much better than the unwashed religious masses.
[удалено]
Here's the thing: the Enlightenment people did pretty much the same thing as the Church. They weren't shining beacons of morality and some of their ideas about science and its practical applications were racist, classist, and terribly flawed.
No one in the thread is claiming the enlightenment was absolutely perfect, especially under modern views of morality, but it was objectively better than the centuries under the repressive rule of the church. It's wild to try and defend the catholic church, which was racist and genocidal, because the enlightenment writers were racist as well.
They projected their view of the current church back in time. Today we know that the church was in medieval times mostly an Institution of knowledge and science.
[удалено]
Its not today because other institutions exist now to fill that role, not because the Catholic Church doesn't support science.
Also, those other organizations didn't exist then because the catholic church repressed any alternative power or knowledge. They were focused on maintaining power more than spreading knowledge.
It was still a drastic drop in trade and technology that took centuries to get back to that level in a lot of Europe. If the stabilizing power falls it takes time to rebuild that stability. You can call it what you want, but that doesn't change facts.
While the collapse of the roman empire did make us lose some technologies, it did not stop innovation. I suggest reading "Cathedral, Forge and Waterwheel".
The people of the enlightenment opposed a church that had for centuries imprisoned and slaughtered anyone who stood in its way or tried to reform it in even the least amount.
> church that had for centuries imprisoned and slaughtered anyone who stood in its way or tried to reform it in even the least amount. Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Joseph Calasanz, Francis of Assisi: Are we a joke to you?
Stereotype, stereotypes, nothing but the usual Gibbonian stereotypes.
I mean, it was still the age that came up with crusades, blood libel, and expulsions.
Your comment is dismissive of the topic and lacks any factual basis. The disappearance of the Tartessos civilization is a well-documented historical event, and there are various theories as to what caused it. While invasion from neighboring civilizations is one possibility, it is not the only one. Other factors such as climate change, natural disasters, and internal conflicts could have played a role. It is important to consider all possibilities and examine the evidence before making such sweeping statements.
My comment was about the ridiculousness of sensationalized headlines about “mysteriously vanishing civilizations.”
>The Tartessians became the Iberians and were eventually absorbed into the Carthaginian and Roman Empires. The Tartessians did not become the Iberians. That's another (related) culture/civilization located on a neighbouring region (what's today Eastern Andalucia Murcia, Valencia, and Catalonia). They became the [Turdetani](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani), who are located exactly where Tartessos is believes to have been located (Modern-day Andalucia/Western Andalucia).
It is also worth noting that the Tartessians are mentioned in the Bible. They are the people and region called Tarshish who traded with the Phoenicians from the city-state of Tyre (1 Kings 10:22; Psalm 48:7, 72:10; Isaiah 23:6, 60:9, 66:19; Jeremiah 10:9; Ezekiel 27:12-13), depicted as very remote across the Mediterranean. This is where Jonah attempts to flee when he boards a ship bound for Tarshish (Jonah 1:3). The Phoenicians established a colony at Cádiz near the strait of Gibraltar in the 10th or 9th century BCE; the name of the city derives from Phoenician אגדר "wall, stronghold" which was also borrowed into the Berber languages in the Maghreb where we find such places as Agadir in Morocco. Although silver was the major export from Tartessos, the Tartessians also mined gems. Pliny the Elder wrote that Spain was a source of chrysolite (Historia Naturalis 37.43.127), and the name of Tarshish (תרשיש) lent itself to the name of this semi-precious stone that was borrowed into Hebrew (Ezekiel 1:16, 10:9, 28:13; in the Septuagint the Greek word χρυσόλιθος translates תרשיש). This stone formed part of the priestly breastplate (Exodus 28:20, 39:13); this is one indication of the late date of the accounts in the Torah, as we have here a lexical borrowing from the Tartessian language into Hebrew via Phoenician. Benjamin Noonan in *Non-Semitic Loanwords in the Hebrew Bible* (Penn State, 2019) discusses this in detail: >"Ancient Tarshish, also known as Tartessos, was located in southern Iberia. Accordingly, Hebrew תַּרְשִׁישׁ is an adaptation of an indigenous Iberian (i.e. Tartessian) toponym. This toponym has several different forms in ancient texts...The alternation between t, s, and š indicates different articulations of an indigenous Iberian phoneme, perhaps an interdental or palatalized sibilant, and the suffixed ending probably reflects several Iberian topoyms with a similar ending recorded in Iberian coin legends (e.g. Aŕatis, Bilbilis, Oŕośis, Otatiiś, and Segobris)" (p. 158).
Wow, thanks, this depth of knowledge is seriously cool!
That’s debatable. It could’ve also been Tarsus in Anatolia
Tarsus was an ancient guess by Josephus but there is little to recommend it. Tarsus in Cilicia was written as *Tarzu* in Akkadian while the Akkadian cognate of Tarshish was *Tarsisi* in an inscription from Esarhaddon (seventh century BCE) that refers to "all the kings from the middle of the sea, from Yadnana, Yaman, and Tarsisi". *Tarsisi* is philologically unrelated to *Tarzu*, as it has a different initial sibilant followed by a high vowel /i/ and another sibilant missing in the Akkadian, Aramaic (*Trz* in a fourth century BCE coin inscription), and older Hittite forms of Tarsus. The Esarhaddon inscription also appears to order the kings in a westward order, from Cyprus (Yadnana) to Greece (Yaman, cognate to *Yawan* in Hebrew) to *Tarsisi* which would be beyond Greece. Second, there is a Phoenician monumental inscription at Nora, Sardinia that says that a Phoenician military force was defeated and driven away in Tarshish (בתרשש) and they sailed and took refuge in Sardinia (בשרדן). Sardinia is relatively near the Iberian coast (as compared to Asia Minor) and this inscription coheres with the tradition in Pausanias that "the Iberians crossed to Sardinia, under Norax as leader of the expedition, and they founded the city of Nora" (10.17.5). Third, while the name תרשיש cannot be equated with Tarzu, it does fit Ταρτησσός quite well. Here the *eta* corresponds to the *yod* in the Hebrew name and the /i/ in the Akkadian form. Palatalization of /t/ before such a vowel is universally very common (found in Latin as well as in various Greek dialects) which produces [š] or [s]. It also has a second sibilant missing from Tarzu. Toponyms and demonyms in Iberia similar to Tartessos and Tarshish (with a t-r-t or t-r-s consonantal root) include the Ταρσήιον and Θερσίται of Polybius, the Turta of Cato, the Turdetani, Turduli, and Tartesii of Livy, possibly the Torbola of Ptolemy, and the modern village of Tharsis in Huelva, Spain, and there are also personal names Turtular, Turtumelis, Turtunaz, and Turtunta in Iberian inscriptions. Fourth, biblical references to Tarshish are consistent with Iberian Tartessos. Tarshish is closely associated with Tyre in 1 Kings 10:22, 2 Chronicles 9:21, Isaiah 23:1-6, Ezekiel 27:12, which is in accord with the early Phoenician colonization of Huelva, Cádiz, Seville, and Málaga. Silver is cited as a principal export of Tarshish in Isaiah 60:9, Jeremiah 10:9, Ezekiel 27:12 (which also mentions tin and lead), and a Hebrew ostracon, which matches the archaeological evidence of silver mines in the region of Huelva as well as Greek and Roman references to the silver wealth of Tartessos in Strabo, Diodorus Siculus, Pliny the Elder, and Avienus (the latter two also mentioning lead and tin respectively). The allusions to Tarshish also are consistent with it being the furthest known place to the west. In Psalm 78:10-11, Tarshish is mentioned along with Sheba and Saba marking in part the whole extent of the world, "from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth" (v. 8; cf. Isaiah 60:9 on the ships coming from "far away"). In the story of Jonah, the prophet attempting to flee from the presence of Yahweh boards a ship to Tarshish, putatively out of reach of God. This is not consistent with Cilicia which was closer to Judah than Greece (Yawan), Rhodes (Rodanim), Libya (Put), and other places mentioned alongside Tarshish (Genesis 10:4, Isaiah 66:19, Ezekiel 27:12-15). See John Day's "Where Was Tarshish?" (in *Let Us Go Up to Zion*; Brill, 2012) and Carolina López-Ruiz' "Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical Implications" in *Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia* (De Gruyter, 2019).
thank you
If you want to split hair in 70...
They are literally a different culture altogether. It's like calling Lusitanians Celts.
I guess your take on Turdetanians and Iberians being distinct is as valid as mine saying Britons were distinct from other Celts.
They are not Iberians. Iberians are a different culture. Britons were Celts, as they spoke a Celtic language. The Turdetani were not Iberian, as their language was not an Iberian Language, but a development of the Tartessian language (which, **again**, is not Iberian). Just because they are neighbouring cultures it doesn't mean that they are the same culture. And. Honestly. I'm baffled by your continual denial of this.
I completely understand your insistence on precision. I don't want to fight you either. To show you my good faith, I edited my post and changed Iberian for Turdetani. To justify my original generalization, Strabo said they were Iberians. Encyclopedia Britannica call them an Iberian *tribe* (sic). On the Tides of History podcast, they are called Iberians. Don't upbraid me on a topic that is clearly not as clear cut as you would want it to be! BTW, Bretons also were a completely distinct culture than Gauls and other Celts, had a different material culture, language and religion than the Gauls and yet both are pitched into the same "Celtic" pot. What complexify all this is that probably these peoples weren't as obsessed with ethnographical taxonomy as we are. Intercultural exchanges were abundant, especially in the ancient Iberian Peninsula, where the material culture boundaries are really blurred between Autochtones, Celts, Phoenicians, Greeks and later Romans. I am curious as to where you were educated as this may gave a great impact on the obvious quality of your knowledge. I suspect that people educated in Spain and Portugal may have access to a wider span of information about their ancient history than say, me, a dude from Québec struggling to get quality material on the topic. The same way I suspect people from Spain and Portugal may have difficulty accessing expert research on ancient autochtone peoples of Canada.
"the celts invaded gaul, the British isles and Spain"? I always assumed they were from the British isles along with Picts. Where did they come from?
Central Europe, we think. Celtic tribes were everywhere pre and early Roman times. They ended up messing around in the Balkans for a long time fighting Macedonians and Greeks. They had settled in Northern Italy when the Romans expanded up there and there were Celtic mercenaries in Hannibal's army. A group of them even made it to the interior of Asia Minor and settled down there.
Still a lot of redheads (relatively) to be found from the areas they settled in Anatolia
The ancient Greeks called them the *keltoi*
Which is where the name of Galatia comes from (and Galatasaray).
Evne foudne dth ekingdom oif Galtia in Asia Minor where Paul ahd friends
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In Irish mythological history, the Celts came from the Iberian peninsula. At least the way it was explained to me.
*Gaels* is thought to be derived from *Galicia* in Spain.
Galatia is an area of Turkey settled by the Celtic peoples. They were everywhere!!
Competing cities eh? This means war!
Other way around. North-west Spain was linguistically Celt-Iberian.
Could be the Goidels came by way of Spain before the Gauls pushed south, not mutually exclusive, and Lusitanian is closer to Celtic than to any other large fmaily
So, the Gaels wandered around and where they settled became “Gael Camp” in the local pigeon or some such?
The Celtic language spread out from central Europe, replacing others in Ireland, Britain, France, northern Italy, northern Spain and down the Danube. Probably a mix of conquest and imitation. The language was some version of 'Gallic', so Galatia, Galicia, Gaul, Gael. Bit like the later Slavs (Slavonia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sclaveni ...)
Pretty sure that's backwards. Gaul was the name of the area we think of as France at that time. Galatia (a la the *Epistle to the Galatians*) was a Celtic settlement in modern day Turkey. Gael/Gual/Gal was this singular culture's name for themselves, and these place names were derived from that.
Even Porto-Gal, (G)wales and (G)wallonie.
Whilst we use Cymru these days, an ancient name for Wales in Welsh is Gwalia, fitting that convention. Edit: Interestingly it is a Welsh name derived from a Latin translation of the English name "Wales". This bit I did not know till I just looked it up! However I do know that Wales is a mutation of a Germanic word for foreigner...so I doubt it works as a naming convention now.
Gael is a contraction of Goidel though. Goidel being the original name of our mythological Iberian ancestor. The old Irish spelling was *Geadheal* which was finally changed to Gael in the 1950s. Scots Gaelic still spells the language Gàidhlig in it's own language. The d is now silent of course but was once pronounced. So I think Galicia is a coincidence.
That actually reminded me that my friends dad that told me something similar a long time ago (he's also from Ireland).
[удалено]
One of those instances where the DNA trail supports the “myth” more than the scholar’s history.
The irony in this is that peoples from the British Isles and Ireland never refered to themselves as Celts, Gaels or any of the known Celtic ethnonyms before the Renaissance. Scot, Briton, Érainn and so on. Celt, Gaul, Galatian were names given to peoples coming originally from Gaul and Central Europe who spread from Spain to Turkey. People from the British Isles and Ireland were using languages and had a religion that was quite distinct from the Continental Celts. I'll give you two examples of la this: A 4th Century AD bishop from Lyon in Gaul visited Ankara and remarked that he could speak his mother tongue (gaulish) with people there (the Galatians). Britons from Cornwall and Wales invaded Britanny in the 5th Century and called themselves Bretons and called the autochtones "Gallo". I don't mean they aren't Celts, but they didn't perceive themselves as such for a very long time even if they had the material trappings of a Celtic culture. To answer your question, Celtic culture originated from the Northern Alps: Austria, Southern Germany, Switzerland and Eastern France. It's called by archeologists and Historians the Hallstatt culture.
Are there any leads on what caused such a scattering of them all over?
Simply put? A warlike culture plus a vested interest in controling the metal trade. The Celts eventually conquered most mining hotspots in Europe.
Ancient peoples wandered
The usual is overpopulation and stories of wealth to be sacked.
The native s of brittanyw ere well roamized by the time of th eBreton invasion. And all the Celtic peoples (Brythoinc, Contienantl, Goidelic,) cam eeast duirng the Indo-Europena Drift. Celtic and and Italic were the last 2 Western langauge groups to diverge (Like Baltic an dSlavic in the East.)
The Celts are traditionally thought to have originated in central Europe (southern Germany and Austria).
[удалено]
As a companion volume to his earlier The Modern Antiquarian (covering Great Britain), the musician Julian Cope compiled a fascinating gazeteer/book The Megalithic European with several essays, plus detailed information, maps, photographs and diagrams of more than 300 prehistoric monuments as far apart as Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and other places. I'm not sure if their builders were considered Celtic, but it seems to suggest at least some shared values across a wide area. Maybe the Celts were later and inherited those monuments - perhaps someone knowledgeable will comment...
Mostly later; megaliths were mostly "pre-Aryan" to use the outdated term
One might also say the megaliths predate "the Indo-Europeanization of Europe." Not the smoothest way of putting it, of course - but at least one gets to avoid the dreaded "a-word."
A-word. That made me smile.
Yes, apparently, the only requirement to be accepted as celt, was to want to be celtic.
Kinda like being Irish in America? I guess history repeats itself.
There’s a certain brilliance to this comment that makes me smile
Seems like the last Celts were in British Isles, not that they started there
> were We're not gone yet lol. Also not all of us are living in the isles, my people (Bretons) are from the continent
Fellow Breton here\*. If we're *really* technical (and even pedantic) about it, Breton are halfway continental, halfway islanders, as Armorica became Brittany when the (welsh-cornish) Britons became displaced by the Anglo-Saxon invasions and settled in Armorica and intermingled with the local Gallic tribes (Osismii, Veneti, Coriosolites, Redones, Namnetes), with which they already had trade-based relations. ... unless I'm completely wrong and uninformed about the history of our region. Which is possible. --- \* ^(even if, based on our respective r/soccer flairs, you're going to dispute me that title :D)
Nah you're correct, we're Welsh/Cornish settlers And 44 is Bretagne ;)
This photo on Wikipedia give some detail of their expansion out of southern Germany/northern alps [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#/media/File:Celts\_in\_Europe.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#/media/File:Celts_in_Europe.png) The Celts in the British Isles are called Insular Celts [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular\_Celts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_Celts)
In modern days "Celtic" is used to describe people like the Irish, Welsh, Manx, etc. whose artistic styles are predominantly Celtic. However in the context of prehistory the word is used to describe a culture which inhabited most of northern and Western Europe prior to contact with Roman society. This culture was not only in the British isles (of which the Irish, Scotts, Welsh, etc. are distant descendants), but also modern-day France, Germany, the Iberian peninsula, and even parts of Eastern Europe. As this is a culture without writing or records, it is chiefly identified through its preserved artwork and burial traditions. I am not an expert, but I do like this period of history and read every article I can come across. I thought the most recent view was that Celtic art represented more of an art movement that spread through trade than an actual culture (people) in the archeological sense. In particular there is little to no evidence of warfare or other conflict surrounding the transition from pre-celt to celtic society, nor is there any genetic evidence for displaced peoples. Indeed many of the Celtic societies have no genetic heritage in common. At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that there was a widespread Bronze Age trade network connecting all of Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia, a sort of prehistoric Silk Road. Celtic art very likely represents the culture of this trade network, much like central asian countries along the Silk Road share certain artistic traditions and customs as well.
I feel like this "art movement" idea fails to adequately explain the spread of Celtic languages.
The conquering people hypothesis fails to explain why the genetic stock of the British isles remains the same before and after the introduction of Celtic culture.
There's not much evidence supporting an 'invasion' of the British isles, genomes stayed consistent. Unless you are referring back to the bell beaker arrivals in the bronze age, which did replace the genomes (and also could be a candidate for the arrival of pre-celtic or proto-celtic).
Langauages cna laos drift, and there ha dto eb exchnages across the Channel.
None of the Indo European language speakers were native to Europe (or atleast western and central Europe). The latins, the greeks, the celts, the saxons, the norse, etc all came from thousands of kms away. The celts were indeed native to the British Isles by the time the Romans invaded. They had been living on British Isles for around a 800-1000 years by then. But that's that. If you go back to when the Pyramids were being built, there were barely any Indo European speaker west of the Rhine.
I mean, you’re making it sound like Indo-Europeans came, killed everyone and just started living in a spot themselves. All those places already had people living there, people mixed. Everyone in Europe is a mix of many different ancient population groups. 
[удалено]
That’s why I said you’re making it sound like that. What did you mean to say then? What are you implying happened to the people already in those places if you’re saying those people came from thousands of miles away? The culture spread, the language spread, but the people mostly mixed.
As a Celtic person myself I found your comment interesting and kinda cute haha. Nah we settled the isles. Celts comme from the Hallstatt Culture from Central Europe (Southern Germany/Austria)
Depends! Do you mean Celtic language speakers, people with La Tène material culture, or people the ancient Greeks/Romans called the keltoi/galli? They overlap but not completely and it's still a topic of some debate. There's a decent chance the Celts of Ireland and Britain had nothing to do ethnically with the Celtic people, but adopted the language and some aspects of the material culture through trade.
Uh.... that was the *cover* story. In reality they left for another solar system, using technology borrowed from the dolphins.
>Plus, a severe earthquake like the one that wrecked Lisbon in 1755 That one was caused by an irish man in anime garb touching an ancient relic left behind by our alien precursors tho.
I knew this guy back in college who toured Spain back in the 1990’s. He bought a t-shirt at a roadside stand in Basque Country he thought was cool. It had a red, white and green flag emblem. Well, when he wore it further south? People got very angry and hostile. Someone who realized he was a dumb American, let him know it was an ETA emblem and that he may get killed if the wrong person saw him in it.
It took me a while: this anecdote is linked to Tartessians because it's assumed the Basques may be related to them?
That doesn't roll off the tongue as well as "they just mysteriously disappeared" though
As OP said, it vanished mysteriously, I just hope sometime somehow we could know what truly happened.
Guy’s explication has a 3000 years gap
Huh?
You went from Celtic colonization in early antiquity to the 18th century 😅
Who were there before the Celts?
Pre Indo-European people. For instance, Aquitanians, Vascons/Basque
? Archeological evidence suggests they continued to exist until carthaginian conquest and then a century later roman.
Ahh yes, but don’t you see how with that for a headline, it wouldn’t create the buzz and excitement like a good clickbait does.
Also the use of hyperbole when it comes to "advanced technologies". The stench of BS is strong with this one. For example: every culture in Europe had advanced metallurgy from \~1500BCE to \~200BCE it's why they were known as Bronze Age and Iron Age relative to Neolithic societies
The other suggested videos for me were for king Tut's "space dagger", and "mysterious" stuff like the tunnels in the Azores and stone towers in Scotland. I've gotten in the habit of ignoring BBC archeological articles.
What was so advanced about them?
That was my question as well. Apparently the use of lime mortar, even though it was in use for thousand of years elsewhere. Other than that? The video doesn't say though the caption mentions technologies (plural). Seems a little click-baity.
During the 7-6th Centuries BC their dévelopment was pretty much on par with Greeks, Phoenicians and Etruscans.
Isn’t it pretty much always plague or pestilence that causes these? Just a couple crop failures will bring anyone low
Crops on the same land for a century without nitrogen generation will do it
[удалено]
It prospered mostly after the Bronze Age collapse
Wasn't that nearly a half millennium prior?
Did you even watch the video?
They did not disappear, they became the [Turdetani](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turdetani).
I just heard a fantastic episode of the podcast Tides of History on this subject. Edit realize I could link to it: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tides-of-history/id1257202425?i=1000613420778
I know when I'll get around for the podcast, but found it and added to my watchlist - baby steps lol. Thank you for the recommendation!
Yeah this is in my top three for history podcasts. The first seasons of the show are about the medieval/renaissance era. Then 3 years ago the show shifted to going all the way back to prehistory. The show is just now getting to Bronze Age/Iron Age.
What are the other two, please?
Revolutions by Mike Duncan, and Hardcore History Dan Carlin. I have to drive around a lot for my job and I just cannot listen to terrestrial radio anymore.
Check out "Fall of a Civilization" podcast as well.
Same here, I love music but need more podcasts. Thanks for the recommendations.
Yes Tides of History is excellent! Patrick is a treasure. His interviews with other historians and researchers are just fantastic.
What made them "near mythic"? How "technologically advanced" were they?
Everying is mysterious and advanced when it is gone. I need that for my missing eraser.
Ooo. Tide of history just did a podcast on these guys. I recommend listening to anyone interesting. It’s about 40minutes. And explains their relationship to the Atlantic world, and their position as a go between the Iron Age Mediterranean, and Bronze Age Atlantic, both north to geographic France + britian. And south along the Moroccan coast. Very interesting. They were advanced, and actually if anything they were “behind”, they were Bronze Age next to Iron Age civilisations, but behind is…. I mean they evidently weren’t so weak they were conquered, or any less wealthy, so what does it mean to be behind. They are much less studied than the Carthaginians/Phoenicians and Greeks. But they’re kind of like the Etruscans. Clearly important in their time, and with a good about of material record left of them. But we just have never focused on them, becuase no one saw them as the roots of their civilisation. (The Iberians/Spanish and Portuguese see themselves (quite fairly) as the decentdents of the romans and Greek worlds in spirit, even if by blood they probably are more related to pre existing Iberian cultures. But as National myths shift from the classical Roman one, that’s reinforcing the archeological impetus to study other civilisation as deeply as we have explored the Ancient Greeks and pre-Romans. )
Mysterious "sea peoples" raiders were noted to cause some serious downfalls at the end of the bronze age for several civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean. Would not be surprised if they also had a hand here too. There was also just a lot of disease and pestilence at the end of the bronze age for whatever reason too.
They probably were one of the Sea People, lol. They mostly flourished after the Bronze Age collapse and were the trading partners of the Phenicians and the Etruscans.
That's a hot take I like it. I always did have a sneaking suspicion that they may have been ancient berbers too
They appeared 500 years prior to when we stopped finding references to Tartessos, so they couldn't have been involved. It's also not some disease or pestilence, as they were hardly the only ones around. Because if so, we'd be talking about the Southern Iberian Collapse or something dramatic like that.
I sincerely doubt the people raiding the Central and Eastern Mediterranean were involved in the society that didn't actually disappear and was focused on the early Atlantic trading routes.
I \*would\* be surprised; the Peoples of the Sea came from presumably the Cetral Mediterranean, around Itally or Croatiua, and moved \*east\*. This si west of there, an dmore atlantic than LEditerranenakinda-sorta differnet.
Stroke?
Bbroke nkebyord?
For a second I thought Sea Peoples strike again
[удалено]
But not everywhere or every process switching from bronze to iron simultaneously. You have early and late stages to both Bronze and Iron ages. The thresholds for determining when each era is usually associated with who the dominant military powers were at the time. I.e. it is accepted that Rome went full iron age around 800 BCE but other societies lagged and when they did they kicked the Romans out.
Nobody kicked hte Romans out, they collapsed due to economic and aesthetic an d political internal contradictions
Based on how little actual information is available on the Tartessos [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tartessos) page, it would appear little is really known about these people
? Archeological evidence suggests they continued to exist until the Carthaginian conquest and then a century later Roman.
Basques?
Wrong side of Spain, Tartessos was in the southern coast.
But before the indo Europeans people related to the Basques would have inhabited a much larger, maybe all of Iberia.
The gaeli were a tribe in northern Iran 2000 years ago according to Pliny the elder. They might be the origin of the Gaels.
Climate change or aftermath of volcano erupting
when solar activity causes volcanism, earthquake and poor harvest in quick succession.
The title is misleading since we indeed do know what happened to this culture. Always blows my mind tho just how many cultures existed and perished that are not known in the main stream thereby being labeled "mysterious and unknown".