WI : Tartessian civilisation lives on

What would be the consequences for the western mediterranean basin, and beyond, with a Tartessian civilisation surviving the corner of the VIth century BC?

Let's assume (unless that's too implausible for a working TL), for the sake of the discussion, that Phoceans manages to win the Battle of Alalia, and that Carthagians are more focused on Thyrrenian Sea for the time being than closing the Iberic Sea to Greeks, maybe turning Tartessians into intermediaries.

What would that mean :

1) For Spain itself. How a maintained political ensemble (even with the possibility of Tartessos itself disappearing) would have changed things for what matters devellopment and sophistication of peninsular societies?
How important would be balanced indigenous and foreign (greek/carthagian/etrurian/campanian/celtic/etc.) influences?

Was it doomed into a peripherical role, or could it have became something greater?

2) For Carthagians. Without a monopole on Iberic Sea and Spain trade, would a more African focus for the punic society would have been possible (up to terrestrial trade along Sahara)? Or would the situation devolve into maritime wars?

3)For Phoceans. Would Massalia dominate the phocean ensemble in western Mediterranean, as it did IOTL? More importantly so, maybe? Or less, so?

4) In Gaul : how the devellopment of pre and para Celtic cultures and tribes would be changed? IOTL, the languedocians harbours were essentially a mix of Iberic/Ligurian/Greek/Etrusceans and later Celtic influences.
Would that be unchanged, or the Iberic influences would be butterflied/augmented?

5) Anything else you could think of, eventually.

Important
I know protohistoric PoDs aren't likely to give many clear answers, and that plausibility with the poor handful of informations that we have about the period (and how little of these made it into "amateur's history").
But let's avoid the usual trappings : "we don't know" or "everything would be changed and unrecognizable".
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Fantastic topic choice! :D I haven't seen a Tartessos discussion on the forum before, bravo.

Now, to business.

1) Considering that using the Pyrenees as a defence is grand it would probably form the natural northern border of a Tartessian Empire. A Tartessian Spain may be a bit Greek and Carthaginian in the East, but the West will probably be more populated, formed up of colonies and conquests. This does assume an expansionist Tartessos, which with the rumoured wealth in tin and silver just requires a source of copper to make it reasonably easy to do.

Interestingly, according to Mark Adams in Meet Me In Atlantis there is a theory that suggests that the Carthaginian and Phoenicians may be descended from the Tartessians, via the Western Origin theory - which I'm not sure, beyond some cultural flavor, changes much. It just means that if this is true, Spain likely becomes/remains more Semetic.

2) I doubt in this situation that Carthage would be able to enforce access or control around the Iberic sea. They have to have complete control over the strait of Gibraltar to pull that off, and the Tartessians would certainly wish to contest that. Based on this spanner, the Western Med may be less Carthaginian. But may also have a STRONGER Carthage as well, because a surviving Tartessian Civilisation would suggest a more developed, and powerful, Iberia - and as such more developed conquests, and richer trade partners. I doubt that they'd dominate Saharan trade, but it would certainly make Carthage and the Libyan traders richer if they invested more in the trade, but I'd wager they'd remain the endpoints of the trade route controlled by the desert tribes.

3) No idea, sorry. Phocians aren't my strong suit. With another regional player to ally/use in the balance between Carthage, Rome and the Gallic tribes? It could certainly prove beneficial, assuming the city develops in a similar manner to OTL

4) As mentioned above, alongside Iberic, there would probably be some more Semetic influence if the Western Hypothesis is true.

5) Anything else? I think it would be really interesting to have some more strong states on the Atlantic Coast. One of the primary reasons the Romans flourished was the population of the Mediterranean, if the Atlantic coast is more populated, more trade can take place, and rather than Iberia being a territory on the edge of an Empire, it is the bridge between a strong Mediterranean, and strong(er) Atlantic markets - which could have repercussions with Ireland, Western Gaul, and Britannia.

More excitingly for me, is the West African Coast. If the Tartessians are going to be a successful maritime or merchant power, they're likely to need ships more suitable for the Atlantic than the galleys Rome and Carthage used. Which could lead in all sorts of directions, but I think a safe bet may well be earlier oceanic trade with West Africa, to circumvent the overland routes of the Carthaginians. After all, isn't there that old adage that competition breeds innovation? If this means we have blue water vessels sooner, and contacts with West Africa, then this could increase the likelihood of early trans-atlantic contact. This somewhat overshadows trade with the Canaries, who could certainly profit from more Atlantic trade.
 
1) Considering that using the Pyrenees as a defence is grand it would probably form the natural northern border of a Tartessian Empire.
I'm not sure Tartessians could evolve as quickly as an Empire.

A model of historical devellopment was proposed, tough
1) Small polity, serving as trade center for silver and cooper for Greeks and Phoenicians
2) Increased demand leads Tartessos to find other suppliers among its neighbours.
3) These new suppliers realize they can trade directly their goods
4) Greek and Phoenicians begin to trade directly with these suppliers
5) Profitable trade of Tartessos decline, and the kingdom cease to be a power at the end of VIth century.
7b)Struggles against Celtici and Phoenicians deprive Tartessos from tin mines,
7c) A natural disaster achieved the kingdom.

(Giving that it's not incompatible).

Hence why I preferred to use "Tartessian civilization", rather than Tartessos itself that was probably declining at this point. A bit like Mycenean doesn't implies Mycenes' domination.

Maybe Neo-Tartessian would be clearer, especially if we include Celtiberians in the proposal? (I'd assume Celtici or other peoples may be as largely influenced by Neo-Tartessians they were by Iberians, if the former were that distinct from the latter)

Anyway, I'd expect a Neo-Tartessian ensemble to be relatively politically divided, at least in a first time.

A Tartessian Spain may be a bit Greek and Carthaginian in the East
Giving they lived from mediterranean trade, I'd expect a lot of these on the coasts : tough it might be more mixed culturally and looking more like cities as Ensérune, Lattara*, while cities as Ampurias and Carthago Nova may be more close to their respective centers, if the competition between Phoceans and Carthagians somehow prevent a decisive victory of one or the other side.

*Lattara in the VIth BC

but the West will probably be more populated, formed up of colonies and conquests.
Frankly, I doubt it : it would be a bit more remote and the western coasts are likely to be under Celtiberian control. I was more thinking about Neo-Tartessian influence or presence along western emporias.

Interestingly, according to Mark Adams in Meet Me In Atlantis there is a theory that suggests that the Carthaginian and Phoenicians may be descended from the Tartessians, via the Western Origin theory - which I'm not sure, beyond some cultural flavor, changes much. It just means that if this is true, Spain likely becomes/remains more Semetic.
It seems particularily doubtful. I mean, every source we have on (and frankly, that's not much) point towards a native origin (that might be Celticized or Iberic, granted) and not from the eastern Mediterranean.

The fact Mark Adams is a proponent of the Tarshish=Tartessos theory, which is quite generally taken as a severe case of bad ethymology, isn't making me really encline to abide by this theory, maybe wrongly.

2) I doubt in this situation that Carthage would be able to enforce access or control around the Iberic sea. They have to have complete control over the strait of Gibraltar to pull that off, and the Tartessians would certainly wish to contest that.
I doubt they'd have the power to do that as a block, especially with Celtici meddling with the whole stuff. But maybe Neo-Tartessians cities/states would allies with different groups in order to prevent access to peninsular ore to a same client?
In this case, Carthage alreadt defeated by Phoceans wouldn't have an easy time preventing Greeks to go for it.

I doubt that they'd dominate Saharan trade
I was thinking of horizontal trade roads and sea roads, in order to link by land Atlantic outposts to reach tin ore trade. Not a road to West Africa yet.

3) No idea, sorry. Phocians aren't my strong suit. With another regional player to ally/use in the balance between Carthage, Rome and the Gallic tribes? It could certainly prove beneficial, assuming the city develops in a similar manner to OTL
I'm not sure about Rome ITTL, but it could lead to more structurated along the coast Iberians (in the strictest sense), a bit like Elysiques IOTL, maybe used by Greeks to allow a direct access to peninsular ores and goods, as Carthagian would be more stucks in the immediate south.

As for Massallia...I'd suppose some geopolitics may change there.
First, the city would probably still establish a certain dominance other Phoceans, while Carthage may have a bit more trouble doing so other Punic due to the defeat.

With a still strong presence on Thyrenian Sea, maybe Phoceans would be a force to reckon against Etrurians. Do you think that will be a struggle with Syracuse or both would ally (even temporarily) against them in a Cumae-like battle?
I'd expect, anyway, a more block-to-block (even if only slightly) geopolitical organisation of the region...

4) As mentioned above, alongside Iberic, there would probably be some more Semetic influence if the Western Hypothesis is true.
Regardless of this hypothesis that I don't think its convincing, IOTL pointed that the Iberic influence in Gaul was quite diverse : Ibero-Aquitains passably get celtized, Iberians of the mediterranean coast merging with Ligurians and somehow influenced by Greeks and Italic peoples.

I was more thinking about what a maybe more powerful Phocean ensemble would mean for Ligurians : would the celtization of the region still happen? Would Ligurians (or Celto-Ligurians) be sorta equivalent of Numids?
Basically would the structuration be accompanied by Massalia or in reaction of Massaliote involvement with its hinterland as IOTL.

I'm conscious there's no real answer there, at best wild toughts.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I'm not sure Tartessians could evolve as quickly as an Empire.

A model of historical devellopment was proposed, tough
1) Small polity, serving as trade center for silver and cooper for Greeks and Phoenicians
2) Increased demand leads Tartessos to find other suppliers among its neighbours.
3) These new suppliers realize they can trade directly their goods
4) Greek and Phoenicians begin to trade directly with these suppliers
5) Profitable trade of Tartessos decline, and the kingdom cease to be a power at the end of VIth century.
7b)Struggles against Celtici and Phoenicians deprive Tartessos from tin mines,
7c) A natural disaster achieved the kingdom.

(Giving that it's not incompatible).

Hence why I preferred to use "Tartessian civilization", rather than Tartessos itself that was probably declining at this point. A bit like Mycenean doesn't implies Mycenes' domination.

I suppose I'm a bit overeager. But then again, this was during the time period where city-states were becoming Empires. I see no reason why the the Neo-Tartessians would be behind the curve here. They might choose to form an alliance or league like the Greeks did, or have a highly influenced Celtiberian tribe dominate and rules as if they were Tartessian as per the Macedonians. I think that Spains relative aridity compared to Italy and Gaul would suggest kingdoms more likely that city states, as they need to control more farmland to prosper, and need to secure larger territories for the same population - at least until they can solve the problem.

Maybe Neo-Tartessian would be clearer, especially if we include Celtiberians in the proposal? (I'd assume Celtici or other peoples may be as largely influenced by Neo-Tartessians they were by Iberians, if the former were that distinct from the latter)

Anyway, I'd expect a Neo-Tartessian ensemble to be relatively politically divided, at least in a first time.

I can see them as a Macedonian/Illyrian Analogue. Technologically and culturally influenced, and claiming a mantle of Tartessian-ness.

Giving they lived from mediterranean trade, I'd expect a lot of these on the coasts : tough it might be more mixed culturally and looking more like cities as Ensérune, Lattara*, while cities as Ampurias and Carthago Nova may be more close to their respective centers, if the competition between Phoceans and Carthagians somehow prevent a decisive victory of one or the other side.

*Lattara in the VIth BC

I used to spend a lot of time near Ampurias, in the small town of Roses, which is from the same period as Empúries (I may prefer the Catalan name, call me biased). :D I'd agree with this analysis. Although "Close to their respective centres"? Do you mean they'd be founded in other locations, or more tightly linked to their neighbours?


Frankly, I doubt it : it would be a bit more remote and the western coasts are likely to be under Celtiberian control. I was more thinking about Neo-Tartessian influence or presence along western emporias.

I should probably clarify, than OTL. But if there is conflict that prevents easy movement along the coasts between the "Guadalquivir" and eastern river basins, by blocking the straits, then going west is easier, although they'd most certainly have to be resource colonies, and maybe trading with Celtiberians. Short of a large land-based Empire, to reach Emporias/Emporion/Insert-Other-Old-Name-For-Empuries, means a long journey overland through various Celtiberian lands, or sailing through contested waters. Whilst some traders will make the trip, I think you'll more likely see colonies near modern Valancia, or controlling the Balearic Islands, before Emporias.


It seems particularily doubtful. I mean, every source we have on (and frankly, that's not much) point towards a native origin (that might be Celticized or Iberic, granted) and not from the eastern Mediterranean.

I think I'm confused here, I was referring to the Carthaginians being descended from Tartessos, whereas you seem to think I meant Tartessos from the Carthaginians.

The fact Mark Adams is a proponent of the Tarshish=Tartessos theory, which is quite generally taken as a severe case of bad ethymology, isn't making me really encline to abide by this theory, maybe wrongly.

I'll have to re-read his book, because I know he was largely dismissive of Freund, and those working for him, and it was that group that thought they were the same. Hrmm. I don't believe it myself, but I do find the idea interesting. But the cultures are probably unrelated.

I doubt they'd have the power to do that as a block, especially with Celtici meddling with the whole stuff. But maybe Neo-Tartessians cities/states would allies with different groups in order to prevent access to peninsular ore to a same client?
In this case, Carthage alreadt defeated by Phoceans wouldn't have an easy time preventing Greeks to go for it.

Now Greeks in the Atlantic is a fun idea - it could well prevent the Atlantis myth from existing, since it can be categorically disproved by more contemporary explorers. Sadly killing off Atlantis : The Lost Empire.

Oddly enough, I think the Greeks could be instrumental in preventing Carthaginian dominance, even if I disagree that the Neo-Tartessians couldn't do it alone. Again, it is all about a 3-way balance of power. If any of the three is too strong, the other two work together to weaken them, but not enough to destroy their chances, otherwise they'd have no assistance if their former ally becomes too dominant. The Greeks certainly did this in Greece, I can see them trying to get the Neo-Tartessians to assist them.

I was thinking of horizontal trade roads and sea roads, in order to link by land Atlantic outposts to reach tin ore trade. Not a road to West Africa yet.

Ah, sorry, misread along as across. Although a port in the Atlantic would certainly be useful for Carthage if the straits are blocked. Sadly the cost of the tin increases because of this.

Though, they did overlap with the Garamantes, who did a lot of trans-sahara trade, and I'm pretty sure there was some trade that Carthage already had with West Africa. Though I guess we're a few centuries early :D

I'm not sure about Rome ITTL, but it could lead to more structurated along the coast Iberians (in the strictest sense), a bit like Elysiques IOTL, maybe used by Greeks to allow a direct access to peninsular ores and goods, as Carthagian would be more stucks in the immediate south.

As for Massallia...I'd suppose some geopolitics may change there.
First, the city would probably still establish a certain dominance other Phoceans, while Carthage may have a bit more trouble doing so other Punic due to the defeat.

With a still strong presence on Thyrenian Sea, maybe Phoceans would be a force to reckon against Etrurians. Do you think that will be a struggle with Syracuse or both would ally (even temporarily) against them in a Cumae-like battle?
I'd expect, anyway, a more block-to-block (even if only slightly) geopolitical organisation of the region...

I hadn't considered Syracuse, and as an extension Magna Grecia. I think at most they'd ally with the Phoceans at sea, but not on land. Too difficult to get involved in a land conflict at the other end of the continent, I'd expect token contributions at most, unless there is a history there I'm unaware of.

I think it'd probably be more likely that the Phoceans would have more money, and be able to hire more mercenaries that could shift the tide. Or simply ward off conflict with Etruria by being more intimidating, and being able to hire more Gauls to fight for them, and maybe even have more population from Greek immigrants due to more opportunities.

For the entire W.Med? I'd probably list the Neo-Tartessians, Celtiberians (or 2), Massalia, Etruria, Latium, Magna Grecia, and Carthage as a list of the main blocks - with co-operation scattered against Carthage, until the Latins organise an start making alliances with Carthage look like a good idea.

Regardless of this hypothesis that I don't think its convincing, IOTL pointed that the Iberic influence in Gaul was quite diverse : Ibero-Aquitains passably get celtized, Iberians of the mediterranean coast merging with Ligurians and somehow influenced by Greeks and Italic peoples.

I was more thinking about what a maybe more powerful Phocean ensemble would mean for Ligurians : would the celtization of the region still happen? Would Ligurians (or Celto-Ligurians) be sorta equivalent of Numids?
Basically would the structuration be accompanied by Massalia or in reaction of Massaliote involvement with its hinterland as IOTL.

I'm conscious there's no real answer there, at best wild toughts.

My best response to this is horribly vague. It depends on quite how strong Massaliote trade is. The more goods, and money they can trade and make, the more tribes they can pay to fight for them. Both of which typically disseminate culture. Whilst I'm unaware of what you mean by Numids (Numidians?) I think it'd take quite a lot to not Celtify (Shouldn't this be Gallify? Or am I misunderstanding this?) because the majority people in the area, under the influence of Massalia will still be the same. You'd need a population explosion to significantly change this. Whilst the polities and trade can add new aspects to the resulting Ligurian culture, I'd expect it to largely stay the same, short of a battle or fortification that blocks the passes through/around the Alps. Which might help against the Etrurians, so aren't entirely unlikely.
 
I suppose I'm a bit overeager. But then again, this was during the time period where city-states were becoming Empires.
Well, Illyrians didn't, Etrusceans didn't, Gauls didn't...
You could have hegemons, which is an idea we could keep in mind, but empires isn't exactly the obvious evolution.

I think that Spains relative aridity compared to Italy and Gaul would suggest kingdoms more likely that city states, as they need to control more farmland to prosper, and need to secure larger territories for the same population - at least until they can solve the problem.
That's partially the geography that makes me think that NeoTartessians may be eventually locked up in IOTL Andalucia and Algraves (maybe up to central Portugal?).

While Italy offers a natural North/South way, trough the coastal plains and with easily crossable passes, the Iberic peninsula is more "walled" on West/East lines and the assumed demographic/cultural regions IOTL seems to have rarely crossed these.

I can see them as a Macedonian/Illyrian Analogue. Technologically and culturally influenced, and claiming a mantle of Tartessian-ness.
I like the Illyrian comparison, pretty much.

Although "Close to their respective centres"? Do you mean they'd be founded in other locations, or more tightly linked to their neighbours?
I meant that ITTL establishment would be closer to their "mother cities", as Rosas and Empuries/Ampurias were, than Hēmeroskopeion (in Valencian Country) was. You may have emporion there, but I'm not sure they'll play much a role.

Basically, having eastern Iberic coast being less of a wilderland, and having more political differenciation between northern Phoceans and southern Carthagians. (Altough I suspect Carthage will hold on Balearic)


I should probably clarify, than OTL. But if there is conflict that prevents easy movement along the coasts between the "Guadalquivir" and eastern river basins, by blocking the straits, then going west is easier
But rather than colonies, trading with Celtici and other Celtiberian may be easier than settling "colonies". At best, I'd see Phoenicians and Greeks having trade points in the region, but that alone would point the straits aren't blockaded.
Short of a large land-based Empire, to reach Emporias/Emporion/Insert-Other-Old-Name-For-Empuries, means a long journey overland through various Celtiberian lands, or sailing through contested waters.
Well, you do have roads trough Murcia, as the Via Heraclea (which was incidentally the name of the road that preceded Via Domitia as well).
I don't think the journey will be that perillous...Actually it could hint at a displacement from Algrave to Andalucia for the centers of this NeoTartessian civilisation...

Maybe a more cosmopolitan emporion replacing Hēmeroskopeion as well?

I think I'm confused here, I was referring to the Carthaginians being descended from Tartessos, whereas you seem to think I meant Tartessos from the Carthaginians.
Then it makes even less sense, giving all the sources and archeological proofs we have for Carthagian origin.

Now Greeks in the Atlantic is a fun idea - it could well prevent the Atlantis myth from existing, since it can be categorically disproved by more contemporary explorers. Sadly killing off Atlantis : The Lost Empire.
I don't think it would have much influence on mythography :)
Plato was essentially tweaking some stuff in order to make a philosophical take on utopy, and platonicism after all.

And Pytheas explorations never really crushed this.

Speaking of which, we could see earlier Pytheas-like knowledge of Atlantic. Maybe an earlier amber trade passing trough Gaul and tin trade?

If any of the three is too strong, the other two work together to weaken them, but not enough to destroy their chances, otherwise they'd have no assistance if their former ally becomes too dominant.
I'd rather see Neo-Tartessian being either proxy-ed by both Carthagians and Phoceans, at least for trade matters. Which should give birth to quite interesting NeoTartessian states.

Ah, sorry, misread along as across. Although a port in the Atlantic would certainly be useful for Carthage if the straits are blocked. Sadly the cost of the tin increases because of this.
I was thinking of it less as if they were blocked, as a way to bypass intermediaries : IOTL, they just settled Andalucia as if there was no tomorrow, but maybe Mauretania would be more of a target ITTL.

and I'm pretty sure there was some trade that Carthage already had with West Africa.
It existed but was really limited, both in products and in quantity. A more African minded Carthage could change that, but slowly and maybe more along Altantic coasts. Hanno may be more useful ITTL.

I hadn't considered Syracuse, and as an extension Magna Grecia. I think at most they'd ally with the Phoceans at sea, but not on land.
Giving how much SIcilians fought each other, I'm not sure we can treat MG and Sicily as a whole. Basically, Syracuse was the big player in the area : they might be more afraid of Carthage which would push a more or less remote alliance with Massalia, that said.

I think it'd probably be more likely that the Phoceans would have more money, and be able to hire more mercenaries that could shift the tide.
Mmm...Which could mean more hellenized Ligurians in Gaul. Maybe distinct enough that they won't be easily confused with Celts. Maybe turning into something like Osci/Samnites, in matter of sophistication?

You'd argue Salyes were pretty much that IOTL, but maybe an earlier Lygies's structuration.

Altough I doubt they will be much more favourable to Phoceans : Great Greece cities barely held the coastal lines and were always under pressure from native hinterland.

I think it'd take quite a lot to not Celtify (Shouldn't this be Gallify? Or am I misunderstanding this?)
Basically, all the Gauls aren't Celts, and all Celts weren't the same Celts.
In Provence, populations are traditionally called Ligures (that may be somehow Celts, or close to Celts, or Celtizied, or not) that went under (another?) Celtic wave in the IVth century.

ALtough more hellenized Ligures may remain quite distinct ITTL, I don't think the relation will be way different from what existed in Italy
 
In order to get a broader view, here's a tentative at a map.

AAA.png
 
I can't speak too much to the subject but it would make an amazing and little-explored opportunity for a timeline.

Don't worry, you can still give your piece of mind : it's not a really known period or situation for all of us. At worst, pulling something implausible would be helpful guessing where it could go and where it couldn't.
 
Did the Tartessians actually decline? Or was it just a matter of them being incorporated into the "Punic" sphere?
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Did the Tartessians actually decline? Or was it just a matter of them being incorporated into the "Punic" sphere?

Depends on your definition of decline I suppose. I personally would include "being culturally engulfed" an indication of a declining culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancho_Roano is the only actual SITE that I can find that is Tartessian which was destroyed in a fire, but there are earlier theories that Tartessos itself was destroyed in a Lisbon-style Tsunami. (Hence the overlap between Tartessos and Atlantis in literature).
 
Did the Tartessians actually decline? Or was it just a matter of them being incorporated into the "Punic" sphere?

These aren't incompatible. We know there was a greek trade with Tartessians, and mentions of it cease after that Phoceans are kicked out of the region while Punic cities strengthen their hold on the region.

I'd expect, furthermore, Celtiberians to have played a role into these changes, hence why I think most of historical Tartessian sphere to be Celtiberized.
 
Top