Talk:Tartessian language

Does anyone understand Tartessian ?

Does anyone understand the language of Tartessian, anyone show similar words, or other patterns in & modern Spanish?. Nothing is said, or menetion. No Tartessian words or phrases are listed.

Confusing sentence

The first line of the second paragraph is immensely confusing translated litterally into English. While I've generally been translating litterally, I simply could not puzzle out much of the middle sentence. It seemed to be saying the same thing in a variety of ways.

I'm guessing that this is by the same guy who wrote the Iberian langauge article. A number of sentances in that were highly redundant, so I'm gonna go with my instincts and translate to roughly what I think they were trying to say.

If anybody has a better idea, please go ahead and fix it. --Quintucket 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and my mom took away the Spanish dictionary. I need the multiple definitions to make sense of the style this guy uses, so I may put this on hold until I get a chance to sneak it back upstairs again. Online dictionaries are pretty much useless with the style used by our Spanish professor here. Edit: now signed --Quintucket 02:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarity to Greek/Phoenician.

I wonder if there are any sources that comment on the similarity of "Tartessian" to the Greek/Phoenician alphabets. Etruscan too for that matter. It wouldn't surprise me if the history of this alphabet is similar to that of Norse-Germanic runes; they were mostly acquired from trade with Greeks down the rivers of Russia.

The following is a summary of information paraphrased from "Historia de España, Tomo I, Volumen II: España Protohistórica," edited by R. Menéndez Pidal, published 1952 by Espasa-Calpe. p.281-286. Reading this made me think the alphabet is not "autochthonous" but rather borrowed to some degree, probably from Phoenician, but perhaps from Greek (or both over the course of time).

The Tartessian people had been in contact with the Phoenicians via (modern) Cádiz and other coastal settlements for about 500 years (from c 1100 bce) when the Greeks started to settle and trade as well.

This question is well known. Menendez Pidal is a very old resource. There are two hypothesis, both conclude that "Tartessian" script is an adaptation of the Phoenician Script of ca. 800 B.C., but some authors (specially Untermann) believe that there was an influence of the Greek script (in order to explain the shape of some signs as the A).

In English I only remember this source: Iberian Epigraphy Page (look at the pages [1], and specially [2] and [3]. If you read Spanish look for articles of Javier De Hoz Bravo, José Antonio Correa Rodríguez and Jesús Rodríguez Ramos (If you want I know the link to two interesting articles in Spanish on that question).

By the way, Phoenicians were not only at Cádiz but in many tows of the coast and some inland in the Guadalquivir Basin. There were many Phoenicians living in Southern Spain.

--Dilvish 10 words 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Tartessian as Celtic, Altantic Theory

The idea that Tartessian is Celtic is still very much a minority view and that doesn't look like changing. The associated theory that the Celts come from SW Iberia and don't start with the Hallstatt culture is also a minority view. It can only be described as a fringe theory and while worth mentioning, shouldn't be the main portion of the article as if all argument has ended. Paul S (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not only a "very much minority view that doesn't look like changing" as you say, it is the current majority view among archaeologists since an abundance of evidence has been painstakingly discovered across many disciplines. Professor Koch's work on the Tartessian inscriptions is only a part of this body of work. Rather than just delete my citations of peer-reviewed articles that present this evidence, you should have presented counter evidence (if you can find it) from the last few years post the decipherment and translation of the Tartessian inscriptions.Jembana (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The date that Professor Koch presented his Tartessian translations as Celtic was May, 2008, so

peer-reviewed articles on Tartessian as Celtic vs. otherwise and Atlantic Bronze Age Theory for Celtic origins vs. the Hallstatt origin theory after May, 2008 is what we're after. Happy hunting :)Jembana (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some attempt at translation of the longest text on a stele (of about 90 stele) of 86 characters which was discovered in February 2009, so within the past year would be best.Jembana (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW PaulS did you mean to say Hallstatt or Urnfield, if Halstatt - what phase ? Let's be clear here.Jembana (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems Messrs Cunliffe, Karl, Guerra, McEvoy, Bradley; Oppenheimer, Rrvik, Isaac, Parsons, Koch, Freeman and Wodtko disagree with you (2010): see Celtic from the West: Alternative Perspectives from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and Literature. Oxbow Books and Celtic Studies Publications. pp. 384. ISBN 978-1-84217-410-4.Jembana (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You've cut and pasted the list of contributors to the above book and cited them all as advocates of the notion that Tartessian is Celtic. Naughty! Paul S (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

They were listed because they are contributors to the book on Celtic from the West which incorporates the Atlantic Bronze Age including Tartessian. Just to clear this up (not trying to argue) :)Jembana (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is becoming rather clear that Tartessian was in fact the earliest Celtic language. The research conducted by the Cunliffe and Koch University of Wales team in 2009 and 2010 (and ongoing) will lead to a general reclassification of Tartessian as Celtic. The people who keep referencing outdated material in an attempt to quash the notion that Tartessian is a Celtic language are intellectually dishonest characters. Some of these types are charlatans who obviously have some sort of twisted ax to grind.

London Hawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we must jump on the latest hypothesis before the academic community does, or we are truly dishonest. Especially when we have someone such as yourself who can see the future with certainty. (I assume you are independently wealthy from predicting the stock market.) — kwami (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems clear that, increasingly, the academic community IS ACCEPTING Tartessian as the first Celtic language. The evidence is substantial and growing. Tell us, how would you go about refuting the latest research buttressing Tartessian as Celtic? It looks like I may have hit a sensitive nerve... —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 14:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please provide some 2ary sources, which is what we should be using for our articles. You haven't hit a nerve (I care little about Tartessian or Celtic), but I've seen lots of promising proposals for lots of things which never pan out. Where are the academic reviews which say, By God, Cunliffe and Koch have got it! — kwami (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, Koch (2008 and 2009) and Colera's paper both post-date Jesus's paper - why did you revert London Hawk's contribution on the mistaken basis that your reference (Jesus) "post-dates" Koch's and Colera's when they obviously don't ? Jembana (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there has been no refutation of Koch's translations after 2 years and no one else has come up with a credible alternative since, so I would say his findings have been largely accepted accepted especially since they are in papers and publications widely available on the web and via traditional media. Jembana (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)