 The history of gladiators and gladiatorial combat is one that conjures to mind crowds cheering for blood and the armed athletes in the arena who would oblige them. In short, we think of the violence. But outside of the arena gladiators sometimes doubled as husbands and lovers; even to some of Rome’s highest-ranking women. Gladiators were viewed as belonging to the lowest of social classes: prisoners of war, criminals, and slaves. Even free-born citizens who volunteered to fight as gladiators, called auctorati, were considered little more than pimps or actors, “selling their blood”, as it were [i]. Despite this, as athletes held to the highest physical standards, perhaps in all of history, they would have been paragons of masculinity. As such, they were just as popular in Roman society as modern professional athletes are today; their power over women equally as strong. Girls or women would scratch graffiti on the walls of gladiator schools declaring their love for those who had captured their hearts. Graffiti in Pompeii, for example, identifies “Creces, with his trident, who catches the girls at night in his net” and who is the “lord of the girls”. And “Celadus, the Thracian, who makes the girls’ hearts beat faster”[ii]. Some gladiators took mistresses and even wives. In the gladiatorial school of Pompeii, the bodies of eight men and one woman were found. Expensive jewelry lay next to the woman, allowing us to hypothesize that she was a woman of means engaged in a rendezvous with a gladiator lover [iii]. This, along with other accounts, tells us that female members of the Roman aristocracy were just as vulnerable to their charms as anyone else. SENATORS' WIVES AND EMPRESSES One curious case involves a gladiator named Sergius and the wife of a senator, Eppia. Eppia fell in love Sergius and ran off with him to Alexandria. Their story is documented by Juvenal. He begins by asking, “Was it good looks and youthfulness set Eppia on fire? What did she see in him to endure being classed with The gladiators? After all, her Sergius had already begun To smooth his throat, an injured arm presaged retirement; And his face was seriously disfigured, a furrow chafed By his helmet, a huge lump on the bridge of his nose, And a nasty condition provoking a forever-weeping eye.” Sergius was decidedly not a looker. Juvenal can only justify Eppia’s attraction to him by saying: “He was a gladiator, though. That makes them Hyacinthus; That’s why she preferred him to children and country, Husband and sister. They love the steel.”[iv] His description captures what must have been a common sentiment among “ordinary” Roman men at the time – that were it not for the fact that they were gladiators, no one would have looked once in their direction. Another story involves Faustina, the daughter of Emperor Antoninus Pious (AD 86-161) and the wife of Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180). It was said that she had fallen in love with a gladiator and that she grew obsessed with him. When she confessed this to her husband, he consulted with Chaldean soothsayers on how best to remedy her obsession. They advised him that the gladiator must be killed and that Faustina needed to bathe in his blood. According to the Historia Augustina, “When this was done, the passion was indeed allayed, but their son Commodus was born a gladiator, not really a prince;…[and that] Many writers, however, state that Commodus was really begotten in adultery, since it is generally known that Faustina, while at Caieta, used to choose out lovers from among the sailors and gladiators.” [v] Cassius Dio (AD 155-235) likewise describes how another empress, Messalina, third wife of Emperor Claudius (10BC – AD54), intervened to save a defeated gladiator who was one of her lovers. [vi] Although we mostly think of gladiators in terms of their activities in the arena, like modern professional athletes, they held a strong appeal to women from all walks of life. Their claim to definitive masculinity (all modern gender theories aside) gave them a halo that many found hard to resist. It also allows us to consider them in a more nuanced light. They were more than just fighters engaged in life and death spectacle. They were the male sex symbols of the Roman world. And they were the ones who got all the girls. END NOTES
[i] Nossov, Konstantin. Gladiator: The Complete Guide to Ancient Rome’s Bloody Fighters, Lyons Press, 2011, p 148. [ii] Meijer, Fik. The Gladiators, Thomas Dunne Books, 2004, p 70. [iii] Nossov, 155. [iv]Juvenal. The Satires, translated by A.S. Kline, 2011, web.ics.purdue.edu/~rauhn/Hist_416/hist420/JuvenalSatirespdf.pdf, SatVI:82-113. [v]“The Life of Marcus Aurelius: Part 2.” Historia Augusta, Loeb Classical Library, 1921, penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Marcus_Aurelius/2*.html, 19. [vi] Cassius Dio. Roman History. Vol. VII, Loeb Classical Library edition, 1924 http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/60*.html Book 60, 28.
1 Comment
 “Toxic Masculinity” is a hot topic these days. A minority even imply that all masculinity is “toxic” and that there’s too much of it. Upon reflection, exaggerated arrogance, aggression, and ignorance are what they really seem to be describing; though these qualities are hardly limited to men. What is clear is that we are experiencing a cultural crisis of masculinity. As traditional values fade and men are increasingly being left without any clear direction of how to be in the world, it begs the question: is there a healthy masculinity? One that is worth saving? The Romans experienced a similar crisis of masculinity in the 1st Century BC. For them, masculinity was defined by their concept of virtus. Unlike today’s critics of masculinity, they saw the problem as there not being enough of it. VIRTUS = ROMAN MASCULINITY Virtus is where we derive our own word, virtue, but the two are not the same. Virtue covers a much wider set of qualities than virtus alone. To the Romans, virtus was among the most noble qualities a man could possess and was often counted as the single most important moral quality that made Rome and Romans superior to other nations and peoples. It represented nothing less than the Roman national character. The basic definition of virtus is “manliness”, or “the qualities of a man at his best”. In early Roman history, it meant prowess in battle, courage in the face of the enemy, honesty, and self-control. While the military connotation of virtus would remain throughout Roman history, strength of character, readiness for action, and service to the state came to be key qualities of it for civilians as well as soldiers. Further, as the state developed and politicians and orators held greater influence, virtus also came to include courage in the face of shame. The satirist Lucilius (180-103 BC) also tells us that having a strong sense of morality was essential. He writes: “…[a man should] be an enemy and hater of bad men and bad habits…a defender of good men of good habits or morals, to make much of these, to wish them well, to live with them as a friend, and, beyond these traits, to think of one’s fatherland, then of one’s relatives, and third and last of our own interests.” In short, there was no room for thuggery in virtus. Rather, it was held as the quality by which a man could face life’s challenges bravely, responsibly, and morally.  Gladiators were seen as examples of virtus. It was one of the reasons why they remained so popular and lasted so long. Virtus was also not limited to men, citizens, or the elite. Livy (59 BC – 17 AD) tells the “novel” story of a woman named Cloelia who, in 506 BC, escaped an Etruscan camp and led a group of maidens to safety. The Romans later rewarded her with a statue to honor her virtus. Likewise, the paradoxical way Romans viewed Gladiators shows virtus cutting across class. In one sense Gladiators were the lowest of the low: slaves, prisoners of war, or criminals. Even those who voluntarily joined their ranks were held in contempt since they were “pimping their blood”, as it were. But they were also paragons of virtus. The way they courageously entered the arena, the valor they displayed in combat, and their willingness to face death when they lost served as an example of how a man should behave in the face of his duty and destiny. ROMAN CRISIS OF MASCULINITY, 1ST CENTURY BC But by the 1st Century AD, however, Roman masculinity, as demonstrated through virtus was in decline. With Roman successes came luxuria (luxury). Sallust (86-35 BC) writes that with luxuria “arose envy, evil ambition, the desire for domination and honors”. This was their “toxic masculinity”; though Sallust believed it was not masculinity at all. He saw in the character of Catiline (108-62 BC) the destination where such moral decay eventually led. In his time, many considered Catiline a demagogue; appealing to the lowest common denominator in society and seeking power through any means. He was accused of murder (including organizing the murder of his wife and son), adultery with a Vestal Virgin, bribery, and eventually treason – he had organized an armed coup to assassinate his political enemies and overthrow the Republic. It was only through the leadership of Cicero (106-43 BC), himself an advocate of virtus, that Catiline was defeated.
The antidote to luxuria was more virtus. Unfortunately, it was in short supply. It had even come to be seen as a little old-fashioned. Sallust identified Cato (95-46 BC), and Caesar (100-44 BC) as exceptions. Cato was a Senator known for his purist morality and strict support of the Republic. And Caesar was, well, Caesar. In a bizarre twist of fate, Cato and Caesar would find themselves on opposing sides in the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. A STAR TO STEER BY Though it may have been understood as something belonging to an earlier age, virtus would remain as an ideal of masculinity to be aspired to throughout the classical Roman period; only losing steam as Christian modes of thought and values become more dominant. Whether or not they fully lived it, however, virtus gave Roman men a star to steer by. In this respect, one can see parallels between our present situation and that which befell the virtus of Roman men. With historically undreamed of wealth and prosperity, have we succumbed to the vices of luxuria? Have our own ideals of traditional masculinity such as chivalry, gentlemanliness, and living honorably become too old-fashioned to be practical? As we experience our own apparent crisis of masculinity perhaps we can learn something from the Romans. The answer lies not in destroying traditional masculinity altogether, but in promoting the very best qualities of it. Sources
Bell, Sinclair. “Role-models in the Roman World.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 7, Role Models in the Roman World. Identity and Assimilation (2008), pp. 1-39. Boyd , Barbara Weiden. “Virtus Effeminata and Sallust’s Sempronia.” Transactions of the American Philological Association (1974-2014), Vol. 117 (1987), pp. 183-201. Buckingham, Timothy. “The Novus Homo and Virtus: Oratory, Masculinity, and the Self-Made Man.” CAMWS Meeting 2014, camws.org/meeting/2014/abstracts/individual/109.NovusHomo.pdf. Cox, A.S. “To Do as Rome Does?” Greece & Rome, Vol. 12, No. 1 (Apr., 1965), pp. 85-96. Elliot, Susan M. “Gladiators and Martyrs: Icons in the Arena.” The Fourth R, Volume 29, Issue 5 September – October 2016, www.westarinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Elliott-Gladiators-and-Martyrs.pdf. Lind, L.R. “Concept, Action, and Character: The Reason for Rome’s Greatness.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 103 (1972), pp. 235-28. Meijer, Fik. The Gladiators. St. Martin’s Griffin, 2007.  Perhaps the one figure to have a name in Arthurian Legend as memorable as Arthur himself was Merlin. At various times he has been hailed as a prophet, a wizard, advisor and friend to Arthur, and an archetype of the Pre-Christian Celtic Sorcerer. But was he real? In truth, it is impossible to say; especially if we are to look for the Merlin described in legend. But we do have a reference in the Annales Cambriae to someone name Merlin (or Myrddin) living in the 6th Century. The trouble is, if we are to accept a relative date of 495ish for the Battle of Mount Badon (where Arthur allegedly halted the Saxon advance) and 520 for the Battle of Camlann (where “Arthur and Medraut fell”), the Merlin that is mentioned would have been far too young to be the long-bearded sage and wizard described in the legends – at least while Arthur was still alive. Myrddin Wyllt (the wild) (c. 520-590) was a bard at the court of Gwenddoleu ap Ceidio, a Brythonic, pagan king, whose kingdom was located in south-west Scotland near Hadrian’s Wall. The Annales Cambriae tell us that Myrddin fought alongside Gwenddelou at the Battle of Arfderydd in 573. But upon seeing his king and master killed during the battle, he went mad.
After the battle, it is said that Myrddin fled to the forest where he lived with the animals and developed the gift of prophecy. It is also believed by many scholars that it is this Myrddin that Geoffrey of Monmouth based his character of Merlin on. When we think about it, though, it seems somewhat bizarre that Myrddin, a Scottish bard, should come to be directly connected to Arthur. What was the point? Why not just have him be a legend unto himself, separate from Arthur? Certainly, the exploits of each of them would have been sufficient for them to stand alone. One possible explanation is that Arthur did have a bard or advisor whose qualities later came to be merged with those of Myrddin. Like all kings and warlords of the time, Arthur certainly would have had a bard to act as a sort of PR man who held an esteemed rank in his court. And it was quite common for kings and chieftains to have spiritual advisors such as priests or missionaries (many of whom resembled wild men as Merlin later did). Likewise, pagan kings would have hosted wizards, sorcerers, or pagan priests in lieu of their Christian counterparts. Often, these men would conduct a sort of spiritual warfare of their own against each other while their lords fought in the flesh. Rodney Castleden, author of King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend, has even suggested that Arthur would have been seen as doubly remarkable if he was a Christian King who had a pagan wizard in his entourage. Was there someone in the oral traditions that was later identified and merged into the figure of Myrddin? We may never know. But it does beg the question how Myrddin Wyllt, a mad pagan prophet, came to be so strongly associated with a “Christian” King Arthur. Sources
Ashley, Mike. A Brief History of King Arthur: The Man and the Legend Revealed. Running Pr, June 8 2010. Castledon, Rodney. King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend. Routledge; 1 edition, May 11, 2003. Morris, John. The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350 to 650. Charles Scribner’s Sons, June 1973. Snyder, Christopher. The World of King Arthur. Thames & Hudson; Reprint edition, February 1, 2011.  17th Century Commonplace Book. For hundreds of years people used what were called Commonplace books to help them learn, remember important information, and generally improve their overall knowledge base and intellectual ablities. Here’s the thing. You can, too. Maybe you already do. Commonplace books were a lot like intellectual scrapbooks where the owner would copy down passages or quotes that they have found interesting or worth remembering as well as, in many cases, their own annotations on the material. This process came to be referred to as “commonplacing”. They were usually organized under various headings and could include anything from recipes to literary passages. But they weren’t notebooks like the kind we keep in school, because they were much more personal. Neither were they diaries since they were much more than the stream-of-consciousness stuff that randomly kicks around in our minds or a record who we had lunch with. Most often they were used as an organized source of knowledge and wisdom the owner could quickly draw upon. The idea itself originated in the classical period as a memory device for orators. “Commonplaces” were seen as general points of assumed knowledge, discussion topics, or go-to arguments that someone could reference in composition or during a debate, like: “if you work hard you’ll be successful”. Or, “Slow walkers should just stay indoors, ffs!” The Greeks called them Konoi Topoi (general points) and the Romans, Communes Loci. Unfortunately the English translation of commonplaces doesn’t fully convey the idea or what commonplace books would become. More often than not, there was hardly anything “common”, in the sense of mundane, at all about the knowledge they contained. From there, commonplace books had a long and popular career in the Western World. While they did have some predecessors in antiquity, they really came into their own during the Renaissance. The great Renaissance humanist scholar Erasmus was among the first to zealously advocate for their use as an educational tool, and would be joined by many others who saw their potential not only in learning, but in personal development. Not the least of which was the famed English philosopher, John Locke. For a time, the commonplace books of learned men were even published for others to derive insights from them. But as the Enlightenment began to take shape in the 18th Century, and anthologies and encyclopaedias became more popular, commonplace books were published less and less as “authoritative” knowledge became less important. But this didn’t mean they were gone altogether. People still kept them for themselves so that they could take note of and remember anything they deemed personally significant enough to remember. Among some of the historical greats that kept them (in no particular order): Mark Twain, Thomas Hardy, Henry David Thoreau, Francis Bacon, Jon Milton, Thomas Jefferson, Shakespeare, Montaigne, and Ralph Waldo Emerson – and that’s only scratching the surface. Emerson actually summarized what to keep in mind when creating a commonplace book: “Make your own Bible. Select and collect all those words and sentences that in all your reading have been to you the blast of a trumpet out of Shakespeare, Seneca, Moses, John and Paul”. And while commonplace books were intended to help their owners remember things for the purposes of writing, conversation, or plain old self-development, the intention behind them was not to simply memorize and repeat what others had said. In fact, by the 18th century, simply parroting others’ words was considered pedantic, impolite, and boorish – #socialmedia. Adding one’s own annotations and thoughts came to be held as a crucial part of commonplacing. It encouraged thinking on one’s own over just memorizing and repeating what others had said – a practice known helps us memorize and understand material Unfortunately, as time went on commonplace books began to be used less and less. Their popularity began to dwindle in the 19th century and they effectively disappeared from public consciousness in the early 20th Century. But here’s the thing, some people still use them, only they might not know they are. Even though they’ve fallen out of popular awareness, commonplace books are just as powerful a tool as they ever were. If you’re a writer they’re especially invaluable since they can help broaden your knowledge of different topics and give you a more engaging platform from which to compose than you might have otherwise had. And even if you’re not, keeping a commonplace book can help you to have more interesting conversations and deepen your own personal storehouse of wisdom. They can also boost your brain power and memory by helping you to make connections between disparate materials and synthesizing them into your own unique ideas – a skill that neuroscience tells us is being lost in our Internet Age. Some have tried claiming that blogs or social media are the modern equivalents of commonplace books, but they’re really not. With a physical commonplace book you have essentially, an artifact of your own intellectual growth. It’s like making a mixtape of your mind. And it can make you feel like a wizard. Seriously. Try it. Commonplace books also show us that many of the brilliant ideas of great thinkers and writers throughout history didn’t come out-of-the-blue, fully formed, but rather that they were a synthesis of ideas they were exposed to and made new or original. By keeping our own commonplace books today, we can do that, too. And with analog making the comeback that it is, it’s time that the world got reminded of the incredible intellectual technology that is the commonplace book. These are just some of the reasons that commonplace books have earned their place on the shelf of Totally Awesome History. Sources:
Blair, Ann. “Humanist Methods in Natural Philosophy: The Commonplace Book.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Oct. – Dec., 1992), pp. 541-551 Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What The Internet Is Doing To Our Brains. WW Norton & Company, 2010. Cave, Terence. “Printed Commonplace-Books and the Structure of Renaissance Thought.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Summer 1997), pp.337-340 Dacome, Lucia. “Noting the Mind: Commonplace Books and the Pursuit of the Self in Eighteenth-Century Britain.” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Oct., 2004), pp. 603-625 Katsev, Richard D. In the Country of Books: Commonplace Books and Other Readings. Matador, 2009. Price, Gayle B. “A Case for a Modern Commonplace Book.” College Composition and Communication, Vol. 31, No. 2, Recent Work in Rhetoric: Discourse Theory, Invention, Arrangement, Style, Audience (May, 1980), pp. 175-182  When most of us think of the Knights Templar we either think of the secrets they may have held or the military role they played in the Crusades. Less considered, however, is the iron discipline their Rule demanded they exercise in their day-to-day lives off the battlefield. Today, their fierce commitment to it even in peacetime is both extraordinary and mind-boggling. PRAYERS, PRAYERS, AND MORE PRAYERS When the Templars were first officially recognized as an Order in 1129, the “Templar Rule” consisted of 72 rules for them to follow. By the mid-thirteenth century, it had expanded to over 700. The Rule demanded that when not training or at war, these “warrior-monks” were to dedicate their days to work and prayer; a lot of prayer. Like monks of other Orders, they were required to observe the Seven Canonical Hours; times of the day set aside for prayer and devotion. Their day would have started at 4am with the first of these, Matins (Morning prayer). Later would come Prime (First Hour of the day) and the hearing of Mass at around 6am, Terce (Third Hour) at 9am, Sext (Sixth Hour) at noon, Nones (Ninth Hour) at 3pm, Vespers (Evening prayer) at 6pm, and Compline (Night prayer) at bedtime. Silence was then to be observed between Compline and Matins and knights were to sleep with a candle lit to avoid the temptations that darkness could bring. Meals were eaten 2-3 times a day, also in silence. Only the priest who blessed the meal and the clerk who read aloud from the Bible or the Templar Rule were permitted to speak. Templars were also required to eat in pairs both to save on dishes and to ensure that no one fasted without permission. Since it was important that they remained fighting fit, a number of rules in the Templar Rule were designed to prevent them from indulging in too austere a lifestyle. To that end, unlike other monks, they were allowed to eat meat three times a week and occasionally drink diluted wine before Compline. In between the hours of prayer and meals, Templars were expected to work. Idleness was not permitted. When engaged in business outside the Temple, they were to bring honor to the Order by being models of holiness, above reproach. COMMUNAL LIFE OF THE TEMPLARS Their communal lifestyle and rigid hierarchy also meant that nothing was kept private. When a Knight joined the Order he handed over all of his possessions, including his clothing, and was issued new ones. Since the concept of personal property was discouraged, everything was regarded as belonging to the Temple (as opposed to the individual knight). Templars were not even permitted to trade clothing or equipment without permission. This emphasized the importance of the brotherhood over the individual. Any personal items were to be modest and approved by superiors. Nothing was kept secret. Gifts and letters from relatives were no exception and could not be received or sent or without approval. Similarly, although they promoted cleanliness (both inwardly and outwardly), permission had to be granted before they could take a bath. In truth permission was required for a great many things. Some others included being bled, taking medicine, and/or riding into town. STRONG MORAL FIBER – AND NO POINTED SHOES! What’s more, a Templar’s personal conduct was meant to be free of disruptive qualities such as pride, envy, backbiting, or anything that could lead to discord in the community. The vanity that came from trimming beards or growing long hair was also to be avoided, as was the wearing of pointed shoes and shoelaces. Having also taken the monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, a Templar was forbidden from kissing any women or even looking at them too much. Even his mother, sisters, and aunts. If he was unfortunate enough to succumb to the temptations of a prostitute, his first priority was to ensure that no one found out. If someone did and there was a public scandal, he would be put out of the Order. Likewise, sodomy and heresy were punishable by immediate expulsion from the Order. Apparently this policy worked. Unlike the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights, the Templars never experienced a public sex scandal or accusations of heresy until Philip IV of France accused them of that and more in 1307; around the same time he realized the Templar wealth would look much better in his own treasury. Their strength of character also earned them a reputation of honesty and trustworthiness. As the Order expanded at an unprecedented rate, this led to popes, monarchs, families, and individuals, either donated or entrusted their riches to the Templars. As a result, some have compared the Templars as financiers, bankers, and/or investors to modern multinational corporations. The difference, however, was that any profit the Templars made was put toward funding their efforts in the Holy Land. Individual Templars were not permitted to possess more than 4 dinars, a paltry sum. If they were caught with more, they would be punished. If they were caught with a hoard, they were thrown out. Of course at higher levels, senior Templar officials were known to engage in political intrigue that would not have been permitted among the rank-and-file. In this regard, the comparison between the Order and a modern multinational corporation is even more on the mark. A TEMPLAR’S DEDICATION To live the life of a Templar, one had to embrace these and dozens of other rules provided for in the Rule. Looking back, it makes their dedication to the Order and the Rule both impressive and bizarre to our modern sensibilities. And just before you think they may have only taken it seriously when the boss was around, consider the words of an English Templar named William Watson: “The Rule is the bones of my body, it runs from my feet to my head, and it is in my arms; these fingers… The Rule is my marrow. Am I not also garbed in the Rule, for it tells me what I wear. The Rule is within me and about me. It is my hand when I fight and tells me what my weapons are. Within and Without.” Wow. Sources:
Barber, Malcom. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Bernard of Clairvaux: Patron Saint of the Templar Order. www.electricscotland.com/books/ries/BERNARD%20OF%20CLAIRVAUX%20011713.pdf Frale, Barbara. The Templars: The Secret History Revealed. Translated by Gregory Conti, Arcade Publishing, 2009. Newman, Sharan. The Real History Behind the Templars. Berkley Books, 2007. Ralls, Karen. The Templars and the Grail. Quest Books, 2003. Wojtowicz, Robert T. Trans. The Original Rule of the Knights Templar. Western Michigan University, 1991, scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=masters_theses.  When the Order of the Knights of the Temple of Solomon (Knights Templar) was formally suppressed in 1312, it wasn’t because it had been found guilty of heresy. It was because the campaign of fake news waged by the French Crown had so defamed the Order that the Pope deemed it beyond saving. Philip IV of France (1268-1314) aka Philip the Fair needed money. He had wars to wage and bills to pay. Everyone knew it. By 1307 he had already driven the Jews out of the kingdom after seizing their property only a year earlier. He’d also been extorting the Italian Lombards of their assets since the 1290s; eventually appropriating all of their property and arresting their persons in 1311. But it was in 1307 that Philip moved against his most lucrative target yet: The Knights Templar. The Templars were wealthy. They were also not as popular as the once had been. Many blamed the Order for the fall of Acre in 1291 (which was the last of the Christian cities to fall in the Holy Land). Public support for crusading in general was also on the wane. The Templars were weakened and Philip knew it. Urged on by his minister Guillaume de Nogaret, in the spring of 1307 Philip began a campaign of misinformation (read: fake news) that accused the Templars of heresy and sexual depravity. Although by the end of their trial the Templars were made to answer for 127 articles put against them, Philip’s initial accusations centered on three things.
What made the Templars especially susceptible to Philip and Nogaret’s fake news/propaganda campaign was the secrecy surrounding the Order. When people aren’t given a narrative, they fill in the blanks themselves – until someone else does. Since so much of Templar life was kept secret rumors couldn’t help but grow. DENYING CHRIST AND SPITTING ON THE CROSS Although many Templars confessed, their confessions were almost all obtained under torture or the threat of it. Furthermore, the majority of Templar members were non-combatants. They would not have been able to withstand the conditions they were placed in after their arrest. Even the most battle hardened knight would have a hard time resisting the likes of the rack or the strappado. Not surprisingly, in regions where torture was not used regularly, confessions were few and far between. Testimonies in those areas spoke well of all the good the Templars had done. Of all the accusations, however, the denial of Christ and spitting on the Cross was the one that may have had some truth to it. Though it was a charge leveled at other heretics in the past, even Jacques de Molay had identified it as an immoral practice in the Order when he became Grand Master in 1293. Some sources claim it had been carried out for over 100 years by then. The practice stemmed from a section of the original Templar Rule that stated new initiates were not to be accepted too quickly. Rather, they should be tested to determine their worthiness of the Templar mantle. Of course no test was formally defined. The official initiation ceremony involved the initiate swearing oaths of obedience, chastity, poverty, and placing all his strength at the service of the Holy Land. Over time, an unofficial ceremony designed to test him afterwards developed. In it, the receptor demanded the initiate deny Christ and spit on the Cross. What outsiders would not have known was the context and reason for this. This part of the ceremony was meant to imitate what could happen to a Templar if he was captured by Muslims. The script for the ceremony was based on testimony from Templar escapees. Sometimes a refusal was respected while at other times the initiate would be threatened if he didn’t obey. Most pretended to say the words and/or spit in the general direction of the cross. Thus they performed the actions with their mouth, but not in their heart. After the ceremony was over, the receptor enjoined the initiates to confess the sins they had just committed to the chaplain so they could be absolved. Sometimes, however, they confessed to priests of other orders. This no doubt had the effect of allowing dark rumors to grow since those outside the Templar Order would have had no understanding of the ritual’s context. Something Philip and Nogaret would capitalize on.   OBSCENE KISSING AND HOMOSEXUALITY Church and secular authorities also had a long history of using sexual deviance as a means of labelling individuals or groups as heretics. Ironically, it was also a claim that Romans frequently used against early Christians to justify persecuting them. Even today nothing creates a bigger political splash than an accusation of sexual malpractice, true or not. With regard to the Templars, however, there is little evidence of truth to it. For the accusation of obscene kissing on the buttocks, navel, etc., where it may have been practiced, it can be understood as an additional part of the initiation ceremony that amounted to a form of hazing. The same may be said for initiates being told they had to have sex with their brothers on demand. Even then, these would not have been uniform practices throughout the Order. The only thing that came close was something called the “kiss of peace”. It consisted of a kiss on the mouth that welcomed a new initiate into the Order. There was nothing controversial about it. Christians had practiced it regularly from an early date. What’s more, the Templar Rule lists sodomy as one of the most serious offenses a Templar could commit. It carried with it fierce penalties, including expulsion from the Order. Of close to 1000 depositions, only six confirmed acts of homosexuality. Each of these also involved long-term relationships of genuine affection. IDOLATRY: THE MYSTERIOUS HEAD (OR CAT) Similarly, worshipping a cat and/or a mysterious head was a well established practice that heretics were commonly held to do. Traditions of heads having magical powers were common in medieval Europe. They had a long history that stretched as far back as the legend of Perseus and Medusa. Some said that the Templars worshiped the head because it was a “giver of plenty” that made the “trees flower and the land germinate.” The implication here was that the Templars owed their wealth and successes to sorcery and the devil. Similar accusations would be made against “witches” during the witchcrazes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Some Templars identified the “head” idol as having the name Baphomet, which some scholars have taken as a corruption of John the Baptist (who was beheaded) while others suggest it was Mohamet. Certainly many Templar opponents tried to say they had been infiltrated by Islam, but both of these interpretations remain speculation. Other Templars who confessed regarding the head gave differing descriptions of it. Some said that it had a long dark beard, others a silver beard. Some claimed it had two faces while others said four. Some said it had legs and feet. Some even said that it was the head of Hugues de Payns, the founder and first Grand Master of the Order! Whatever the case, such contradictory testimony tells us that it had little if any basis in truth. Ultimately, apart from the induced confessions and unsubstantiated rumor, royal authorities could not produce any evidence to support the claim of idol worship. ABSOLUTION Despite Philip and Nogaret’s best efforts, Pope Clement V saw through them. Unfortunately, he was no match for these masters of information manipulation. When the French Templars were first arrested on Friday 13th 1307, the Pope was furious. He demanded that they be released to Church custody. As a religious order legally beholden only to the Pope, Philip required Clement’s consent before undertaking such an action. Though Philip implied to everyone he had it, he did not. Any objections raised by Clement V were met with the suggestion that the Pope’s inaction had forced Philip’s hand, and even worse, that the Pope may have been complicit in the Templar’s heresy. This ensured that the French Templars would remain under royal custody indefinitely. In June 1308, Philip agreed to send a hand-picked selection of Templars to the Pope to confess before him and affirm their guilt. This group consisted almost entirely of low-ranking sergeants, apostates, and those who were terrified from torture. But Philip’s ploy worked. The Pope issued a bull across Christendom for rulers to arrest and seize Templars and their property until a full investigation could be conducted. A few days later Clement V sent three of his most trusted cardinals to the fortress of Chinon, where Jacques de Molay and the Templar leadership were being held. Documents such as the recently discovered “Chinon parchment” reveal that the Pope then absolved them of heresy. However, he did find them guilty of lesser crimes (such as allowing the practice of denying Christ and spitting on the Cross to flourish, regardless of context). The Templar leaders were also given judicial immunity. This meant that no one could so much as interrogate them without the permission of the Pope. Of course this did not stop Philip from burning Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey De Charney (Preceptor of Normandy) at the stake on March 18th, 1314. He did so without Clement’s permission and to ensure that the Templars would never rise again. In the meantime, Clement V and Jacques de Molay agreed that to save the Order they would merge it with the Knights Hospitallers and a new Rule would be established. Afterwards, word of Clement V’s intent to save and reform the Order began to spread. Philip was not amused.   SUPPRESSION Philip and Nogaret responded by threatening to try Pope Boniface VIII posthumously. Previously, Boniface VIII and the French Crown had clashed over a number of issues dealing with Papal vs. Royal authority. Boniface VIII had gone so far as to excommunicate Nogaret and draw up a bull excommunicating Philip (which was never published). In 1303, Nogaret responded by framing Boniface VIII on charges of murder, idolatry, simony, and heresy. More fake news. By trying the bones of Boniface VIII, Philip would send a signal to the world that secular authority trumped the Pope’s. It was a form of blackmail that betrayed a weakness in the papacy at the time. It was also too much for Clement to handle. He gave up. Under the military “protection” of Philip, the Council of Vienne convened in 1311 to finalize the fate of the Templars. Although they were not allowed to defend themselves and no evidence proved them guilty of heresy, Clement V publically suppressed the Order on April 3rd, 1312. He did so on the grounds that it had been so defamed that it was not saveable. Most outside observers knew it was bogus, but they were powerless to do anything. Fake news had done its job. A WARNING By playing on popular superstitions and the use of threats and misinformation about their enemies, Philip IV of France and Guillaumme de Nogaret were able to bring down one of the most powerful organizations in Western history. As Vatican historian Barbara Frale puts it, “By way of sophistry, generalization, and manipulation, the royal lawyers managed to transform every failing, every fault, every misdeed of the Templars into crimes against the faith.” It serves us with a warning. Even without the help of mass media and communications like we have, fake news destroyed the mighty Knights Templar. Imagine how much more damaging it can be today! In this regard, the words of Edgar Allan Poe ring true, “Believe nothing you hear, and only one half that you see.” Sources:
Barber, Malcom. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Frale, Barbara. The Templars: The Secret History Revealed. Translated by Gregory Conti, Arcade Publishing, 2009. Napier, Gordon. The Rise and Fall of the Knights Templar:The Order of the Temple 1118-1314 – A True History of Faith, Glory, Betrayal. The History Press, 2006. Ralls, Karen. The Templars and the Grail. Quest Books, 2003. Wojtowicz, Robert T. Trans. The Original Rule of the Knights Templar. Western Michigan University, 1991, scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=masters_theses.  Long before the US Marines were known as the “first to fight”, the Knights Templar had earned that honor during the Crusades. Admired and feared by allies and enemies alike, one Arabic historian, El-Fadhel, went so far as to change the Persian-Arabic word for Templars to the same word as the demon gods of Zoroastrianism in his writings. In light of their tenacity and ferocity on the battlefield, it’s easy to see why. SHOCK TROOPS: FIRST TO FIGHT Every Templar Knight came from the nobility. It was a stipulation for admission to their ranks. Only someone who had already received the lifelong training that secular knights and nobles did could hope to be effective as a Knight in combat. They could be identified by their white uniform with the red Templar cross of martyrdom emblazoned on it. Compared to the membership as a whole, however, they were in the vast minority, comprising roughly 10% of the Order. Even at the Order’s height, they would have numbered no more than 2000 at any given time. On the battlefield however, the Knights were their primary fighting force and, along with the other military orders, were the shock troops of the Crusades. Templar sergeants, sometimes called serving brothers, filled every other position necessary for the functioning of the Order. On the battlefield, if they were there, they acted in a supporting role such as light cavalry or infantry. Their uniform also featured the red Templar cross but they wore a black surcoat with the Templar cross on the front and back. Before battle Templar Knights were organized into squadrons. Once the battle commenced, Templar Knights could not break formation or charge out ahead of their squadron. Absolute discipline was required. This served the purpose of military cohesion, but also reinforced the Templar ideal of humility; wherein the Order took precedence over the individual. The only time it was acceptable for a Templar Knight to act on his own initiative was when it meant saving the life of a Templar or a Christian.  Templar Camp scene: Notice the white and black uniforms differentiating the Templar Knights from Sergeants. (Illustrated by Wayne Reynolds in "Knight Templar 1120-1312" by Helen Nicholson, 2004, pg. 37.) The Templars were known to always be among the first to seek engagement with the enemy. Once the battle trumpet sounded, the Templars would sing the Templar motto (and Psalm 115): “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed Nomini tuo da gloriam” (Not to us, Lord, not to us but to your name give the glory). Then, they charged; unleashing carnage on the enemy line and fighting until either the enemy or they were vanquished. The overwhelming impact of a Templar charge allowed the Templars and their allies to confront even numerically superior forces successfully. Sometimes it was so effective that it left little time for support troops to follow before the Knights found themselves surrounded by the enemy. Such was the case at the battle of Hattin in 1187. The Templars succeeded in charging Saladin’s army but the rest of Frankish forces did not follow them. Surrounded, the Templars fell by the hundreds. Those not killed in battle were executed by Saladin’s men afterwards. The “Horns of Hattin” became known as the most devastating defeat ever suffered by crusader forces. THE BAUCENT In battle, the Templar banner held a place of extreme importance. It was called the Baucent, meaning “piebald horse”. It was so called for its black and white colors. The black half represented the darkness of sin that the Templars had left behind. The white represented the purity of the Order. Sometimes it also bore the red Templar cross; a symbol of martyrdom. To die fighting for Christ was among the greatest honors a Templar could achieve.   Not only did the Baucent have a guard of 10 men, but often the Templars brought a second folded banner along, should anything happen to the first. Under no circumstances could anyone use the banner as a weapon. If they did, they would be placed in irons after the battle. As the banner still flew, the Templar Knights were not allowed to retreat. This held true even if they were unarmed or wounded. In the case of the latter, they could only quit the field if their commander gave them permission. If the banner did fall, or they were separated from their brothers, they were to rally to the banner of the Knights Hospitallers and failing that, to support any Christian banner still standing. Only once all Christian banners had fallen, could they abandon the fight. Any Templar Knight who deserted the battlefield before this could be expelled from the Order. Only non-fighting sergeant brothers, if they saw there was nothing they could do, were allowed to retreat. This was to save the Order’s equipment so that it wouldn’t fall into enemy hands. Yet, even in retreat the Templars fought on to allow other Christian forces to withdraw. This led to heavy losses for the Order when crusader forces were defeated, but it gained them the reputation as being among the most stalwart of warriors; fighting on against impossible odds even long after a battle had turned. FEARED AND ADMIRED BY THEIR ENEMIES Likewise, their courage and stamina on the battlefield earned them both respect and dread from their enemies. A witness of the battle of Montgisard in 1177 tells us how 84 Templar knights under their commander, Odo de Saint-Amand, forced Saladin to flee and the reluctant admiration Saladin felt as a result. “Spurring all together, as one man, they made a charge, turning neither to the left nor to the right. Recognising the body of troops in which Saladin commanded many knights, they manfully approached it, immediately penetrated it, incessantly knocked down, scattered, struck and crushed. Saladin was smitten with admiration, seeing his men dispersed everywhere, everywhere turned in flight, everywhere given to the mouth of the sword. He took thought for his own safety and fled, throwing off his mail shirt for speed, mounted a racing camel and barely escaped with a few of his men.”  Templar charge. You did not want to be on the business end of this. (Illustrated by Wayne Reynolds in "Knight Templar 1120-1312" by Helen Nicholson, 2004, pg. 38.) But Saladin also hated them for the same reason. After all, the Templars were responsible for inflicting immense damage to his army. So great was his disdain for them that after the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 he granted mercy to the Christians left in the city but he executed every Templar and Hospitallar he could find. Both admired and feared, the Templars were a force to be reckoned with during the Crusades. When they charged, one could only pray they were on your side. Sources:
Barber, Malcom. The Trial of the Templars. Cambridge University Press, 1978. Frale, Barbara. The Templars: The Secret History Revealed. Translated by Gregory Conti, Arcade Publishing, 2009. Nicholson, Helen. Knight Templar: 1120-1312. Osprey Publishing, 2004. Ralls, Karen. The Templars and the Grail. Quest Books, 2003.  In the early 1900s at Knossos on the island of Crete, Sir Arthur Evans (1851-1941) began to uncover the ruins of one of the greatest civilizations of the Bronze Age. Not knowing what they called themselves, he called them Minoans, after the legendary King Minos of Crete from Greek mythology. What they called themselves, however, is among one of the many mysteries they left behind. THE MYSTERIOUS MINOANS Lasting from c. 2700–1400BC, the Minoans maintained cultural and trading ties with the other great civilizations of the Bronze Age throughout the Mediterranean and Middle East. They had colonies on various Cycladic islands and were thought by Thucydides (c. 460–400 BC) to be the first great naval power in the Aegean. Yet mysteriously, they and their culture faded away around 1400BC; to be supplanted by the Mycenaeans of Mainland Greece (and the culture whose heroes inspired the Iliad and the Odyssey). What’s more, in a time when all of the great civilizations in the “known world” glorified war, the Minoans left next to no evidence of their own military might. Instead, they left us art and artifacts rich in color, full of sophisticated designs, populated by elegant people, and set amidst elegant representations of the natural world. This is a sharp contrast to their contemporaries, who never missed a chance to inscribe their martial prowess on any surface they could find. Likewise, there is little evidence of defensive walls or fortifications at any of the great Minoan centers. Even if they relied on the natural barrier of the sea to protect them from most threats, this alone could not account for the survival of their civilization for well over a millennia.   BULLS, DOUBLE-HEADED AXES, AND A BARE-BREASTED GODDESS Certain symbols and motifs reoccur that have thus far also defied explanation. Bulls appear again and again in their art and artifacts. But what the animal represented to them is unknown. They also seemed to have practiced a sort of “bull-leaping” as seen in various depictions of youth vaulting over them in impossible feats of acrobatics. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the legend of the Minotaur (half-man/half-bull) in the Labyrinth (of Knossos) came to be tied to Crete.   Another symbol revered by the Minoans was the double-headed axe or labrys. One might suppose that over time, Knossos (or Crete in general), having once been known as the home of the labrys came to be interpreted as the place of the Labyrinth. The repeated representation of a goddess of priestess, bare-breasted with her arms upraised and sometimes holding snakes also remains unexplained. Some have suggested that she represents a great Mother Goddess, possibly an early form of the Greek Titaness Rhea, the mother of the gods. Considering Zeus was said to have been born on Crete, and that the double-headed axe also came to be associated with him, there could be some truth to this.   What would help us in all of this would be if we had records written by the Minoans. Or at least understand those we do. Both Minoan hieroglyphs (used c. 2000–1650BC) and Linear A (c. 1700–1400 BC), the Minoan system(s) of writing, have eluded our best attempts at deciphering them. The closest we have is Linear B (deciphered as an early form of Greek), which drew inspiration from Linear A but was used by the Mycenaeans as the Minoans had faded away. Which brings us back to what they called themselves. Unfortunately, unless Linear A yields its secrets to us, we may never know for certain. But we DO know what other civilizations of their day called them. Perhaps from that, we can move a little closer to an answer. PEOPLE OF THE ISLANDS Egyptian records speak of the Keftiu, or, the “People of the Islands” from the “Great Green Sea”. Prior to Evans’ discovery at Knossos, references on papyri as well as inscriptions and pictures of the Keftiu in the tombs of Pharaohs had puzzled Egyptologists. But once Knossos and other Minoan sites on Crete began to reveal their secrets, it turned out that the Keftiu were Minoans. Inscriptions on the base of base of a statue at Amenhotep III’s mortuary temple lists a number of cities located in the Aegean under the headings of Keftiu and Tanaja (identified as Mainland Greece). Interestingly, the first two it lists for Keftiu (Crete) are Amnisa and Kunusa. These are respectively, Amnisos (the ancient port of Knossos) and Knossos itself. What’s remarkable is the closeness their names are to their Greek names. If the names on the inscriptions were so close with those names, could Crete itself have been named something close to Keftiu by the Minoans themselves?   It is entirely possible that at the very least, they went by a name that began with a “K” or hard “C” sound as we see in Keftiu. The Mesopotamian and Canaanite name for Crete was Caphtor (or Kaptaru). There are a number of references to items from Bronze Age Crete including one mentioning clothing and textiles made “in the Caphtorian manner”. Another tablet c. 1750 BC tells us how Zimro-Lim, King of the Mari, had “one pair of leather shoes in the Caphtorian style, which to the palace of Hammurabi, King of Babylon, Bahdi-Lim carried, but were returned.” SO WHAT WERE THEY CALLED? Again, we can’t say with any certainty what the Minoans called themselves. However, from what we do know, two possibilities present themselves. The first is that they called themselves something completely different than anything we could ever imagine. Anyone in the future, for example, finding English records of Japan would have no clue that the Japanese call Japan “Nippon” and themselves “Nipponjin”. However considering the close geographical proximity of Crete to Egypt and Mesopotamia, another compelling possibility emerges. Today the names of various countries and peoples differ from language to language, but most countries have a similar sound even in another language, especially when geographically close. Consider England and Angleterre (French), Inglaterra (Spanish), Angliya (Russian), etc. If a similar situation existed in the Bronze Age, we can hypothesize that if they were called Keftiu by the Egyptians and Captor by the Mesopotamians and Canaanites, they may have had a name that began with the sound of a K or a hard C. Ironically, the way Crete does, today. So while we may not know precisely what they called themselves and their island home, until we’re able to decipher the Minoan hieroglyphs or Linear A, that might be as close as we can get. At the very least, it brings us one step closer to understand who the Minoans really were. Sources:
Cline, Eric H. 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton University Press, 2014. Cline, Eric. H. and Steven M. Stannish. “Sailing the Great Green Sea? Amenhotep III’s “Aegean List” from Kom el- Hetan, Once More.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, vol. 3:2, 2011 6–16, journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jaei/article/view/111/109. Cottrell, Leonard. The Bull of Minos. Pan Books, 1955. Luis, Mireia Movellán. “Rise and Fall of the Mighty Minoans.”National Geographic, www.nationalgeographic.com/archaeology-and-history/magazine/2017/09-10/Minoan_Crete/.  The southern coast of Spain and Portugal once comprised the homeland of a lost civilization known as Tartessos. It lay beyond the Pillars of Hercules and was widely renowned for its incredible wealth and the influence it brought. It also mysteriously vanished in the middle of the first millennium BC, leading some to believe it was the inspiration for Plato’s Atlantis or a descendent civilization of it. The origins of Tartessos, its people, and its fate remain a mystery. During its peak, it was like the ancient world’s version of El Dorado: a distant, exotic land of wonder full of riches unimaginable. TARTESSOS Traditionally, Tartessos is thought to have risen to prominence from 9th to the 6th Century BC, when the Phoenicians and the Greeks, with their vast trading networks, really put it on the map. The Phoenicians even established colonies there; Gadir (modern Cadiz) being the most notable. However, there is good reason to believe it was much older. Diodorus Siculus, writing in the 1st Century BC, confirms that the Phoenicians had arrived in Tartessos looking for silver well before they started establishing colonies there. Since Gadir (modern Cadiz) is said to have been established by the Phoenicians in roughly 1100 BC, Tartessos itself must have had an earlier beginning.  Tartessian Treasure. Tartessos was known throughout the ancient world for its fabulous wealth in metals. This is the treasure of El Carambolo. Ribeiro, José L. B. "Treasure of Carambolo." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 24 Mar 2015, www.ancient.eu/image/3721/. Archaeological and metallurgical evidence also tells us that the indigenous Tartessians had already developed the technology for mining that would produce the fabulous wealth that Tartessos became known for before the arrival of colonists from the Eastern Mediterranean. Located as it was in close proximity to the Iberian Pyrite Belt, it was loaded with silver, gold, copper, tin, and to a lesser extent, iron. Tartessos is also the only civilization outside of the Middle East mentioned in the Old Testament. There it is referred to as “Tarshish”. In fact, it was there that Jonah tried to flee before the whale swallowed him. Other verses reference connections with King Solomon and Hiram, King of Tyre (c. 980-947) and speak to its great wealth in metals: 2 Chronicles 9:21: “For the king’s [Solomon] ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Hiram [King of Tyre c. 980-947]; once every three years the ships of Tarshish used to come bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks.” Other ancient texts also speak to its age and great riches – especially silver. One collection of texts called “On Marvelous Things Heard” (and attributed to Artistotle), says: “It is said that the first Phoenicians who said to Tartessos took away so much silver as cargo, carrying there olive-oil and other petty wares, that no one could keep or receive the silver but that on sailing away from the district they had to make all their other vessels of silver, and even all the anchors.” Likewise, Herodotus tell us that it was the Phocaeans who were “the first of the Hellenes who made long voyages, and these are they who discovered the Adriatic and Tyrsenia and Iberia and Tartessos…” and that “they became friends with the King of the Tartessians whose name was Arganthonios (meaning “The Silver King”): he was ruler of the Tartessians for eighty years and lived in all one hundred and twenty.” Apart from its legendary wealth and general location, however, Tartessos remains a mystery. Its precise location (especially of its capital), its people, its culture, and what happened to it are all questions that have yet to be answered. LOCATION Today, Tartessos it is thought to have been located in Western Andalusia in the region of the modern Huelva, Seville, and into the Portuguese region known as the Algarve. Many think that its capital lay somewhere near the mouth of the Guadalquivir River. One archaeologist, Adolf Schulten spent much of his career looking for Tartessos and until his death in 1960, insisted that its capital city lay beneath the modern Doñana National Park. Unfortunately, due to the high water table, excavations were foiled. More recently, Peter Daughtrey, in his book Atlantis and the Silver City, makes a strong case for Arganthonios’s (Herodotus’ “Silver King”) capital being in the Portugese Algarve where the modern city of Silves is located. He also speculates, with some considerable justification, that the Tartessian culture was a descendant culture of the fabled Atlantis. CULTURE Two sites in particular offer some tantalizing clues to Tartessian culture. The first is Cancho Roano, which functioned as a sanctuary from the 7th to the 5th century BC. It is located remarkably inland for a Tartessian site. It consists of 4 sanctuaries, each built on top of the one before. It appears to have been purposefully abandoned in the 5th Century BC, for no apparent reason. There is evidence of one final ceremony that saw bones, pots, plates, and vases thrown into the moat of the 4th stage of the sanctuary, after which the main entrance sealed and the building set on fire.  Cancho Roano [Tartessian] archaeological site located in Zalamea de la Serena, Extremadura By Ángel M. Felicísimo - Own work, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39332923 nother site nearby, Casas del Turuñuelo, was also abandoned around the same time and in a similar fashion: a final ceremony, with animal sacrifice, followed by burning and abandonment. In this case, horse remains were arranged purposefully, sometimes in pairs and with their heads entwined. Was the horse a sacred animal to them? Also found were artefacts from across the known world at the time; a testament to the far reaching trade connections exercised by the Tartessians and their Phoenician and Greek trading partners. The Phoenicians always held the strongest influence in determining the evolution of later Tartessian culture. One ancient source mentions that the Tartessians worshiped the Phoenician Melqart (the equivalent of Heracles) and Astarte, the Phoenician goddess of war and love. What the indigenous beliefs of the Tartessians were originally is unknown. The origin of their writing system has proven controversial. It is frequently argued that the Tartessian script, also known as the Southwestern script was derived from Phoenician and Greek influences. Some have suggested, however, that it was the other way around. The Roman historians, Tacitus and Diodorus Siculus, both attest that the Phoenicians did not invent their writing but received it from elsewhere. If the Tartessian script was the source, this would alter a lot of our understanding of the ancient world. What makes it even more jaw-dropping is something that Strabo (64BC-AD34) tells us about the Turdetani: the Iberian tribe that some claim the Tartessians morphed into after their power and influence waned; even going so far as to call them “doppelgangers”. He says this about them: “They are the most cultured of all Iberians; they employ the art of writing and have written books containing memorials of ancient times, and also poems and laws set in verse, for which they claim an antiquity of six thousand years.” This of course lends credence to those who would see Tartessos as Atlantis or at least a descendent of it. After the Phoenicians started leaving in the 6th century BC, on account of their own homeland being invaded by Persia, Tartessos as it was known fades away as well. Its Greek contacts were also largely cut off due to conflicts between the Greeks and Carthaginians. WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM? What became of shining Tartessos and its people? No one knows. Perhaps they did become what Roman writers referred to as the Turdetani and quite possibly, also the Conii tribe, whose lands were in the Portugese Algarve and into parts of the Badajoz province in Spain – where we find Cancho Roano and Casas del Turuñuelo. Why they abandoned these sites we may never know. One text, the Ora Maritima, written by Avienus in 300 AD, but whose source material is thought to have been a much older Carthaginian travel narrative from the 6th century says this about Tartessos: … It was a great and wealthy city In ancient times. Now it is poor, now it is small, Now it is forsaken. Now it is a heap of ruins. We saw nothing wonderful here, Except the festival of Hercules. But there was such power in those rites, or such glory, In a former age… Though Tartessian glory seems to have faded fast so great was its reputation, that it was still being referenced hundreds of years later. The Greek traveler and geographer Pausanias, in the second century AD tells us about a bronze treasury dedication at Olympia made by the Sicyonians in 648BC. He says: “In the treasury were two chambers, one Dorian, and one in the Ionic style. I saw that they were made of bronze; whether the bronze was Tartessian, as the Eleans declare, I do not know.” Even as late as the 2nd century AD, Tartessian wares were STILL known and considered to be objects of rare value. Today, the mystery of Tartessos endures. A lost civilization full of riches spoken of in reverent tones by other ancient civilizations dazzles the mind with the prospect of uncovering hidden secrets and treasure. In light of this, perhaps the greatest mystery is why so few have heard of it. Until now. Sources
Adams, Mark. Meet me in Atlantis. Dutton, 2015. Ancient History Encyclopedia. “Tartessos.” www.ancient.eu/tartessos/. Bartos, Nick. “Beyond the Pillars of Hercules – Excavating an Iron Age seat of power.” Current World Archaeology, www.world-archaeology.com/issues/beyond-the-pillars-of-hercules-excavating-an-iron-age-seat-of-power/. Celestino, Sebastián and Carolina López-Ruiz. “Sacred Precincts: A Tartessian Sanctuary in Ancient Spain.” Archaeology Odyssey, web.archive.org/web/20031203010404/http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_AO/bswbao0606f1.html. Chamorro, Javier G. “Survey of Archaeological Research on Tartessos.” American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 91, No. 2 (Apr., 1987), pp. 197-232. Daughtrey, Peter. Atlantis and the Silver City. Pegasus Books, 2013. Kühne, Rainer W. “Tartessos-Tarshish was the model for Plato’s Atlantis.” 2011, vixra.org/pdf/1103.0040v1.pdf. López-Ruiz, Carolina. “Tarshish and Tartessos Revisited: Textual Problems and Historical Implications.” in M. Dietler and C. López-Ruiz (eds.) Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations, The University of Chicago Press, 2009, pp. 255-80. Pithom. “Why Semitic Tarshish is Greek Tartessos.” 1 Jan 2011, againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/tarsh-tart/. Villarías-Robles, Juan J.R. and Antonio Rodríguez-Ramírez. “The Representation of the Kingdom of Tartessus by the Ancient Greeks Revisited: New Evidence for a Forgotten Cause.” International Conference: Ancient Greece and Contemporary World: The Influence of Greek Thought on Philosophy, Science and Technology (Ancient Olympia, Greece, 2831 Aug 2016). Primary Sources can be found at: “Tartessos (Spain) 65 Huelva? – Ταρτησός.” ToposText, Aikaterini Laskaridi Foundation, topostext.org/place/373000PTar. |
RSS Feed