Review of “The Cassiterides” by George Smith

The columns this year (2015) are developed from research I undertook, over an 18 month period. They will be four reviews of books that in part deal with the topic of the identification of Tharshish.^[1]

My approach in reviewing these books will be the same throughout: I shall be concerned with process, rather than outcome. Further, I shall attempt to apply the same analytical criteria in assessing the various writers’ skills. Certainly, I believe there are, in many – indeed all the vital – Biblical issues a ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. However, there is also a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ way to go about reasoning, and if we set off on the wrong foot with our reasoning, it will be unsurprising that we achieve wrong outcomes.

At the end of these reviews, perhaps in 2016 (DV) I will set out my own conclusions on the identity of Tarshish, along with those of the other agencies in Ezekiel 38, historically/Biblically-derived, with indications, at least, of how I have reached the conclusions come to.

Review 1

George Smith [1800 – 1868]’s The Cassiterides: an Inquiry Into the Commercial Operations of the Pha“Nicians in Western Europe, With Particular Reference to the British Tin Trade [published by British Library Publishing, London, in its ‘History Collection’ ].^[2]

Smith, a Methodist, was born and lived his life in Devon and Cornwall, UK. Educated as a child in the British & Foreign Schools, Smith’s major learning was acquired through self-tuition. He was able to read Latin and Greek. By the end of his life, he had written 16 books, on a range of topics from Biblical studies, such as  An attempt to ascertain the True Chronology of the Book of Genesis [1842] to histories, like his History of Wesleyan Methodism [3 volumes, 1857-1861]. His final volume, on the life of David, was completed in the year he died. The Cassiterides opus was written in 1863. Smith, clearly a polymath, was a Member of the Royal Asiatic Society, Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Irish Archaeological Society. He was created an Ll.D in 1859 in New York.

Smith’s treatise of 154 pages on Tharshish is written as a seamless exposition, with no chapters, nor other headings. The reader has to decide for himself how to assess its thrust.

Smith had always, along with most Bible students of his acquaintance, understood Tharshish as being identified with Great Britain. Recently – to his own day – detractors, for whom Smith previously had respect, had ventured to demolish the accepted view. These detractors included Sir George Cornewall Lewis (1806-1863). Lewis was an experienced Oxbridge-educated QC, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Privy Councillor. The self-taught Smith showed no bashfulness in tackling what he perceived as the knight’s mistaken views on this matter. Other detractors from a traditional stance on Tharshish who came in for Smithsonian analysis also included the controversialist William Desborough Cooley (1795-1883). Cooley’s passionate advocacy of his views on a range of issues – mainly to do with Africa – rushed some of his readers into too readily accepting his conclusions, though his views were later largely discredited. Smith, however, not over faced by a statesman like Lewis, was not likely to be put off by a controversialist, like Cooley, and, in fact, was not! Smith set out clearly and fairly what Cooley had proposed. He then comprehensively demolished it.

The third section of Smith’s book examines a variety of ancient authorities’ views on the identity of Tharshish – beginning in Ezekiel, proceeding through Herodotus, Julius Caesar, Diodorus the Sicilian [aka Diodorus Siculus], Strabo, Justin Martyr and Pliny.

Smith then examines the rise of Tyre and Sidon, and their associated allies. He uses contemporary Middle Eastern sources, such as Herodotus, Cicero, Tacitus, Palaephatus, Strabo and Josephus, and blends this with his own learned contemporaries – students of esoteric aspects of the Past, such as Prof. William Hales (1747-1831), Prof. A. H. L. Heeren (Heeren was a Professor at Gottingen, contemporary with J. G. Eichhorn and J. F. Blumenbach), Prof. John Kenrick (1788-1887), Abbe Antoine Banier (1673-1741), Conrad Malte-Brun (1775-1826), and the Oxbridge academic Jacob Bryant (1715-1804).

Smith then turns his attention to the supportive testimony of the archaeology of Malta, Carthage and Melarteria [as expounded by Samuel Bochart (1599-1667) in Geographia Sacra seu Phaleg et Canaan, Caen, 1646]. He focuses on the details of the materials from Phoenicia which they traded both with “Tharshish”, and with Britain, showing the similarities involved – and thus arguing for the common identity of Britain and Tharshish.

In the penultimate section, Smith surveys the history of Phoenicia, from its glory days in the 8^th century BC to its decline, in the mid-4^th century BC.

Does the writer seem to have a thorough grasp of Biblical data?^* In Smith’s case, the answer to this question is a very firm “Yes!” [A complication with Smith is that, throughout his book, being the polymath he undoubtedly was, Smith cannot resist being drawn off into – interesting and related though they might be – issues which are clearly side-issues: the history of the Belgae, the inter-relationships between mythology, idolatry and Euhemerism, and so forth.

On the whole, however, Smith argues his case precisely, very minutely and overall very persuasively. That case is that: “between B.C. 1500 and B.C. 1200 the Phoenicians sailed into the Atlantic, discovered the mineral fields of Spain and of Britain, and enjoyed a monopoly of this commerce for several centuries, trading directly with both countries”. The alternative view – the denial of “old popular tradition of Phoenician intercourse with Britain”, Smith describes, as it was expounded by the protagonists against whom he contended, as “a barren declaration of disbelief” [Smith, op. cit. p. 153].