In this column, we will continue our review of works on the identity of Tarshish and we will review Sir Christopher Hawkins [1758 – 1829]’s Observations On the Tin Trade of the Ancients in Cornwall, and On the ‘ictis’ of Diodorus Siculus – Primary Source Edition [published by Nabu Public Domain Reprints, from the original in The Bodleian Library, Oxford University].
At first sight, this work might well appear remarkably similar to George Smith’s The Cassiterides, reviewed in our last column: Hawkins and Smith were contemporary Britons; both lived in the South-West; both were Nonconformists; both were very interested in the early history of the South-West of England; both were members of the FSA.
There, however, the similarities cease: Smith was a polymath, Hawkins not: Smith had a facility with Ancient languages – certainly Greek and Latin – Hawkins was forced to rely on translations; Smith read and wrote widely, Hawkins wrote only this work; Smith was a lay Bible student, Hawkins a landowning, Tory MP Anglican; Smith’s learning brought him various “Fellowships”, Hawkins was an antiquarian.
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Hawkins’ little book is half the length of Smith’s at 80pp. However, like Smith’s, it takes the form of a long essay, with no chapter, or even section-headings.
One shame is that the copy available to Nabu Public Domain Reprints at Oxford was seriously defaced – two key sections having been either wilfully removed or carelessly reproduced, from Hawkins’s plates (4pp [pp 22-25 inclusive] in the early part of the book and 2pp [pp 78 – 79] from the ‘Conclusion’ [pp 76 – 80]). Clearly, the reader is left to fend for himself as to what the author’s final view may, or may not, have been! We would make the following points in review of Hawkins:
- There is no doubt, in Hawkins’s mind, as in George Smith’s, that Britain and Tharshish are identical.
- His attitude to detractors is referred to only a few times, [see, for instance, point 4 below]. Like Smith, Hawkins simply cites the rationale behind the refutation of detractors, and does not engage in rhetoric. In general, Hawkins is brief and to the point, including in modesty about his own accomplishments. His final words, in this essay, [p.80] are a case in point: “I shall feel much gratified if my endeavours to ascertain the situation of the Ictis of Diodorus, shall induce others, better qualified, to investigate the connexion [sic] of the Phenician [sic] merchants with Britain, the settlement which they probably formed, and the civilization and improvements which they introduced”.
- Ancient Authorities he quotes, in support of his case, include Diodorus, Pliny, Strabo, Herodotus, Sanchoniathon, Pytheas, Josephus, Quintus Curtius Rufus’s History of Tyre, Vegetius, Pomponius Mela, and of a variety of sources in the Philosophical Transactions for 1796, and the Encyclopedie Francoise.
- Hawkins’s account of the History of Tyre and Sidon is backed up by Dr. William Vincent, Dean of Westminster, whose demolition of Jacob Bryant for falsifying passages of Diodorus Siculus to illustrate the “myths” in Biblical History and Prophecy, Hawkins quotes approvingly.
- As far as Malta is concerned, Hawkins makes no comments at all.
- Further details of the identification of Britain and Tharshish, are not supplied by Hawkins, in the manner Smith identifies them.
- Further, on the History of Phoenicia, Hawkins refers to work done by Antoine-Yves Goguet [1716-1758] on Phoenician explorations in Western Europe, and to Dr. L.E. Dupin [citing an Ancient Phoenician Historian named Sanchoniathon], regarding Tyrian culture in general.
- With reference to Bible knowledge, Hawkins showed himself to be familiar with very many parts of the Old Testament not just the passages which have a direct bearing on the History of, or prophecies about Phoenicia, and not just in the general ideas concerned, but in the verbatim.
- Hawkins does add some details to those supplied by Smith, in that he reviews authorities with specialist knowledge, of whom Smith, for all his breadth of reading seemed to be unaware. Examples are Julius von Klaproth [1783-1835], Gaspard Monge [1746-1818], and Dr. George Pearson, whose metallurgical knowledge about the properties of tin, when properly combined with copper, Hawkins explores – showing that, in some respects, soldiers amongst the Ancients preferred Bronze weapons, even over their Iron equivalents. He cites Strabo, as showing that “Phoenician ships passed the Straits, and entered the ocean, about twelve hundred years before Christ” [p. 27]. He cites the voyages of Pytheas, who explored the geography of the British Isles, as far as the Northern Scottish islands, in 320 BC, even visiting the Arctic Circle.
- Citing Herodotus, Strabo, and a certain “Dr. Henry”, Hawkins makes the point, with supporting quotations from the above authors, that: “The Phenicians [sic] of Tyre were very desirous of concealing from other nations the sources of their wealth, and particularly of their voyages to the Cassiterides for tin” [pp. 46 ff].
- Hawkins’s sources are different from those of Smith, in that, whilst he tends to rely on the translations of Primary sources to be made by others, his citations are both rather more copious, and diverse.
- Hawkins, like many an author of his time, is frustrating, in both the failure to footnote interesting points sufficiently for later commentators to be able to track them down, and in referring so obliquely to authors that chasing down their details is, similarly, impossible. One example of the former matter is Foreign Policy between Carthage and Tyre, during the reign of Alexander the Great. Instances of the latter, include “Huet” [p.54], “Mr. Polwele” [p.43], “Dr. Henry” [p.48], “Revd Polwhele” [!] p.60, “Carew” [p.73], “a respectable County Historian” [p. 55]. Especially irritating is the reference [p.16] to “Dr. Pearson”, when two separate “Drs. Pearson”, both with an interest in metallurgy – [the point at issue on p.16] – were both living at about the same time, in England. There was a Dr. George Pearson [1751-1828], and a Dr. Richard Pearson [1765-1836]. Hawkins also refers to the astronomer “Monsieur Bailly”, at a time in France, when there were two such individuals: Jean-Claude, and Jean Sylvain, both “Bailly”! About none of these individuals – apart from Polwele / Polwhele [perhaps!] is there any reference by Hawkins anywhere else in this essay, to help us out contextually!
Hawkins’s Conclusion
In Hawkins’ view, in the remaining parts of his conclusion, on pp. 76 – 77, Britain certainly was Tarshish. There was a reason why it was not always crystal-clear that this was so, in Hawkins’s opinion. This was that the Phoenicians so much did not want their competitors to be fully informed about the details of Britain being the origin of their source of supply that they were prepared to be either disingenuous or wholly misleading about the matter. He ends, on this point, as follows:
“The Phenicians, it is certain, enriched themselves by exchanging their manufactures, and the productions of the East, for the silver of Spain, and the tin of Britain. Spain was to them, what America has been to us; and Britain was so invaluable to their trade, that they uniformly endeavoured to throw a veil of mystery over its situation, and its produce.”
If correct, Hawkins’s ingenious thought might shed light on the confusion involved in the identity of Tarshhish – i.e., not only was Britain very distant from the Levant, but it was in Phoenicia’s interest to be misleading in the matter! This idea was further substantiated by Professor George Rawlinson in his History of Phoenicia [1889].
Although Sir Christopher Hawkins concluded Tarshish’s being Britain was a matter of inference, rather than direct, factual knowledge, he did think the facts implied that:
“The Phenicians worked mines of copper in Cyprus, in Asia Minor, and in Greece; they worked the silver-mines in Spain, and, as they brought tin from Britain, we may infer that they worked the mines there also; as we find from Diodorus, that the Britons were skilful in extracting the ore from the earth, and refining the tin.” [op cit., p. 77].
Like George Smith, Hawkins knew that, even in 1811, there were what Smith had entitled ‘detractors’ from the traditional view, [that Britain was Tarshish], there was a repost to that which was founded on fact. Unfortunately, it is those very sections on the identity of Tarshish which have been removed from the Bodleian Library’s copy of Hawkins’s book! Thus, in his Conclusion, Hawkins’s peters out feebly, as follows:
“It has been much doubted whether the Phenicians formed any commercial establishment, or colony, in Britain; but when it is considered, that they planted colonies at…”
…and one then turns over the page, to read:
“…of an ignorant and barbarous people, like the ancient Britons….”
and one scratches one’s head, as to the sequence of thought, the pagination shows that pp 78 and 79 have been excised!
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)