The Riddle of Tarshish: Uncovering the Location of the Ancient Trade Hub
Most in the western world are familiar with the pejorative term Jezebel, a name no woman wants to be called. With it comes the connotation of trickery, bribery, an insatiable lust for power and blood, and shamelessness. Jezebel was a Phoenician. Through the ages, the Phoenicians have been regarded as a people whose primary interest is commercial enterprise, and like Jezebel they have been known as hucksters, cheaters, and swindlers (Castro 2015: 74).
Fortunately for the Phoenicians, a foul image is not the only image in antiquity. Homer praises Sidonian craftsmanship (Iliad 23.703). Herodotus tells of the great learning of the Phoenicians, who delivered the alphabet to the Greeks (The Histories 5.58.1). The Phoenicians helped to create a type of pan-Mediterranean class of elites all across the sea (López-Ruiz 2021: 1).
Because of their economic prowess, the traditional belief concerning early Phoenician expansion into the west is one of a well-established commercial venture seeking the metals of the far west and trade along the shores, though this traditional view of mercantile intent is challenged by the concept of purposeful colonization.
Either way, there is question as to the possibility of one particular passage concerning the Phoenicians, 1 Kings 10:22, which states that both Jerusalem and Tyre sent trade ships to gather gold, silver, ivory, and exotic animals. The question at hand is whether or not Phoenician emporia even existed this early, and if it did, where might this Tarshish be?
History of Phoenician Exploration
Unlike other people groups in the area, the Phoenicians were the aboriginal, non-Semitic inhabitants of the land (Liverani 1998: 6-7), though the language itself is of Semitic origin. They lived in the land of Phoenicia along the Mediterranean coast with mountains around, somewhat secluded from the world (Aubet 2001: 17). It should be noted that the region of Phoenicia is home to several city-states, including Tyre and Sidon, but there never was a nation called Phoenicia.
Around 1200 B.C., at the dawn of the Iron Age, there occurred a great migration of different people groups that displaced other people groups who then in turn displaced others. The original cause is somewhat anomalous, but what entailed was an end to normal trade. The famous Ugarit and Alalakh saw their final days, the Sea Peoples attempted an attack on Egypt, and seemingly the entire Mediterranean world was in chaos – that is, except for Phoenicia which suffered little (Markoe 2005: xx).
While Phoenicia appears to have been excluded from the multiple destructions, the end of typical trade did have a negative effect on the Phoenician cities (Aubet 2001: 26) who, like others, relied on external resources to survive. Fortunately for the Phoenicians, the end of trade meant open trade, and with overpopulation at Tyre, the west seemed the perfect escape.
Colonization and Mercantile Progress
The geographical and climatic conditions of the Phoenician cities lent toward a shipbuilding industry, particularly the mountainous resources that surrounded the region and protected it from the outside, and with an already existent small-scale commercial enterprise (Markoe 2005: xix-xx), that partially collapsed along with the major trade networks, and a growing population crisis (Aubet 2001: 16), the outside world appeared to be the solution.
With the loss of Ugarit and other major trading centers, a Phoenician enterprise was more than possible, and early trade with Cyprus, Egypt, and Israel meant an already open market. Perhaps it was the coming of the “Sea Peoples” that opened the mind of the Phoenicians to trade farther west, but at a minimum it was the Aegean influence in Cyprus that identified potential farther out (Grainger 1991: 74).
For whatever reason, we learn that the Phoenicians found it constructive to extend their reach quite far into the Mediterranean. As outside settlements developed, the Phoenician cities became quite rich with settlements such as Carthage paying tithe to the temple of Melqart in Tyre (Markoe 2005: 121). These early sites were formed as small, unwalled island settlements off the coast of the mainland and with good harbor, allowing for the landing of ships that could deliver supplies and return with goods from these outside regions.
Colonization of the West: A Deeper Look
It is important to understand the difference between ‘Phoenician' and Levantine. For most, ‘Phoenician’ is a term describing the Iron Age mercantile group with roots in Phoenicia post the Great Migration period. This study is not interested in a fully developed merchant fleet from Tyre but rather with the beginnings of colonization – what many refer to as the pre-colonization period. It is in this period that evidences of eastern influence are seen, particularly in the Bronze Age. Dating to the Late Bronze Age, a small deity figurine of Syrian influence has been found off the coast of Selinute (Holloway 2002: 35-36), likely identified as the Canaanite/Phoenician Resheph due to the conical headgear and raised hand (Procelli 2008: 464). While this early influence may not be termed ‘Phoenician,' surely the Levantine influence is due to upper Canaanite trading with Cyprus and therefore can be understood as the roots of Phoenician trading. Granted, this influence is not evidence for settlement, but at the very least is evidence for contact.
The earliest attested date for permanent Phoenician settlement in Sicily is no earlier than the first quarter of the eighth century BC and in western Sicily (Tribulato 2012: 118), long after the ships of Tarshish. Of interest, though, is the idea that these permanent settlers followed routes already well known from earlier Late Bronze Age (Sicily) travels and exchanges (Tribulato 2012: 118). Perhaps these already known routes are those cited by Thucydides as Phoenician trading ports in eastern Sicily and all around the island (Markoe 2005: 126). These early-established sites are eventually abandoned in the late eighth century due to the establishment of the earliest Greek settlements (Naxos and Syracuse - 733BC) and the threat that the Greeks imposed. The Phoenicians of those abandoned eastern Sicilian sites most likely gathered together at already established western Sicilian sites such as Motya by ca. 720 B.C. Thus, the earliest sites in Sicily could be dated prior to this Greek expansion.
Settlement Patterns
New settlements along the coast from Malaka to Abdera, in Spain, match what Thucydides said of the pre-colonization sites in Sicily, namely that their location near a low coastal promontory and on a peninsula at the mouth of a river evokes characteristics of the oldest Phoenician pattern of settlement geared toward commercial ends (Aubet 2001: 310). One example from Sicily of an early site is Motya, established on an island rather than a peninsula as above, that dates to around the second half of the eighth century. Of importance to this island are the two port facilities, northeast and southwest. The original, relatively small settlement appears to be prime for commercial enterprise.
Early non-permanent settlement patterns are also identified at Huelva, Spain, with the earliest attested phase containing multiple amphorae, a type of storage vessel sometimes used in trade over long distances. The predominance of amphora within this oldest context substantiates the claim of early commercial exchanges with no stable Phoenician settlement of importance (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 22).
Craftsmen
Huelva was an autochthonous-Phoenician community (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 13) with the presence of craftsmen early on. The most likely reason for permanent settlement in Huelva is reflected in the material culture found there – wood working refuse, metallurgy refuse, etc. – namely the settling of skilled craftsmen at the site (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 26). Something also seen at the earliest phases of settlement at Morro de Mezquitilla, Chorreras, and Toscanos (Neville 2007: 20-21).
A Possible Tarshish
Key excavations at Huelva took place in 1996 in the form of rescue operations in anticipation of urban restructuring in the modern city. Due to ground water, material culture beyond the 7th century was not reached. Once that ground water was pumped out, excavations continued until virgin soil was reached. What was left between the 7th century material culture and the virgin soil was a thick, black muddy stratum that acted as a separation from that above and the virgin soil below, thus establishing the oldest layers at that point of the site in one stratum (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 13). Material within this muddy layer ranged from pottery to stone ware and beyond.
As is common within archaeological research, dating typically takes place from a well established reading of the pottery. In this case, Phoenician, Greek, Cypriot, Sardinian, Villanovan, and local ware were collected. Unfortunately, the ground water caused stratification to be completely illegible as the layers within the ground water became mixed forming only one definable stratum (Nijboer and Van Der Plicht 2006: 31). This necessarily causes chronological problems, but as what is important is to determine the terminus post quem of Phoenician presence, and the virgin soil below represents uninhabited soil, a diachronic reading of the pottery is not necessary; instead, one need only look at the oldest dated pottery for an approximation. Unfortunately, as older pottery may have been reused at any given point in time, though unlikely in an emporia-focused settlement, this cannot be used to determine exactly the age of site settlement.
Dated Pottery
The 8,009 pottery fragments cataloged from Huelva made up approximately 9% of the total excavated pottery fragments. Of these, 4,703 were of local handmade ware and 3,233 were of Phoenician tradition, with minuscule numbers associated with Greek, Cypriot, etc., however if focus is made on only diagnostic fragments then the gap between local handmade and Phoenician ware virtually disappears (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 15). As this is a trading settlement, this is exactly what one would expect to find, and as much of the Phoenician pottery appears to correspond with that of Tyre one can be Assured of the mercantile focus of the site.
Concerning Phoenician ware, certain bowls appear to date to the beginning of the so called Kition horizon of Cyprus (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 19), ca. 750-700 B.C. (Schreiber 2003: 200), but the majority of the fragments date to the so-called Salamis horizon (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 16), ca. 850 to 750 B.C. (Schreiber 2003: 264), thus giving a date of not later than 750 B.C. but possibly as old as 850 B.C., still too late to represent the Tarshish of the biblical text.
Within the Greek pottery, earlier dates are found. Attic vases date to ca. 800-760 B.C. (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 19), but there are three fragments that appear to date to 900-850 B.C. (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 19).
There does exist a few Phoenician fragments from the so called Kouklia horizon (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 21) that date to ca. 1050 to 850 B.C. (Schreiber 2003: 183), thus giving us the earliest possible dates yet. The fragments consist of one jug rim fragment and three possible spout fragments. This gives an approximate date for the earliest Phoenician presence ranging from the very end of the eleventh century B.C. to the middle of the ninth century B.C., with a more reasonable assumption being the end of the tenth century B.C., or, around 900 B.C. (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 22).
Radiocarbon Determinations
While this alone at least approaches a date of Solomon, and any older fragments may had been destroyed or lost, radiocarbon dates of three bone samples result in a broad date between 1000 and 820 B.C. When calibrated, the date range drops to 930-830 B.C. (Nijboer and Van Der Plicht 2006: 31), allowing for a date quite close to the historical person of Solomon mentioned in 1 Kings 10:22. Respectively, these bone samples date with a 94% probability to 930-830 B.C. for GrN-29511, a 92.9% probability to 940-820 B.C. for GrN-29512, and a 94.2% probability to 930-830 B.C. for GrN-29513. Of interest is the weighted average of the three: 36.7% probability for 920-890 B.C. and 31.5% for 875-845 B.C., thus establishing the earlier date as the most likely. The earliest of the three, GrN-29512, is given a 64% probability for 980-890 B.C. (Nijboer and Van Der Plicht 2006: 32). Because of these radiocarbon dates, trade under Solomon is not simply plausible (Canales, Serrano, and Llompart 2006: 27) but inevitable (Procelli 2008: 630).
Earliest and Farthest
While it is not possible to say that the earliest phase of colonization extends to this period, the earliest far-reaching site appears to be much earlier than previously thought. Indeed, this early phase at Huelva appears to have set the chronology for Phoenician expansion back much father. While the pottery sequencing only allows for this early phase, the radiocarbon dating seems to determine such an early phase, thus establishing something of a difference between these two primary sources of interest.
Though identifying Huelva with Tarshish is impossible, it is at least possible to confirm the presence of Phoenicians at a site that would likely take three years for a round trip voyage. Additionally, the narrative of Jonah becomes much more meaningful when the prophet attempts to flee to the farthest possible distance away from God, going passed the pillars of Heracles, and almost reaching the Atlantic Ocean.
Check out the Bible Land Explorer!
[This is a lecture written for the course 'HIST 262: History of the Ancient Near East,' taught Fall 2024 at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited College in Cincinnati, Ohio. Bibliographical material will be posted under Research on this site.]
Comments