Tarshish and the United Monarchy of Israel

doi: 10.2143/ANES.47.0.2051622 ANES 47 (2010) 137-164 Tarshish and the United Monarchy of Israel F. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, L. SERRANO and J. LLOMPART Centro de Estudios Fenicios y Púnicos Universidad Compultense de Madrid SPAIN E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract In several publications and communications to scientific assemblies the authors have proposed the identification of Tarshish with Huelva, starting with written references and the discovery of numerous Phoenician remains dated prior to the beginning of western Phoenician colonisation and based on the exploitation evi- denced thereof. However, the revision of the Bible’s historical reliability during recent years inquires into this identity as well as into the Phoenician voyages to the distant west in the second half of the 10th century BCE. The present work suggests that Jerusalem might have been a power centre at that time and assures the existence of scribes who handled trustworthy information about certain events in the kingdoms of David and Solomon.* Beyond the interest it might raise due to its frequent mention in the Bible and some extra-biblical documents, from our point of view Tarshish brings forth clues to the pre-colonial emporial phase preceding western Phoenician colonisation proper and, partly also, the enrichment and rele- vance of Tyre over 400 years.1 Tarshish from the Outlook of the Huelva Findings In the southwest of the Iberian Peninsula, the old harbour city of Huelva was located at the tip of a peninsula open towards the estuary formed by the Tinto and Odiel rivers before flowing into the Atlantic Ocean (Fig. 1). This location, of great nautical and strategic importance, explains why it * We sincerely appreciate A. Montaño’s help in preparing the English version of this paper. 1 We have dealt with this question in González de Canales et al. (2006) and González de Canales et al. (2009). 993280_Anes_47_02_Gonzalez.indd3280_Anes_47_02_Gonzalez.indd 113737 223/08/103/08/10 115:505:50 138 F. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, L. SERRANO AND J. LLOMPART was considered traditionally as the natural port for loading and shipping of the natural resources of the hinterland. Gold and silver minerals of the Iberian Pyrite Belt, gossan and jarosites, were exploited during the pre- Roman and Roman periods to an impressive extent: the old silver slags from Riotinto, estimated through surface surveys and systematic drillings at some 6,600,000 tons,2 were lined up over more than two kilometres (Fig. 2).3 In December 2004 we made known a large assemblage of archaeological materials which had come to light at Calle Méndez Núñez 7–13 / Plaza de las Monjas 12 in the historical centre of Huelva.4 The excavation had reached levels of the first half of the seventh century BCE, or perhaps the end of the eighth century BCE, when it was interrupted by the surge of a strong phreatic level, common to all lower parts of the city. Later on, during the emptying of the terrain by a construction company we could observe, in situ, a horizontal stratum, located some 5 m deep and 2.5 m below the water table, which showed the oldest vestiges of anthropic occupa- tion. We proceeded to the recuperation of materials in a secondary position limited to the greyish-black earths well differentiated from the above mentioned stratum, whose binocular analysis by experienced geographers from the Huelva University showed that it was composed of estuarine sediment with abundant remains of arthropods and flora typical of a salt marsh. The thousands of ceramic fragments recovered were distributed practically equally between Phoenician and local traditions. According to Tyre’s stratig- raphy5 and the chronological horizons of Cyprus,6 the lower limit of the context was established ca. 770 BCE (before the end of Tyre’s stratum IV). In order to determine the upper limit we took into consideration Phoenician ceramics whose termini ante quos were older: a base type 10 of deep bowl, 13 bases type 11 of deep bowl and 11 rims of amphorae type 12, also account- ing for two plates type 14. A fragment of jug type 9 and three fragments assigned, with reservations, to spouted jugs ascribed at Cyprus to the Kouklia horizon (ca. 1050–850 BCE) were not contemplated because in Tyre those fragments remain up to strata later than such horizon. Other ceramics of early origin in the Phoenician metropolis, like plates type 10, 11 and 13, jugs type 10, amphorae type 9 or bulbous bases type 20, were not evaluated either for the same reason of survival. Having in mind that the termini ante quos 2 15,300,000 tons were previously estimated based exclusively on surface surveys (Salkied 1970, p. 89). 3 Rothenberg et al. 1989, p. 66. 4 González de Canales et al. 2004. 5 Bikai 1978a; 1978b; 1981, p. 33. 6 Bikai 1987. 993280_Anes_47_02_Gonzalez.indd3280_Anes_47_02_Gonzalez.indd 113838 223/08/103/08/10 115:505:50 TARSHISH AND THE UNITED MONARCHY OF ISRAEL 139 mark the uppermost possible recent limit, the beginning of the context was established at ca. 900 BCE, but accepting a wide margin between the second half of the tenth century BCE and the first half of the ninth century BCE. Such an approximation is partly backed by three Euboeo-Cycladic plates with pendent semicircles of the Subprotogeometric I–II period7 and by the palaeographical dating from a group of Phoenician graffiti.8 Finally, to the Groningen University we owe three radiocarbon determinations (accelerator mass spectrometry) over cattle bones coming from the above-mentioned greyish-black stratum. The calibration (Oxcal v3.10) of the measured dates indicates that the bones date between 1000 and 820 BCE. The mean age of the three radiocarbon dates was 2755 +/- 15 BP which yielded a calibrated age range of 930–830 BCE with a 94 per cent probability; GR-29512: 2775 ± 25 BP, 1000–840 BCE with a 95.4% probability.9 In no single case was any date calibrated later than 820 BCE so that, as we appreciated during the ceramic study, inclusions from upper levels, bones in this case, do not seem to be likely.10 Although a beginning of the context in the second half of the tenth century BCE could be feasible from the ceramic chronology and, undoubtedly, from the radiocarbon dates, facing the current polemic affecting both dating methods we chose to leave the chronological bracket open to between the second half of the tenth century BCE and the first half of the ninth 7 According to the classification and chronology proposed by Nitsche (1986/87, pp. 32, 44). 8 Heltzer 2004. 9 Nijboer and van der Plicht 2006, p. 31–32. Since the publication of the finds, several chronological proposals have been produced for which we thank their authors; at the same time, we would like to introduce several tinges. Amongst the proposals leaning toward lower- ing the chronology, in one case (Botto 2004/2005, p. 21) neither the Phoenician ceramics whose termini ante quos are older, nor the typology and chronology of the Euboeo-Cycladic Subprotogeometric plates as exposed by Nitsche, nor the still unpublished radiocarbon dates of the context are contemplated or are not contemplated in their entirety; in another case (Gilboa et al. 2008, pp. 168-173.), whose author was kind enough to let us know its contents before its publication, besides what we state above, it is not observed that in the consideration of Tarshish there also comes into play the demonstration of the exploitation by the Phoenicians of all the produce mentioned in the biblical texts in a time preceding western colonisation. The opposing proposals, leaning toward elevating the chronology, start from the consideration that the termini ante quos aim at the lowest possible upper limit and the radiocarbon dates recorded in various European countries, Turkey and Carthage, which are incompatible with the lowest ones from Israel, without us being able to pronounce ourselves about this complex and multidisciplinary issue. 10 This work was edited before the results of radiocarbon determinations were known. We thus assume the challenge of finding radiocarbon dates inconsistent with the dates estimated from the ceramics. It has not been the case, since both datings were compatible, above all considering that Groningen radiocarbon determinations in other sites tend to elevate 8th century BCE ceramic chronology. 993280_Anes_47_02_Gonzalez.indd3280_Anes_47_02_Gonzalez.indd 113939 223/08/103/08/10 115:515:51 140 F. GONZÁLEZ DE CANALES, L. SERRANO AND J. LLOMPART century BCE, just to avoid the impression that we might be trying to force the chronology in order to identify Huelva with the biblical Tarshish of 1 Kings 10.22.11 Notwithstanding, even in the case that none of the ceramics reached the Hiram I period, other points of the city still might lodge slightly older ceramics since it is unthinkable that the manifold activities analysed would be limited just to the investigated terrain. There is also the question of the elbow fibulae of the famous bronze hoard from the Huelva estuary. To the classical parallels known in Cyprus and the Levant,12 those of the Achziv necropolis, 25 km south of Tyre, can be added.13 Together with the ceramic, paleographical and radiocarbon approxima- tions, the relationship of the Huelva habitat with Tarshish in the Hiram I period can be solidly established based on the products actually exploited by the Phoenicians. According to 1 Kings 10.22, the ships of Tarshish (or just a single ship14) provided gold, silver and ivory, q(w)pym and t(w)kyym, to the monarch. In a recent work we exposed the difficulties that both Hebrew terms have posed since antiquity and the lack of textual fundaments for an Indian Tarshish where there are no traces of Phoenician remains.15 11 The Tarshish toponym is implicit or, depending on the reading, it is even explicit in the verses.

Load more