The God Culture: A Review of Solomon's Gold Part 6

While I truly did not want to be writing any more posts about the God Culture I have fallen down a long rabbit hole that really needs to be explored. This post will necessarily be long and detailed in order to ferret out the issues raised and to once again display the shoddy "research" of the The God Culture. Remember The God Culture says to test and prove all things, to check them out and see if they are right. That is exactly what I am doing here. The trail starts with Part 6 of the God Culture's Solmon's Gold series and Tim's citation of Samuel Purchas.

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk?t=917

Samuel Purchas attempts to put forth an argument for Britain regarding Ophir but there is no such support for any British find nor actual claim that ever matched history, the geography, the Bible facts, as well as the actual life of the people themselves. Spain beat them in all of these arenas hands down. Unfortunately the British Empire overpowered the Spanish and this story was swept under the carpet. That's why you don't hear about this in modern times. It's the victors who write history and they choose to place things under the carpet that they don't want you to know.  

There also was an argument raging in Europe referenced in Careri's journal of his visit to the Philippines he mentions he would not go into the argument raging in Europe at that time over whether the Philippines was actually, originally populated by the descendants of Biblical Tarshish.  Well this is the British so they must be right, right? Wrong! They had an ulterior motive. Spain was their largest rival and they did not want Spain to find Ophir. They wanted to. 

If you notice Tim doesn't actually quote Samuel Purchas. Instead he quotes a passage about him from Ancientphilippines.blogspot.com. That blog is listed as his source in tiny print underneath the quote.

In Samuel Purchas's well-known travel compendium Purchas His Pilgrim, he devotes the entire first chapter to a discussion of Tarshish and Ophir. In particular, he argues strenously that it is beloved Britain and not Spain that deserved the title as the modern Tarshish and Ophir. Curiously, in Careri's journal of his visit to the Philippines, he mentions that he would not go into the argument raging in Europe at that time over whether the Philippines was originally populated by the descendants of Biblical Tarshish.

http://ancientphilippines.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-lost-tribe-of-israel-is-found.html

In fact quite a large chunk of Tim's research originates from that webpage as we shall see. But here is the twist!  The author of AncientPhilippines has copy/pasted their research from someone else! Namely from the document Pilipinas Ang Ophir by Abraham Tabling. The above quote about Purchas can be found on both the title page and page 11 of Pilpinas Ang Ophir. For Tim it's a case of third-hand quoting. Is that the hallmark of any kind of legitmate researcher? Did he even read Purchas? Did he do that?

No. He did not. Here is how Tim cites Purchas in the accompanying PDF of supporting research sources.

5. Samuel Purchas. 

“Purchas His Pilgrimes.” Book 1. Samuel Purchas. Page 18-48 at least. Purchase has a very long dissertation on Ophir bought and paid for by the East India Company (Rothschilds) and never traveled more than 200 miles from Essex in his own words thus he is no explorer according to: Hakluytus Posthumus, or Purchas his Pilgrimes, Contayning a History of the World, in Sea Voyages, & Lande Travels, by Englishmen and others by Dr James Robert Wood, Trinity College Dublin. Also, Purchas did not know where Ophir was nor did he actually put up an argument against the Philippines which he does not address. Purchas was peddling a British mindset and never proves anything nor did he locate Ophir as no scholar fully did until Magellan. 

https://f2568e15-4b6b-4cbb-b68a-3d729eeed9e4.filesusr.com/ugd/e23929_c5850fbfa12d4a3390a6a541db01540d.pdf

Pages 18-48 at least.  AT LEAST!? He cannot even cite the correct page or pages where Purchas lays out the argument for Britain being the land of Ophir but makes a guess! And we are supposed to believe him? According to the table of contents Purchas does not begin discussing the location of Ophir until page 66. AncientPhilippines does not cite these alleged arguments of Purchas for Britain being Ophir either.  Nor does Tabilog. He does however quote a few lines from Purchas seemingly about this matter.

Samuel Purchas writing in the early 17th century stressed the need for Britain to involve itself in the "Ophirian navigation" to secure its own self-vision as the chosen messianic nation but with a more mercantile twist: 

And this also we hope shall one day be the true Ophirian navigation, when Ophir shall come unto Jerusalem as Jerusalem then went unto Ophir. Meanwhile we see a harmony in this sea-trade, and as it were the consent of other creatures to this consent of the reasonable, united by navigation howsoever by rites, languages, customs, and countries separated.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/20188128/PILIPINAS-ANG-OPHIR pg 29

Tabilog's assertion that Purchas "stressed the need for Britain to involve itself in the "Ophirian navigation" to secure its own self-vision as the chosen messianic nation but with a more mercantile twist" is completely wrong. On pages 2-9 Purchas gives an anagogical interpretation of Solomon's navy sailing to Ophir which sheds light on this quote about "the true Ophirian navigation" which is found further down on page 56.

Or if you had rather adjoyne to the Allegory, the Anagogicall sense and use ; this History will appeare also a Mystery and Type of Eternitie. Every Christian man is a ship, a weake vessell, in this Navie of Solomon, and dwelling in a mortall body, is within lesse then foure inches, then one inch of death. From Jerusalem the Word and Law of our Solomon first proceeded, by preaching of Solomons and Hirams servants, the Pastors and Elect vessells to carry his Name, gathered out of Jewes and Gentiles, which guide these Ships through a stormy Sea, beginning at the Red Sea, Christs bloudy Crosse, which yeelded Water and Bloud, till they arrive at Ophir, the communion of Saints in the holy Catholike Church.

Pages 6-7

What Purchas is doing is employing the anagogical method of interpretation to spiritualize the history of the voyage of Solomon's navy to Ophir to gather earthly treasures. In this interpretation men are ships who voyage to Christ to gather heavenly treasures. Jerusalem is where the Law and earthly King Solomon rule. Ophir is where grace and the One who is Greater than Solomon rule. Thus the true Ophirian navigation is that journey from this earthly life to the heavenly life which is to be found only in Christ and His Church. The "true Ophirian navigation when Ophir shall come unto Jerusalem" is spiritual and has nothing to do with Britain being a chosen messianic nation with a mercantile twist. This allegory is completely lost on Tabilog. It is clear that Tim is also oblivious to it as he pontificates about history being written by the victors and the true location of Ophir being swept under the carpet thereby completely missing the point. Searching through Purchas' text there appears to be no arguments that Britain is Ophir. The text can be read here. 

In the source listed as the reference to Purchas being paid by the East India Company to write his 20 volume travel compendium we read the following:

Purchas wrote Purchas his Pilgrimes under the patronage of the East India Company. The Company awarded Purchas 100 pounds to assemble the book and gave him access to many of the letters and manuscripts that Purchas would draw on in writing his magnum opus. 

http://www.ucd.ie/readingeast/essay3.html

No indications are given as to when this essay was written. There is no date and any search for the author, Dr. James Robert Wood of Trinity College Dublin, comes up empty. Looking through the bibliography it seems the source for this claim might be "Hakluytus Posthumus: Samuel Purchas and the Promotion of English Overseas Expansion” which was published in 1966.

Purchas's East Indian chapters are among the best testimony that the Pilgrimes was both intended to be and was just as promotional as the Principal Navigations. The whole object of these chapters was public approval and support for the efforts of the East India Company. It is not surprising that upon publication of the Pilgrimes, the Company paid Purchas $100 and bought three sets of the work. It was meager pay indeed for the great service he had rendered them.

Hakluytus Posthumus: Samuel Purchas and the Promotion of English Overseas Expansion.” pg. 15

Not only are the claims in this paragraph not sourced, and there are plenty of footnotes on that page, but just 40 years prior to this essay's publication in 1926 a completely different account of Purchas' dealings with the East India Company was given by Sir William Foster, Historiographer to the India Office.

Mr. Bolton Corney, in his edition of The Voyage of Sir Henry Middleton (Hakluyt Society, 1855), declared that Hakluyt had nominated “as his editorial successor” John Pory, the translator of Leo Africans, but that this project came to nothing, and “about the year 1620, under circumstances which are nowhere distinctly stated, the collections formed by Hakluyt came into the hands of  the Rev. Samule Purchas.” Sir Clements Markham was bolder in his statements. According to him (Memoir on the indian Surveys, p.1) Hakluyt was appointed Historiographer to the East India Company in 1601, and consequently “had the custody of all the journals of the East Indian Voyages” ; on Hakluyt’s death these journals were handed over to Purchas, “no doubt with the consent of the Directors,” and the death of Purchas, closely following that of Sir Thomas Smythe, the Governor of the Company, would “possibly account for the loss of some of the earliest journals of the Company’s voyages.” For all this I have been unable to find any warrant in the Company’s records. 

The statement that Hakluyt was appointed Historiographer I have elsewhere shown to be based upon a misreading (by a previous writer) of a passage in the Court Minutes. There is no evidence that the journals were ever placed in his custody or transferred to Purchas ; and when the latter applied to the Company in 1622 for permission to make extracts from their records he was apparently a stranger to them, for he is spoken of as “one Purchas, that wrote of the religions of all nations.” Moreover, the restrictions then placed upon the loan show that the Company were fully alive to the importance of preserving their journals ; and as a matter of fact, several of those used by Purchas are still extant, while the loss of others is easily accounted for by the neglect with which such documents were treated by later generations. That Hakluyt was acquainted with Purchas is highly probable, in view of their common professor and their common interest in geographical matters ; but that the former ever intended to entrust his materials to the later is doubtful, in the absence of any mention of the matter in Hakluyt’s will. On the whole it seems more likely that Purchas applied for them to Hakluyt’s executors, who, having no use for such things, readily agreed to make them over to him.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1782578?seq=1 pgs 194-195

This historiographer who examined the records of the East India Company says Purchas was apparently a stranger to them. Clearly the relation between Purchas and the East India Company is disputed. But even if it were true that Purchas was the Company's historian that does not mean he covered up the true location of Ophir. Such a claim by Tim is an unwarranted conspiracy theory and it is based on an unsubstantiated paragraph from AncientPhilippines. Tim has not read Purchas and does not know if he even did argue that Britain was Ophir.

Now let's deal with the reference to the Rothschilds. If we look at the history of the Rothschilds we see it is completely unwarranted to associate them with the East India Company at least so early as 1614 when Purchas first published his work. The Jews were expelled from Britain in 1290 by King Edward I. They were not allowed to return until Cromwell gave them permission in 1655. The Rothschilds themselves did not gain any prominence or power until the Napoleonic wars in the early 1800's.  

There is a lot of noise on the internet about the Rothschild's alleged involevment in the East India Company but from their official archives we read the following:

As early as 1799, Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836) began to import and distribute Indian goods, and an ‘India Goods’ book, preserved in the Archive records dealings in cloth, indigo, spice, coffee and cotton between 1807 and 1812. Nathan is also reported to have dealt with the East India Company in connection with the famous ‘Waterloo Commission’, the contract from the British Government to supply Wellington's troops with gold coin in 1814 and 1815. In 1834, Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton wrote to his daughter recalling the dinner where Nathan told him of an occasion “when I was settled in London, the East India Company had 800,000 lbs of gold to sell.  I went to the sale and bought it all.  I knew the Duke of Wellington must have it… that was the best business I ever did.” Whilst no evidence exists that Nathan held East India Company shares, he did recommend the son John Roworth, his ‘Principal Clerk’for enlistment as a Cadet with the Company in 1818. 

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/collections/treasure_of_the_month/december_2017_east_india_company_stock_list_1815

It is not likely that Jews were allowed to hold shares or control in the East India Company in the early 1600's when Purchas wrote his book as they were banned from Britain and as late as 1815 there was no evidence that Nathan Rothschild held shares in the Company. It is also ludicrous to suggest that the Rothschilds were attempting to cover up the real location of Ophir. Why would they? Tim does not give a reason for this alleged cover up on the part of the Rothschilds. Not to mention there appears to be nothing in Purchas' book to suggest that Britain is Ophir.

Neither Tim, AncientPhilippines, nor Abraham Tabliog assert that Purchas made any comments about the lost tribes but it would do good to read what one author has written on that subject in order to be thorough.

As early as the first two decades of the seventeenth century, the educated person could read about the ten tribes in, among other places, Samuel Purchas’s (c. 1575–1626) huge and popular Pilgrimages and Relations of the World series, a collection of world geography, voyages, and navigations. The kingdom of the ten tribes first appeared as part of biblical history, on its maps of the Holy Land (prepared by Hondius) with Samaria, the capital, in a large font. Similar maps, portraying the territories of the tribes before their exile, had been popular since the mid-sixteenth century. (For instance, Walter Raleigh’s [1552–1618] influential “history of the world,” published for the first time in1614, provided detailed information about the territories of each tribe during the period of the settlement of the Holy Land after the Exodus.) 

About the ancient geography of the ten tribes in Palestine, there was little dispute. Purchas, however, placed great importance on the religions attached to each region of the world. The ten tribes after exile, a group whose location and religious status were highly unclear, were a matter of particular concern. Purchas was an attentive collector of materials on the subject. In 1613, Purchas discussed—and did not rule out—the possibility that the ten tribes were in Tartary, relying, apparently, on Ortelius. In 1625, a year before his death, he declared, “The Tartars are not Israelite,” and spent time on Esdras’s allegations that this was the case, reviewing in the course of doing so all other possible locations in Asia, America, Arabia, and Ethiopia. Even after years of study, he could not be sure.

Despite his skepticism, Purchas liked to tell tales about the “closed Jews.” In a section dedicated to the Persian Gulf, Purchas “intreate[d]” his readers’ “patience,” digressing to discuss at length “the Jewish fables” about the “Sabbatical streams”—the River Sambatyon. This comes just after mention of European travelers who had lost their lives or fortunes looking for the legendary river—something he called a “Jewish tragedy.” The learned geographer ridiculed the lack of geographic knowledge displayed by Jewish writers and could not resist a witticism concerning “the Sabbatical river: now you shall understand how the Jews generally drowned their wits therein.” He had as his two examples “Rambam [Maimonides; 1135–1204] who called it [the River] Gozan,” and Eldad Ha-Dani, whose story should serve as “favorable entertainment.” Purchas tells a version of Eldad’s story, which he claims to have read in a “translation of Génebrard.” Fable or not, Purchas did not deny the existence of the “closed Jews” and encouraged his reader to become acquainted with the fascinating story of the “traveler Eldad.”

The Ten Lost Tribes A World History, Zvi Ben-Dor Benite, pgs. 205-206

If Purchas says nothing about the British being members of the lost tribes it stands to reason he said nothing about Britain being Ophir. Of course one would have to actually read the text to find out what he says about the location of Ophir. I will leave that task to the God Culture.

Let's look at the reference to Careri next. Who is this man? Tim doesn't tell us. He just repeats what he cribbed from AncientPhilippines as if everyone knows about the guy. Careri is Giovanni Francesco Gemelli Careri. He travelled the world in the late 17th century and ended up in the Philippines. The passage quoted is correct that there appears to have been a debate going on in Europe about the origin of the Filipinos.

For to endeavor to determine the first settlers of these lands, whence and how they came, whether they were Carthaginians, Jews, Spaniards, Phoenicians, Greeks, Chinese, Tartars, etc., is reserved for God, who knows everything; and this task exceeds all human endeavor. And if such study obtain anything, it will amount only to a few fallible conjectures with danger of the judgment, and without any advance of the truth or of reputation.

The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803, Vol. 40, pg. 296-297 

Whether this debate was raging is not something determinable. Were there pamphlet wars about the subject? The passage above was written by Juan Fransisco San Antonio in 1744. Careri died in 1725. If there was a debate raging about about whether or not Filipinos were from Tarshish nothing was resolved by 1744.  

Careri wrote a book titled "A Voyage to the Philippines." In this book a word search for both Ophir and Tarshish turn up nothing. Likewise a search of his book "A Voyage Round the World" brings up zero hits for either Ophir or Tarshish. If Careri ever opined about the Filipinos and their relation to Tarshish it is not to be found in these two most likely places. It could be in there somewhere but that appears to be not the case. This is why it is crucial that anyone doing research, especially of the type where a new history of the world is being eked out, needs to properly cite all their sources. Timothy Jay Schwab, AncientPhilippines, and Abraham Tabilog all fail on this point.

In the next slide Tim tells us all the names given to the Philippines by their neighbors.

The sources Tim lists are as follows.

For Chryse: Pomponious Mela, Marinos of Tyre and the Periplus of the Erythaean Sea mentioned this island. 100BC.  These are sources that Tim refers to many times in his videos and which I have covered elsewhere.

For Suvarnadwipa: Ancient Hindu Name for the Philippines. That is not a source. That is an assertion. I am having trouble chasing down this name because the more common appellation is Suvarṇabhūmi. The only place I can find where this name is claimed to be how the Hindus anciently referred to the Philippines is http://maharlikhan.blogspot.com/2014/11/ancient-world-heritage-of-maharlikha.html. No source for this claim is given on that blog. According to Wikipedia no scholar  is of the opinion that this place is the Philippines.

The location of Suvarnabhumi has been the subject of much debate, both in scholarly and nationalistic agendas. It remains one of the most mythified and contentious toponyms in the history of Asia. Scholars have identified two regions as possible locations for the ancient Suvarnabhumi: Insular Southeast Asia or Southern India. In a study of the various literary sources for the location of Suvannabhumi, Saw Mra Aung concluded that it was impossible to draw a decisive conclusion on this, and that only thorough scientific research would reveal which of several versions of Suvannabhumi was the original.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvarnabhumi

For Lusong Dao: Chinese traders 300 AD. Again that is not a source. It is an assertion. The blog Maharlikhan also mentions this name but gives no source to verify the claim.

For Chin-Chou: I-Tsing, Buddhist Pilgrim, 200 BC. This is a name and not a source. While Tim does not give his source for this information a deeper look reveals that it may originate from the book "A record of the Buddhist religion as practised in India and the Malay archipelago" which was written by I-Tsing also known as Yijing. Here is what he has to say about Chin-Chou on page 17.

Sometimes an emperor greatly opens the way to the Triyana and invites the teachers, preparing hundreds of seats ; sometimes he constructs Kaityas (sepulchres) throughout his dominion, so that all the wise incline their hearts to Buddhism ; or he builds temples (Saiigharama) here and there throughout his realm in order that all the ignorant may go and worship there to mature their merit. Farmers sing merrily in their fields, and merchants joyfully chant on board ship, or in their carts. In fact, the people who honour cocks (i.e. Korea, see below) and those who respect elephants (India), as well as the inhabitants of the regions of Chin-lin (lit. gold-neighbours) and Yii-lin (lit. Gem-hill), come and pay homage at the Imperial Court. Our people manage their affairs peacefully in a peaceful state (or better,'peace and tranquillity are our objects'), and everything is so perfect that there can be nothing to be added. 

He says nothing about Chin-chou. However there is a footnote for Chin-lin which reads as follows:

Chin-lin (lit. Golden Neighbours) is, according to Kaxyapa, the same as 'Chin Chou' (lit. Golden Island), which corresponds to Skt. Suvarwa-dvipa. The 'Golden Island' is the name once applied, by I-tsing, to Sumatra or at any rate to Sribhoga, where gold is said to have been abundant. 

Chin-chou is mentioned again on page xli.  

9. Gold seems to have been abundant. I-tsing once calls Sribhoga ‘Chin-chou,' 'Gold Isle.'

The footnote here is:

Chavannes, p. 1S1, note 2. Cf. Reinand, Relation, torn, i, p. lxxv. Sumatra is famous for gold ; Yule, Marco Polo, vol. ii, chap, ix, p. 26S. 

At this point the trail goes cold because the book referred to, which I think is "Memoir Written in the Grand Tang Dynasty by Yijing on the Religious Men Who Went to Search for the Law in the Western Lands" translated into French by Émmanuel-Édouard Chavannes is not online and not translated into English. The task of searching this out further falls upon The God Culture. What is very clear is that Yijing did not refer to the Philippines as Chin-chou. He also did not write in 200 BC as his dates are 635-713 AD. His travel route bypassed the Philippines as the map on his Wikipedia entry shows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yijing_(monk)

Tim has gotten this source wrong entirely because he did not check it out. Ironic how Tim keeps getting things wrong because he fails to check his sources when he admonishes his audience to test and prove all things.

For Chin-San and Chin-Lin: 17th Century, Dominican Gregorio Garcia. Again that is a name and not a source. I am unable to examine any of Gregorio Garcia's works because they appear to not have been translated into English. I am unable to find any sources linking Garcia with those two names. He is mentioned in the Wikipedia article about Names of the Philippines under the section "disputed" but for the name Ophir not Chin-San and Chin-Lin.

For Zabag: 1609 AD Juan de Pineda and Former Prime Minister Pedro A Paterno, Conjectural Anthropology. Those are names and not sources. In fact Paterno never wrote a book titled Conjectural Anthropology. It appears Tim got this reference from Wikipedia.

Former Prime Minister Pedro A. Paterno said in one of his works on conjectural anthropology that Ophir is the Philippines because the scented wood Solomon received from Ophir also exists in the Islands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_the_Philippines#Disputed

But then again perhaps not because Tim claims Paterno as a source for the name Zabag and not Ophir. The same goes for Pineda who is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article alongside Paterno and Garcia. Whatever the case may be we see that this is shoddy research on Tim's part.  He claims to list sources but does not. He also has not chased down these names to find out how they were used and by whom. Except for the references to Chryse this slide is worthless and unreliable. That is not to say Chryse is an ancient name for the Philippines, which is Tim's assumption, just that he gets the sources right for that particular name.

The next slide to look at deals with Antonio Pigafetta.

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk?t=1632

Oops!  This quote ism't from Pigafetta as Tim admits in the PDF of supporting research sources.

10. “Mindoro Possess Great Skill in mixing gold”: 

CORRECTION: Please NOTE: The original source cited Pigafetta as the source but this quote comes from Hernando Riquel instead: Hernando Riquel, Excerpts From: “The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803 — Volume 03 of 55 / 1569-1576 / Explorations by Early Navigators, Descriptions of the Islands and Their Peoples, Their History and Re- cords of the Catholic Missions, as Related in Contemporaneous Books and Manuscripts, Showing the Political, Economic, Commercial and Religious Conditions of Those Islands from Their Earliest Relations with European Nations to the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century.” P. 65 Print Edition.

P.100 e-book:

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13616.

Without naming AncientPhilippines Tim admits in this correction that he used them as his source. Funny that in the video he does not attribute that blog but instead Pigafetta'a book! Why did he do that when he knew he was not actually referencing Pigafetta's book but the blog AncientPhilippines as he admits in the PDF of supporting research sources? It is proof that he did not even check the veracity of the source and that he is being a tad duplicitous. He got too cocky and simply copy/pasted what he read and made it his own by telling us it came from Pigafetta and showing the book on the slide all the while knowing he was referencing AncientPhilippines and not Pigafetta. This wrong attribution to Pigafetta is also reproduced on page 62 of Tabilog's paper.

For all his corrections Tim messes up again! The real quote is as follows:

During these five days, the Moros had, little by little, given two hundred taels of impure gold, for they possess great skill in mixing it with other metals. They give it an outside appearance so natural and perfect, and so fine a ring, that unless it is melted they can deceive all men, even the best of silversmiths.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.afk2830.0001.003&view=1up&seq=79

It is to be found on page 81 of the print edition not page 65.  He writes 65 because the Gutenberg website has page 65 next to the section in which this quote is found. A minor mistake which is just more evidence that he is not very careful with his sources. 

The next slide to look at from this video has a quote from Antonio De Morga.

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk?t=2279

And where did this gold come from? When the Spanish arrived, the Philippines was so gilded with gold that most of the gold mines had been neglected. "... the natives proceed more slowly in this, and content themselves with what they already possess in jewels and gold ingots handed down from antiquity (ancient times) and inherited from their ancestors. This is considerable, for he must be poor and wrethced who has no gold chains, calombigas, and earrings." Again who had this gold and jewelry wealth? Everyone! Not just the royal class which was innumerable by the way. Not a small group that led the country. No. And it was handed down from their ancestors. Not necessarily forged in that era as the gold mines were neglected. One actually stood out as poor if if they did not have gold and jewels on their person. The mines had been neglected meaning they had enough gold from their ancestors and gold was not in demand among Filipinos, Ophirians.  Can you imagine this? 

If you notice I have misspelled "wretched" and so has Tim. That is because we both copy/pasted from AncientPhilippines who in turn copy/pasted from Tabliog's paper Pilipinas Ang Ophir page 61. That's some really great research Tim is doing right? All this copy/pasting? Because he did not read this source he gets it totally wrong!

Were the mines neglected because the natives had too much gold? Let's go to the source and see what it says.  

All these islands are, in many districts, rich in placers and mines of gold, a metal which the natives dig and work. However, since the advent of the Spaniards in the land, the natives proceed more slowly in this, and content themselves with what they already possess in jewels and gold ingots, handed down from antiquity and inherited from their ancestors. This is considerable, for he must be poor and wretched who has no gold chains, calombigas [bracelets], and earrings. 

Some placers and mines were worked at Paracali in the province of Camarines, where there is good gold mixed with copper. This commodity is also traded in the Ylocos, for at the rear of this province, which borders the seacoast, are certain lofty and rugged mountains which extend as far as Cagayan. On the slopes of these mountains, in the interior, live many natives, as yet unsubdued, and among whom no incursion has been made, who are called Ygolotes. These natives possess rich mines, many of gold and silver mixed. They are wont to dig from them only the amount necessary for their wants. They descend to certain places to trade this gold (without completing its refining or preparation), with the Ylocos; there they exchange it for rice, swine, carabaos, cloth, and other things that they need.' The Ylocos complete its refining and preparation, and by their medium it is distributed throughout the country. Although an effort has been made with these Ygolotes to discover their mines, and how they work them, and their method of working the metal, nothing definite has been learned, for the Ygolotes fear that the Spaniards will go to seek them for their gold, and say that they keep the gold better in the earth than in their houses."

The Philippine Islands, 1493-1803 vo. 16, pgs 101-102

Tim says the mines were neglected because they had a surplus of gold. De Morga tells us mining was slowed down and the mining process kept hid for fear of the Spanish stealing all their gold. He also says the natives only dig for what is necessary for their wants. The mines were not neglected at all according to De Morga. Tim gets it wrong because he didn't check his sources. Throughout this video he is cribbing from AncientPhilippines and trying to pass off their research as his own by adding his singular little spin and presentation as he did with the wrongly cited Pigafetta quote. All the while unbeknownst to him he is also taking from the work of Abraham Tabilog. 

I ask again is this how a serious researcher works? Using a random blog as a main source rather than using it as a jumping off point to the original sources? Not checking the sources? Not bothering to read them? Is that what a real researcher does? This is why I say again and again that Tim misuses his sources, picks and chooses what he will, and in some cases does not even read the source and he is not a credible person. He is a man on a mission to prove his thesis and not a serious researcher taking all the facts the sources present into consideration. If a source contradicts Tim's thesis it is because of a great conspiracy to cover up the truth.

Before we wrap up I have one more slide to look at and it's about chicken DNA.

https://youtu.be/12tOU7Szbpk?t=2750

Before we wrap up haven't we all been taught that people came to the Philippines from the other Pacific islands? Wouldn't that dispel a lot of this  if it were true it would. But a new study has been released by the American National Academy of Sciences that actually disproves that.  

It declares that Philippines is the most likely ancestral homeland of the Polynesians, who's forebears colonized the Pacific about 3,200 years ago. Polynesian chickens had their genetic roots in the Philippines. Through chicken migration patterns, and chickens do not island hop on their own without human intervention by the way, scientists have proven the Polynesian roots are in the Philippines.  

This study absolutely does not declare "that Philippines is the most likely ancestral homeland of the Polynesians." The study is wholly about chickens. Tim does not even bother to cite any material from the study itself or its authors but instead quotes from Ancient-origins.net. Both that webpage and Timothy read way too much into this study. National Geographic sheds more light.

Scientists looking into the DNA of ancient and modern chicken breeds found throughout Micronesia and Polynesia have determined that they are genetically distinct from those found in South America. The research runs counter to apopular theory that Polynesian seafarers might have reached the coast of South America hundreds of years ago, before European explorers. 

Researchers sequenced mitochondrial DNA from 22 chicken bones found at Polynesian archaeological sites and 122 feathers from modern chickens living on islands across the South Pacific. They used an enzyme to remove any contamination by modern DNA that may have clouded the results of earlier studies. When the team compared the "cleaned-up" DNA of Polynesian chickens with that of ancient and modern South American chickens, they found the two groups were genetically distinct. 

The chicken DNA does not support a connection between the peoples separated by the Pacific, Cooper said. "Indeed, the lack of the Polynesian sequences [of DNA] in modern South American chickens ... would argue against any trading contact as far as chickens go." 

Cooper and his colleagues were able to trace the origins of Polynesian chickens back in time and across the Pacific, following the lines of what must rank as one of the boldest, most romantic, and least understood human migrations of all time—the peopling of the tropical islands of the South Seas. 

"We can show [from chicken DNA] that the trail heads back into the Philippines," Cooper said. "We're currently working on tracing it farther northward from there. However, we're following a proxy, rather than the actual humans themselves."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/3/140318-polynesian-chickens-pacific-migration-america-science/

The point of this study was to show the genetic difference between South American and Polynesian chickens. They trace the lineage across the islands of the Pacific back to the Philippines and say they are attempting to trace it further northward.  They also say that they are not following "the actual humans themselves" but a proxy which is the chicken DNA. This study is not about people. It is about chickens. Did Tim read the study?  The abstract at least? No. If he did he would have read this:

Two modern specimens from the Philippines carry haplotypes similar to the ancient Pacific samples, providing clues about a potential homeland for the Polynesian chicken.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/111/13/4826.full.pdf

"Clues about a POTENTIAL HOMELAND" which is why Cooper says they are looking to trace the line further northward. This study does not say anything about the Philippines being the homeland of the Polynesians nor does it suggest it. After all as Tim says, "chickens do not island hop on their own without human intervention" which means they were brought to the Philippine islands from elsewhere which means Filipinos came from elsewhere. The study is solely about chickens and anything else is mere speculation on Tim's part. Of course he cribbed it from Ancient-Origins which means, like a naughty school boy, he copied someone else's wrong answers.

Solomon's Gold Part 6 showcases the same academic dishonesty I have thoroughly documented in all the other posts I have written about the God Culture. They misuse sources, copy/paste from others, and sometimes don't read the sources at all. That is no way to do research. That is not research at all. Don't forget The God Culture claims to be a team doing "deep research including history, geography, archeology, science, language." What a joke!

This is why I did not want to be writing about the God Culture again. Anything I could write about them would repeat the formula of looking up their sources and showing how they get them wrong. It would be redundant, tedious, and boring. As I wrote before, if they don't get their sources right here they won't get them right there. And if they don't get their sources right then their conclusions will be wrong. These several posts have proven that to be true.