 |
| Solomon's Gold Series Part 1D: Testing the RESOURCES of Ancient Ophir, Tarshish, Sheba |
21:37 This is why gold jewelry of Philippine origin was found in a dig in Egypt dating first century AD.
The Greeks traded with the Philippines for gold and silver from roughly around 800-150 B.C. and Mela retained this from the “olden writers” of Greece. This further affirms the claim that the Philippines was mining gold in 1000 B.C. as the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology alludes and author, researcher and historian Paul Kekai Manansala, author Scott Walker, Wikipedia and others stake. [10] The Greeks were merely continuing the Phoenician routes of Solomon’s navy. One cannot ignore the origin of the Greek language and marine acumen being Phoenicia who were Solomon’s navy.
Certainly, the West lost the route but it was never lost to the world. When the Muslims arrived around 1200 A.D., they had pursued their legends of gold like Waqwaq in the Philippines. [22] Then, we have the Spanish which we will cover in an entire chapter, who record repeatedly that the Philippines was the most abundant land of gold and in some accounts more gold than they had ever encountered in all of antiquity. Is this even debatable? Not really.
Trade with the Philippines continued as far as Egypt and West Asia in the first millennium as Laszlo Legeza as well as a book published by Bangko Sentral suggest Philippine gold ending up in Egypt.
“Hellenistic trade beads of West Asiatic and Egyptian origins found in early burials in many places in the Philippines, prove that such early trade contacts, no matter how irregular, existed between the Philippine archipelago and West Asia by the first centuries of the first millennium A.D.” –Laszlo Legeza [21]
“Apart from India and China, Butuan is known to have had extensive trading connections with Arabia and in all probability with Sumatra and Java. The locally produced gold necklaces comprising of dentate interlocking beads seem to have reached Egypt, later to be mistakenly identified by European collectors as Egyptian.” –Laszlo Legeza [21]
“Some of the non-Indian borrowed designs found only in their original sources and in the Philippine area suggest direct linkages with other cultural currents from the Indian Ocean. Among these are kamagi necklaces(Aldred 1978: 105) and penannular, barter rings which both show Egyptian influence(Aldred 1978: 20, 94). The earliest insular Southeast Asian products reached the Mediterranean through a port on the Arabian Gulf, which were transported overland to the headwaters of the Nile, then shipped down to Alexandria. Austronesian traders are also known to have reached Madagascar(Miller 1969; Taylor 1976), so the African connection is an established fact.”
–Villegas, Bangko Sentral [21]
The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 43-45
Analyze these documents. Do these documents indicate that Philippine gold jewelry was found or suggest it could have been found in 1st century Egypt?Do these documents suggest the Philippines was trading directly with 1st century Egypt?
🛑 Therefore, Schwab’s assertion that these sources support direct trade or evidence of Philippine gold ending up in Egypt is:
❌ Misleading and unsupported by the actual texts.
ChatGPT said:
Based on both documents you provided—"SCAN5 TANTRIC ELEMENT OCR" by Laszlo Legeza and "Ginto: History Wrought in Gold" by Ramon N. Villegas—there is no indication that Philippine gold jewelry was found in 1st century Egypt, nor is there any direct suggestion that such a discovery could have happened.
However, there is some indirect speculation in Legeza's article that touches on trade networks which could prompt this kind of inference, albeit weakly:
What Legeza says:
“The locally produced gold necklaces comprising of dentate interlocking beads seem to have reached Egypt, later to be mistakenly identified by European collectors as Egyptian.”(Legeza, SCAN5, p. 130)This speculative statement suggests that some Philippine-style gold ornaments may have reached Egypt at some point and were misidentified by European collectors as Egyptian. However:
No specific date is provided, and certainly not the 1st century.
There is no archaeological or documentary evidence cited that confirms Philippine gold being discovered in Egypt.
The phrasing (“seem to have reached”) indicates conjecture, not established fact.
It’s possible this claim is influenced by stylistic similarities rather than actual provenance.
What Villegas says:
Villegas provides a detailed archaeological and historical overview of Philippine gold jewelry, its local production, regional trade (especially with China and Southeast Asia), and use within Philippine society. While he references extensive trade networks, including Arab, Chinese, and Indian merchants, and even mentions Egypt in passing in relation to Arab and Persian trade, he does not suggest or imply that Philippine gold reached Egypt—let alone in the 1st century.
Conclusion:
No, the documents do not provide evidence that Philippine gold jewelry was found in 1st century Egypt. At most, Legeza presents a hypothesis that some Philippine gold may have ended up in Egypt and been misattributed, but this is not specific to the 1st century, and no concrete evidence supports the claim.
If you're looking to trace historical trade routes between the Philippines and the Mediterranean world during antiquity, a deeper investigation into maritime trade records, archaeological finds in Egypt, and metallurgical analyses of gold artifacts would be necessary. Would you like help drafting a response or rebuttal to someone making this claim?
You said:
Do these documents suggest the Philippines was trading directly with 1st century Egypt?
ChatGPT said:
No, these documents do not suggest that the Philippines was trading directly with 1st century Egypt.
Here's what the documents actually show:
📘 Legeza (SCAN5 TANTRIC ELEMENT OCR):
Mentions that Hellenistic and Roman traders, facing gold shortages by the 1st century A.D., turned to Southeast Asia via Indian intermediaries.
Notes the presence of West Asiatic and Egyptian trade beads in early Philippine burials as evidence of early contact, but emphasizes indirect contact through Indian and Persian middlemen, not direct trade.
Example quote:
“Hellenistic trade beads of West Asiatic and Egyptian origins found in early burials in many places in the Philippines, prove that such early trade contacts, no matter how irregular, existed…”(Legeza, p. 128)Says nothing about Egyptians themselves traveling to or trading directly with the Philippines.
Refers to “locally produced gold necklaces... seem to have reached Egypt,” but this is highly speculative and lacks evidence of a direct trade route, much less in the 1st century.
📙 Villegas (Ginto: History Wrought in Gold):
Focuses on regional trade with:
China (Song, Yuan, and Ming dynasties)
India (especially during Hindu-Buddhist expansion)
Arab traders (notably via Gujarat)
Southeast Asian neighbors (Srivijaya, Majapahit, etc.)
Acknowledges maritime trade via Indian Ocean networks, but does not mention Egypt at all.
Establishes the Philippines as part of multi-layered regional trade, not a direct link to the Roman Empire or Egypt.
Conclusion:
There is no evidence or suggestion in either document of direct trade between the Philippines and 1st century Egypt. All referenced trade routes are indirect, mediated by Indian, Persian, and Arab traders.
At best, these documents support the idea that artifacts from Egypt or West Asia reached the Philippines, and that Philippine goods could have traveled westward via many intermediaries, but that’s a far cry from direct trade with Egypt in the 1st century.
Would you like help mapping out these indirect routes for a clearer visualization or argument?
You said:
analyse and comapre these claims to the contents of the PDFs: Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture claims gold jewelry of Philippine origin dating to the 1st century was found in Egypt. He makes this claim in his videos using three sources. Solomon's Gold Series Part 1D: Testing the RESOURCES of Ancient Ophir, Tarshish, Sheba 21:37 This is why gold jewelry of Philippine origin was found in a dig in Egypt dating first century AD. He later refined the argument in his book The Search for King Solomon's Treasure using only two sources. The Greeks traded with the Philippines for gold and silver from roughly around 800-150 B.C. and Mela retained this from the “olden writers” of Greece. This further affirms the claim that the Philippines was mining gold in 1000 B.C. as the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology alludes and author, researcher and historian Paul Kekai Manansala, author Scott Walker, Wikipedia and others stake. [10] The Greeks were merely continuing the Phoenician routes of Solomon’s navy. One cannot ignore the origin of the Greek language and marine acumen being Phoenicia who were Solomon’s navy. Certainly, the West lost the route but it was never lost to the world. When the Muslims arrived around 1200 A.D., they had pursued their legends of gold like Waqwaq in the Philippines. [22] Then, we have the Spanish which we will cover in an entire chapter, who record repeatedly that the Philippines was the most abundant land of gold and in some accounts more gold than they had ever encountered in all of antiquity. Is this even debatable? Not really. Trade with the Philippines continued as far as Egypt and West Asia in the first millennium as Laszlo Legeza as well as a book published by Bangko Sentral suggest Philippine gold ending up in Egypt. “Hellenistic trade beads of West Asiatic and Egyptian origins found in early burials in many places in the Philippines, prove that such early trade contacts, no matter how irregular, existed between the Philippine archipelago and West Asia by the first centuries of the first millennium A.D.” –Laszlo Legeza [21] “Apart from India and China, Butuan is known to have had extensive trading connections with Arabia and in all probability with Sumatra and Java. The locally produced gold necklaces comprising of dentate interlocking beads seem to have reached Egypt, later to be mistakenly identified by European collectors as Egyptian.” –Laszlo Legeza [21] “Some of the non-Indian borrowed designs found only in their original sources and in the Philippine area suggest direct linkages with other cultural currents from the Indian Ocean. Among these are kamagi necklaces(Aldred 1978: 105) and penannular, barter rings which both show Egyptian influence(Aldred 1978: 20, 94). The earliest insular Southeast Asian products reached the Mediterranean through a port on the Arabian Gulf, which were transported overland to the headwaters of the Nile, then shipped down to Alexandria. Austronesian traders are also known to have reached Madagascar(Miller 1969; Taylor 1976), so the African connection is an established fact.” –Villegas, Bangko Sentral [21] The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pgs. 43-45
ChatGPT said:
Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture claims that gold jewelry of Philippine origin dating to the 1st century A.D. was found in Egypt, and he uses selected quotes from Laszlo Legeza (SCAN5 TANTRIC ELEMENT OCR) and Ramon Villegas (Ginto: History Wrought in Gold) as evidence. However, a close analysis of those two original sources reveals that Schwab misrepresents their contents and distorts their conclusions. Here's a breakdown and comparison of his claims versus what the documents actually say:
📌 CLAIM 1: “Gold jewelry of Philippine origin dating to the 1st century AD was found in Egypt.”
🧾 What Schwab says:
“This is why gold jewelry of Philippine origin was found in a dig in Egypt dating first century AD.”(Solomon's Gold Series Part 1D, timestamp 21:37)📚 What Legeza actually says:
“The locally produced gold necklaces comprising of dentate interlocking beads seem to have reached Egypt, later to be mistakenly identified by European collectors as Egyptian.”(Legeza, p. 130)Analysis:
Legeza does not say the jewelry was found in Egypt, nor that it was dated to the 1st century.
His statement is speculative ("seem to have reached Egypt") and refers to misidentification by European collectors, not archaeological digs.
No excavation is mentioned, and no dating is provided—much less a 1st century A.D. date.
✅ Verdict: Schwab misrepresents Legeza’s speculative statement as hard archaeological evidence. Legeza offers no confirmation that Philippine gold was found in Egypt, let alone dated to the 1st century.
📌 CLAIM 2: “Trade with the Philippines continued as far as Egypt and West Asia in the first millennium.”
🧾 What Schwab says:
“Trade with the Philippines continued as far as Egypt and West Asia in the first millennium as Laszlo Legeza as well as a book published by Bangko Sentral suggest…”
📚 What Legeza and Villegas actually say:
From Legeza:
“Hellenistic trade beads of West Asiatic and Egyptian origins found in early burials in many places in the Philippines…”(Legeza, p. 128)Analysis:
This indicates Egyptian-origin beads were found in the Philippines, not the other way around.
Legeza is describing imports to the Philippines, not exports to Egypt.
From Villegas:
“Kamagi necklaces and penannular, barter rings…show Egyptian influence…”“The earliest insular Southeast Asian products reached the Mediterranean through a port on the Arabian Gulf…then shipped down to Alexandria.”“Austronesian traders are also known to have reached Madagascar…”Analysis:
Villegas speaks of Egyptian influence on some gold designs—not Egyptian discovery of Philippine gold.
He discusses possible routes by which Southeast Asian goods reached the Mediterranean, not proof that Philippine gold was found in Egypt.
The reference to Madagascar shows Austronesians had long-range navigational ability, but does not mean the Philippines had direct trade with Egypt.
✅ Verdict: Schwab takes statements out of context. Both sources describe imports to the Philippines and stylistic influence, not direct exports of gold to Egypt.
📌 CLAIM 3: “The Greeks traded with the Philippines for gold and silver from around 800–150 B.C.”
🧾 Schwab bases this claim on:
“Mela retained this from the ‘olden writers’ of Greece…”
📚 What the sources show:
Neither Legeza nor Villegas mention Pomponius Mela or assert that Greeks traded with the Philippines directly.
Legeza acknowledges Hellenistic trade reaching parts of Southeast Asia via Indian and Persian intermediaries.
Villegas discusses Phoenician and Arab legends but does not present direct trade with Greece.
✅ Verdict: Schwab adds claims not found in the sources and conflates broader Southeast Asian trade with specific, unproven trade between the Philippines and the ancient Greeks.
📌 Summary of Misrepresentations
Schwab’s Claim What the Sources Actually Say Verdict Gold jewelry of Philippine origin was found in a 1st century dig in Egypt Legeza speculates that jewelry may have reached Egypt; no dig, no 1st century date ❌ False Laszlo Legeza and BSP confirm Philippine trade with Egypt in 1st millennium Legeza: Egyptian items found in Philippines; Villegas: influence and possible trade routes, not confirmed exports ❌ Misleading Greeks traded with the Philippines for gold 800–150 B.C. Not stated by Legeza or Villegas; speculative extrapolation by Schwab ❌ Invented ✅ Conclusion:
Timothy Jay Schwab misrepresents and exaggerates the sources he cites. Neither Legeza nor Villegas support the idea that:
Philippine gold was found in Egypt,
it was from the 1st century A.D., or
there was direct Philippine trade with Egypt or Greece in antiquity.
Both authors discuss influences, trade through intermediaries, and archaeological finds in the Philippines, not Egypt.
Would you like a formal write-up or rebuttal you can use to respond to these claims in an article or post?
You said:
Schwab does not claim the PDFs mention Greeks trading with Filipinos. He is claiming that such trade occurred and that the PDFs show evidence the Philippines was trading directly with Egypt. "Trade with the Philippines continued as far as Egypt and West Asia in the first millennium as Laszlo Legeza as well as a book published by Bangko Sentral suggest Philippine gold ending up in Egypt."
ChatGPT said:
Thank you for the clarification. Given Schwab’s refined claim—that direct trade occurred between the Philippines and Egypt in the first millennium, and that Legeza and the Bangko Sentral book (Villegas) suggest Philippine gold ended up in Egypt—let’s reassess his argument strictly based on what those PDFs actually say.
✅ CLAIM UNDER ANALYSIS:
“Trade with the Philippines continued as far as Egypt and West Asia in the first millennium as Laszlo Legeza as well as a book published by Bangko Sentral suggest Philippine gold ending up in Egypt.”(Schwab, The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pp. 43–45)🔍 ANALYSIS OF SCHWAB’S CLAIM VS. SOURCES
1. 🧾 What Laszlo Legeza says (SCAN5 TANTRIC ELEMENT OCR):
“The locally produced gold necklaces comprising of dentate interlocking beads seem to have reached Egypt, later to be mistakenly identified by European collectors as Egyptian.”—Legeza, p. 130🔎 Analysis:
Highly speculative language: “seem to have reached Egypt”
No evidence or documentation is provided for this claim (e.g., no site names, digs, or archaeological records in Egypt).
No dating of when this would have occurred.
The phrase “later to be mistakenly identified by European collectors as Egyptian” implies these items were not found in context in Egyptian digs, but possibly in antique markets or collections, which is a very different claim from confirmed archaeological trade evidence.
🧾 Legeza also writes:
“Hellenistic trade beads of West Asiatic and Egyptian origins found in early burials in many places in the Philippines…”—Legeza, p. 128🔎 Analysis:
This refers to Egyptian items reaching the Philippines, not Philippine gold reaching Egypt.
It demonstrates importation, not exportation, and does not establish direct trade.
✅ Conclusion on Legeza:He does not provide evidence or even a strong suggestion of direct Philippine-Egypt trade. His most relevant quote is speculative and lacks substantiating archaeological data.2. 🧾 What Ramon Villegas (Ginto: History Wrought in Gold) says:
Schwab quotes this passage:
“Some of the non-Indian borrowed designs found only in their original sources and in the Philippine area suggest direct linkages with other cultural currents from the Indian Ocean. Among these are kamagi necklaces… and penannular barter rings which both show Egyptian influence.”“The earliest insular Southeast Asian products reached the Mediterranean through a port on the Arabian Gulf, which were transported overland to the headwaters of the Nile, then shipped down to Alexandria.”—Villegas, p. 24–25🔎 Analysis:
The quote refers to design influence—not actual Philippine gold reaching Egypt.
The mention of “insular Southeast Asian products” reaching the Mediterranean through Arabia does not mean they came from the Philippines, nor that they were gold, and especially not that they were confirmed to be Philippine-origin artifacts found in Egypt.
The term “suggest direct linkages” pertains to stylistic and design inspiration, not hard evidence of trade.
✅ Conclusion on Villegas:His text does not suggest Philippine gold ended up in Egypt. It references broader Southeast Asian trade reaching the Mediterranean through intermediaries (Arabian Gulf), and traces Egyptian artistic influence into Philippine designs, not exports of gold to Egypt.🧾 Additional Context from the PDFs
Both documents make it clear that the Philippines was connected to a complex maritime trade network, involving India, China, Sumatra, Java, and Arabia, and that this network stretched as far as West Asia and Africa.
There is no explicit evidence in either document of direct trade between the Philippines and Egypt—only possibility via multiple intermediaries, which was typical of long-distance trade in antiquity.
No archaeological find is described in Egypt that is conclusively of Philippine origin, dated to the first century, and recovered in context.
✅ FINAL VERDICT
Schwab claims that Legeza and Villegas suggest Philippine gold ended up in Egypt through direct trade in the first millennium.
However:
Element What the Sources Say Evaluation Gold jewelry of Philippine origin found in Egypt Legeza makes an unproven speculation, not backed by archaeological evidence ❌ Not supported Direct trade between Philippines and Egypt Neither author mentions direct trade; both describe indirect routes through intermediaries ❌ Not supported Philippine gold in Egypt (even via intermediaries) No confirmed case or evidence presented ❌ Not supported Design influence from Egypt on Philippine artifacts Yes, Villegas notes stylistic influence ✅ Supported, but irrelevant to claim of export 🛑 Therefore, Schwab’s assertion that these sources support direct trade or evidence of Philippine gold ending up in Egypt is:
❌ Misleading and unsupported by the actual texts.
No comments:
Post a Comment