To the Cassiterides and beyond: George Bonsor’s archaeological exploration of the Scilly isles (1899–1902). An historiographic oblivion

TO THE CASSITERIDES AND BEYOND: GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (–). AN HISTORIOGRAPHIC OBLIVION José R Herrera-Delgado Departamento de Prehistoria y Arqueología, Universidad de Sevilla, Calle Do˜na María de Padilla, S/N 41004, Seville, Spain; Centro de Estudos Globais da Universidade Aberta, Lisbon, Portugal. Email: [email protected] Between 1899 and 1902, Anglo-French archaeologist George Bonsor carried out an exploration of the Scilly Isles (United Kingdom). At that time the archipelago was believed to be the Cassiterides or Tin Islands mentioned by authors such as Strabo, Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy –an idea first posited by William Camden in his Britannia (1586). Adopting Camden’s theory and guided by ancient literature on the Cassiterides –which refers to the Phoenicians as the first controllers of this trade route –Bonsor sought traces of the Phoenicians and their tin trade in the Scilly Isles, becoming the first person to conduct such research from an archaeological perspective. Not having found any evidence, his exploration remained unpublished and went mostly unnoticed in debates about the Tin Islands over following decades. This paper presents a brief historiographical account on the Cassiterides before and after the explorations, as well as a critical analysis of Bonsor’s field notes regarding his use of ancient sources and his archaeological method. The analysis carried out suggests that Bonsor’s archaeological exploration has been overlooked thus far and that a new assessment of his work is required. Keywords: Cassiterides; George Bonsor; Phoenicians; historiography; archaeology INTRODUCTION The Cassiterides, or ‘Tin Islands’, are an archipelago mentioned by ancient sources from Herodotus (fifth century BC ) to Solinus (fourth century AD ) as being rich in tin, just as their toponym, from the Greek, κασσίτερος(‘tin’) might suggest. Since the sixteenth century the geographical location referred to by this place-name has been debated from the perspectives of ancient literature and historiography, and from the end of the nineteenth century by archaeology. This paper addresses all three perspectives, but focuses chiefly on more modern discussions, including the first archaeological attempt to locate the Cassiterides by George Bonsor (–). The main argument of this paper is that Bonsor’s archaeological exploration of the Scilly Isles has been inaccurately assessed in the context of the research on the Tin Islands. The Antiquaries Journal,,pp– © The Author(s), . Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Antiquaries of London. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/bync-sa/./), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the same Creative Commons licence is included and the original work is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use. doi:./S https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Ancient literature on the archipelago includes at least nine testimonies from seven different writers, including Herodotus.Of these authors, several have been more concerned in identifying the Cassiterides: Strabo, Pliny and, indirectly, through his influence in modern cartography, Ptolemy.The reference by Strabo of Amaseia ( or  BC –c AD ) in his ‘Geography’is undoubtedly the most exhaustive source about the islands. The author refers to the Cassiterides as islands located near the north-western coast of Iberia, postulating that: The Cassiterides are ten in number, and lie near each other in the ocean towards the north from the haven of the Artabri. One of them is desert, but the others are inhabited by men in black cloaks, clad in tunics reaching to the feet, girt about the breast, and walking with staves, thus resembling the Furies we see in tragic representations. They subsist by their cattle, leading for the most part a wandering life. Of the metals they have tin and lead; which with skins they barter with the merchants for earthenware, salt, and brazen vessels. Formerly the Phoenicians alone carried on this traffic from Gades, concealing the passage from every one; and when the Romans followed a certain ship-master, that they also might find the market, the shipmaster of jealousy purposely ran his vessel upon a shoal, leading on those who followed him into the same destructive disaster; he himself escaped by means of a fragment of the ship, and received from the state the value of the cargo he had lost. The Romans nevertheless by frequent efforts discovered the passage, and as soon as Publius Crassus, passing over to them, perceived that the metals were dug out at a little depth, and that the men were peaceably disposed, he declared it to those who already wished to traffic in this sea for profit, although the passage was longer than that to Britain. Strabo’s description constitutes the most detailed testimony about the Tin Islands,and the passage has accordingly played a central role in modern and contemporary discussions about this matter from the perspective of ancient literature. The geographer states that the Cassiterides are a group of ten islands located northward from the ‘haven of the Artabri’,ie Galicia in Spain. Furthermore, he clearly states that the tin trade from them was originally under Phoenician control. The quality of being islands, the control of the tin trade there by Phoenicians and the quest for prestige were the main reasons that historians of the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries laid territorial claim to the islands on behalf of their nations.A pioneering figure to do so was William Camden (–), who carried out the first systematic work on the Cassiterides. On the recommendation of Abraham Ortelius,Camden thoroughly re-examined the ancient sources and published his interpretation in the monumental Britannia (), concluding that the Tin Islands of . Ferrer and Albuquerque . . Other testimonies, such as Diodorus’, are equally important but cannot be analysed here with the deserved detail. On Diodorus, see Cunliffe  and . Bonsor’s use of Diodorus in the notes analysed was rather descriptive, but he did refer to Ictis, which he identified with St Michael’s Mount in Penzance (Bonsor –, np, AGA, file , part ). . Strabo .., translation by W Falconer . . But not the only one the Amaseian compiles (see Strabo ..). .In extenso, Albuquerque and Ferrer . . Ibid, . THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press antiquity were in fact the Scilly Isles. It was this work that later led Bonsor to explore the archipelago to try and confirm Camden’s hypothesis. Conceived originally in Latin as a project for the Crown of England, Britannia was translated into English and published in different editions up to the early eighteenth century.It consisted of a geographical-historical treaty that followed the chorographical tradition dating back to the Italian Quattrocento. In order to contextualise Camden’s work, it is crucial to understand the practice of ‘chorography’, deriving from the Greek: χῶρος(‘place’,‘space’)γραφια (‘writing’). Chorography is the act of describing or mapping a place, often by combining historical narratives, geographical descriptions and the accounts of classic authors such as Pliny, Ptolemy or Strabo, whose works deal with ancient geographical knowledge.Therefore, its objective is to link ancient descriptions to modern places. Based on the solid hermeneutics of ancient authors, Camden’s chorographical work was the most influential in locating the Cassiterides islands from the sixteenth century onwards. In the  edition of Britannia, the zone between Cornwall and the Scilly Isles is described by Camden: ::: and from this place the tide presses both to the north and east, with great noise and violence, being streighten’d between Cornwall and those islands which Antoninus calls Sigdeles, Sulpitius Sillinae, Solinus Silures, the English Silly, the Dutch seamen Sorlings, and the ancient Greeks Hesperides and Cassiterides. In addition to demonstrating a wide knowledge of the ancient sources referred to, the author analyses Strabo’s prominent testimony in detail to reach his conclusion: Now, considering that these Isles of Scilly are opposite to the Artabri,i.e.Gallitia,in Spain; that they stand directly north of them; that they lie in the same Climate with Britain; that they face Celtiberia; that the Sea is much broader between them and Spain than between them and Britain; that they lie just upon the Iberian Sea, and close to one another, northward; that there are only ten of any note [ :::]. From so many concurring testimonies, I should rather conclude these to be the Cassiterides [:::]. Camden then proceeds to list the theories that he knows about, but does not accept: ‘the Azores which lie too far westward, or Cisarga (with Olivarius) which in a manner joins to Spain; or even Britain it self, with Ortelius; since there were many of the Cassiterides.’ Unsurprisingly, Camden’s interpretation remained unquestioned until the end of the eighteenth century, when two Spanish authors –José Cornide and Miguel Ignacio Pérez – proposed alternative views in nationalistic reaction to his statements. These authors meant to ‘restore’the Tin Islands to Galicia, a hypothesis that was little-known outside their region. Two factors may explain the varying degrees by which the two perspectives .In extenso, Levy . . Rohl . . Camden ,,. . Strabo ... . Camden ,,. . Ibid. . See Cornide a, b; Pérez . . See the discussion in Albuquerque and Ferrer ,–. GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press were extended. In the case of Camden, there was the influence of his fame, and the fact that Britannia was part of a royal initiative. Cornide and Pérez, on the other hand, were only well known in Spain, and theirs were personal projects. In fact, along with Leland and Lambarde, Camden was considered a key figure of chorographic scholarship in the sixteenth century. His work not only emphasised the importance of local history, but also had a clear underlying nationalistic purpose promoting the idea of an independent national past built by the Tudors –a notion that gave his work particular relevance within Britain. It was not until the very end of the nineteenth century that someone decided to try and put over three centuries of writings about the Tin Islands to the test. George Bonsor Saint- Martin (–) was an Anglo-French artist (his father was English while his mother was French) who moved to Spain and, having observed ancient Roman remains at Carmona (Seville), progressively gained an interest in archaeology. By the last decades of the nineteenth century, he had already earned recognition within part of archaeological academia of the time. Having found traces of Phoenician population in Los Alcores, he intended to follow their trail towards the famous Tin Islands. Bonsor’s findings were detailed in two manuscripts (corresponding to – and –respectively), currently in the Archivo General de Andalucía (AGA) and in the process of being published. Although these documents are known in the context of the history of the Scilly Isles, they have not been previously analysed with regard to discussions about the Cassiterides. In order to carry out such analysis, the methodology used in this work consists of three main sections: first, an historiographic account of the Cassiterides between the sixteenth and the twentieth centuries; second, a study of the primary sources that have been transcribed using palaeographical methods; and third, a critical analysis of Bonsor’s archaeological practice, including his use of ancient sources, in the context of the late nineteenth-century discipline. Some figures have been included to highlight Bonsor’s expertise at documenting his archaeological findings. In these cases, relevant notes have been translated into English by the author. WITH PHOENICIANS IN MIND: ON THE RELEVANCE OF THE EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY EUROPE Among English people of the nineteenth century there was a widely held belief that the ancient Phoenicians had reached the English coasts (Cornwall and the Scilly Isles) to . Mendyk ,. . Kunst ,. . There is some inaccurate information published about Bonsor. Despite what Ashbee initially claimed (a, ), he was not Cornish, nor was he an engineer. A few years later, Ashbee himself provides a revised biographical account as well as a valuable assessment on Bonsor’s work in the Scilly Isles (Ashbee ). . See Maier a and b for a thorough approach to Bonsor’s life and archaeological career. . See Sawyer  and Johns . . Bonsor’s field notes are listed as primary sources, but systematically quoted as ‘Bonsor ’, ‘Bonsor ’,‘Bonsor ’and ‘Bonsor ’following its author’s pagination. Transcriptions will be available in a forthcoming monographic work (A Martínez, pers comm,  June ). . Greek and Latin works are cited according to Perseus Digital Library: https://www.perseus.tufts. edu/hopper/. THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press trade for tin in the Cassiterides. This belief was largely (but not exclusively) a reflection of the influence that Camden’s ideas had for over three centuries, enhanced by their publication in a geographical and historical work promoted by Elizabeth I (r –). Taken together, Camden’s long-term reach and the sense of historical singularity underlying the creation of the English nation would popularise the idea that the English people somehow resembled the Phoenicians in their ability to carry out epic enterprises. It helped to justify the ‘civilising’missiontheyweredevelopingatthetime,alongwith other European countries, ie building their colonial empire. All the above consequently underscored the positive perception of the Phoenicians, who were supposed to have played the same role of spreading civilisation during antiquity. The alleged Phoenician tin trade in the Scilly Isles is well represented in history and art from the seventeenth century onwards. Besides Samuel Bochart, who supported the idea, Aylett Sammes, following the latter’s work, even proposed that the toponym Britannia had a Semitic origin and made Himilco/Herakles the discoverer of Britain. ThesameistrueforJosephHaydn’sDictionary of Dates, where the Scilly Isles entry is headed by the equation between the British and the tin-bearing archipelagos. The painting by Frederic Leighton, Phoenicians bartering with ancient Britons (–), gives a very accurate depiction of how this trade was envisioned by contemporary England, and so do historians such as John Whittaker and George Rawlinson. The latter were sources of Bonsor’s that exemplify how firm Camden’stheoryremained.Inthebookby Richard Polwhele, History of Cornwall, edited by Samuel Drew, Whittaker states the following: They were Phenicians [sic] transplanted to Cartaghe in Africa, and again transplanted to Cadiz in Spain. From their settlement at the latter, inheriting all the nautical genius from their Tyrian ancestors, and improving it in adventures upon the once dreaded Atlantic before them; witth a spirit of enterprise, which reflects high honour upon them, they found their way to the Sylley Isles at the nearest end of our own Britain. On the one hand, this passage reflects the assumed role of the Scilly Isles in the tin trade and, on the other hand, the way the British self-identification with the Phoenicians configured a positive perception of the latter (see emphasis). While working in Los Alcores, Bonsor’s aim was to study the Phoenician population settled there from about the ninth century BC . The varying interactions between Phoenicians and local peoples of the Iberian Peninsula, depicted by ancient authors and represented in the archaeological record, is currently believed to be the origin of the . See Hawkins . . There was also a strong anti-Semitic trend that had a serious impact on the European perception of the Phoenicians (Bernal ,–,–); however, this issue is not part of this work’s objectives. . Bochart . . Sammes . . Albuquerque and Ferrer ,–. . Haydn ,. . Drew . . Whitaker, as quoted in Drew , (my emphasis). GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Tartessos civilisation. Bonsor’s extension of this research led him, following Camden, to explore the question of the Cassiterides. It should be noted that Bonsor’s manuscript of – does not explicitly mention Camden (he is first cited in a later work ‘Tartessos’), although it does refer to the supposed ancient names for the Scilly Isles noted in the  edition of Britannia. This reference reinforces the continuing influence of Camden’s hypothesis, certainly in British circles, but also beyond. Already by the end of the eighteenth century, authors such as Cornide and Pérez were willing to deconstruct the theory, and yet it continued to hold sway among Bonsor’s contemporaries, Federico Maci˜neira and Luis Siret. In Spain, Camden’s ideas were supported by authors such as Juan Francisco Masdeu and Luis José Velázquez, nd Marquis of Valdeflores. They also found advocates in nineteenthcentury Germany, where they were accepted by Alfred Gutschmid, Theodor Mommsen and Emil Hübner (see below). Set against this scholarly background there was some impetus behind the archaeological exploration of the Scilly Isles, especially from Britain, but also other European countries such as Spain, Italy and Germany. By the end of the nineteenth century there were high expectations for identifying scientific proof of Phoenician activity on the Scilly Isles. When this evidence failed to materialise, the enthusiasm for archaeological exploration unsurprisingly waned. REASSESSING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES The reception of the archaeological exploration of the Scilly Isles After the exploration of the Scilly Isles (–) ended, a myriad of theories proliferated over where the Tin Islands might be located. In Great Britain, Thomas Rice Holmes compiled a list of the theories circulating at the beginning of the twentieth century, seemingly unaware of George Bonsor’s exploration. Some of the most relevant proposals were the following: authors such as Samuel Bochart, Salomon Reinach and Karl Müllenhoff, as well as Rice Holmes himself, identified the tin-bearing islands with the British Isles. Both Samuel Bochart and later Henri D’Arbois de Jubainville championed the idea that Pliny’s Midacritus, the first person ‘to ever bring plomb from the Cassiteris island’, should be identified with the Phoenician deity Melqart and considered an incarnation of their race. . Nowadays, the term’s reach still poses some related problems; for example, to the relative importance of local vs Phoenician population within its ethnogenesis. Its use here refers to the population of the Western Andalusia in the th to th centuries BC . For a historiographical perspective, see Álvarez . On the archaeological debate, see Celestino and L´opez-Ruiz . . Bonsor . See also the  edition by J Maier. . Camden ,,; see Bonsor –, np (AGA, file , part ). . See Maier b, –,. . Albuquerque and Ferrer ,. . Holmes . . Ibid, . . Bochart . . Plin. Nat. .–: Bostock and Riley . .D’Arbois de Jubainville . THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Another group of academics championed the idea that the Cassiterides were to be found in Galicia, Spain. This included, among others, M Hans Hildebrand and Francis Haverfield, which is surprising considering the fact that Cornide’s and Pérez’s writings, not particularly well known outside their country, had mainly been driven by their will to cancel Camden’s hypothesis for the sake of their homeland. Lastly, the idea that the Scilly Islands were the Tin Islands of antiquity was still maintained, almost contemporaneously to George Bonsor’s exploration, by prominent figures such as Theodor Mommsen and Emil Hübner, although they barely referred to the matter, perhaps reflecting how entrenched the theory was in general perception. In the Iberian Peninsula, Luis Monteagudo gave another account of the different trends. Along with Jorge Maier, Monteagudo was one of the few authors aware of Bonsor’s campaigns in the archipelago. Monteagudo argued that the toponym ‘Cassiterides’ had been applied in early sources to every relevant tin-bearing region, and drew attention to the direction and order in which the names, as recorded, may have referred to each other. So, according to Bonsor as well as authors such as Obermaier and Serpa Pinto, the displacement took place from north to south in three stages between Galicia and the nearby isles (sixth century BC , until the battle of Alalia), Armorica and, from Roman times, Great Britain; whereas other academics, such as Adolph Schulten or Luis Siret, proposed the opposite direction, from south to north, with Galicia being last in the sequence of referends. The fact that only Monteagudo referred to Bonsor’s explorations highlights the extent to which his campaigns in the Scilly Islands went unnoticed in discussions about the location of the Tin Islands. This is surprising given its potential impacts on the historiographical debate, both for the study of the early tin trade and the archaeology of the Scilly Islands more generally. Regarding the former, even though no traces of Phoenician presence were found in the archipelago, the campaigns were still interesting to contemporary archaeologists such as Federico Maci˜neira, as shown by Bonsor’s correspondence: Me extra˜na que en sus importantes exploraciones de las Islas Sorlingas no encontrase rastro de las gentes púnicas, [:::]porque, aún dando por hecho que no sean las Cassitérides, al fin por su proximidad a Cornuallia y por el esta˜no que algunos dicen que abunda es l´ogico suponer que no dejasen de beneficiarlas aquellas gentes. Regarding the archaeology of the Scilly Isles, Bonsor was repeatedly requested to publish his findings, first by Reginald A Smith, Keeper of the Department of British and Medieval Antiquities at the British Museum, and later by Sir Thomas Kendrick, director of the British Museum at the time, on behalf of Hugh O’Neill Hencken. Smith offered to publish Bonsor’s research in The Antiquaries Journal and Bonsor accepted, but never got . Hildebrand ; Haverfield . . Mommsen ; Hübner . . Monteagudo . . Maier a, b. .In extenso, Monteagudo ,–. . Maier b, –.‘I am surprised that in your important explorations of the Scilly Isles you found no traces of the Punic people, [:::] because, even assuming they are not the Cassiterides, given their proximity to Cornwall and the tin that some say abounds, it is logical to suppose that those people did not fail to beneficiate them’(translation by the author). .Letterno., from Kendrick to Bonsor (Maier b, –) and letter no. ,fromHencken to Bonsor (Maier b, –). On the matter, see Ashbee ,,a, ,,–. GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press around to writing it up. Instead, Bonsor sent Kendrick copies of a part of his work in , including most of the figures published by Hencken a few years later. All these approaches to Bonsor provide clear evidence of the interest fellow contemporary researchers had in his work, even though he was unsuccessful in confirming the identity of the Cassiterides. In sum, it is clear from Luis Monteagudo’s essay that Bonsor’s work remained unknown to most scholars at least until the late s. The only paper published on the issue by Bonsor appeared in , and this only noted the absence in the archaeological record of a Phoenician presence in the Scilly Isles. The following section aims to reassess the work carried out by Bonsor in the Scilly Isles. Towards a reassessment of the archaeological exploration of the Scilly Isles One aspect that distinguishes Bonsor’s archaeological exploration from others of his day was the variety of methodologies that he utilised, drawing as it did on philology, fieldwork and –as the campaigns proceeded –a linguistic-cultural method. Bonsor’s textual research drew upon an up-to-date knowledge of written historical sources. This is evident from the texts he quotes during the first two campaigns (– ), which fall into different categories. Bonsor’s critical analysis of these texts is revealing. The first group of texts are those that provide general information about the Tin Islands and the tin trade. Among these is Pliny the Elder’s( AD –), Naturalis historia, in which Book  Chapter  states that ‘The tin was called Cassiteron by the Greeks, and fabulously narrated to be sought in islands of the Atlantic sea, and to be bought to the seekers in wicker boats sawed round with leather’ –a story that the author would appear to have found somewhat fantastical. Another account Strabo attributes to Posidonius, saying that the tin is carried from the British Isles to Marseilles. However, Strabo’s most relevant passage on the Cassiterides appears within a description of Iberia and the adjacent islands, cited above, in which the geographer would seem to denote Iberia, rather than the hypothesis Bonsor favoured. Despite this, Bonsor was keen to use Strabo and Pliny’s accounts to prove his theory. Strabo’s is the most detailed account, and Pliny has added more specific spatial details. A second group of sources name particular individuals taking part in the tin trade, either as being the first to have brought tin from the islands (ie Pliny’s Midacritus) or for being responsible for the Roman discovery of the route (ie by Publius Crassus). The identity of both individuals is subject to debate. Midacritus is a hapax, while Publius Crassus could refer, with Roman naming conventions, either to the triumvir Marcus Licinius Crassus (– BC ), or to his father Publius Licinius Crassus (consul  BC ). Regarding the latter, Pliny states that the Greeks of Marseilles, along with the Phoenicians, exported tin from the . Letter no. , from R A Smith to Bonsor, and no. , from Bonsor to R A Smith (Maier b, –). See Ashbee ,–. Despite the offer, Bonsor was never a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. . Hencken ,. A few decades later, an outstanding, updated historic-archaeological account on the Scilly Isles appeared. See Ashbee . . Plin. Nat..., as quoted in Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ), my emphasis. . Strab. ..: Falconer . . Strab. ..: ibid. THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Cassiterides. Bonsor suggests that this must have taken place prior to Caesar’s arrival in Britain, which would seem to identify the triumvir’s father as the discoverer of the route. Depending on where the source of tin was, this might be taken to reflect Roman interests either in the metalliferous zone of northern Iberia or, as Bonsor surmised, the British Isles as the core territory for the tin trade. A third group of sources comprise those by authors whose testimony, for different reasons, are not helpful for identifying or locating the Tin Islands. One of these is Herodotus, whose idea of a western archipelago from which tin was brought is brief and lacking in detail. Similarly, Rufus Festus Avienus, writing in the fourth century AD , refers to the ‘Oestrymnides’islands, apparently the Cassiterides, but the composition of his ‘Ora Maritima’does not sit well, in terms of homogeneity and coherence, with other Greek periploi of the time. In conclusion, it is fair to claim that Bonsor’s textual research took account of the most relevant ancient sources from Herodotus to Pliny, even if these were used somewhat uncritically. In this, he was little different from most scholars of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, who saw ancient Graeco-Roman authors as the departure point for any serious historical or even archaeological research. Nevertheless, his reading of the evidence was heavily influenced by Camden’s work. Despite how firmly established the assumption was that the Scilly Isles were the Tin Islands, it was Bonsor’s belief that only archaeology could confirm or refute this identification. To address the question of the Cassiterides from a material point of view, Bonsor undertook a large programme of fieldwork, including survey, recording and targeted excavation. His investigations started in  with some surveys and the first plans. In  he carried out excavations at Halangy tomb (now known as Bant’s Carn burial chamber) and Halangy Porth village, both at the northern tip of the island of St Mary’s. Through his fieldwork, Bonsor acquired significant knowledge of the archaeology of the archipelago. The two excavations, in particular, show his ability to create high-quality documents in which his findings were reflected and clearly placed in context. His method favoured drawing as a fundamental tool to document his findings, combined with precise measurements and measured annotations. Two section drawings of the stratigraphic sequences are examples of his work (figs and ). The first features short descriptions of each layer and the second uses letters to identify the different elements found. Some of his drawings show an artistic concern, reflecting a common approach of the time, which R Bianchi Bandinelli has called ‘philological archaeology’. The term encompasses the main branch of classical archaeology in the nineteenth century, defined by the prominence of classical texts as the source for the discovery of ancient monuments and/or places, with special attention given to epigraphs and coins. Another key feature of this perspective is the imposed hierarchy of objects based on their artistic grandeur (ie their degree of beauty and perfection) according to Graeco-Roman standards. This idea derives . Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ). .In extenso, Álvarez ; see also Domínguez-Monedero ,; Haushalter ,, –; Meunier ,. . Hdt. .: Godley . .In extenso, Ferrer and Albuquerque . . See González . . Bianchi Bandinelli . See Carandini ,; Oria ,; see also Trigger ,. . Salas ,. GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Paul Ashbee’s detailed account of Bonsor’s fieldwork in the Isles of Scilly focused on a different megalithic structure: the so-called Grand Barrow or Great Tomb on Porth Hellick Down, which the author implies was excavated in . However, Bonsor’s notes clearly state that the excavation started in September , and there is no evidence whatsoever that he had undertaken any previous excavation there, although he had examined it several times before. In all other respects Ashbee’s account of the excavation is clear enough to require no further comment. Lastly, Ashbee refers to Obadiah’s Barrow, an important structure on Gugh, St Agnes, excavated by Bonsor in  (fig ). This excavation is arguably one of the clearest examples of his field methodology, demonstrating an acuteness of perception and the care with which Bonsor carried out this work. According to his notes, the excavation took Fig . Longitudinal section of Giant’s Grave or Innisidgen kistvaen. Bonsor –, np. Image: Reproduced with permission from AGA. See also Hencken ,, fig ; Daniel ,, fig ; Ashbee ,, fig ; Maier a, , fig . . Ibid, , fig . The structure is described in Ashbee , (H:D). In this case, the author could not get direct access to Bonsor’s plan. . Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ). . Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ), –, (AGA, file , part ). . Ashbee ,–. . The structure is described in Ashbee , (H:D). . Ashbee ,.  THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press place in September . Bonsor provides an account of the deposits in the chamber and a plan and section of it (fig ). The latter includes numbers and letters to refer to the covering stones and the distribution of finds along the chamber. Among these were pottery sherds of two kinds (black and reddish), several urns and sherds, some of them with burnt human bones, bone points and a scrap of bronze (fig ) and ashes scattered, which made Bonsor think that the urns had been emptied at some point. Notably, he was also interested in ascertaining whether or not the bones he found at different times during this excavation belonged to the same individual. Bonsor’s excavations in the Scilly Isles were by no means limited to those described above, but these examples are quite telling in showing the evolution of his methodology, both in terms of the analysis of the evidence he found and his documentation process, generating an archive that has proven useful for researchers many decades later. Besides the drawings he made of stone monuments and structures, Bonsor also recorded bone and stone tools (fig ) and, of course, pottery (fig ). In this way he demonstrated an appreciation of the value that more mundane objects might have in Fig . Cross-section of Giant’s Grave or Innisidgen kistvaen, taken from the middle diameter of the tumulus. Bonsor –, np. Image: Reproduced with permission from AGA. See also Hencken ,, fig ;O’Neil ,, fig ; Daniel ,, fig ; Ashbee ,, fig ; Maier a, , fig . . Bonsor –,– (AGA, file , part ). . Ibid, . GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press understanding archaeological sites. This aspect, exemplified by the diversity of the remains he documented, strengthens his relevance within the development of modern archaeological thought. Bonsor had a keen interest in the recovered pottery. He was careful to record their decoration, which was reproduced in his drawings along with a description of the decorative techniques, and also endeavoured to analyse the variety of clays used in their manufacture. To this end, Bonsor exchanged letters with John J Harris, a Scillonian Fig . Section of the funerary chamber of Obadiah’s Barrow. Bonsor –,.Image: Reproduced with permission from AGA. See also Ashbee ,, fig . . For example, the interest in Appalachian mounds and earthworks shown by the North American academia in the s (see Trigger ,). . See Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ). . Ibid, .  THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press specialist in ceramics, which are available at the ‘Epistolario de Jorge Bonsor’, a compilation of the letters sent and received by him, alongside the letters contained in the manuscripts analysed here. Another noteworthy aspect of Bonsor’s work was his attempt to describe the places he studied in terms of how they may have been perceived by past societies. A very early instance of this can be found in , when he notes that the place called Porth Hellick should have been the ancient, pre-Roman port, based on its landscape setting. He subsequently developed this idea further by trying to reconstruct the ancient coastline of the island of St Mary’s. Bonsor was also an early champion of archaeological photography. He was keenly aware of its potential for documenting sites from a naturalistic perspective, which, allied with his detailed analytical drawings, could comprise a more complete record of the archaeological evidence. In this context, the photographs taken by Alexander Gibson and his family are key to a deeper understanding of Bonsor’s work, recording the scale and Fig . Plan and entrance section of Obadiah’s Barrow. Bonsor –,.Image: Reproduced with permission from AGA. See also Hencken ,, fig ; Ashbee ,, fig . . Maier b, –. . Bonsor –,(AGA, file , part ). . Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ). . However, the photographs taken do not belong to the original field notes, so the author, at this time, does not have permission to publish them. An example is in Maier a, , fig . GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press natural context of sites in detail. Proof of the association between Gibson and Bonsor can not only be found in the photographs, but is also evident in Bonsor’s notes. Every aspect of Bonsor’s approach is more remarkable when taking into consideration that, particularly until , he financed most of his own archaeological activity, unlike many other renowned archaeologists of the time. Even so, his research design had to be modified when no traces of a Phoenician presence in the Scilly Isles were identified. He returned to the linguistic debates about the name Cassiterides and the ethnicity of the population that carried out its tin trade. As shown in his diaries, it was after reading Salomon Reinach’s work, ‘L’étain celtique’, that he began to reassess his previous Fig . Tips probably made of cervid horn and a scrap of bronze found at Obadiah’s Barrow. Bonsor –,.Image: Reproduced with permission from AGA. See also Hencken ,, fig ; Hencken ,, fig b; Ashbee ,, fig . . Ashbee ,. For a detailed record of the Gibson family’s photography in the Scilly Isles, see also Arlott . . For example, Bonsor –,, (AGA, file , part ). . Maier a, ,. Bonsor’s contemporaries often took part in archaeological campaigns with official support. For the case of Arthur Engel and Pierre Paris, see Maier a,  and n . . Reinach .  THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press conclusions. Salomon Reinach (–) was an eminent French historian, philologist and archaeologist. He proposed that the tin trade of the Cassiterides islands was first carried out by the Celts rather than Phoenicians, arguing that the name ‘Cassiterides’had a Celtic origin, and therefore probably denoted the British Isles, and that Pliny’s Midacritus should instead be read as ‘Midas Phryx’. In light of the new evidence, Bonsor changed his initial hypothesis, arguing instead that the Phrygians, not the Phoenicians, had discovered the route of tin and brought it to the Mediterranean, with the latter only benefitting from it afterwards. Even though the Fig . Sample of decorated pottery recovered at Hallangy tomb. Bonsor –,.Image: Reproduced with permission from AGA. See also Hencken ,, fig ; Ashbee ,, fig . . Reinach ; Bonsor –, (AGA, file , part ). The Celtic origins of Britain had been widely popularised by, among others, the renowned expert in Celtic studies, John Rhys (). . The historical region of Phrygia was invaded by Celts in the rd century BC . This population, known as Galatians, took over part of the region and survived until the late st century BC , when Romans created the province of Galatia (see Esler ). GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press archaeological campaigns continued, the question of the Cassiterides seemed partially answered. By matching the archaeological evidence to new philological thinking, he could reconcile the theory proposed by Camden. As far as Reinach is concerned, his ideas about the tin trade would effectively displace the Phoenicians from the important role, following Strabo, that they supposedly played. Reinach’s thesis nevertheless requires some context. Bernal has pointed out that Reinach was an assimilated Jew who, despite his pro-Jewish attitude during a period of rising anti- Semitism, could have intended to differentiate himself –as a European Jew –from the Semitic people of antiquity, that is, the Phoenicians and Punics. No similar intention can be gleaned from Bonsor’s manuscripts; he appears simply to have accepted Reinach’s work as research data. As much seems to be suggested by the evolution of his thinking about the Tin Islands, as described in his ‘From Tarshish to the Isles of Tin’. On this point, Bonsor’s theoretical frame of reference deserves some reflection, since it naturally underpins the archaeological explorations analysed here. Besides being influenced by ancient texts, Bonsor was a convinced diffusionist, which had major implications for his way of interpreting the archaeological evidence. According to Bonsor, Camden’s identification of the Tin Islands as the Scilly Isles did not in fact require revision, only the agents involved in the tin trade. Since the Cassiterides were known to be the centre of the tin trade, they would continue to be so regardless of who carried out this trade. This was also a comfortable position for Salomon Reinach, one of whose main concerns was to prove that ‘civilisation’had a European origin, spreading from west to east, rather than the other way around. His theory, and Bonsor’s support of it, allowed Reinach to downplay the influence of Semitic people in antiquity, including their role in the ancient tin trade. CONCLUDING REMARKS All in all, the archaeological explorations described in this paper did not result in a significant change in the European archaeological thinking. Nevertheless, they present an original application of it within studies dominated by textual approaches. Moreover, they contributed to wider discussions about the Phoenician presence in the west and, more fundamentally, to questions about the origin of ‘civilisation’. Such debates owe much to the archaeological exploration of the Scilly Isles. Whatever the merits of Bonsor’s argument about the Cassiterides, there is little doubt that his work was pioneering in displacing classical authors by archaeology as the main source for the study of the ancient tin trade. Until , archaeology had never been considered the right tool to approach this question. Thereafter, the matter would also need to be addressed from an archaeological perspective. One last aspect to comment on is the extent to which Bonsor’s research remained valid after it took place. Certainly, he generated an interest in the archaeological potential of the . Bernal . . Bonsor . . Maier a, ,,. One of Bonsor’s main works, the exploration of Los Alcores and the Guadalquivir Valley, was published in ; a recent edition is Maier . . Reinach a and b; Bernal ,–. . Reinach ,.  THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Scilly Isles. He also produced a legacy for the archaeological work that came after his. Bonsor’s excavations at the sites of Halangy Down and Porth were resumed by Ashbee in  and continued for over ten years, yielding discoveries of a further stone building, and pottery, including a sherd resembling Beaker wares. Besides confirming the accuracy of Bonsor’s original discoveries, this also emphasises the pioneering role he played in understanding the prehistory of the Scilly Isles. In sum, there are a few points worth noting about Bonsor’s campaigns. The most evident one concerns his ability to conduct complex multi-disciplinary research deploying archaeological, philological, and historical methods. All these lines of enquiry contributed significantly to building a solid investigation, that evolved in the light of new data without losing coherence. Bonsor notably conducted two different enquiries at once, keeping track of the sources, data and methods needed to develop each of them accurately. Instead of bringing the campaigns to an end when he failed to identify a Phoenician presence in the Scilly Isles, Bonsor modified the objectives of his research. In doing so, he displayed a considerable degree of reflexivity, particularly given how deeply-rooted the hypothesis was in contemporary scholarship. In this context, the unexpected results, as well as the difficulties that Bonsor had expressing himself in English in an academic context (with French being his mother language), it is perhaps unsurprising that he never published the results of his campaigns in Scilly, despite the insistence of his contemporaries. A second point to underline is his fieldwork expertise, which Bonsor demonstrated through the accuracy of his documentation of the archaeological record. As has been shown, this was of sufficient quality to inform later excavations on the same sites. Sadly, Bonsor’s explorations of the Scilly Isles remained almost unknown to most of academia until the second half of the twentieth century. It is hoped that this paper goes some way to restore his work from historiographic oblivion. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am thankful to many people who have helped me throughout the process of writing this paper. First and foremost, thanks to Pedro Albuquerque, my PhD supervisor, for the support and the most valuable comments on the text. Also thanks to Matthew H. Lilly, Josefa Fernández and Manuel Fernández-Götz for their kind help and corrections. Finally, thanks to my family and friends for their continuous support. ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviation AGA Archivo General de Andalucía, Sevilla . Ashbee b. GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Bibliography Primary sources Bonsor, G –.An Archaeological Exploration of the Scilly Isles, AGA, Sevilla, file , part  Bonsor, G –.An Archaeological Exploration of the Scilly Isles,AGA, Sevilla, file ,part Bostock, J and Riley, H T (eds) .The Natural History: Pliny the Elder. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London Strabo .The Geography of Strabo,trans with notes W Falconer,vols, George Bell and Sons, London Secondary sources Albuquerque, P and Ferrer, E .‘Las Casitérides: discursos historiográficos y apropiaciones de un top´onimo errante (c–)’, in Ferrer ,– Álvarez, M .Tarteso. La construcci´on de un mito en la historiografía espa˜nola, Centro de Ediciones de la Diputaci´on de Málaga (CEDMA), Málaga Álvarez, M .‘Conquistas en los confines del mundo: Melqart y César, de Gades a Brigantium’, in Ferrer ,– Arlott, J .Island Camera: The Isles of Scilly in the photography of the Gibson family, David and Charles, Newton Abbott Ashbee, P .Ancient Scilly From the First Farmers to the Early Christians: an introduction and survey, David and Charles, London Ashbee, P a. ‘Bant’s Carn, St Mary’s, Isles of Scilly: an entrance grave restored and reconsidered’.Cornish Archaeol,,– Ashbee, P b. ‘Halangy Down and Porth, Isles of Scilly, ’, Excavation News, Cornish Archaeol,, Ashbee, P .‘George Bonsor: an archaeological pioneer from Spain on Scilly’. Cornish Stud,,– Bernal, M .Black Athena. The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Vol. I: the fabrication of ancient Greece, –, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey Bianchi Bandinelli, R .Introducci´on a la arqueología clásica como historia del arte antiguo, Akal, Madrid Bochart, S .Geographia Sacra pars altera Chanaan Seu de Coloniis et Sermone Phoenicum. Cum tabulis chorographicis [:::], Typis Petri Cardonelli, Cadomi Bonsor, G .‘Tartessos’,Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia,– Bonsor, G .‘From Tarshish to the isles of tin’,Art and Archaeol,,– Camden, W .Britannia, or, A chorographical description of Great Britain and Ireland, together with the adjacent islands, written in Latin by William Camden, Clarenceux, King at Arms: and translated into English, with additions and improvements, Vol. II,nd edn [or edn ], Mary Matthews, London Carandini, A .Historias en la tierra. Manual de excavaci´on arqueol´ogica,Barcelona,Crítica Celestino, S and L´opez-Ruiz, C .Tartessos and the Phoenicians in Iberia, Oxford University Press, Oxford Cornide, J a. Las Casiterides ´o islas del Esta˜no, restituidas á los mares de Galicia: disertaci´on critica, en que se procura probar que estas islas no son las Sorlingas, como pretendía en su Britania Guillermo Cambden, Officina de Don Benito Cano, Madrid Cornide, J b. Mapa Corográfico de la Antigua Galicia, arreglado á las descripciones de los ge´ografos griegos y romanos, con una lista de la correspondencia de los nombres antiguos á los modernos, Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia Cunliffe, B. .‘Ictis: is it here?’,Oxford J Archaeol,(), – Cunliffe, B .On the Ocean: the Mediterranean and the Atlantic from prehistory to AD , Oxford University Press, Oxford Daniel, G E .The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of England and Wales, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge D’Arbois de Jubainville, H .Les premiers habitants de l’Europe d’après les écrivains de l’Antiquité et les travaux des linguistes, vol I. Ernest Thorin Éditeur, Paris Domínguez-Monedero, A J .‘Conocimientos propios y ajenos. La imagen griega del atlántico’, in Ferrer ,– Drew, S (ed) .The History of Cornwall from the Earliest Records and Traditions to the Present Time. Compiled by Fortescue Hitchins,  THE ANTIQUARIES JOURNAL https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press Esq and edited by Mr. Samuel Drew of St Austell in two volumes, vol [or edn ], William Penaluna, London Esler, P F .Galatians, Routledge, London Ferrer, E (ed) .La ruta de las Estrímnides. Navegaci´on y conocimiento del litoral atlántico de Iberia en la Antigüedad, Universidad de Alcalá/Universidad de Sevilla, Alcalá de Henares/Sevilla Ferrer, E and Albuquerque, P .‘El conocimiento del extremo Occidente en la Grecia Arcaica: las Casitérides y la geografía de los recursos’, in Ferrer , – Godley, A D .Herodotus, with an English translation, William Heinemann, London González, F J .Avieno y el periplo [Avienus and the voyage], Editorial Gráficas Sol, Madrid Haushalter, A .‘La géographie de Ptolemée et l’image de l’Atlantique à l’époque des Antonins’, in Ferrer , – Haverfield, F .Roman Inscriptions in Britain, Vols II–III, William Pollard Printers, Exeter Hawkins, C .Observations on the tin trade of the ancients in Cornwall, and on the ‘Ictis’of Diodorus Siculus, J J Stockdalf, London Haydn, J .Dictionary of Dates Relating to All Ages and Nations for Universal Reference,th edn [or edn ], Edward Moxon, London Hencken, H O’N.The Archaeology of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, Methuen, London Hencken, H O’N.‘Notes on the megalithic monuments in the Isles of Scilly’, Antiq J,,– Hildebrand, M H .‘Sur la situation des Cassitérides’,Congrès international d’anthropologie et d’archéologie préhistoriques,,– Holmes, T R .Ancient Britain and the Invasions of Julius Caesar, Clarendon Press, Oxford Hübner, E .‘Britanni’,inVV.AA.: Pauly’s Real-Encyclopädie, vol III, part I, – Johns, C .‘Isles of Scilly Historic Environment Research Framework: updated resource assessment and research agenda ’.Cornwall Archaeological Unit, Cornwall Council Kunst, C .‘William Camden’sBritannia: history and historiography’,inMH Crawford and C R Ligota (eds), Ancient History and the Antiquarian: essays in memory of Arnaldo Momigliano,–, The Warburg Institute, University of London, London Levy, F J .‘The making of Camden’s Britannia’,Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, (), – Maier, J a. Jorge Bonsor (–): un académico correspondiente de la Real Academia de la Historia y la Arqueología Espa˜nola, Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid Maier, J b. Epistolario de Jorge Bonsor (– ), Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid Maier, J .Tartessos por Jorge Bonsor, Almuzara, C´ordoba Mendyk, S .‘Early British chorography’, Sixteenth Century J, (), – Meunier, E .‘El esta˜no del Noroeste Ibérico desde la Edad del Bronce hasta la época romana. Por una primera síntesis’,in Ferrer ,– Mommsen, T .The History of Rome, Vol. V, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York Monteagudo, L .‘Localização das Cassitérides e Oestrýmnides’,Revista de Guimarães,,– O’Neil, B .Ancient Monuments of the Isles of Scilly, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London Oria, M .‘El estado de la Arqueología Clásica en Espa˜na: propuestas para un debate necesario’,SPAL,,– Pérez, M I .Disertaci´on critico-topográfica de las Casiterides, restituidas á su verdadero sitio por haberlas dislocado el inglés Cambdeno y otros sabios extranjeros, cuya sentencia ha sostenido nuevamente el eruditísimo se˜nor abate D Juan Francisco de Masdeu, Vazquez é Hidalgo, Sevilla Reinach, S .‘L’étain celtique’, L’Anthropologie,,– Reinach, S a. ‘Le mirage oriental, première partie’,L’Anthropologie,,– Reinach, S b. ‘Le mirage oriental, première partie’,L’Anthropologie,,– Reinach, S .‘Un nouveau texte sur l’origine du commerce de l’étain’, L’Anthropologie, extrait, Masson et cie éditeurs, Paris Rhys, J .‘The early ethnology of the British Isles’,Scottish Rev, April –June  Robinson, G .The Prehistoric Island Landscapes of Scilly, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford Rohl, D J .‘Thechorographictradition and seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Scottish antiquaries’,JArtHistoriography, ,– Salas, J .‘La utilizaci´on de la Arqueología Filol´ogica para la ubicaci´on de escenarios GEORGE BONSOR’S ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPLORATION OF THE SCILLY ISLES (1899–1902)  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003581524000222 Published online by Cambridge University Press