The God Culture: Did Filipinos Circumnavigate Africa to Trade with Greece and Israel According to A.I.

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture is very proud to announce five A.I. chatbots have "verified and confirmed" his research during a peer review. Never mind the fact A.I. chatbots can do no such thing.  All they can do is summarize and describe what Tim has uploaded. They cannot confirm the veracity of his research. 

In this article I am going to show how Gemini can be manipulated to give a desired answer. The question I am going to ask is an important part of Tim's thesis that the Philippines is the Land of Gold for the Greeks as well as the location of Tarshish.

Did Filipinos Circumnavigate Africa to Trade with Greece and Israel?

The idea of Filipinos having regularly circumnavigated Africa for trade with Greece and Israel is not widely supported by mainstream historical evidence. However, it's important to consider the following points regarding pre-colonial Philippine maritime activity:

• Pre-colonial Maritime Trade:
  • It is well-established that pre-colonial Filipinos were skilled seafarers and engaged in extensive maritime trade networks. They had sophisticated boat-building technologies, such as the balangay, which allowed them to navigate vast distances.   
  • Historical records and archaeological findings indicate that pre-colonial Filipinos had trade relations with various Southeast Asian cultures, as well as with Chinese and Arab traders.   
  • There is evidence of trade connections to areas that would have brought goods from areas further west, but direct circumnavigation of Africa is not a widely held historical fact.
• Connections to other cultures:
  • There are records that show that the Visayan islands had encounters with Greek traders in 21 AD. This shows that there were connections to the west, but does not confirm circumnavigation of Africa.   
  • It is important to understand that trade in ancient times was often conducted through trade networks, where goods were passed from one group to another, rather than always requiring direct, long-distance voyages by a single group.
• Historical Accuracy:
  • It's crucial to distinguish between well-documented historical facts and speculative theories. While there's growing recognition of the impressive maritime capabilities of pre-colonial Filipinos, claims of regular circumnavigation of Africa require substantial evidence.

In summary, while pre-colonial Filipinos were accomplished seafarers with extensive trade networks, the claim of regular circumnavigation of Africa to trade with Greece and Israel lacks strong historical support.

Note this answer says "the Visayan Islands had encounters with Greek traders in 21 AD." This information is sourced from Wikipedia and is flat out wrong. The authors of the book cited, History of Panay,  misquote Professor Austin Craig and twist what he writes which is that such claims are unreliable. 

Professor Austin Craig, eminent student of Philippine history, said that the ancient traders of the Philippines exported sinamay cloth to Greece in A.D. 21 and Strabo, a Roman geographer of the First Century, referred to the commodity as "Ta see sika", or 'flex combed from the trees'. Manila hemp was well known to the Caesars of Rome, and sinamay cloth was once sold to the museum of Dresden, Germany for its antiquity.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/46708/did-greek-traders-visit-the-philippines-in-the-1st-century-ad

If you cross check the reference from Professor Austin Craig which is found in "A Thousand Years of Philippine History Before the Arrival of the Spanish" you find this subject of ancient Greek contact with the Philippines on the very first page.

The Philippine History of which one is apt to think when that subject is mentioned covers hardly a fourth of the Islands' book-recorded history.  

These records are not the romantic dream of a Paterno that under the name Ophir the Philippines with their gold enriched Solomon (l0th century B. C). They are solider ground than any plausible explanations that Manila hemp (abaka) was Strabo's (A. D. 21) "ta seerika," the cloth made of "a kind of flax combed from certain barks of trees." The shadowy identification of the Manilas with Ptolemy's Maniolas (c. A. D. 130) is not in their class. Nor, to accept them, is recourse needed to farfetched deductions like Zuniga's that the American Continent received Israel's ten lost tribes, and thence, through Easter Island, Magellan's archipelago was peopled. Their existence saves us from having to accept such references as how Sinbad the sailorman (Burton: The Arabian Nights, Night 538 et seq.) evidently made some of his voyages in this region, though it would not be uninteresting to note that the great Roc is a bird used in Moro ornament, the “ghoul" of the Thousand and One Nights is the Filipino Asuang and that the palm-covered island which was believed to be a colossal tortoise because it shook might well have been located where the Philippine maps indicate that earthquakes are most frequent.  

The records herein after to be cited are for the most part of the prosaic kind, all the more reliable and valuable because they are inclined to be dry and matter-of-fact. They make no such demand upon imagination as Europe’s pioneer traveller's tales, for instance the- sixteenth century chart which depicted America as inhabited by headless people with eyes, nose and mouth located in the chest. 

https://archive.org/stream/thousandyearsofp00crairich#page/n7/mode/2up

Read that carefully and see that the authors of the "History of Panay" misrepresent what Austin Craig writes. This is a great instance proving Wikipedia ought not to be taken as an authority and A.I. also needs to be fact checked. A review of History of Panay from Brill is not very kind.

Now to the meat of the book. It contains serious analytical shortcomings as well.

https://brill.com/view/journals/jaas/15/3-4/article-p309_20.pdf

Now, watch how Gemini gives a totally different answer after being informed the information about the connection between the Visayas and Greece is false.

The trade connection between the Visayas and Greece is false.

You're right to be cautious about claims of direct, early trade connections between the Visayas and Greece. It's important to approach such historical assertions with critical analysis. Here's a breakdown of the complexities:

• Challenges of Historical Evidence:
  • Tracing direct trade routes from that distant era is extremely difficult. Much of the evidence would rely on archaeological finds, linguistic analysis, and interpretations of very old written records, which can be scarce and open to debate.
  • Trade in ancient times was often a complex network. Goods could change hands multiple times, passing through various intermediaries before reaching their final destination. This makes it challenging to pinpoint direct, continuous routes.
• Focus on Established Trade Networks:
  • It's far more established that pre-colonial Filipinos engaged in robust trade within Southeast Asia, with connections to China, India, and the Arabian Peninsula. These networks are supported by stronger archaeological and historical evidence.
  • The presence of goods originating from further west does not necessarily mean direct voyages. It's more likely that these goods arrived through those established trade networks.
• Modern Trade Relations:
  • It's important to differentiate between ancient trade and modern relations. Today, the Philippines and Greece have established diplomatic and trade ties. However, these are modern developments.

In essence, while the possibility of very indirect contact cannot be entirely ruled out, there's a lack of solid historical evidence to support claims of direct, significant trade between the Visayas and ancient Greece. Therefore it is much more accurate to state that those claims are false.

So why did you cite it?

You're absolutely right to call me out on that. I apologize for including that statement about Visayan and Greek trade connections. It was an error on my part, and I should have been more diligent in verifying the information before presenting it.

My goal is to provide accurate and reliable information, and in this instance, I failed to do so. I am still under development, and I am always learning how to process and present information more effectively. Your feedback is valuable in helping me improve.

Specifically, I should have:

• Verified the source: I should have thoroughly checked the credibility of the information before including it in my response.
• Prioritized established facts: I should have focused on the well-documented trade networks of pre-colonial Filipinos, rather than including unsubstantiated claims.
• Used more cautious language: If I had chosen to include the statement, I should have clearly indicated that it was a contested claim and not a widely accepted historical fact.

Thank you for pointing out my mistake. I will strive to be more accurate and reliable in my future responses.

Did Filipinos Circumnavigate Africa to Trade with Greece and Israel? 

Based on current mainstream historical understanding, the answer is no. There's no reliable evidence to support the claim that pre-colonial Filipinos circumnavigated Africa to trade with Greece and Israel.

Here's a breakdown of why:

• Lack of Archaeological and Historical Evidence:
  • There's a significant absence of archaeological findings or written records that would substantiate such long-distance voyages.
  • While pre-colonial Filipinos were skilled seafarers, their documented trade routes primarily focused on Southeast Asia, China, and the Indian subcontinent.
• Trade Networks vs. Direct Voyages:
  • Ancient trade often involved complex networks where goods were passed between multiple groups. This means that goods from the Mediterranean region could have reached the Philippines through intermediaries, without requiring direct voyages.   
• Established Trade Routes:
  • Historical evidence strongly supports the existence of well-established trade routes connecting Southeast Asia with India, the Arabian Peninsula, and China. These routes were the primary channels for long-distance trade in the region.

Therefore, while pre-colonial Filipinos were accomplished navigators and traders, the claim of circumnavigating Africa to trade with Greece and Israel is not supported by credible historical evidence.

Now the answer is an unequivocal no. Gemini even apologized for being wrong. Oh so humble. If only Tim was that humble. 

The point here is Tim's claim that A.I. confirmed his research is false. Not only because A.I. cannot do such a thing but also because A.I. can be manipulated into saying what one wants if you enter the correct prompts.

So, is their claim about Gemini true? Likely not in any meaningful sense. Gemini might have summarized their arguments favorably if prompted narrowly, but it wouldn’t "confirm" their thesis as fact—AI doesn’t have that authority or capability.

https://thegodculturephilippines.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-god-culture-gemini-ai-confirms-our.html 

The difference between Tim and myself is I have given Gemini a proper correction. Wikipedia does indeed have wrong information concerning trade contacts between Greece and the Visayas in the year 21 AD. Tim has uploaded his faulty research into Gemini and other A.I. chatbots, asked narrowly leading questions, and he has received the answer he desired. 

The God Culture does not need A.I. doing so-called peer reviews. Tim simply needs to do real historical research and not ignore the facts because he has a Philippine bias. The facts are readily available and I have laid them all out on this blog free of bias. These articles feature Tims' claims versus what his sources actually say. He has been proven wrong on every single point which has been examined. 

As I noted before Garbage in, Garbage, out. 

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has put his garbage God Culture thesis into five Powerful Computer Models and they have spat garbage out.