Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Wonderful Land of Punt

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
As we can see the India hypothesis for the location of Punt was actually seriously considered by early schoars because of the evidence. The only reason this hypothesis has been dropped is because India is "too far". This is not a very good argument obviously. There are two possibilities on how the Egyptians got to India

1) Navigating along coastlines
2) Their ships were more sophisticated than is believed

I am not about to reject possibility 2 simply because modern scholars do not want to admit that the ancients could have had better maritime technology than they would like to accept. It is entirely possible modern scholars are wrong on the kind of maritime technology the ancients had, and certainly there is evidence of the ancients having sophisticated maritime technology to undertake deep sea voyages.

The evidence in favour of Punt being in the Indian subcontinent is strong, as all of fauna of Punt can be found in the Indian subcontinent, and some which can ONLY be found in the Indian subcontinent. For example cinnamon, which is native to the Indian subcontinent is found in Sri Lanka.


Cinnamon: Cinnamon (Cinnamomum verum, synonym C. zeylanicum) is a small evergreen tree belonging to the family Lauraceae, native to Sri Lanka, or the spice obtained from the tree's bark.


There is also this tidbit which if true, leaves no doubt that India is Punt:


Klaus K. Klostermaier, in his book A Survey of Hinduism p. 18 says:

"For several centuries a lively commerce developed between the ancient Mediterranean world and India, particularly the ports on the Western coast. The most famous of these ports was Sopara, not far from modern Bombay, which was recently renamed Mumbai. Present day Cranganore in Kerala, identified with the ancient Muziris, claims to have had trade contacts with Ancient Egypt under Queen Hatsheput, who sent five ships to obtain spices, as well as with ancient Israel during King Soloman's reign. Apparently, the contact did not break off after Egypt was conquered by Greece and later by Rome.


[edit on 16-1-2010 by Indigo_Child]




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 
There are a number of reasons why India isn't the popular choice to be Punt. The main reason is the deductive ability of scholars and historians. They are dedicated to the subject, widely read and have concluded that Punt was somewhere reachable from the Nile. The chief suspect appears to be Somalia.


... simply because modern scholars do not want to admit that the ancients could have had better maritime technology than they would like to accept. It is entirely possible modern scholars are wrong on the kind of maritime technology the ancients had, and certainly there is evidence of the ancients having sophisticated maritime technology to undertake deep sea voyages.


Egypt's neighbours had developed ships that could survive sea voyages e.g. Phoenicians, Somalians, Greeks and later on Romans. Modern scholars have no problem acknowledging them either. There are many books on the subject (by scholars) of ancient maritime and naval history.

The reason why archaeologists are so cock-sure about Egyptian ship building is because we have existing examples to look at and study. They buried boats near pyramids and we've got one from the Great (Khufus) Pyramid and several from Dashur. On top of that we've found several buried at Saqqara in the graves of powerful nobles. IIRC about a decade ago, they found a cave blocked by sand at Abydos. Inside the cave were the deconstructed parts of several boats. As I mentioned earlier, they used a unique jigsaw technique and lashed the pieces together with thongs. Wood was at a premium and owning a boat was like a private jet.




The evidence in favour of Punt being in the Indian subcontinent is strong, as all of fauna of Punt can be found in the Indian subcontinent, and some which can ONLY be found in the Indian subcontinent. For example cinnamon, which is native to the Indian subcontinent is found in Sri Lanka.


Can you support this with a link? India isn't known for giraffes, cheetahs or lions...or did they invent them too?

The Klaus Klostermeier quote is leading. If you read it again, you'll notice he only mentions hearsay and uses the word 'apparently.' It's ironic that your distrust of modern scholars is suspended for Klostermeier....why so?

The following are quotes from "The Land of Punt" by K. A. Kitchen in The Archaeology of Africa: Food, metals and towns Edited by Thurstan Shaw, 1993

In his Karnak Annals, Tuthmosis III twice records receipt of goods from Punt. In Year 33 (c. 1447 BC) Marvels brought to His Majesty from the land of Punt in this year: Dried myrrh, 1685 heqat-measures; gold (of Amau?...deben)



in Year 38 (c. 1442 BC): Marvels brought to the might of His Majesty from the land of Punt: Dried myrrh, 240 heqat-measures



However, during Ramessess III reign there is clear evidence of an expedition to Punt: Quote: I construced great transport vessels with towboats before them, equipped with strong crews ... loaded with limitless goods from Egypt. They are innumerable, as myriads, despatched on the Red Sea. They reached the land of Punt, unaffected by (any) misfortune, safe and respected. The towed transports and tugs were loaded with the products of God's Land... much myrrh of Punt, loaded by myriads, limitless.



After Ramessess III there is no mention of Punt except for a 21st Dynasty stela that says that rain has fallen on the mountain of Punt. Apparently this was very rare for the stela called it a "great marvel" and that it had not "be seen or heard before." According to this stela, the mountain of Punt must be near the headwaters of the Nile or in the Nile drainage because it says that rains caused a "Nile-flood to sustain your forces."


All the evidence points to Punt being a North East African location. Trade with India is thought to have begun closer to the 3rd century BC according to records of Ashoka the Great (of India).



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
While it remains open that some of the goods traded through Punt were imported there from India it is more plausible to place Punt somewhere on the Somali area (possible locations are the Horn of Africa and as north as Djibhouti). While this puts Punt in between Egypt and India and trading cinnamon makes sense, trading giraffes from Africa to India and then back to India makes less sense.

About the sea worthiness of ancient ships, until tested (for routes we have insufficient or no record) we can only speculate. We know, for example, that Viking ships, while relatively small compared to other, earlier types, were capable of reaching America. We also know that Pytheas sailed in the North Sea around 330-300 BC (he circumnavigated Britain and reached the west coast of Scandinavia, at least that's the "route" that makes more sense using the ancient texts that refer to him and his voyage). Someone reached Rapa Nui long before any European did because the Moai didn't erect themselves. The Maori people reached New Zealand 1000 years ago and Polynesians (Maori also in origin, no?) reached Hawaii about 600 years ago, beating James Cook by about 300 years.

We do have examples of seemingly unworthy vessels making long voyages so Egyptian vessels could negotiate the travel to India, that of course is not saying that a) they did and (b) Punt is India. It only says that they probably could do it!



posted on Nov, 13 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Dear All,

Please read this article on the theory where the Wonderful Land of PUNTS is. - lokalgenius.blogspot.com...





new topics

top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join