posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 04:17 AM
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,
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).