Talk:Land of Punt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

current events article reference. http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1088919.php/Ancient_ship_remains_are_unearthed_at_Egyptian_Red_Sea_port

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.9.167 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 28 January 2006‎ (UTC)

Mess

The references and external links are messy. near the bottom it states punt was the bomb to party near tigry? whats this mean?

It was recent vandalism. Read it again and it should make sense. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed

several grammatical errors in the introduction and history body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.58.154.209 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory POV Statements - "Ta netjer"

The following statements are contradictory and imply a POV:

"The ancient Egyptians also called Punt Ta netjer, meaning "God's Land". This designation did not mean that Punt was considered a "Holy Land" by the Egyptians; rather, it was used to refer to regions of the Sun God, i.e. regions located in the direction of the sunrise. [12]"

If the term means "God's Land" and relates to the Sun God, it is a religious association thus a "Holy Land". However the writer subjectively avoids any implications of Punt being thought as anything more than a trade post.

I suggest these statements be reworded to something less definitive and leave it to the reader to refer to the references or external links. -Spencer,Leon 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The general consensus amongst Egyptians (as in the contemporary people of Egypt/Misr) is that Punt was the Land of the Gods because it was the main source of incense-bearing plants in the ancient world, and incense was thought to be the air breathed by the gods.Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dimitri Meeks

I see this was added last month with an edit summary 'shocking typos' by IP 86.158.94.2, their only edit. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thoroughly researched, referenced and rewritten. Wdford (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The studies by Meeks can be included. However the problem is the whole section on the Location of Punt is dominated by information on the Meeks chapter. This maybe WP:UNDUE, because the mainstream view is that Punt was in Africa south of Egypt. Accordingly the African location should have more weight in the article. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

^Can you also help deal with this then, because I'd like to avoid an edit war but as we all seem to be in agreement that the section in question is problematic for several reasons, including POV and undue weight given to cherry-picked sources. I'll see about its progress after giving it some space for a little bit.Taharqa (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not quoting cherry-picked 'sources', I am quoting actual 'evidence' from AE inscriptions. The article is currently dominated by the Meeks material because he has offered a lot of actual 'evidence' to support his thesis, and because there does not seem to be a lot of 'evidence' to support a location in East Africa. However I agree the article would be better served if those of you who have such material would add it in. (Perhaps mention the giraffe, and list the other fauna in detail.) Alternatively, if you can't find any actual 'evidence' then I suppose adding a list of experts who 'believe' Punt was in East Africa would be the next best thing, so as to balance the article and give more weight to the mainstream consensus. However I can't see that the encyclopedia is well served by deleting valid material merely because the other side of the debate happens to be supported by much less actual evidence. Wdford (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Meeks has a lot of evidence, but his evidence is debatable and controversial. Giraffes are native to central Africa, and there is no evidence of their range extending outside Africa. Meeks argues that Giraffes were transported to Arabia, but this is mere speculation. He claims that the rhino depicted on a mural is an Asian rhino because it has one horn. Once again this is highly speculative, there is no evidence of Indian Rhinoceros living in the sandy deserts of Arabia. That the Rhino has one horn instead of two doesn't automatically imply that it was an Indian Rhino. His claims that Indian rhinos would have been transported from India to Arabia and finally to Egypt, is far fetched and has no supporting information other than his own speculation. Baboons are also depicted from Punt, the majority of species are restricted to Africa. Of the five species of baboon, one species is found in both Arabia and Africa, the other 4 species are restricted to Africa and are plentiful. Myrrh and Frankincense, materials from punt, are found in both Arabia and Somalia, but the majority of the varieties are indigenous to Somalia. Punt was accessible through the Red Sea and even Meeks admits that Punt, "wetjenet" was south-east of Egypt. All these facts essentially rule out Palestine or Lebanon, because apart from Meeks' own interpretation of the ancient scripts, there is no other supporting evidence. The only other possibility would be Yemen, because myrrh, frankincense are grown there, but there are no giraffes and rhinos in Yemen. Why would the Egyptians cross the red sea by boat, when they could get all the wanted from Somaliland. Myrrh, frankincense, leopards, baboons, giraffes and rhinos were abundant in Africa but were less common, rare or completely absent in Arabia. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

^Indeed.. So many holes which is why giving undue weight to a minority view based on intense speculation is nonsensical. It totally contradicts almost everything we know about Punt and what the Egyptians described themselves. Meeks is a dissenter. By his own statement that "Egyptologists by and large accept Punt's African origin as fact" [paraphrase], testifies to the fact that citing him in bulk is giving him undue weight. According to wikipedia:

"In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."[1]

Now I have no problem having his opinion included but his arguments are unconvincing to the vast majority of specialists. He ignores everyone else while pretending that everyone ignores him. Most of what's cited is just rhetoric. I'd stated elsewhere, the bigger controversy is exactly "where in Africa" it was located, whether or not it was limited to the contours of geographic Ethiopia-Somalia.

http://www.maat-ka-ra.de/english/punt/puntlage.htm

"The products brought back to Egypt point to an African origin: giraffes, pygmies, baboons, myrrh, ... excluding south east Arabia, as has sometimes been suggested. Thus Punt must have been located somewhere along the African shores of the Red Sea, perhaps south Sudan or north Ethiopia."[2]

He doesn't effectively address the monkeys, giraffes, baboons, pygmies, queen's steatopygia, flora, Egyptian's identification of their geographic approximation with Kush, the Greeks' association of punt with Ethiopia (see Britannica), the Ethiopian obsidian brought back from a trade mission there in the Old Kingdom, Phillips' finding of an Ankh in Askum-Ethiopia, nothing. All of his explanations are RULED out by a majority of specialists. He is given undue weight and it should be dealt with to conform with wikipedia policy. If the guy even admits that his view is not exactly mainstream, then I don't see the problem. His view should be included but limited to the position it deserves as a dissenting view amongst an already established and developed view expounded by the majority of the field based on years of evidence and research.Taharqa (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, some really surprising outrage. Meeks quotes the inscriptions left to us by those who actually visited Punt. He is not making it up, the inscriptions actually exist. The fact that the mainstream has not yet bought into the new evidence does not invalidate the evidence itself. Yemen is not next to Byblos, but the ancient inscriptions also mention Sinai, which is sort of in the middle of the two, so perhaps Punt was quite large and stretched from Byblos through Sinai to Yemen (or even beyond). Of course artefacts were found in Ethiopia - there were dozens of raids back and forth, including full-scale invasions, and the newspaper article just discussed this very evening stated that the Kush raiders looted lots of Egyptian goods and took it home with them. Contact with Kush was not limited to expeditions to Punt. By all means add the mainstream viewpoint about the fauna, and mention that most but not all of it is also found in Arabia. Mention that some inscriptions say the Punt was to the south east, and mention that much of the Arabian Peninsula is south east of Egypt (especially if you measure from the Delta). Mention also that Meeks concludes that Yemen was the most likely location, and that Yemen is south east of Thebes as well. This would add weight to the mainstream argument. But I don't think it is appropriate to delete actual evidence just because the other side doesn't have as much. By all means add weight to the counter-argument. Wdford (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The inscriptions may exist, but his interpretation of them has yet to be accepted. In addition his interpretations lack support from other independent sources ie giraffes, leopards etc. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Meek's interpretations have thusfar been ignored, but not disputed. Nobody has come forward to give an alternative interpretation to the specific inscriptions, other than to suggest that the carvers kept making the same mistakes when carving certain of the toponyms. There are many different inscriptions linking Punt to Asia, from the reigns of many different kings, and I'm sure somebody would by now have taken a second look at one of them and said "Oh no, this doesn't say Sinai it says Meroe." However, I agree the fauna argument is Meek's weakest, although his answer is not impossible either, so let's pump up the fauna argument. Wdford (talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

His interpretations are not ignored as similar interpretations have already been proposed and are simply not accepted. The amalgam of evidence according to most Egyptologists surely disputes his position. His position is what wikipedia bases its policy on.. According to your bullet points, he suggests in one point that some list "clearly locates Punt to the north of Egypt", while directly thereafter stating that Punt was in the "southeast", and the last point describes them as being from the "east". C'mon man! All of these blatant contradictions. These kind of interpretations in particular may be ignored by Egyptologists because they are ridiculous. It isn't our place to exalt ONE or TWO pieces of scantly traced evidence with flimsy interpretations. What we do here is reflect accurately the mainstream consensus, which is not his view. You can debate the merits of his argument on a forum. We are not obliged to ignore neither the evidence or the position of mainstream Egyptology at the expense of a lonely dissenting voice.Taharqa (talk) 00:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There are numberous inscriptions that place Punt in Canaan, and numerous others that place Punt in the Sinai, and numerous others that say east and south-east - toward the Red Sea and its various coasts, as well as Yemen. Its unlikely that so many people would get it wrong so often on sacred temple walls etc with nobody noticing, so probably Punt was large and extended from the Negev in Canaan through Sinai into Yemen. No problem. You also refer to the "amalgam" of evidence which disputes Meek's position - please could you add this evidence to the debate? As this is the mainstream position, there must surely be tons of supporting evidence, but they are a bit reclusive with the stuff. Please would you share it with us, so that we can add due weight to the mainstream argument. Wdford (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Canaan is not off the red sea, it is north of Egypt. How can you not see these contradictions. You say one inscription locates it south-east, one says Canaan, one says east, c'mon now, how CAN they all be right according to common sense? More than likely this is just another case of your own flawed interpretations that don't matter. Please adhere to wikipedia policy, this is not a forum. Btw, Somalia is south-east of Egypt so this doesn't contradict consensus. It is undue weight and has to be condensed to abide by wiki policy. You can't ignore the policies here, everyone is held accountable and we are all trying to avoid sanctions against you, so please review said policies and ease up on the O.R...Taharqa (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynastic race?

Why is this article worded in such a way to support a discredited theory known as Dynastic race? In fact, why are the editor(s) putting forth the notion that the Egyptian dynasties were founded everywhere else (Carthage, Canaan, Mesopotamia) but Egypt and Nubia? There is no way this is going to fly. I'll be back later with the big books (Oxford History of Egypt for example) for a wide range of citations to remove this nonsense. --Panehesy (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is extremely pov. I'm putting up a tag until this is squared away. Editor is making his own argument per scattered citations of minority/outdated views. It is clearly a reflection of the baggage brought from AE and Race.Taharqa (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Somebody seriously misquoted the newspaper article - talk about WP:Synth. Wdford (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

^I didn't misquote anything. I was trying to add my citation when there was an edit conflict. You need to seriously calm down, you are very close to having action being taken against you for your disruptive POV edits. Even the article you cited says the same thing and not what you are trying to twist it as saying.. You are CLEARLY making your own arguments.Taharqa (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, read the whole article. http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/649/he1.htm at para 7 & 8 says:

"Davies is not alone in his feeling that the inscription forces a reconsideration of Egyptian history. Zahi Hawass, secretary general of the supreme council of antiquities (SCA), stated that it sheds new light on the extent of Egypt's vulnerability during that period, when the native Upper-Egyptian 17th dynasty centred in Thebes was engaged in a war of independence against the Lower-Egyptian Hyksos who were based in Avaris in the Nile Delta.

"It was a pincer movements on Egypt," Hawass told the Weekly. He said that success by either Kush or Hyksos would have changed the face of Egypt, even up to the present day. Mamdouh El-Damadi, the director general of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, also emphasised how important the inscription is for understanding Kushite ambitions in Egypt. Davies chimed in on this point in stating, "We always thought that the Hyksos were the greatest of Egypt's enemy but Kush was as well." The defeat of the Kush-led invasion represented in Sobeknakht's tomb may come to be interpreted a critical event in Egypt's subsequent defeat of the Hyksos and expansion of its nascent empire into Palestine and Sudan."

Wdford (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

C'mon now.. Where does it suggest that the Hyksos had anything to do with Punt? It CLEARLY states (so so clearly) that the Hyksos were already ruling Egypt in the north when the Puntites and Kushites invaded from the south as part of an alliance. It doesn't say anything about Canaan and nothing about a Punt/Hyksos alliance. NOTHING.. Hawass states that if either invasion were successful then it would have been disastrous. Who disputes that and what does it have to do with anything, including the location of Punt considering that the text already establishes they came from the south with Kush??? Jeeze.. This is such a clear sign of distortion that It's hard to carry on this discussion. We are seriously going to have to look into this POV trip of yours where you totally distort sources to make contrived arguments that otherwise aren't supported.Taharqa (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hawass mentioned a "pincer movement", which to those with military understanding is a deliberate and co-ordinated effort. However, to give more background, here is an extract from the wikipedia article on the Hyksos – in the section headed “Under Khamose”.

“A second stele discovered at Thebes continues the account of the war broken off on the Carnarvon Tablet I, and mentions the interception and capture of a courier bearing a message from the Hyksos king Aawoserra Apophis at Avaris to his ally the ruler of Kush (modern Sudan), requesting the latter's urgent support against the threat posed by Kamose's activities against both their kingdoms.”

Since Punt was allied with Kush at the time, Punt was thus allied with everyone else in the alliance as well - this is the basic English meaning of the word "alliance".

Shall I add this to the article, or will you?

Wdford (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, careful reading reveals instantly that Hawass is referring to a Kushite strategy as is associated with the southern alliance. In addition, your wikipedia citation has no bearing again on this article. You are again twisting, reconnecting and misinterpreting. An "ally" does not constitute an "alliance". In fact, Booth clearly states that there was NO alliance between the Kushites and the Hyksos.

Quote: "If the Kushites had joined with the Hyksos the alliance would have been a major threat to Thebes as both Kushites and Hyksos could have raised large armies to attack from the north and the south. To change this situation, the Theban dynasties instigated the battles leading to the expulsion of the Hyksos as a way of taking control of the situation by gaining mastery over lower Egypt. Very little lower Egyptian pottery has been discovered in Kush and very little Nubian pottery has been discovered in lower Egypt, suggesting that the relationship between the Hyksos and the Kushites was not very strong. The content of King Apophis' letter hints at this unstable relationship. Apophis asks the Kushite king, "Why have you risen as ruler without letting me know?" If trade relations were closer Apophis would have known who the King of Kush was. The Hyksos ruler was probably **trying** to start an alliance with Kush, although the Kushite ruler would have no doubt been weary of antagonizing the Theban rulers, who were nearer to Kush than the Hyksos."[3]

Again, please stop injecting your own interpretation to things that more often than not, end up being the total opposite of what these experts actually say.

Again, what this has to do with the location of punt, that is clearly identified in the text as coming from the south alongside Kush, the tribes of Wawat and the Medjaw, is beyond me. It is clearly Original Research..Taharqa (talk) 00:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Booth is clearly out of date - the inscription in the tomb at El Kab clearly states that Kush did indeed attack Egypt during this time (17th Dynasty). And the inscription on the stela of Khamose clearly says that the Hyksos king sent a message to his 'ally' - the inscription is perfectly clear. Hawass was correct after all. Wdford (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Transliteration

The transliteration of Punt is given as p-wn-n-t. I believe it should simply be p-wn-t as the n sign is clearly part of the two consonant sign wn. Remember that in hieroglyphics, it is extremely common to find two and three consonants signs surrounded by one consonant signs that are part of the several consonant sign. Finally, this reading clearly yields Punt which shows that egyptologists do indeed read the second n sign as being part of the wn. I will change this if nobody objects to this within a week or two. Iry-Hor (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hatshepsut Punt ship?

We should have an article on the Punt ship, as we have with Khufu ship. See http://video.pbs.org/video/1379655910/ where some details on it can be seen in recreation -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

King Parahu and Queen Ati

Are these two individuals actually refereed to with words for King and Queen. Or are we just assuming their King and Queen because of their apparent roles in the reliefs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.233.157 (talk) 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Pharaoh Hatshepsut's royal mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahri appears to identify Parahu and Ati as the King and Queen, respectively, of the ancient Land of Punt [4]. Middayexpress (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

there isn't really sufficient elaboration on the subject there. Mainly I want to know if if a word for King or word for Queen is used? I've seen some websites call only Ati queen and Parahu a Chief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.233.157 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Th\e true Punt

"The Land of Punt" is the Levant referred to the Levant. The term "Punt" is the same origin of the words "Punic" and "Phoenician". Ancient Hebrew documents also refer to the Hebrews as living in Punt. Ancient Egyptian writers also referred to Punt as being the Levant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.190.178 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Fascinating, love to see these sources since so far as I know they don't exist. Doug Weller talk 11:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Size

According to S. G. Shattock, President of the Royal Society of Medicine, Queen Ati of Punt did not have steatopygia. She was instead simply fat all over, as this was a favored body type in the local culture (esthetic fattening, an ancient tradition among Berbers and related groups) [5]. This is also indicated by a now lost inscribed mural, which depicts the Queen beside her young daughter, who was also chubby (the condition is ever rarer among children) [6]. The queen's features, hair and height are clearly not typical of Khoisan. Soupforone (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Century old source with obsolete ideas now discarded claiming there's a real depiction? Sorry but that doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 06:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That is when the claim dates from. Anyway, it is now clinically recognized that she likely had a suite of conditions known as the Queen of Punt syndrome [7]. Soupforone (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

That's much better. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright link in new edits?

The vedantawritings link shows no evidence that it has a right to host that article. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fringe hypothesis that Punt was Sri Laks not discussed in article

@Johnbod and Khruner: I don't think this belongs in the lead without discussion in the article. It's true but needs a look at the sources to see what they say and if there are other sources that are more independent. The Journal of Indian History might be usable but the author is arguing for contact and influence, not location. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it doesn't: it rather belongs to the "location" section. And the "Ta-Netjer" section apparently deals with the claim that the land of Punt was the ancestral homeland of the Egyptians. BTW I just noticed (section above) that you already noticed the issues in this recent edit. Khruner (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Fine with this - I just wanted to stop making it sound like the dominant theory. I enjoyed the "Tamils invented everything" PDF ref! Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I fixed something. In the end, quite an amount of WP:SYNTHESIS centered on the purported presence of Diospyros ebenum wood in Egypt, many sources actually against the hypothesis, and a few (IMHO questionables) remaining. Khruner (talk) 16:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

If their are questions around it and the fact it was dismissed why is it even in the article this is more of a hypothisis and should be in its own category or section and not under location Sahasu (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

A copy as unnecessary. And putting this hypothesis (which is actually the most fringe) in a dedicated section is clearly a double standard against the Northeastern Africa (by far the most accepted) and the Arabia hypotheses. Khruner (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Both Arabia and North East africa has backing and the indian claim is mostly a Indian claim not backed up by mainstream scholars Sahasu (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Both Arabia and North East africa has backing and the indian claim is mostly a Indian claim not backed up by mainstream scholars Sahasu (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

And to add it has also been disapproved Sahasu (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The claim is backed by sources which are considered reliable, and countered by other sources considered reliable too. This does not mean that the collision between opposing sources have to annihilate the whole paragraph. Please consider reading WP:Reliable sources. Khruner (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It's still a mostly disproven theory while the horn and Yemen theories haven't been disproven rather they have considerable backing their is only a matter of disagreement to which is the most probable I just don't see that in the case with the Sri Lankan theory a widely disproven theory with no backing just hypothetical theories I am merely suggesting this theory to be in its own section as to respect the widely accepted horn of Africa and South Arabia supposed locations for the land of punt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahasu (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism

Can you please restore the page. Thank you. Dalhoa (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per Special:Diff/936537181, as cited in the edit summary of Special:Diff/936526471. I also find the WP:Verifiability, not truth arguments above in #Fringe hypothesis that Punt was Sri Laks not discussed in article and #Requesting a different section for the frindge and unsupported Sri Lankan theory to be in line with existing Wikipedia policy (namely, WP:RS). Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352: thanks. This is a problem editor - note even the section heading for something that is a content dispute and See[8] and [9] - note the focus on the Horn of Africa.. It's been discussed at WP:RSN#Are these apparently reputable Egyptologists used at Land of Punt fringe? and although I've asked Dalhoa more than once to comment there they haven't. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dalhoa has taken this to WP:RSN#Deliberate well orchestrated tactics to spread pov and fringe theories. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Dalhoa's post was actually at ANI rather than RSN. See WP:ANI#Deliberate well orchestrated tactics to spread pov and fringe theories. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting a different section for the frindge and unsupported Sri Lankan theory

I suggest the Sri Lankan theory to have its own section as to respect the two most probable theories supported by modern scholars the horn of Africa and Yemen theories Reason being is the Sri Lankan theory is already disproven and lacks credibility while the horn and Yemen theories are approved by modern scholars and archaeologists Sahasu (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I think its fair to respect the two most probable theories instead of adding a fridge theory that has no backing what's so ever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahasu (talk • contribs) 00:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll put here what I already wrote on your talk page with some edits. I, too, personally find the Sri Lanka hypothesis unlikely, but our personal beliefs mean nothing here on Wikipedia. When the last summer an IP massively edited the article incorporating that, I worked a lot on the edit because most of the sources were, as I expected, unreliable. However (and to my surprise) the remaining sources looked unquestionably valid, and so are the others countering the hypothesis. Despite having linked to you several times WP:reliable sources, you apparently lack the ability to understand them, and I'm starting to think that you are actually pushing your personal point of view about the topic. By using your very same bias, one can attack the Arabian hypothesis as well, with the claim that there is only one source backing it, and that arguments against it are already present in the Horn of Africa section. Khruner (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

For the south Arabian source their are still sources backing the claim, but the Sri Lankan claim has no backing what so ever its by far the least most likely location with very little scholarly backing with most disproved and is more of a troll that appeared suddenly on the page I have no problem with it.

I am just suggesting a different section for this Wisley disproven theory as supposed to the widely backed researched south Arabia horn of Africa theory I would like a WP:consensus in order to decide if this should be treated as a second-rate hypothesis in order to respect the two theories which have not been widely disproven

Same old story I see. Let's try one more time, step by step.

• "For the south Arabian source their are still sources backing the claim, but the Sri Lankan claim has no backing what so ever" FALSE. Both are backed by sources, with the Sri Lanka claim having even more;
• "its by far the least most likely location with very little scholarly backing" far least likely location according to who? You and me, of course, have no say in the matter. But there are indeed scholars who think otherwise;
• "the widely backed researched south Arabia horn of Africa theory" FALSE. The only one widely backed hypothesis is the Horn of Africa one. Arabia is backed by only one source at the current time, and many argument against are presented in the Horn of Africa section;
• "in order to decide if this should be treated as a second-rate hypothesis in order to respect the two theories which have not been widely disproven" on the basis of what I have just pointed out, it seems to me that the minority hypotheses are in fact two: the Arabian and the Sri Lankan ones. Khruner (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

So can we then make a separate distinction between the minority hypothesis and the major hypothesis of the horn of Africa I think that's something we can both agree on a sub section consisting of the widely agreed upon horn of Africa hypothesis and the two minor Sri Lanka Yemen hypothesis Sahasu (talk) 18:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

i agree with you i think the horn of africa theory has the most backing and is widely agreed upon by most scholars, while the yemeni one just has one source and the sri lankan one is widely dissproven so i suggest a diffent section for the most widely accepted hypothesis of the horn of africa and the least most accepted hypthesis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahasu (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• "the widely backed researched south Arabia horn of Africa theory" FALSE. The only one widely backed hypothesis is the Horn of Africa one. Arabia is backed by only one source at the current time, and many argument against are presented in the Horn of Africa section;

if you suggest that the only widely backed hypothesis is the horn of africa i suggest we have the horn of africa hypthosis whihc i agree is by far the most widely backed source as the main hypothesis and the two weaker hypothesis to have their own section below the main horn of africa hypthesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahasu (talk • contribs) 21:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this issue needs more opinions, I mean, from other users. Khruner (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well am just suggesting two categories one for the widely backed source from the lesser backed sri lankan south Arabia hypothesis also I don't think anyone would have a problem with that am sure that's a possibility Sahasu (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Well am just suggesting two categories one for the widely backed source from the lesser backed sri lankan south Arabia hypothesis also I don't think anyone would have a problem with that am sure that's a possibility Sahasu (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My book and my name are mentioned in this Sri Lankan theory. But my theory of the Land of Punt is not for Sri Lanka, but for Sumatra. I have published another book, "Land of Punt: In Search of the Divine Land of the Egyptians" in a little bit more detailed than my previous book (available at Amazon and Google Books). Please read this book thoroughly if you want to make a reference. Dhani irwanto (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It's self-published so we can't use it, and your belief that Atlantis was real and in the Java Sea is fringe, another reason to not use you as a source. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Queen of Punt syndrome

The source clearly states that there is no genetic or bioanthropological evidence to support this medical diagnosis. This physical form is found in many Upper Paleolithic cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toltol15 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Punt in Africa, is this theory still possible?

Is the theory of a Punt region in Africa really credible? for me, the only and main reason for locating this land south of Egypt is existence of exotic animals. It turns out that another savannah existed but at the level of the Arabian Peninsula. Who can still defend Punt in Africa? Below is the savannah in Asia Minor: https://nantt44.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/chapter-vii-charmutha-becius-the-punt-kingdom-and-its-countries/ Lepoivre Bertrand (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Conclusive Identification of Punt

The conclusive identification of Punt has been made. It's the same area as D'mt which later became Axum/ Aksum...

Textual and archaeological evidence from Mersa/Wadi Gawasis definitely demonstrates that in the first half of the second millennium bc the land of Punt fascinated the imagination of modern scholars the land of Punt consisted of two regions (Bia-Punt and Punt), which were located along the Red Sea to the south of 20° N latitude. These regions encompassed the coastal plains from Suakin to the Bay of Zula, the southern Atbay mountains, the Barka and Gash lowlands as far as the Atbara River, and the highlands in eastern Sudan and Eritrea, as well as the coastal plains in south-western Arabia, with a core area from the middle Atbara valley and Gash Delta in eastern Sudan to the Bay of Zula in Eritrea (fig. 1), where all the products that the Egyptians considered typical of Punt...

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0307513319858321#:~:text=Based%20on%20archaeological%20evidence%2C%20the,region%20in%20the%20Egyptian%20sources A.Tamar Chabadi (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Strontium isotope concentrations in a baboon support a similar position: see Nature. 112.119.116.84 (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Somaliland

Added Somaliland as it is within the territories of the Land of Punt by default if Somalia (especially its Puntland region) is included Dabaqabad (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

The genetic tests done on the Baboons clearly states Eastern Somalia which is Puntland state of Somalia instead of Somaliland which is located in the western part. The evidence is links itself but you can read it as well.

https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session45/dominy-2015-mummified-baboons-clarify-ancient-red-sea-trade-routes.html Wikifact101 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for late response but can you change “somaliland” to “Puntland” since the recent genetic test done on the baboons shows they’re from Eastern Somalia which is Puntland region. Here’s the reliable sources (citation)…

https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session45/dominy-2015-mummified-baboons-clarify-ancient-red-sea-trade-routes.html

Thank you. Wikifact101 (talk) 04:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed similarity. Arhitectural design of housing to south sudan toposa tribe constructions

Proposed similarity. Arhitectural design of housing to South Sudan Toposa tribe constructions. For further comparison to the images depicted on the egyptian temple 82.78.233.178 (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected necessary?

I've heard there's issues with vandalism regarding articles about the Horn of Africa, but I don't know if this page would be a high target as it covers a fairly obscure trading partner with Ancient Egypt. Either way, I'd like to add some information about Queen Eti/Ati possibly having a number of diseases, so if it isn't lifted I may need to make a more specific edit request for that. Deku link (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a late response, but no the protection is probably important. Obscurity is relative, and Punt is certainly not obscure to a number of highly nationalistic groups who view it as a part of their cultural history and trajectory. One may aswell call the Kievan Rus obscure because they are not generally known about outside of certain circles, and yet they are similarly very often used in nationalistic narratives. HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 05:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be due to the fact that there is a lot of back and forth in regards to mentions of Somaliland with some ultranationalists constantly disruptively editing. Dabaqabad (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Somalia is not mentioned as the Proposed location section on the article

Can someone please explain why Opone, Somalia or Puntland which produces the vast majority of frankincense in the entire region is not mentioned on the Proposed Location section of Punt? The Ancient Egyptians called this coastal city Pwenet, the Ancient Greeks called it Opone, and modern Somalis called it Hafun yet it’s not included as a Proposed Location. Hopefully there’s an update to this article. Thank you for your time. HornAfrican101 (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@HornAfrican101 Reliable sources discussing this? Doug Weller talk 08:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The second studies of the Baboons resulted in Eastern Somalia (Puntland)

As mentioned, the second follow up research of the Baboons resulted in Eastern Somalia which is Puntland region and not Somaliland region. This hasn’t been corrected for some time now so if any moderators can view the research and correctly stated as per the study would help fact check Wikipedia overall. Thank you.

https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session45/dominy-2015-mummified-baboons-clarify-ancient-red-sea-trade-routes.html

“ Our results reveal a high likelihood match with eastern Somalia and the Eritrea-Ethiopia corridor, suggesting that this region was the source of Papio hamadryas exported to Ancient Egypt.” HornAfrican101 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@HornAfrican101 I cannot find this anywhere, but it's clearly not a peer reviewed publication, just a session at a meeting. So we can't use it. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but the link is an actual CITATION used in the Land of Punt [38] which states Eastern Somalia (Puntland) however someone put it as “Somaliland” region which is Western Somalia. I do hope misinformation is taken seriously by Wikipedia moderators even shown evidence or else the trust of this site will diminish due to favoritism. Thank you HornAfrican101 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@HornAfrican101 There are no content moderators, only editors. The media isn't a good source (and note that link 39 is dead is superseded by their 2020 paper which you can read here[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7738181/] and is the source we should use. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that it is an update, scroll down to see that, changing their earlier paper. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Just so I’ve this documented clearly, both the links you’ve cited as updates don’t exclude Somalia yet Somalia isn’t mentioned nor included as the proposed locations of Land of Punt.

Puntland region of Somalia produces the vast majority of frankincense in Somalia and somaliland combined as recent Vice documentary proved. However, Opone, Somalia which is the most likely location of Punt is not mentioned in the Proposed Location section of the article. Can you update this as well? If not, can you please explain as to why you view Somalia shouldn’t be mentioned in the Proposed Location section of the article. Thank you for your time, Doug Weller. HornAfrican101 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@HornAfrican101 Unbelievable! Haven't you actually read the article? Try starting at the top, " It is possible that it corresponds to Opone in Somalia, as later known by the ancient Greeks, while some biblical scholars have identified it with the biblical land of Put or Havilah.'" I have no objection to the new source being used, go ahead, but don't ask me to do it. The vice documentary isn't a reliable source for this, we need scholarly sources, not the media.. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A study should be mentioned calling Ethiopia and Eritrea as a possible place for Punt

There should be reference to a newer study suggesting the Land of Punt could be located in Ethiopia and Eritrea due to the archaeological finding and analysis of mummified baboons in Ethiopia Havenzeye (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Trading capability of ancient egyptians

The "others" section states that the early contact between Egypt and south Asia is less likely. But recent findings at Saqqara embalming workshop clearly indicate that the ancient Egyptians have traded with lands as far as southeast Asia. I suggest updating this section with the most recent findings.

here is the article

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05663-4

Samanpress (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

I'd like to replace the self-made map with the one made by Ancient Egyptians in 1450 BC found in the book Atlas of ancient and classical geography, and I'd also like to add the countries in which Punt was part of as shown in the map. AbdirahiimYa (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The second studies of the Baboons resulted in Eastern Somalia (Puntland)[edit] As mentioned, the second follow up research of the Baboons resulted in Eastern Somalia which is Puntland region and not Somaliland region. This hasn’t been corrected for some time now so if any moderators can view the research and correctly stated as per the study would help fact check Wikipedia overall. Thank you. https://meeting.physanth.org/program/2015/session45/dominy-2015-mummified-baboons-clarify-ancient-red-sea-trade-routes.html “ Our results reveal a high likelihood match with eastern Somalia and the Eritrea-Ethiopia corridor, suggesting that this region was the source of Papio hamadryas exported to Ancient Egypt.” HornAfrican101 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] @HornAfrican101 I cannot find this anywhere, but it's clearly not a peer reviewed publication, just a session at a meeting. So we can't use it. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your response, but the link is an actual CITATION used in the Land of Punt [38] which states Eastern Somalia (Puntland) however someone put it as “Somaliland” region which is Western Somalia. I do hope misinformation is taken seriously by Wikipedia moderators even shown evidence or else the trust of this site will diminish due to favoritism. Thank you HornAfrican101 (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] @HornAfrican101 There are no content moderators, only editors. The media isn't a good source (and note that link 39 is dead is superseded by their 2020 paper which you can read here[10] and is the source we should use. Doug Weller talk 10:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Note that it is an update, scroll down to see that, changing their earlier paper. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for your response. Just so I’ve this documented clearly, both the links you’ve cited as updates don’t exclude Somalia yet Somalia isn’t mentioned nor included as the proposed locations of Land of Punt. Puntland region of Somalia produces the vast majority of frankincense in Somalia and somaliland combined as recent Vice documentary proved. However, Opone, Somalia which is the most likely location of Punt is not mentioned in the Proposed Location section of the article. Can you update this as well? If not, can you please explain as to why you view Somalia shouldn’t be mentioned in the Proposed Location section of the article. Thank you for your time, Doug Weller. HornAfrican101 (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] @HornAfrican101 Unbelievable! Haven't you actually read the article? Try starting at the top, " It is possible that it corresponds to Opone in Somalia, as later known by the ancient Greeks, while some biblical scholars have identified it with the biblical land of Put or Havilah.'" I have no objection to the new source being used, go ahead, but don't ask me to do it. The vice documentary isn't a reliable source for this, we need scholarly sources, not the media.. Doug Weller talk 09:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply] A study should be mentioned calling Ethiopia and Eritrea as a possible place for Punt[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. There should be reference to a newer study suggesting the Land of Punt could be located in Ethiopia and Eritrea due to the archaeological finding and analysis of mummified baboons in Ethiopia Havenzeye (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a 196.188.226.84 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)