Talk:Land of Punt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


current events article reference.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:11, 28 January 2006‎ (UTC)


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)


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) | TalkcontribsEthiopia 03:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


several grammatical errors in the introduction and history body.

Contradictory POV Statements - "Ta netjer"[edit]

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[edit]

I see this was added last month with an edit summary 'shocking typos' by IP, 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.

"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?[edit]

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. 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)

Hatshepsut Punt ship?[edit]

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

King Parahu and Queen Ati[edit]

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 (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 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Th\e true Punt[edit]

"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 (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)


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)