Was just watching a documentary, streaming, and
they pretty much implied that Punt was in Yemen.
And it makes sense.
These people were basing most everything on
Hatshepsut, who not only describes things known
to come from the Arabian peninsular but state it
is to the east!
More than likely "Punt" was never a single place
but more of an idea or ideal. They likely did travel
east for trade, and south, though I favor east as
Arab traders were legendary even in ancient times.
I'm thinking more like "One Stop Shopping," where
trade goods/materials from a wide area a brought
together... a market, so to speak.
It probably didn't start that way but very quickly
grew into it.
Recently, so called "Science" aka the media has
reported that the location of ancient Punt has been
fixed through the DNA testing of Baboons. This is
dumb.
No, wait. I mean... yeah, it's dumb.
LOTS of accounts never mention baboons at all,
DNA simply doesn't work the way the media oops
I meant "Science" claims and if we were going to
use DNA then why not do it right?
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/hatshepsuts-myrrh-tree
EVERYONE agrees that Hatshepsut and probably
earlier rulers traded with some "Punt" for incense,
and the story goes that Hatshepsut imported some
trees. So why not start with that tree, DNA test THAT?
NOTE: There's more than one specific tree to get
this incense from, more than one potential location,
so pull out some DNA and see if it's a closer match
to Arabia or the horn of Africa.
ALSO: Not all frankincense and myrrh are equal!
Chemical analysis of these resins as left on mummies,
for example, should be able to distinguish between
types and perhaps even sources.
Personally I think the most likely model is that "Punt"
was many places, or at least changed in location over
time. It probably began as an attempt to eliminate the
Arab middle men.
Think about it.
And what about the Electrum everyone says the
Egyptians were getting?
Archaeology routinely performs simple & unobtrusive
testing on metals to determine their composition, then
match them to a specific geographical source.
Happens all the time.
So if the Egyptians were trading for Electrum then test
some of this electrum!
REMEMBER: No sources claim that the Egyptians went
on fishing expeditions! They went looking for what they
wanted, knowing it was there. This suggests that they
were obtaining it already, and sought out it's source in
order to secure a larger supply, eliminate a middle man
or maybe force and end to an embargo.
Okay? It was never a case where they said, "Let's build
some boats, float around and see what we can see."
Hatshepsut built ships and sent them out TO GO TO
PUNT, whether it was a physical place or a concept.
One theory I find quite intriguing is that Punt wasn't any
one place but a region. That, they said "Punt" the same
way we might use "Mediterranean" or even "Persian
Gulf." And this makes sense.
Seas like the Red Sea or Mediterranean do not separate
people, the bind them. The same is true for rivers and
lakes. Bodies of water that modern western cultures
like to think of as dividers are actually unifiers.
THINK: People on one side of a river/lake usually have
very similar lives to the people on the other. They're
both living under the same conditions, exploiting the
same resources, and the water physically ties them
to each other closer than any overland neighbors.
All across the Mediterranean we see similar cultures,
similar foods. Why shouldn't it be this way for the Red
Sea?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/640721159232634881
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)