![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
The references and external links are messy. near the bottom it states punt was the bomb to party near tigry? whats this mean?
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)
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)
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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The vedantawritings link shows no evidence that it has a right to host that article. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Can you please restore the page. Thank you. Dalhoa ( talk) 02:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Land of Punt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)…
Thank you. Wikifact101 ( talk) 04:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
“ 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Land of Punt 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 [1] Havenzeye ( talk) 12:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Land of Punt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
The references and external links are messy. near the bottom it states punt was the bomb to party near tigry? whats this mean?
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)
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)
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)
^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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
^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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
The vedantawritings link shows no evidence that it has a right to host that article. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Can you please restore the page. Thank you. Dalhoa ( talk) 02:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Land of Punt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)…
Thank you. Wikifact101 ( talk) 04:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
“ 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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Land of Punt 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 [1] Havenzeye ( talk) 12:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Land of Punt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)