Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Who were the Phoenicians?


  • Please log in to reply
187 replies to this topic

#46    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 17,251 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:01 PM

The Puzzler on Oct 19 2008, 05:34 PM, said:

It is my opinion that the Phoenicians as we know them started around this date, with the Egyptians being settled into Byblos by this time. Just because there is evidence at Byblos for people 6000BC does not mean they were Phoenicians by then, still just Canaanites. An event had to happen to make them Phoenicians and not just Canaanites and my opinion is that it is the arrival of Egyptians settling there, rather than just trading there. If Egyptians had been going there for 600 years prior (since Narmer) it would only be logical they would soon leave people there. Only then did they become more advanced into sea faring Phoenicians. Byblos is Greek for papyrus, to trade so much papyrus from there would imo mean Egyptians were in charge of trading.
My answer is yes, sometimes it does take outside influence to develop a different culture, why else did the Phoenicians practice a typically Egyptian custom of circumcision?
I'll be back tomorrow to add more. Night.


The date suggested as the start of the Phoenicians as a force of empire is not the date suggested as the start of the Phoenicians as a culture. I would also suggest there was not an 'event' that made the Phoenicians, Phoenician, but it was an evolution. Did Egyptians settle in Byblos? Probably some might have - it was a major trading port by all accounts. Did some Phoenicians settle in Egypt? Probably, but we see no sign of Egypt becoming Phoenician as a result. Strange that, as you indicate that the presence of a few members of a foreign culture in one's territory initiates a cultural change. Your assumption that Byblos 'became' Phoenician due to the arrival of some Egyptians is very frail.

Your other assumption that the Egyptians 'made' the Phoenicians into a sea-faring people holds no water (pardon the pun).  Byblos 'began as a small fishing village' according to your source. I would think, then, they would develop some maritime expertise of their own as the village grew into a town and were probably very adequate, sea-faring, sailors before the arrival of any Egyptians.

And the final asumption I will address, that of the 'Egyptians being in charge of trading'? Why? Why not the Phoenicians trading their cedar for papyrus and then trading the papyrus to the Greeks? I'm sure they were quite capable of overseeing this trade on their own and did not need the Egyptians to hold their hands every step of the way.

Now I will give an opinion about a question. Why did the Phoenicians adopt the practice of circumcision? Because they witnessed it in Egypt, were told it had religious or health benefits and adopted it for themselves (probably quite slowly). Again, this doesn't require an Egyptian presence in Byblos to accomplish.

There is only so much you can do to try to make what we know fit your theory, and most of that is assume. But in assuming you are neglecting that others (the Phoenicians) have heads on their shoulders and brains in those heads. Look, the Egyptians may have imposed themselves on Byblos at an early stage, but we see no evidence of that from the writings produced so I see no reason to presume the Egyptians brought Phoenician culture to the Phoenicians, or that their presence in Byblos was the catalyst for this culture to develop.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#47    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 9,293 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 19 October 2008 - 08:41 PM

Leonardo on Oct 19 2008, 04:01 PM, said:

There is only so much you can do to try to make what we know fit your theory, and most of that is assume. But in assuming you are neglecting that others (the Phoenicians) have heads on their shoulders and brains in those heads. Look, the Egyptians may have imposed themselves on Byblos at an early stage, but we see no evidence of that from the writings produced so I see no reason to presume the Egyptians brought Phoenician culture to the Phoenicians, or that their presence in Byblos was the catalyst for this culture to develop.


The willingness to make these sort of assumptions and hold to them is a sort of bellwether at UM. While I respect the ingenuity and research behind these assumptions, I don't always feel they (necessarily) lead to any sort of truth, the way that theses with more solid evidence do. I feel like they end up being a sort of advanced "What If" game with a considerably greater amount of time invested in them than with a children's game, but (regrettably) not enough truth in them to be of substantial value until -- if -- more data allows them to be verified. It's somewhat a manner of self-discipline to say "I can go this far with proven facts and no further"; for every degree of assumption without fact there's a concomitant degree of ego being gratified. I think most of the more unpleasant affairs on UM owe more to that relationship than arguments over facts.

Which is to say Leo: I agree completely with what you say, but think about carefully where you say it, to whom, and to what effect.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#48    shemTov

shemTov

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts
  • Joined:26 Apr 2008

Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:31 PM

jaylemurph on Oct 19 2008, 08:41 PM, said:

The willingness to make these sort of assumptions and hold to them is a sort of bellwether at UM. While I respect the ingenuity and research behind these assumptions, I don't always feel they (necessarily) lead to any sort of truth, the way that theses with more solid evidence do. I feel like they end up being a sort of advanced "What If" game with a considerably greater amount of time invested in them than with a children's game, but (regrettably) not enough truth in them to be of substantial value until -- if -- more data allows them to be verified. It's somewhat a manner of self-discipline to say "I can go this far with proven facts and no further"; for every degree of assumption without fact there's a concomitant degree of ego being gratified. I think most of the more unpleasant affairs on UM owe more to that relationship than arguments over facts.

Which is to say Leo: I agree completely with what you say, but think about carefully where you say it, to whom, and to what effect.

--Jaylemurph


takes a big person to admit that they aren't the schiznitz they pretended to be and that their game is just that... a game. good for you jay







#49    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 9,293 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:53 PM

shemTov on Oct 19 2008, 05:31 PM, said:

takes a big person to admit that they aren't the schiznitz they pretended to be and that their game is just that... a game. good for you jay


Well, I have said before that by and large, I don't have much of a pony in most the races in this forum, since my own area of specialisation hardly ever comes up. I think -- think -- that's a good thing, except when one of those *#@$ "Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" threads comes up and I get het up out of proportion. I feel I comment a lot more on linguistics than anything else, these days, but each time I do so, I should remember that post, since my knowledge in that only goes so far.

I also feel like that post was far more accusatory than it should have been -- I admit I do have one person in mind about it, but not anyone active on this thread (or any thread other than s/he starts...), and certainly (!) not the one to whom Leonardo's post was addressed.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#50    shemTov

shemTov

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 447 posts
  • Joined:26 Apr 2008

Posted 19 October 2008 - 10:11 PM

jaylemurph on Oct 19 2008, 09:53 PM, said:

Well, I have said before that by and large, I don't have much of a pony in most the races in this forum, since my own area of specialisation hardly ever comes up. I think -- think -- that's a good thing, except when one of those *#@$ "Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare" threads comes up and I get het up out of proportion. I feel I comment a lot more on linguistics than anything else, these days, but each time I do so, I should remember that post, since my knowledge in that only goes so far.

I also feel like that post was far more accusatory than it should have been -- I admit I do have one person in mind about it, but not anyone active on this thread (or any thread other than s/he starts...), and certainly (!) not the one to whom Leonardo's post was addressed.

--Jaylemurph


oh my lord. i am not on ignore. you've just taken away 76% of my fun. how diabolical.





#51    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,894 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 19 October 2008 - 11:47 PM

Leonardo on Oct 20 2008, 06:01 AM, said:

The date suggested as the start of the Phoenicians as a force of empire is not the date suggested as the start of the Phoenicians as a culture. I would also suggest there was not an 'event' that made the Phoenicians, Phoenician, but it was an evolution. Did Egyptians settle in Byblos? Probably some might have - it was a major trading port by all accounts. Did some Phoenicians settle in Egypt? Probably, but we see no sign of Egypt becoming Phoenician as a result. Strange that, as you indicate that the presence of a few members of a foreign culture in one's territory initiates a cultural change. Your assumption that Byblos 'became' Phoenician due to the arrival of some Egyptians is very frail.

Your other assumption that the Egyptians 'made' the Phoenicians into a sea-faring people holds no water (pardon the pun).  Byblos 'began as a small fishing village' according to your source. I would think, then, they would develop some maritime expertise of their own as the village grew into a town and were probably very adequate, sea-faring, sailors before the arrival of any Egyptians.

And the final asumption I will address, that of the 'Egyptians being in charge of trading'? Why? Why not the Phoenicians trading their cedar for papyrus and then trading the papyrus to the Greeks? I'm sure they were quite capable of overseeing this trade on their own and did not need the Egyptians to hold their hands every step of the way.

Now I will give an opinion about a question. Why did the Phoenicians adopt the practice of circumcision? Because they witnessed it in Egypt, were told it had religious or health benefits and adopted it for themselves (probably quite slowly). Again, this doesn't require an Egyptian presence in Byblos to accomplish.

There is only so much you can do to try to make what we know fit your theory, and most of that is assume. But in assuming you are neglecting that others (the Phoenicians) have heads on their shoulders and brains in those heads. Look, the Egyptians may have imposed themselves on Byblos at an early stage, but we see no evidence of that from the writings produced so I see no reason to presume the Egyptians brought Phoenician culture to the Phoenicians, or that their presence in Byblos was the catalyst for this culture to develop.

It's not a matter of me making it fit my theory, the facts are there, put them together, from what I see much you state is just an opinion too.'
Here are my facts that maintain that Byblos became an Egyptian colony and also it did not become a great culture until after the trading with Egypt, which by all accounts if someone with ships comes to your land before you go to theirs, it would be the people of Byblos who gained the large sailing knowledge from the Egyptians and then proceeded to become expert ship builders taking on the bigger sea than from Egypt to Byblos. I maintain until Egyptians came into Byblos, Byblos was nothing more than a small 'coastal fishing village'. The pages that come up from these links have information that backs me up, I can't seem to cut and paste from a Google book.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XNdgSc...esult#PPA844,M1

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=DbRIpA...result#PPA18,M1


Columbia Encyclopedia: Byblos
(bĭb'ləs) , ancient city, Phoenicia, a port 17 mi (27 km) NNE of modern Beirut, Lebanon. The principal city of Phoenicia during the 2d millennium B.C., it long retained importance as an active port under the Persians. Byblos was the chief center of the worship of Adonis. Because of its papyruses, it was also the source of the Greek word for book and, hence, of the name of the Bible. Excavations of Byblos, especially since 1922, have shown that trade existed between Byblos and Egypt as early as c.2800 B.C. A syllabic script found at Byblos dates from the 18th to the 15th cent. B.C.
During the 3rd millennium BC, the first signs of a town can be observed, with the remains of well-built houses of uniform size. This was the period when the Phoenician civilization began to develop, and archaeologists have recovered Egyptian-made artifacts dated as early as the 4th dynasty of Egypt. The growing city was evidently a wealthy one, and seems to have been an ally of Egypt for many centuries. Amarna tablets Byblos of 1350 BC has an extensive sub-corpus of letters-(60) from Rib-Hadda and his successor Ili-Rapih, dealing with the overtaking of neighboring city-states, by the Hapiru. Objects naming the 13th dynasty Egyptian king Neferhotep I have been found there while the rulers of Byblos maintained close rationships with the New Kingdom pharaohs of Ancient Egypt.
http://www.answers.com/topic/byblos
Ba‘alat Gebal was distinguished in iconography from ‘Ashtart or other aspects of ‘Ashtart or similar goddesses by two, tall, upright feathers in her headdress.
The temple of Ba‘al Gebal in Byblus was built around 2700 BC. Dedications from Egyptians begin appearing from the 2nd to 6th dynasties. Two of them equate Ba‘alat Gebal with the Egyptian goddess Hathor.


*1st point: Baalat was identified early on with not Ishtart but Hathor, much like Egyptian Heracles/Melqart.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=goq0VW...2&ct=result

*2nd point: Byblos limited supply of wood essential for ship building meant Egypt maintained control of the city wherever possible, in the days of the Old Kingdom Byblos was virtually an Egyptian colony. The words from that book.

I once again maintain Byblos only became a force to be reckoned once Egyptians settled there and took control of it. J might not have been speaking of me but I can and do hold my own quite well....pet theories, indulgent fantasies, whatever you all wish to call them, how about plain facts.





"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#52    OldTimeRadio

OldTimeRadio

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,527 posts
  • Joined:30 Sep 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

Posted 20 October 2008 - 02:48 AM

The fact that the Turin Papyrus and the Sumeriam king lists both postulate history back to nearly 40,000 years ago is a least worth noting. It may ultimately mean or prove nothing, but it's still interesting.

     As for Herodotus, his greatness lies not in his errors (which were always intelligent ones, such as his quite reasoned but erroneous theories as to the origins of the annual flooding of the Nile) but for the things he got right.

     It's a little like Pliny the Elder theorizing that the Sun is six million miles from the Earth, in opposition to the  commonly-held view of his contemporaries that it is a mere 200 miles distant. (And some believed only 20!) Do we condemn Pliny for his ignorance or praise him for bringing us exponentially closer to the truth?

Edited by OldTimeRadio, 20 October 2008 - 02:54 AM.


#53    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 9,293 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:12 AM

OldTimeRadio on Oct 19 2008, 10:48 PM, said:

The fact that the Turin Papyrus and the Sumeriam king lists both postulate history back to nearly 40,000 years ago is a least worth noting. It may ultimately mean or prove nothing, but it's still interesting.

     As for Herodotus, his greatness lies not in his errors (which were always intelligent ones, such as his quite reasoned but erroneous theories as to the origins of the annual flooding of the Nile) but for the things he got right.

     It's a little like Pliny the Elder theorizing that the Sun is six million miles from the Earth, in opposition to the  commonly-held view of his contemporaries that it is a mere 200 miles distant. (And some believed only 20!) Do we condemn Pliny for his ignorance or praise him for bringing us exponentially closer to the truth?


No. No they're not. More often that not, they're strikingly ridiculous and obvious panderings to his audience! They tend to be pretty obviously not true, which is always nice fro scholars (as opposed to Medieval chroniclers, who sometimes did make honest mistakes about whales and such...)

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#54    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,894 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:32 AM

jaylemurph on Oct 20 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

No. No they're not. More often that not, they're strikingly ridiculous and obvious panderings to his audience! They tend to be pretty obviously not true, which is always nice fro scholars (as opposed to Medieval chroniclers, who sometimes did make honest mistakes about whales and such...)

--Jaylemurph

I am going to disagree and agree with OldTimeRadio, they were often assumptions made with an intelligent mind.
Let me know what you think he says that is his OWN assumption and NOT something he has been told that is an unintelligent assumption please.

QM bought in about the lettuce once but that was just something he was told, not his own assumption, the Nile is one he came to his own conclusion on and I have read that part over and over again, I can see how he comes to it because he has been told the Nile is indeed in Libya but the Nasamonians told him that one too...

Keep in mind also that Libya is Africa in general, not WEST of Egypt, he says they know Libya is washed on ALL SIDES by the sea, except where it joins Asia, even Ptolemy got that one wrong, so that wouldn't be just Libya then west of Egypt now would it, Libya is all of Africa so possibly we are the ones who are interpreting him wrong when reading his words, which I have seen more than once happen. Or who knows maybe the Nile did join the Niger at one point. We know the levels of the Nile are up for debate...

Edited by The Puzzler, 20 October 2008 - 04:26 AM.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#55    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 17,251 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 20 October 2008 - 07:03 AM

The Puzzler on Oct 20 2008, 12:47 AM, said:

It's not a matter of me making it fit my theory, the facts are there, put them together, from what I see much you state is just an opinion too.'
Here are my facts that maintain that Byblos became an Egyptian colony and also it did not become a great culture until after the trading with Egypt, which by all accounts if someone with ships comes to your land before you go to theirs, it would be the people of Byblos who gained the large sailing knowledge from the Egyptians and then proceeded to become expert ship builders taking on the bigger sea than from Egypt to Byblos. I maintain until Egyptians came into Byblos, Byblos was nothing more than a small 'coastal fishing village'. The pages that come up from these links have information that backs me up, I can't seem to cut and paste from a Google book.


Yes, a lot of what I say is opinion and I'm sorry if I upset you with my frankness - but I try not to assume as much. I would like to point out your statement that the Phoenicians did not become a great culture until after contact with the Egyptians is not supported by the facts. Phoenicia did not appear to become a great Empire until after contact with the Egyptians - but Empire and culture are two very different things, as I tried to point out previously.

You can maintain Byblos remained a small fishing village for 2 or 3 millenia all you want, but it is only a guess. The archaeology suggests Byblos began as a small fishing village around 6000BCE. The first contact with the Egyptians we can be certain of was around 3400BCE. Also, you are still assuming it was the Egyptians who first sailed to Phoenicia, not the other way around. What if the Egyptians learned their maritime skills from the Phoenicians? The cedar columns from Narmers' Temple do not come with a note saying it was the Egyptians who went and got them. I fully expect shipping travelled in both directions, but who contatced who first is still unknown and to assume it was the Egyptians is making matters fit your theory.

I'm sorry, but the links to the google books won't work for me. If you can let me know the titles/authors I'll look them up.

Quote

The fact that the Turin Papyrus and the Sumeriam king lists both postulate history back to nearly 40,000 years ago is a least worth noting. It may ultimately mean or prove nothing, but it's still interesting.


OTR,

I agree it is interesting, but it is likely, also, that it is simply a case of one borrowing of the other, or a case of 'we can't let them have older gods than us'. Cultures are as prideful as people, I suppose because they are people.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#56    The Puzzler

The Puzzler

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,894 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Australia

  • I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious. ~ Einstein

Posted 20 October 2008 - 09:56 AM

Leonardo on Oct 20 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Yes, a lot of what I say is opinion and I'm sorry if I upset you with my frankness - but I try not to assume as much. I would like to point out your statement that the Phoenicians did not become a great culture until after contact with the Egyptians is not supported by the facts. Phoenicia did not appear to become a great Empire until after contact with the Egyptians - but Empire and culture are two very different things, as I tried to point out previously.

Didn't upset me, I am used to all those sort of responses, hell, Harte has me on Ignore, I'm made of tough stuff Leo. Maybe once but now it's like water off a duck's back.  I was just pointing out how I come to an opinion from an evidence just as you had yours. A great culture/Empire...same thing really, just different words, I'm saying they didn't become known for thier ships prior to Egypts entry into Byblos and that Byblos rose from the Egyptian presence there and that led to them being the great maritime nation we collectively call Phoenicians. The scholars will tell you the Phoenicians came into existance around 1200BC but that is only because they weren't named Phoenicians until they came into contact with Greece, so before then they are a great Empire, not called Phoenicians but achieving greatness in maritime trade and ship building. That link said an agreed date should be 2500BC which is when this practice I have just named pushed them into the spotlight. Can you show me of how Great a Culture they are PRIOR to Egyptians having landed there then please?
That would be before 2500BC. I am saying they became a great Empire (if I used the word culture, I mean Great maritime peoples in any term) anyway after the Egyptians were there and you agree, all a bit trifling isn't it?

Quote

You can maintain Byblos remained a small fishing village for 2 or 3 millenia all you want, but it is only a guess. The archaeology suggests Byblos began as a small fishing village around 6000BCE. The first contact with the Egyptians we can be certain of was around 3400BCE. Also, you are still assuming it was the Egyptians who first sailed to Phoenicia, not the other way around. What if the Egyptians learned their maritime skills from the Phoenicians? The cedar columns from Narmers' Temple do not come with a note saying it was the Egyptians who went and got them. I fully expect shipping travelled in both directions, but who contatced who first is still unknown and to assume it was the Egyptians is making matters fit your theory.

I had done some research on this and find the earliest evidence of Egyptian ships able to sail in the ocean at Aha's time 2950BC, with confirmed contact being made with Byblos BUT with the Phoenicians ships not being recorded in Egypt until 1400BC.

Quote

The destruction of the Minoan civilization around 1400 BC and the decline of the Egyptian empire left the Mediterranean open to newcomers, especially to the Phoenicians and to the emerging Greek kingdoms. The Phoenicians had been at sea for some time before the Greeks and were already well established and experienced sailors. The Phoenicians were traders rather than warriors whereas the Greeks were concerned with territorial expansion and therefore used sea power as an instrument of conquest. These different priorities naturally affected the types of boats favoured by the two emerging maritime powers. However the area now known as the Levant had been a meeting place for warring races for millennia. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the ships used by the Phoenicians incorporated features drawn from variety of sources.

The earliest evidence for Phoenician ships comes from an Egyptian relief of around 1400 BC at the tomb of Kenamon at Thebes which shows Phoenician ships unloading in an Egyptian port. The vessels have much in common with contemporary Egyptian ships, especially in the mast, rigging, sickle shaped hull and straight rising stem and stern posts, and deck beams projecting through the hull just below the sheerstrake. In these respects they are comparable with the general appearance of the ships of Queen Hatshepsut but they differ from Egyptian ships in three significant details. Firstly the hulls are shorter than the equivalent Egyptian ships and were therefore probably more seaworthy. Secondly there is a wicker fence along the sheerstrake to protect the deck cargo, a feature which is described by Homer in his account of the building of Odysseus' ship on Calypso's island but does not appear in Egyptian ship iconography. Thirdly the ships on the tomb of Kenamon do not have a visible hogging truss which implies that the method of construction was mechanically more sound than that of Hatshepsut's ships and may have included a proper keel.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parli...2587/ships.html

The famous Royal Ship of King Cheops (fourth dynasty ruler of the Old Kingdom), more formally known as Khufu, is a perfect example of a papyriform boat. Discovered around 1954, the Royal Ship is still considered to be one of the world’s most outstanding archaeological artifacts. The ancient boat had been dismantled into 651 separate parts, and its nearly perfectly preserved timbers were found in 13 scrupulously arranged layers that were buried in a sealed boat pit which was carved into the Giza plateau’s limestone bedrock. It took years for the boat to be painstakingly reassembled, primarily by the Egyptian Department of Antiquities’ chief restorer, Ahmed Youssef Moustafa (later known as Hag Ahmed Youssef). Once completed, the Royal Ship measured approximately 150 feet in length. The timbers were made of Lebanese cedar while the pegs and other small parts were made from native acacias, sycamores and sidders.

Cedar was not new to the Egypt of Cheops' time - it had been found in predynastic graves, indicating to modern archaeologists that trade had occurred with Lebanon at least as far back as the end of the fourth millennium BC. Egyptians had what has been termed as an "emotional need" for trade with Lebanon because of that country’s large supply of the invaluable resinous woods and oils so necessary in Egyptian funerary customs. Trade with Lebanon had to be conducted over water, because the Egyptians had neither wheeled transportation nor heavy draft animals, and the brutal desert regions through which they would have had to travel hosted hostile tribes.

http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/egyptian-boats.htm

In 1991 in the desert near the temple of Khentyamentiu, archaeologists uncovered the remains of 14 ships dating back to the early first dynasty (2950-2775 BC), possibly associated with King Aha, the first ruler of that dynasty. These 75 foot long ships are buried side by side and have wooden hulls, rough stone boulders which were used as anchors, and "sewn" wooden planks. Also found within their desert graves were remains of the woven straps that joined the planks, as well as reed bundles that were used to seal seams between planks. The Abydos ships have the honor of being the world’s oldest planked boats.

The ancient Egyptians were creating ships with technological skills far beyond their time, well before the invention of the wheel. Egyptologists suspect that simple light rafts made from bundled papyrus reeds may have been made by hunter-gatherers who moved to the Nile Valley during the Upper Paleolithic period; of course, no specimens remain today. However, there is evidence of the presence of boats in the Naqada II culture, which immediately preceded the dynastic period. Archaeologists have unearthed red painted pottery with designs that include boat motifs as important symbols, and some interpretations stress the boats were used in a religious or ritual capacity. Further evidence for the early use of boats lies in tomb reliefs (ship building scenes were among the most popular motifs in tombs), paintings, and model boats dating from predynastic times through the New Kingdom.


Quote

I'm sorry, but the links to the google books won't work for me. If you can let me know the titles/authors I'll look them up.


1. Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt - Kathryn A Bard; huge book, nearly $300, Amazon link  http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Archaeo...898&sr=11-1
2. The Phoenicians and the West, Politics, Colonies and Trade - Maria Eugenia Aubet.
3. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (Byblos/Gebel).

Edited by The Puzzler, 20 October 2008 - 10:04 AM.

"The agony and the irony, they're killing me"
Flagpole Sitta - Harvey Danger

#57    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 17,251 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:19 PM

The Puzzler on Oct 20 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Didn't upset me, I am used to all those sort of responses, hell, Harte has me on Ignore, I'm made of tough stuff Leo. Maybe once but now it's like water off a duck's back.  I was just pointing out how I come to an opinion from an evidence just as you had yours. A great culture/Empire...same thing really, just different words, I'm saying they didn't become known for thier ships prior to Egypts entry into Byblos and that Byblos rose from the Egyptian presence there and that led to them being the great maritime nation we collectively call Phoenicians. The scholars will tell you the Phoenicians came into existance around 1200BC but that is only because they weren't named Phoenicians until they came into contact with Greece, so before then they are a great Empire, not called Phoenicians but achieving greatness in maritime trade and ship building. That link said an agreed date should be 2500BC which is when this practice I have just named pushed them into the spotlight. Can you show me of how Great a Culture they are PRIOR to Egyptians having landed there then please?
That would be before 2500BC. I am saying they became a great Empire (if I used the word culture, I mean Great maritime peoples in any term) anyway after the Egyptians were there and you agree, all a bit trifling isn't it?


I had done some research on this and find the earliest evidence of Egyptian ships able to sail in the ocean at Aha's time 2950BC, with confirmed contact being made with Byblos BUT with the Phoenicians ships not being recorded in Egypt until 1400BC.



Quote

When it was that these so-called Phoenicians took possession of this fair coast, we are not sure. They were there at least as early as the year 2000 B.C., and may well have been another band of Semitic wanderers driven from the Babylonian valley at the same time as were Abraham and his followers by the great Elamite conquest of Kudur-nankhundi. They may have reached the Mediterranean at a still earlier date. The Egyptian monuments of as long ago as the year 3000 B.C. make mention of numerous seamen, mysterious "Kafiti," who entered the mouths of the Nile from a foreign shore. But whether these were Phoenicians or a yet earlier, wholly forgotten sailor race we can not say. Tradition vaguely hints that the Phoenicians came originally from the eastern coast of Arabia and had there learned the rudiments of seamanship on the quieter waters of the Persian Gulf, ages before they saw the broader Mediterranean.


source. My emphasis.

I will try to find out more about these monuments and the Kafiti they refer to. The Abydos ships, btw, aren't specifically dated to Aha's reign, but are thought to date back to the early first dynasty. However the range of dates these ships may hail from is 2950 - 2775 BCE.

The Phoenicians didn't leave written records of any note, Puzz, so to make up their history based on the Egyptian records is of course going to slant that history towards Egypt.

Thanks for the books references btw, oh, and the site I linked to above has some interesting information that may be pertinent to your 'Moloch' idea and the children 'being passed through fire'.  wink2.gif

PS. Jay, I appreciate the advice. Unfortunately I'm too dense and stubborn to be worried about how others might react to what I post!  tongue.gif

Edited by Leonardo, 20 October 2008 - 12:23 PM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#58    Orion von Koch

Orion von Koch

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Joined:19 Jul 2005
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 October 2008 - 12:44 PM

The Puzzler on Sep 21 2008, 03:14 AM, said:

This is a topic I have been doing heaps of reading on and have found the Phoenicians endlessly interesting. I find them as the Atlanteans but there seems to be way more to them...

Ancient sources tell us they came from Africa, East Africa and Ethiopia have many links to them. It seems now genetics has identified them as having a J2 haplogroup which puts them in the Middle East area. That would make them indigenous I guess. They spoke an African-Semetic language.
1. The Phoenicians came from Hyperborea like shemTov's map (from American Atlantis, I'll link soon) is showing a grouping towards. (?is this right?) although the info cormac gives says, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Lebanon and Caucus.(J2 references)
2. They are indigenous to the area called Phoenicia. (Been there since migration at least 8000 years old)(Like cormac's info says-same J2 haplogroup)
3. They came from the Indian Ocean area and Africa.(Going on ancient sources and many similarities of looks and customs)

What is anyone's opinion on who the Phoenicians were?


The Phoenicians we the survivors who were many people or races thrown together by the will to take on the Hydra of the realm. Prior to the Carolina Bays Event that saw massive Tsunamis and Earthquakes destroy the once great civilization that occupied the Earth, they were the military or practitioners of safety. The were involved in the transport of goods and services. Well educated were they in the traditions of a phase II civilization that highly held philosophy and genetic knowledge. The knowledge of the heavens was their primary wisdom which was linked to the stars for navigation. A seaman is a superman who knows the trials and tribulations of liquid chaos.  



#59    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 9,293 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:31 PM

Orion von Koch on Oct 20 2008, 08:44 AM, said:

The Phoenicians we the survivors who were many people or races thrown together by the will to take on the Hydra of the realm. Prior to the Carolina Bays Event that saw massive Tsunamis and Earthquakes destroy the once great civilization that occupied the Earth, they were the military or practitioners of safety. The were involved in the transport of goods and services. Well educated were they in the traditions of a phase II civilization that highly held philosophy and genetic knowledge. The knowledge of the heavens was their primary wisdom which was linked to the stars for navigation. A seaman is a superman who knows the trials and tribulations of liquid chaos.


Don't get confused, Puzz, there was no "Carolina Bay Event", nor can Orion come up with a whit of evidence for it. And refuses to even acknowledge the staggering amount of evidence against it.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#60    legionromanes

legionromanes

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,453 posts
  • Joined:10 Sep 2008

Posted 20 October 2008 - 04:17 PM

Orion von Koch on Oct 20 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

The Phoenicians we the survivors who were many people or races thrown together by the will to take on the Hydra of the realm. Prior to the Carolina Bays Event that saw massive Tsunamis and Earthquakes destroy the once great civilization that occupied the Earth, they were the military or practitioners of safety. The were involved in the transport of goods and services. Well educated were they in the traditions of a phase II civilization that highly held philosophy and genetic knowledge. The knowledge of the heavens was their primary wisdom which was linked to the stars for navigation. A seaman is a superman who knows the trials and tribulations of liquid chaos.


right so how do you explain the discrepancy between what the science says here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bay#Age

Quote

Over the last several years, Ivester et al. (2002, 2003, 2004a, 2004b, 2007) have dated the sand rims of numerous Carolina Bays using Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) They found sand rims of many Carolina Bays to be as old as 80,000 to 100,000 BP. For example, Ivester et al. (2002) wrote about Flamingo Bay, a Carolina Bay:

and what it says here

Quote

From the 10th century BC, their expansive culture established cities and colonies throughout the Mediterranean. Canaanite deities like Baal and Astarte were being worshipped from Cyprus to Sardinia, Malta, Sicily, Spain, Portugal, and most notably at Carthage in modern Tunisia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonecian#Imp...es_and_colonies
80,000bce Carolina bays formed
1000bce first appearence of the phonecian empire
so youre about 79,000 years out of date but sure whats 79,000 years when you have an agenda to spread disinformation.
also is there any scientific evidence for massive Tsunamis and earthquakes around 80,000bce that supports your claims because from where I'm standing you appear to have fabricated much of your post with the aid of your imagination and very little else


wink2.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users