Who were the Phoenicians?

[The Puzzler]

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.

[OldTimeRadio]

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 October 20, 2008 by OldTimeRadio

[jaylemurph]

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

[The Puzzler]

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 October 20, 2008 by The Puzzler

[Leonardo]

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.

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.

[The Puzzler]

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?

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.

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.

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 October 20, 2008 by The Puzzler

[Leonardo]

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.

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'.

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!

Edited October 20, 2008 by Leonardo

[Orion von Koch]

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.

[jaylemurph]

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

[legionromanes]

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

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

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

[legionromanes]

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?

the turin papyrus is a geological map drawn in 1160 BC by the well-known Scribe-of-the-Tomb Amennakhte, son of Ipuy for a geological expedition for Ramses IV, as such it makes no mention of dates at all.

the sumerian king list goes back as far as about 3500bce.

perhaps you'd like to check your facts and get back to us

[jaylemurph]

right so how do you explain the discrepancy between what the science says here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bay#Age

and what it says here

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

Legion -- if you get Orion to respond to this, you'll have done better than me! (Also, the data suggests that these formations took centuries or even millennia to form; they were not the action of one, single event!)

--Jaylemurph

edit: spelling

Edited October 20, 2008 by jaylemurph

[Harte]

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.

According to Henry Crittenden Morris in his book "The History of Colonization from the Earliest Times to the Present Day" :

"The Egyptians called all the tribes whom they met 'Kafiti' or 'Kefatiu,' which term was originally used only "...for the people of the seacoasts, more especially of the regions occupied later by the Phoenicians" (Maspero, "Struggle of the Nations," 120)"

The above is from a footnote found on THIS PAGE of Crittenden's tome.

If anyone noticed, yes the term Kefatiu does refer to the occupants of Keftiu, which these days appears to be more and more in reference to Crete, though as Crittenden states, the Egyptians called many people Kafiti (or Kefatiu/Keftiu.) In Crittenden's day, Keftiu was considered to be Cyprus, though there remains some argument which it is (or even whether it's either one or even both) to this day.

Lastly there's little doubt that the Phoenicians owe little or nothing of their sailing skill to Egypt. The Egyptians were lousy sailors while the Phoenecians excelled to such an extent that the Egyptians hired them to transport their goods and to provide transport for their royals and explorers.

Ask Herodotus!

Harte

[legionromanes]

well if he doesn't respond or start producing evidence then he should be banned as a deliberate misinformer shouldn't he.

[Orion von Koch]

right so how do you explain the discrepancy between what the science says here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_bay#Age

and what it says here

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

Wake Up. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full

[jaylemurph]

well if he doesn't respond or start producing evidence then he should be banned as a deliberate misinformer shouldn't he.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say publicly mocked, but he is already!

--Jaylemurph

[legionromanes]

Oh, I wouldn't go that far. I'd say publicly mocked, but he is already!

--Jaylemurph

he breaches at least two rules every time he posts

2d. Accuracy: Do not post material that is knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading.

2e. Garbage posting: Do not deliberately make posts of little worth or that contain nonsense, this includes making numerous short non-constructive posts designed to quickly inflate your post count or to annoy other members.

why is this allowed to happen, is this place ok with allowing someone to blatantly breach the rules with every post?

[Harte]

he breaches at least two rules every time he posts

why is this allowed to happen, is this place ok with allowing someone to blatantly breach the rules with every post?

Apparently, his posts haven't been "reported" to admins.

While I agree with you that he is deliberately spreading lies about practically everything on which he opines, the fact is he's putting forth an opinion (though he should state this more often and stop acting like he "knows" something we do not) and thus is probably covered re the rules violations.

Harte

[Leonardo]

Wake Up. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full

Wake up yourself, Orion.

Just as close scrutiny of the Holocene impacts belies an extraterrestrial source, an impact on the southeastern Laurentide ice sheet at 12.9 ka proposed at the 2007 American Geophysical Union Joint Assembly (Firestone et al., 2007a, 2007b) engenders similar doubts. This purported impact is cited as a trigger for the Younger Dryas climate event, extinction of Pleistocene mega-fauna, demise of the Clovis culture, the dawn of agriculture, and other events (Firestone et al., 2007a, 2007b). Evidence of the 12.9-ka impact includes magnetic grains, microspherules, iridium, glass-like carbon, carbonaceous deposits draped over mammoth bones, fullerenes enriched in 3He (Becker et al., 2007), and micron-scale “nanodiamonds” (Firestone et al., 2007c). We suggest that the data are not consistent with the 4–5-km-diameter impactor that has been proposed, but rather with the constant and certainly noncatastrophic rain of sand-sized micrometeorites into Earth's atmosphere.

The 12.9-ka impact story has struggled to bring its disparate evidence under a single umbrella. The impact story originated in Firestone and Topping (2001) and the Firestone et al. (2006) book, both of which contain observations and claims so wild that other work by these authors invites careful scrutiny. The nature of the 12.9-ka event changes radically with each iteration, from a supernova-generated “cosmic ray jet” (Firestone et al., 2006) to a massive atmospheric airburst (Firestone et al., 2007a, 2007b) to “multiple ET airbursts along with surface impacts” (Firestone et al., 2007c). Airbursts are a convenient explanation, given the lack of an impact crater, tektites, shocked quartz, or high-pressure minerals. Airburst events are associated with small impactors, perhaps <160 m diameter (e.g., Chapman and Morrison, 1994). Furthermore, the 12.9-ka event is identified as an oblique strike with “high-speed projectile material” (Firestone et al., 2007a) creating the elliptical “Carolina Bays” of the southeastern United States. Yet, of all impacts in the solar system, only a handful represent strikes capable of generating visibly elliptical forms (Pierazzo and Melosh, 2000). No meteorite material has ever previously been recovered from the Carolina Bays. Firestone and colleagues return to an impact origin for the Bays, ignoring a half-century of mainstream research focused on geomorphic mechanisms and age control documenting formation over extended time (Grant et al., 1998; Ivester et al., 2007). Similar elliptical depressions in Argentina, once claimed as an oblique impact swarm, were recently debunked and are now recognized as eolian (Bland et al., 2002).

The 12.9-ka impact story also has struggled with the broad range of impact-related materials reported. Firestone and Topping (2001) identified chondrules, suggesting that the impactor was a chondrite. Magnetic grains and spherules (Firestone et al., 2007a, 2007b, 2007c) are consistent with an iron-rich meteoroid, whereas silicate material (Firestone et al., 2007c) suggests a stony meteoroid, and “glass-like carbon” and carbon spherules suggest a carbonaceous source. Firestone et al. (2006, 2007a) suggest geochemical affinities with lunar crustal material. Any one of these might be a credible extraterrestrial source, but together they are a Frankenstein monster, incompatible with any single impactor or any known impact event.

In actuality, almost all of the material reported at 12.9 ka is ubiquitous throughout the geological record. Glassy and metallic spherules are found in Antarctic ice (e.g., Taylor et al., 1998), in deep-sea sediments (e.g., Petterson and Fredriksson, 1958), and in peat bogs (e.g., Franzén, 2006). This material results from the steady rain of micrometeorites through the atmosphere, the majority ablating and settling to the surface as dust. Glassy spherules also derive from numerous anthropogenic processes and products. In addition, both anthropogenic combustion and natural wildfires produce both glassy and carbon spherular forms (Franzén, 2006) (Fig. DR2 [see text footnote one]).

source

[legionromanes]

Wake Up. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.full

your link doesn't contain any references to phonecians, so imo you just deliberately posted garbage and I have reported you for doing so, in future at least attempt to back up your spurious claims or just stop wasting everyones time by making them in the first place.

btw you may be interested to know that firestones hypothesis has been debunked and that the formation of the carolina bays as I already told you dates back to 80,000 years ago and the idea that it was formed by an astronomical event has been completely discounted

An old theory about Bays is that they were formed by astronomical impacts---when you look at the elliptical nature of the Bays (craters?), this appears to be a good theory. Surely the ellipticity would indicate a sloping trajectory of the incoming object? However, this theory can be rapidly discounted for several reasons:

Astronomical impacts involve supersonic collisions. Supersonic releases of energy spread out from the point of impact symmetrically, and excavate circular craters. Look at photographs of the moon---it is covered with circular craters, and not elliptical ones.

Arguing that the impact was nonsupersonic would be completely unprecedented. Even the sluggish space shuttle travels at supersonic speeds. To suggest an astronomical object would strike the Earth at subsonic speeds would be so improbable as to be laughable.

Searches for meteoric material in and around Bays have all been unsuccessful.

The Tungusta blast (probably a cometary chunk) of 1908 left no meteoric material, but it also did not create any kind of crater.

Hybrid hypotheses (an impact from loose aggregates of quasi-cometary/asteroids) represent bad science, as such things have never been observed. One is simply positing an unknown entity, to explain an unexplained observation. Also, you still have the unresolved problem of supersonic collisions creating circular craters, not elliptical ones.

Any explanation of an extremely unlikely, unprecedented cratering event in the Carolinas would have to invoke the same unlikely astronomical event in Delaware. TWO unlikely events, not just one!

so I suggest that you take your own advice and wake up and actually find out what science is saying before you claim science is wrong again because every time you've said that so far you just sound like a woo woo

[Leonardo]

According to Henry Crittenden Morris in his book "The History of Colonization from the Earliest Times to the Present Day" :

"The Egyptians called all the tribes whom they met 'Kafiti' or 'Kefatiu,' which term was originally used only "...for the people of the seacoasts, more especially of the regions occupied later by the Phoenicians" (Maspero, "Struggle of the Nations," 120)"

The above is from a footnote found on THIS PAGE of Crittenden's tome.

If anyone noticed, yes the term Kefatiu does refer to the occupants of Keftiu, which these days appears to be more and more in reference to Crete, though as Crittenden states, the Egyptians called many people Kafiti (or Kefatiu/Keftiu.) In Crittenden's day, Keftiu was considered to be Cyprus, though there remains some argument which it is (or even whether it's either one or even both) to this day.

Lastly there's little doubt that the Phoenicians owe little or nothing of their sailing skill to Egypt. The Egyptians were lousy sailors while the Phoenecians excelled to such an extent that the Egyptians hired them to transport their goods and to provide transport for their royals and explorers.

Ask Herodotus!

Harte

Thanks for the info, Harte. I'm aware the source I quoted doesn't say the Kafiti mentioned were Phoenician (or proto-Phoenician) but it is a possibility. I am only trying to make Puzz aware that she shouldn't be so definitive in her statements/theories when the evidence is so ambiguous.

[jaylemurph]

your link doesn't contain any references to phonecians, so imo you just deliberately posted garbage and I have reported you for doing so, in future at least attempt to back up your spurious claims or just stop wasting everyones time by making them in the first place.

btw you may be interested to know that firestones hypothesis has been debunked and that the formation of the carolina bays as I already told you dates back to 80,000 years ago and the idea that it was formed by an astronomical event has been completely discounted

so I suggest that you take your own advice and wake up and actually find out what science is saying before you claim science is wrong again because every time you've said that so far you just sound like a woo woo

Damn. And I get (undeserved) flak for being mean! Looks like Orion's going to have to make up a whole new level of stupid for Legion to occupy.

"Blather on and watch!"

--Jaylemurph

[Harte]

Thanks for the info, Harte. I'm aware the source I quoted doesn't say the Kafiti mentioned were Phoenician (or proto-Phoenician) but it is a possibility. I am only trying to make Puzz aware that she shouldn't be so definitive in her statements/theories when the evidence is so ambiguous.

Leo,

I was just trying to tell you about the Kafiti and my understanding of the relationship of that word with the words Keftiu and Kafatiu.

I came across it looking into Keftiu as Crete, part of the idea that Plato's Atlantis may have been based on Egyptian stories about Keftiu and what happened there (Crete at the time of the Thera eruption.)

Never thought I'd use it for anything else, but...

Of course, this is old stuff and may well be completely out of date. Hopefully Kmt_Sesh will come along and straighten me out.

What I mean to say is that, apparently, there's no real point into going any further into any research of the Kafiti since the term appears to have been an Egyptian catch-all phrase for peoples living all along the coast of the Med.

Harte

[AzTide]

Damn. And I get (undeserved) flak for being mean! Looks like Orion's going to have to make up a whole new level of stupid for Legion to occupy.

"Blather on and watch!"

--Jaylemurph

Come on guys please cut Orion some slack. From what I've read in Orion’s posts it looks like he is just trying to prove to everyone that he takes serious learning at least one new word a day. And then prove that he's using it thru out the day to improve is vocabulary skills.

Wonder which rules did I violate with this post? lol

[The Puzzler]

Thanks for the info, Harte. I'm aware the source I quoted doesn't say the Kafiti mentioned were Phoenician (or proto-Phoenician) but it is a possibility. I am only trying to make Puzz aware that she shouldn't be so definitive in her statements/theories when the evidence is so ambiguous.

Hmmmm, 'a possibility'...

me, I shouldn't be so ambiguous....yeah OK, I can see this is going, nowhere, I am aware of Harte and his Keftui/Keftiu, whoever they were possibly being from Crete or wherever else they were in the Mediterranean. me....ambiguous...lol. The Phoenicians were known as Keben or Kepen.

So again I will state that 'it is my opinion' that Egypt had sea faring boats first and then lost thier supremity, we see better Egyptian boats built around:

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.

than later in time. Phoenicians came along and overtook them in seafaring skills. I am aware Necho got Phoenicians to sail around Africa. By that time Egypt didn't sail much anymore but the evidence is overwhelming they sailed to Byblos in the 4th millenium.

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

My main aim was to show that Byblos was at some time an Egyptian colony or at the very least had a trading colony there which my 3 credible Google books sites did show.

If I'm wrong on the boat thing it is not really a concern, I won't continue on the boats, I've shown my evidences, I still maintain Egyptians were in Byblos and helped the town become a bigger commerical centre therefore helping the Phoenicians become a greater 'Empire'. kmt will tell you that lower Palestine is as far as Egyptians got but I believe evidence shows otherwise unless Byblos is situated in lower Palestine, which I don't think it would be classed as since it's pretty northerly.

Edited October 21, 2008 by The Puzzler