Joined: 02-Apr-2007
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 115
QuoteReplyTopic: ANCIENT EGYPT AND INDIA Posted: 10-May-2007 at 15:55
ANCIENT EGYPT AND INDIA Cultural relations I noticed quite a few
posts were made on the interesting subject of relations between Ancient Egypt and India. Then I said to myself
let me add one more to the heap.Here it is 1. Books 1.1 Peter Von Bohlen (1796
1840), a German Indologist, in his two volume
monumental work Ancient India with special reference
to Egypt compared, at length, ancient Egypt with India. He thought there was a cultural connection between the
two in ancient times. Egypt being at the receiving end. 1.2 Many others have
also written on similar lines (e.g. El Mansouri,
SirWilliam Jones, Paul William Roberts,
and Adolf Eramn et al). 2.
Anthropology 2.1. Many
Anthropologists have observed that the Egyptians as a
race (type P) differ from the Africans in the south of Egypt. 2.2 As per the
legends and lore, the early Egyptians were from PUNT,
an Asiatic country to the east of Egypt. Going by the description given of its coastline washed by
the great seas, its hills and valleys, its vegetation (coconut trees among
others), its animals (including long tailed monkeys) the Punt, some scholars surmise,
may in fact be the Malabar Coast 3.
Sphinx and Buttocks There is very a
delightful finding about the Sphinx. Joshua T Katz of Princeton University
in his scholarly paper The riddle of the Sp (h) ijand her Indic and her Indo-European
Backgroundhas come up with a view that the name Sphinx
is related to a Greek noun which in turn is derived from a Sanskrit word Sphij,
meaning Buttocks. Now you know to
where it all comes down. Interestingly, when you type in sphij in Google search, it shoots back Did
you mean Sphinx? No, I am not joking. Mr. Katzs research paper
is a very serious work though a pedantic
one. Check this link http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/katz/120505.pdf 4.
Emperor Ashokas contacts with Egypt 4.1 A
very authentic record of Indias links with ancient Egypt is, of course,
Ashokas 13th rock edict (3rd century B.C). Here in, the
Emperor refers to his contact with Ptolemy II of Egypt (285-246 B. C) in connection with the
expansion of Dharma (Buddhism) into Egypt and its neighboring lands. 4.2 Ashoka
, in his Second Edict refers to
philanthropic works (such as medical help for humans and animals, digging
wells, planting trees etc.) taken up by his missionaries in the lands ruled by
Theos II of Syria (260 to 240 B. C) and his neighbors , including Egypt. 4.3. Pliny
(78 A, D) mentions that Dionysius was Ptolemys ambassador in the court of
Ashoka. The Emperors rock edict records that Dionysus was one of the
recipients of Dharma (Buddhism). 5.
Gnostics and Buddhism 5.1 Coming
to the present era, Dio Chrysostum (1st century A. D.) and Clement (2nd
century A. D) have written that at Alexandria, in Egypt, Indian scholars were a common sight. 5.2 Many
scholars have pointed to a number of similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and
the Gnosticism of the early Christian centuries that developed in ancient Egypt. The Greek term Gnosis is a
derivative of the Sanskrit term Jnana both meaning knowledge. In both Gnosticism and Buddhism,
the emphasis is on Wisdom, compassion and eradication of the opposite of
gnosis/consciousness, that is, ignorance the root of evil. http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/thomasbook/ch22.html 5.3 In the Gospel of Thomas
(translated by Peterson Brown), at verse 90, Yeshua says Come unto me, for my yoga is natural and my lordship is
gentleand you shall find repose for yourselves. It is startling to find
term Yoga in a first century Christian document written in Egypt Perhaps it
refer to Sahja Yoga( the natural way) still practiced in India.Check the
following link http://kuriakon00.tripod.com/tom.html 6. Oxyrhynchus Papyrus During the early years of the 20th century a number of
fragments of papyri dating from 250 B.C. to 100 A.D- were discovered at
Oxyrhynchus (now called el Bahnansa) in Egypt. The excavations yielded enormous
collections of papyrus from Greek and Roman periods of Egyptian history. Among
the finds was an incomplete manuscript of a Greek mime ( a skit) .For purpose
of identification this fragment of papyrus it is called Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 413
.The scene of action of the skit is India and there are a number of Indian
characters who speak dialogue in an Indian language. Dr. E. Hultzsch (1857-1927), a noted German Indologist, identified
some words of the dialogue as an archaic form of Kannada, one of the four major
languages of South India. Recent studies have supported Dr. Hultzschs finding. The papyrus is
dated first or second century A.D.This seems to prove that there were cultural and
trade contacts between India and the
Mediterranean region at least as far back as in the early part of the first
millennium CE. 7. Quseir 7.1 The excavation of
the Quseir (a Red Sea port, Egypt) shipwreck also point to trade links between Egypt and India in the early Roman
Imperial period. The wreck site revealed Campanian- amphoras (A
cylindrical two-handled amphora with oval-section handles and an almond-shaped rim) from Italy dated to between the
1st Century BCE and 1st Century AD. Perhaps
the ship was outbound for India and was part of a
fleet sent by Augustus to capture a controlling interest in the Indian Ocean trade 7.2 Further, three of inscriptions,
one in a Prakrit and two in Old Tamil, found in Qusei also support the
likelihood of flourishing trade between India and the Roman Empire. This Suggests South India may have been the origin of the
Indian merchants in Egypt in the 8. Nile Neela - Kali John .H. Speke (1827 1864) an
officer in the British Indian Army , who discovered the source of the Nile , in
1844 , attributed his success , among other things , to the guidance he
received from an Indian. The advise given was to look for the Neela (meaning Blue in Sanskrit, hence
the Nile) flowing between the peaks of Chandra-giri, (Mountains of the Moon) below the country of
Amara. To his wonder, what Speke discovered fitted with the location indicated
by the Indian. 9. What Next? 9.1 Both
the old countries have been through thick and thin of things over the ages .It
is not surprising if they interacted over a number of issues. 9.2
However, there have been no serious studies, in the recent past, on the subject
of cultural relations between ancient Egypt and India. In case such studies are taken up,
recently, can some one please enlighten me?
1. All of these writers are 150 years out of date. They were writing before the bulk of the archeological discoveries were made in both Egypt and India, and before sciencce started to be used as a tool in dating and locating the origin of artifacts. What they wrote about is mostly speculation.
2.1. So? If anything, they resemble their Middle-Eastern neighbors more than they do the Indians.
2.2 The Egyptians were not from Punt, they merely traded with it. Punt is also usually identified with Somalia and not with India.
3. This supposed linguistic connection is tenous at best.
5.2 Gnosis and Jana are related and both mean knowledge, as Greek and Sanskrit are both Indo-European languages. But from there to go and say that Gnosis is a derivation of Sanskrit is illogical. Why is it that the Greeks could not have a word of their own for knowledge? Especially when the golden age of Greek philosophy took place long before the gnostic movement? Look, even the English word, "know", has the same root as "gnos". Are the ancient Germans who were the precursors of the English supposed to have created a word for knowledge from Sanskrit too?
5.3 Wasn't Thomas supposed to have gone to India to proselytize? Why is then so surprising that an Indian word appears in his writings?
What is history but a fable agreed upon?
Napoleon Bonaparte
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
Dear Decebal Thank you for your comments. Whenever we talk of histories of
ancient times where there is no authenticated record (which usually is the
case), the events of those times tend to gain varying shades of meaning
depending on the interpretations one provides. There will be no one single
attested view. There will always be plurality of views. You may not always come
across what you like to hear. Nevertheless, what is important in all such cases
is to ensure the interpretations presented fall within a reasonable range of probability;
and follow it up with a discussion instead of mocking at what does not fit into
your scheme of things and dismissing it. The Forums of this nature, to my
limited understanding, are better suited for such explorations than formal
platforms of debate where conceding to anothers view may (wrongly) be
construed as ones defeat. I have no such cobwebs. A situation that you find it
difficult or impossible to handle is generally identified as a problem. I am
not sure we have such a situation on hand. Let us see what we have here.
1.Older texts: Yes Sir , I
have relied on older texts for two reasons. One, their authenticity is not
diminished by just being old. Secondly and more importantly, there are hardly
any new, independent and authentic works on the subject of ancient Egypt and India. This is precisely
the submission I made towards the end of my post and stressed the need for
further studies in the field. In case, you are aware of any recent publications
of that nature, will you kindly recommend them to me?
You also mentioned about
archeological discoveries... made in
both Egypt and India, and... Science started to be
used as a tool in dating and locating the origin of artifacts. I am not aware
whether any recent archeological discoveries have been unearthed and scientific
tools applied to such discoveries, recently, in the context of Ancient Egypt and India. In case you have knowledge of such discoveries made recently and
where the modern scientific tools were employed, I shall be, thankful If will
kindly share your knowledge with me.
2.Race : On the question of race , the
ancient Egyptians have been a subject of prolonged debate. As ever, here too,
there are varieties of opinions on this issue. Let us start with the Asia story. The name Mizrain appearing in the
List of Nations appearing in the Tenth chapter of the Book of Genesis is
identified with Egypt. According to this listthe
Egyptians descended from Ham, the son of Noah, and were therefore of the same
stock as Japhetic and Semitic nations.. Based on this, some scholars opine
Egyptians came from Asia.
There is also a theory that Hyksos were
an Asiatic people. Apapi, king of the Hyksos and Tekenen-Ra ruled over the
Egyptians of the South. There is an interesting inscription by
Hatshepsut of the 18th dynasty that refers to the restoration of Egypt after the
"Hyksos" had been expelled from the delta region: "I have restored that which
was in ruins, I have raised up that which was unfinished. Since the Asiatics
were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland [Delta], and the barbarians were
in the midst of them [the people of the Northland], overthrowing that which had
been made, while they ruled in ignorance of Re." In the Tale of Apophis and
Seqenenre ,Avaris is called the city of the Asiatics.
The opinion that links Egyptians
to Asia is shared by other scholars such as, M. A. Murray (The Legend of.
Ancient Egypt), Adolf Erman ( Life in Ancient Egypt , A hand Book of
Egyptian Religion), J.H. Breasted (
Ancient Records of Egypt), Bunsen(The cradle
of the mythology and language of Egypt), M. Chabas ,M. de
Rouge and a few others.
Some of them thought that two races met in Egypt--an Asiatic race,
which brought the ideas of the East and an Ethiopian that were the inhabitants
of the land.
An anatomist, Grafton Elliot Smith, in The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence upon the Civilization of
Europe argued that in the Old Kingdom there had been an influx of
broad-skulled, non-Semitic Asiatics who had built the Egyptian pyramids and
introduced the megalithic culture into WesternEurope. Among these scholars, Friedrich
Wilhelm, Freiherr von Bissing,Peter Von Bohlen ,Paul William Roberts ,Adolf Erman and others believed that ancientEgypt was closely related to India.
Another major opinion is that
ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities.
There are other views as well,
scholars such as Matin Bernal andCheikhAntaDiop claim that dynastic Egypt was from its
inception--and remained throughout several millennia-- a primarily black,
African civilization.
Eva Nthoki Mwanika in her Essay Ancient Egyptian Identity, however, remarksthe Egyptians did not recognize
"race" with in the same context or definition in which modern society
recognizes it and that, the division of humankind into races as understood in
the modern sense began with F. Bernier in the seventeenth century of our era.
I have not claimed that Egyptians were of Indian origin nor have I
refuted their Middle Eastern extraction.
Perhaps the most important question
to answer is, what race did the Egyptians believe they belonged to? The
Egyptians consider themselves part of a distinct race, separate from their
neighbors- not African, not Mediterranean, not White, or Black people. They believe they are of Egyptian race.
Whatever may be the views, opinions,
on the question of race, Egypt has always been a
melting pot of humanity, as it surely remains today. Ancient Egypt was a crossroad of
civilizations; those who often came to Egypt for whatever reason
chose to stay on as Egyptians.
Finally, Herodotus said Egyptians
came from the heart of Africa. Eventually, he maybe right, after all, since the entire human race is
believed to have come out of the heart of Africa.
3.Punt: Again , the precise location of the land of Punt has been a subject
of debate. There are various theories about the location of Punt and about its
people.
You mentioned that Egyptians were
not from Punt but only traded with it. However, the sources I checked mention
that the Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their
ancestral homeland. (wikipedia, Egyptsearch, Egyptvoyeger,Geocities etc. and a
number of others) .Please try this link, in addition. http://search.lycos.com/index.php?src=tp&query=Egyptians%20Punt%2B%2BHomeland It is likely the Egyptians may have
traded with what they considered as their Homeland.
Allen P. Ross in his Paper The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its
Content, remarks Put is used six times in the Bible, referring to a warlike
people employed as mercenaries in the Egyptian armies. Some connect Put with Somaliland, known as Punt However,
according to Ross, the identification of Put with Punt is phonetically
problematic.The identification of Libya with Punt, he states, seems more appropriate
despite the dissimilarity of names.
J.H.
Breasted states, the Egyptians referred to region of the Sun God ,namely the regions towards sun
rise; that is the regionsto the East of
Egypt that were blessed with precious products used in temples( like
incense),as being the location of Punt
. According to him the term was used not only as a name for Punt, in the
South East, but also for the regions in Asia to the East and Northeast, notably
for the area of Lebanon, which was the source of wood for temples
Wikepedia says, the Egyptians
considered The Land of Punt as their ancestral homeland. Its exact location has not been
identified, but it is thought to have been somewhere in eastern Africa, probably including northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, and east-northeast Sudan. It adds that the
Egyptians depicted Puntites to be very similar in appearance to them.
Therefore, Punt could be anywhere and why only
in Somalia?
Scholars like Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr
von Bissing ,M A Murray,Adolf Erman , H.R.
Hall, argued that Punt referred to a region of India. I mentioned in my
post that some scholars surmise India could be Punt. It is,
therefore, as good or as bad naming any of the regions mentioned above,
including Somalia.
4. Sphinx Sphij : Whoever said,The
Emperor Katz issued a Royal proclamation on Sphinx sphij ?. Like any other hypothesis,
his is also tenuous. Yet, it is a serious piece of work despite what it comes
up with in the end. Did you succeed in reading beyond the Abstract?
Well you may or may not with any of
the above. That, of course, is at different issue altogether. You will, however,
please appreciate, there are pluralities of views on almost on any issue; and
that I did not invent any of these. Are they illogical?.
6.Saint Thomas :Here we go again. According to the tradition, St. Thomas, one of the twelve
apostles of Jesus Christ, came to India in 52 AD.He established
seven Churches in South India and was martyred in 72 A.D. Similarly, various Eastern Churches in China and Japan also claim St. Thomas personally brought
Christianity to China and Japan during the same period. In addition, the Latin American tradition too
claims Saint Thomas the apostle brought The Word of God to the Mesoamerican
civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%28Apostle%29
Many people doubt whether Saint Thomas reached South India, at all. These doubting Toms include
none other than, the Head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope
in a statement made at the Vatican on September 27, 2006 appeared to
contradict Saint Thomass evangelical trek in the country. Please see News item from the Times
of India of 26 Dec 2006. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-926822,prtpage-1.cms
Let us assume that Saint Thomas did proselytize in India, as you put it. The
documents called Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi near the site of
the monastery of Chenoboskion, in Egypt , are dated around 50AD, judgied by their
contents-( and that material identified as "gnostic" in Thomas
may have been current as early as50.- as per Wikipedia). In case Saint Thomas
wrote that Gospel, he must have done so before leaving for India .That again
brings us back to the old question how did the word Yoga get into a Christian
document of first century AD? *** My submission is that in a Forum of
this nature that aims to dwell on History, a number of historical events come
up for discussion. In most of the cases, those historical events will carry
more than one explanation.( I have taken care to qualify my statements.) This is true not merely of the Histories of the un-
documented eras but also of the Current times. On many occasions, you come
across opinions that you may not like to hear; Yet, the discussion has, preferably,
to be kept alive to explore the other aspect of the issue too. I think that is
the most one can do on a Forum, since we are incapable of changing the History
or even influence its events. Those are beyond our ken or capability. Therefore, opinions of various shades
or, to put it in your words, problems will always be there on a Forum. So be
it. Let us live with them. I look forward to your
reply. Regards
Whenever we talk of histories of ancient times where there is no authenticated record (which usually is the case), the events of those times tend to gain varying shades of meaning depending on the interpretations one provides.
Yes, there is "varying shades of meaning depending on the interpretation one provides", but this no longer includes an Indian influence at such a remote period of time. Studies, since the time of these authors have essentially ruled out the "Indian connection" in favor of more immediate ethno-geographic factors. Both archaeological and genetic studies have largely fortified current interpretations.
There will be no one single attested view. There will always be plurality of views. You may not always come across what you like to hear. Nevertheless, what is important in all such cases is to ensure the interpretations presented fall within a reasonable range of probability; and follow it up with a discussion instead of mocking at what does not fit into your scheme of things and dismissing it.
And thus a "non-Indian" view of factors influencing early Egyptian history have been determined to fall within such a "range of probability". The paradigm can now be explained without such an influence.
The Forums of this nature, to my limited understanding, are better suited for such explorations than formal platforms of debate where conceding to anothers view may (wrongly) be construed as ones defeat. I have no such cobwebs.
And so, anyone can post whatever ideas they learned (within certain rules, of course). However, for every idea, there may be a counter-idea, which may have the virtue of being a better idea. There may be two ideas which may simply be "unconfirmable", but one may be the simpler solution to the problem. If there is a simpler solution, than we don't really need to consider the more complicated one. It is usually the simpler solution that is probably closer to the truth.
A situation that you find it difficult or impossible to handle is generally identified as a problem. I am not sure we have such a situation on hand. Let us see what we have here.
1.Older texts: Yes Sir , I have relied on older texts for two reasons. One, their authenticity is not diminished by just being old.
It is usually rare for an entire text to remain "undiminished". Scholarship goes forward. Old ideas are discarded, new ones take their place, otherwise scholarship is meaningless. I think you have said something simiilar in another thread. Yes, some ideas seem to stand the test of time, but most don't. Texts are a collection of many ideas, some good, others seem to explain things according to the understanding of the time of that text, the rest are misunderstandings or misinterpretations as to what was observed, ideas based upon the scantiest of information, and ideas based upon purely the cultural background and/or prejudices of the writer. It is then justifiable for critics to question an old text because of these inherent characteristics.
Secondly and more importantly, there are hardly any new, independent and authentic works on the subject of ancient Egypt and India. This is precisely the submission I made towards the end of my post and stressed the need for further studies in the field. In case, you are aware of any recent publications of that nature, will you kindly recommend them to me?
By "independent" what do you mean? A radical idea? The problem with most radical ideas is that they tend to be more complicated than a more "conventional" idea. They have a tendancy in taking a small detail and blow it out of proportion to its importance, ignoring other mitigating information, and unwarrantly reinterpreting fairly established ideas. Now, all ideas should be challenged, to be sure, and some "radical" ideas are now conventional, but it must be with corresponding proofs or data.
You also mentioned about archeological discoveries ... made in both Egypt and India, and ... Science started to be used as a tool in dating and locating the origin of artifacts. I am not aware whether any recent archeological discoveries have been unearthed and scientific tools applied to such discoveries, recently, in the context of Ancient Egypt and India. In case you have knowledge of such discoveries made recently and where the modern scientific tools were employed, I shall be, thankful If will kindly share your knowledge with me.
An analysis of the predynastic Egyptian artefacts shows mainly native origins. We can essentially trace their origin within Africa itself. When we do find artefacts of alien manufacture, they were mainly from Mesopotamia and Elam. Nothing in the current literature classifies any object as being "Indian". By comparison we do find that in Mesopotamia from the Akkadian Period to the Isin-Larsa Period (c. 2300-1800 BC) we do find an abundance of objects from the Harappa Culture, while Mesopotamian objects were scarce in India, leading to the idea that Mesopotamia was at the receiving end of the cultural exchange with India. No such phenomena has been observed in Egypt.
2.Race : On the question of race , the ancient Egyptians have been a subject of prolonged debate. As ever, here too, there are varieties of opinions on this issue. Let us start with the Asia story. The name Mizrain appearing in the List of Nations appearing in the Tenth chapter of the Book of Genesis is identified with Egypt. According to this list the Egyptians descended from Ham, the son of Noah, and were therefore of the same stock as Japhetic and Semitic nations.. Based on this, some scholars opine Egyptians came from Asia.
Yes, according to the Hebrew world-view humanity reestablished itself in southern Mesopotamia ("Shinar"), after the Flood, speaking one language, before God "confounded" their languages, causing them the spread out into the lands known by the Hebrews by about 700 BC at the latest. But virtually every culture has its "story of origins". I'm sure there are Indian legends which can trace the origin of humanity in India, yes? As it goes, no serious scholar presently considers an Asiatic origin of the Egyptians, but some at least consider that a strain of Egyptian population may be of Asiatic origin. The genetic studies show that there was a probablya population of Asiatics mixed in with the native Egyptians in predynastic times. The majority was African in origin.
There is also a theory that Hyksos were an Asiatic people. Apapi, king of the Hyksos and Tekenen-Ra ruled over the Egyptians of the South. There is an interesting inscription by Hatshepsut of the 18th dynasty that refers to the restoration of Egypt after the "Hyksos" had been expelled from the delta region: "I have restored that which was in ruins, I have raised up that which was unfinished. Since the Asiatics were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland [Delta], and the barbarians were in the midst of them [the people of the Northland], overthrowing that which had been made, while they ruled in ignorance of Re." In the Tale of Apophis and Seqenenre ,Avaris is called the city of the Asiatics.
It is now conventional to consider the Hyksos of Asiatic origin, specifically of Semitic origin, from Palestine (Canaan) itself. Most of the Hyksos names were definitely Semitic.
The opinion that links Egyptians to Asia is shared by other scholars such as, M. A. Murray (The Legend of. Ancient Egypt), Adolf Erman ( Life in Ancient Egypt, A hand Book of Egyptian Religion), J.H. Breasted ( Ancient Records of Egypt), Bunsen(The cradle of the mythology and language of Egypt), M. Chabas ,M. de Rouge and a few others.
Murray - Her methodology had been so arbitrary, that virtually all her theories had been shot down.
Erman - His greatest accomplishment was in the field of Egyptian grammer and language analysis. He established the relationship between Egyptian and Semitic languages. Those two books were written in 1885 and 1905, respectively, demonstrating the datedness of his other theories.
Breasted - His research was not really that radical. Much of his thought is still current today. His great work dated to 1907, however shows dated ideas.
Bunsen His books on ancient Egypt are the oldest of those authors youve mentioned, written in the mid 1800s.
Chabas His contribution was mainly on the subject of the Hyksos.His books were written in the period between 1862 and 1873.
de Rouge His works date in the 1860s and 1870s.
Some of them thought that two races met in Egypt - an Asiatic race, which brought the ideas of the East and an Ethiopian that were the inhabitants of the land.
While it is true that there were some ideas which came from Asia in the predynastic period, the prevailing thought is that these ideas arrived via trade.No archaeological find can link such ideas to some sort of Asiatic migration.On the other hand, archaeology shows that the last stages of the Egyptian predynastic period were the result of cultural expansion from the south.The next true influx of ideas did not occur until the Hyksos invasion which brought new weapons of warfare into Egypt including the war-chariot and composite bow, among others.
An anatomist, Grafton Elliot Smith, in The Ancient Egyptians and Their Influence upon the Civilization of Europe argued that in the Old Kingdom there had been an influx of broad-skulled, non-Semitic Asiatics who had built the Egyptian pyramids and introduced the megalithic culture into WesternEurope. Among these scholars, Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von Bissing,Peter Von Bohlen ,Paul William Roberts ,Adolf Erman and others believed that ancient Egypt was closely related to India.
We now know that such identifications based upon skull-type are no longer valid.We now know that any given region will have more than one skull type, even in the prehistoric period.These early attempts to associate a region with a skull-type were prejudiced and the results were manipulated to fit in with preconceived ideas of racial intelligence.There are skull-types in southern Africa, for instance that are the same as those from China.Yet the physical makeup of these groups are understandably different.There is, therefore, no such thing as an Indian skull or a European skull, etc.
Another major opinion is that ancient Egypt was a mixed-race gestalt of African and Middle Eastern ethnicities.
This at least comes closest to a modern view of Egyptian ethnogenesis, which postulates the predominance of African ethnicities.
There are other views as well, scholars such as Matin Bernal and Cheikh Anta Diop claim that dynastic Egypt was from its inception--and remained throughout several millennia-- a primarily black, African civilization.
Bernal his views are criticised by all disciplines involved.
Diop While he has raised very important questions, and was largely successful in compelling a rethinking in the way non-Africans viewed African civilizations, his afrocentrist mindset has largely been considered the polar opposite of eurocentrism, just one extreme replacing another.Genetic studies of the ancient population of Egypt have largely disproved his assertations.
Eva Nthoki Mwanika in her Essay Ancient Egyptian Identity, however, remarks the Egyptians did not recognize "race" with in the same context or definition in which modern society recognizes it and that, the division of humankind into races as understood in the modern sense began with F. Bernier in the seventeenth century of our era.
Yes, the Egyptians saw themselves as different from everyone else.They did not have the concept of race we have.Egyptians were of various origins.All it took for being an Egyptian was (1)living in Egypt, and (2)practicing the fullness of its culture.Hence differences in race among Egyptians was alien to them.
I have not claimed that Egyptians were of Indian origin nor have I refuted their Middle Eastern extraction.
Perhaps the most important question to answer is, what race did the Egyptians believe they belonged to? The Egyptians consider themselves part of a distinct race, separate from their neighbors- not African, not Mediterranean, not White, or Black people. They believe they are of Egyptian race.
Yes, that is correct, and perhaps this is the most fruitful way of looking at the problem.Our modern concepts of race is simply not an ancient Egyptian category.
Whatever may be the views, opinions, on the question of race, Egypt has always been a melting pot of humanity, as it surely remains today. Ancient Egypt was a crossroad of civilizations; those who often came to Egypt for whatever reason chose to stay on as Egyptians.
Yes.
Finally, Herodotus said Egyptians came from the heart of Africa. Eventually, he maybe right, after all, since the entire human race is believed to have come out of the heart of Africa.
He said that they were indigenous.
3.Punt: Again , the precise location of the land of Punt has been a subject of debate. There are various theories about the location of Punt and about its people.
You mentioned that Egyptians were not from Punt but only traded with it. However, the sources I checked mention that the Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as being their ancestral homeland. (wikipedia, Egyptsearch, Egyptvoyeger,Geocities etc. and a number of others) .Please try this link, in addition. http://search.lycos.com/index.php?src=tp&query=Egyptians%20Punt%2B%2BHomeland It is likely the Egyptians may have traded with what they considered as their Homeland.
And here is the problem with such theories:The Egyptians never explicitly say that they originated from Punt.They refer to it as Gods country but thats it.
Allen P. Ross in his Paper The Table of Nations in Genesis 10--Its Content, remarks Put is used six times in the Bible, referring to a warlike people employed as mercenaries in the Egyptian armies. Some connect Put with Somaliland, known as Punt
Somaliland is perhaps the most popular region scholars place Punt. If this is so, then those supposed mercenaries could not have been employed by the Egyptians since in order to get from Somalia, the Egyptians had to pass through the Sudan and Ethiopia.Too far and too dangerous just to find mercenaries.These Putites had to be found adjacent to Egypt.
However, according to Ross, the identification of Put with Punt is phonetically problematic.The identification of Libya with Punt, he states, seems more appropriate despite the dissimilarity of names.
Put, not Punt, is identified as Libya.The Persians knew it as Putiya, just as they knew Nubia as Kushya, hence the Table of Nations speaks of the first three sons of Ham as being Kush, Mizraim (Egypt), and Put, respectively.
J.H. Breasted states, the Egyptians referred to region of the Sun God , namely the regions towards sun rise; that is the regions to the East of Egypt that were blessed with precious products used in temples( like incense),as being the location of Punt . According to him the term was used not only as a name for Punt, in the South East, but also for the regions in Asia to the East and Northeast, notably for the area of Lebanon, which was the source of wood for temples
While it is true that there is a reference to Punt being in the direction of sunrise, the repetoire of items coming from Punt include among others, giraffes and baboons, which are completely only native to Africa.Pygmies were also mentioned as being acquired from Punt.It is interesting to note that pygmies were also acquired from southern Nubia as well, hence Punt may not have been located far from Nubia or Kush.The southern leopard, found there, may also give a hint as to its general location.
Wikepedia says, the Egyptians considered The Land of Punt as their ancestral homeland. Its exact location has not been identified, but it is thought to have been somewhere in eastern Africa, probably including northern Ethiopia, Eritrea, and east-northeast Sudan. It adds that the Egyptians depicted Puntites to be very similar in appearance to them.
Therefore, Punt could be anywhere and why only in Somalia?
While various suggestions persist, the reason why Somalia is given popular consideration is because Punt can be reached both by boat and by land, and there is vague hints from Egyptian descriptions of Nubian geography, that it was not too far from Egypt.
Scholars like Friedrich Wilhelm, Freiherr von Bissing ,M A Murray,Adolf Erman , H.R. Hall, argued that Punt referred to a region of India. I mentioned in my post that some scholars surmise India could be Punt. It is, therefore, as good or as bad naming any of the regions mentioned above, including Somalia.
The simplest solution is to locate it in Africa, based upon the above points.
4. Sphinx Sphij : Whoever said, The Emperor Katz issued a Royal proclamation on Sphinx sphij ?. Like any other hypothesis, his is also tenuous. Yet, it is a serious piece of work despite what it comes up with in the end. Did you succeed in reading beyond the Abstract?
The problem using the word sphinx is that it is Greek in origin.It makes no sense for the Greeks to use a word translated as buttocks to describe them.An analogy would be the Greek word pyramid.The reason why the Greeks called those famous structures such was because they resembled their own cakes called pyramids.The Greek sphinx was so-called because their own mythology describes a monster with the body of a lion and the head of a female.They then applied this name to the figure of similar description.The Egyptian word for sphinx was neb.The Great Sphinx itself was called Khu.Therefore the connection with a Sanskrit word is both unnecessary and unwarranted.
The problem is that the Greek term gnosis is quite old.It is already used in the Illiad in the form gnoosi (Illiad, 23.661; 24.888) hence, at the very beginning of Greek literature, c. 750 BC, it was already in use, and thus a cognate with the Indian term.However, there is no dispute that there was indeed an Indian presence in such places as Egypt in Hellenistic and Roman times where Hindu concepts were given expression, leading to the birth of Gnosticism.
Well you may or may not with any of the above. That, of course, is at different issue altogether. You will, however, please appreciate, there are pluralities of views on almost on any issue; and that I did not invent any of these. Are they illogical?.
Many are just outdated views, especially regarding pre-Hellenistic Egypt.
6.Saint Thomas : Here we go again. According to the tradition, St. Thomas, one of the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ, came to India in 52 AD.He established seven Churches in South India and was martyred in 72 A.D. Similarly, various Eastern Churches in China and Japan also claim St. Thomas personally brought Christianity to China and Japan during the same period. In addition, the Latin American tradition too claims Saint Thomas the apostle brought The Word of God to the Mesoamerican civilization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_%28Apostle%29
Many people doubt whether Saint Thomas reached South India, at all. These doubting Toms include none other than, the Head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI. The Pope in a statement made at the Vatican on September 27, 2006 appeared to contradict Saint Thomass evangelical trek in the country. Please see News item from the Times of India of 26 Dec 2006. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-926822,prtpage-1.cms
Let us assume that Saint Thomas did proselytize in India, as you put it. The documents called Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi near the site of the monastery of Chenoboskion, in Egypt , are dated around 50AD, judgied by their contents-( and that material identified as "gnostic" in Thomas may have been current as early as50.- as per Wikipedia). In case Saint Thomas wrote that Gospel, he must have done so before leaving for India .That again brings us back to the old question how did the word Yoga get into a Christian document of first century AD?
As far as I know, the word does not occur in the Gospel of Thomas.It it does, can you give me chapter and verse as some Christians like to say.Ive read some commentaries on some phrases which from the point-of-view of the commentator imply the practice of yoga, but thats it.As for the Gospels supposed Gnostic origin, even this is disputed, just as the date that it was produced is disputed.
Dear Sharrukin Glad to meet you here . I always had high regard for your learning.It
is always a pleasure to converse with you.
1.India connection: I wish to invite your attention to two projects concerning India and Egypt. One is in progress in the Malabar Coast of Southern India and the other taken up in Berenike, a long-abandoned Egyptian port on
the Red Sea near the border with Sudan.
A. The excavations in India are ongoing at Pattanam in Kerala, believed
to be the place where the ancient port of Miziris was located.
i) Muziris, as the
ancient Greeks called it, was an important port on the Malabar
Coast in Southern India.
The ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Romans frequented it.Eudoxus of Cyzicus sailed into Muziris
during his two voyages undertaken between 118 and 116 BC. Muzris, is mentioned
in the Periplous of the
Erythraean Sea and in Ptolemy's Geography
and is prominent on the Peutinger Table. Pliny referred to it several times in
his Naturalis Historia.Pliny
called this port primum emporium Indiae.
ii) There is no doubt
Muziris was a major port and was an Emporium, as
Pliny called it. However, it suddenly disappeared in around sixth century and
no one has a clue to it. And, by about the same time the trade between Rome/Egypt
and India
went into decline. I am NOT suggesting the two occurrences were related.
iv)The artifacts recovered from the
excavation site include amphora (holding vessels) of Roman make and Yemenese,
Mesopotamian, and West Asian ones too, indicating that Pattanam had trade not
only with Rome but also with places in the Persian Gulf. The other artifacts
recovered include pottery shards, beads, Roman copper coins and ancient wine
bottles. In addition, a
boat believed to be about 2000(?) years old, Glass and precious stones, roman
pottery, bricks and a structure to keep the boat with five wooden structures
to tie down the boat.
Roberta Tomber of BritishMuseum who is involved in similar other projects
visited the site.She remarked, several
factors go to strengthen the belief that the objects found on site are remnants
of first century Roman trade and thatsimilar objects were found during excavations in Egypt. Excavations on the Pattanam site are in
progress.
v) I believe the Greek/Egyptian and the Roman trade ( that followed
later) , with India, came as culmination of relations that existed between India and the West even centuries earlier to
Christian era.
i) In early Roman times, Myos Hormos was the most
frequented of the Red Sea
ports.However, Berenike
eventually replaced Myos Hormos as the most prominent port because it had one
great advantage over Myos Hormos: it was situated some 230 nautical miles
further south and therefore spared the homebound vessels days of beating
against the northerly winds.http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~jason2/papers/bnikeppr.htm
iii) Berenike (Berenice
Troglodytica) a Graeco-Roman harbor is located on the Red
SeaCoast
in the far south of the EgyptianEasternDesert.
It was mentioned in the Periplous of the Erythraean Sea and
in Ptolemy's Geography. Pliny referred to it several times
in his Naturalis Historia. Eduxous set sail to India
from Berenice in 118-116 BC. From here, ships sailed to India
and to the East by taking advantage of the monsoon (Hippalus) winds in search of spices, precious
stones and other exotic goods. The place where the port was located is now
buried under desert. The Archeological teams say, they found here extensive remains of the ancient world's sea trade between
East and West.
iv) Some of the finds of
excavation at Myos Hormos and Berenike concerning links with India
are briefly as under:
Among the buried ruins of buildings that date back to Roman rule, the
team discovered vast quantities of teak, a wood indigenous to India and today's Myanmar, but not capable of growing in Egypt, Africa or Europe.
The archaeologists were especially intrigued by the large amounts of
teak, a hardwood native to India, found in the ruins. The presence of so
much teak also suggested to the researchers that many of ships were built in India, one of the indications of a major Indian
role in the trade
In addition to this evidence of seafaring activities between India and Egypt, the archaeologists uncovered the largest
array of ancient Indian goods ever found along the Red Sea, including the largest single cache of
black pepper from antiquity - 16 pounds - ever excavated in the former Roman Empire. The team dates these peppercorns, grown
only in South India during antiquity, to the first century.
Peppercorns of the same vintage excavated as far away as Germany.
In a dump that dates back
to Roman times, the team also found Indian coconuts and batik cloth from the
first century, as well as an array of exotic gems, including sapphires and
glass beads that appear to come from Sri Lanka and carnelian beads that appear
to come from India.The excavations also yielded coinsand pots with Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions.
As developed by Greeks and Egyptians, then expanded by the Romans, the Red Sea ports served as transfer points for
cargoes to and from India and other places in Africa and Arabia
The co-directors of
excavations at Berenike Dr. Steven E. Sidebotham, a historian at the University of Delaware, and Dr. Willeke
Wendrich, an archaeologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the
research showed that the maritime trade route between India and Egypt in antiquity appeared to
be even more productive and lasted longer than scholars had thought.
In addition, it was not an
overwhelmingly Roman enterprise, as had been generally assumed. The researchers
said artifacts at the site indicated that the ships might have been built in India and were probably crewed
by Indians.
V) Dr. Lionel Casson, an author and
a retired professor of classics at New York University, said,
"It's nice to have archaeologists find concrete evidence for what is
attested in the texts."
vi) As in the case of Miziris, Berenike port too was active
until about A.D. 500 when shipping activities stopped, mysteriously. I am not
suggesting the occurrences were related, in any manner.
2.Older
Texts : I have not suggested any solutions , simple or
otherwise. I have cited texts. Some of the texts I referred to have stood the
test of time. Here, in the context of Egypt-India study, I cannot help echoing Dr. Lionel Casson, who said, "It's nice to have archaeologists
find concrete evidence for what is attested in the texts."
3.Independent Texts: I was referring to books based on an authors study and recent
excavations and works carried out in the
field , rather than those that mouth earlier texts, as most of us do.
4.Race; I cited a range of opinions aired , over the years by several scholars , on the subject
of the race of the Egyptian people. I
summed it up and said that I tend to go with Eva Nthoki
Mwanikas view, which says that we are trying to impose a modern term race on an ancient
people who had a non-racial self-perception and a different worldview.
Further, I agree it is a question that is best left to Egyptians themselves.
5.Punt: Much has been said , written and speculated about Punt and its
probable location. I cited quite a number of those views and said it could be Somalia or anywhere else. Now, Please look at what Jacke
Phillips, says in "Punt and Aksum:
Egypt
and the Horn of Africa",
Journal of African History, vol. 37, 1997.
" no archaeological remains have ever been identified, even
tentatively as 'Puntite'. Punt exists, for us, only in the Egyptian records;
even the name we use is taken directly from the Egyptian name PWNT. These
sources have given us a general idea of where Punt was located, what it was
like, and the period of its existence (generally, c. 2500 to ?600 B.C.) Punt
has never been identified with certainty. The textual records that have
survived, when their information is pooled, provide us with enough information
to suggest strongly a generalized area within the eastern coastal regions of
the modern Sudan south of modern Port Sudan, Eritrea and northern-most
Ethiopia, or somewhere further inland ." (http://awkir.com/punt.htm )
Although
the location of Punt is yet to be verified, Africa's southern Red Sea region
(Eritrea?) appears to be the leading candidate, until , of course ,a credible archaeological
evidence leads to the final solution.
6.Sphinx Sphij
:I made a reference to the Princeton/Stanford
Working papers under which Joshua T Katz has written a scholarly paper titled The
Riddle of the sp(h)ij-: The Greek Sphinx and her Indic and Indo-European
Background .Mr. Katz, as an academician, has, in that paper, put forward a
certain hypothesis. I drew attention to that.
You said in your comments that,the connection (of Sphinx) with a Sanskrit word is both unnecessary and
unwarranted. Now , please tell me , what can I possibly say in resoponse to
such a remark?
7.Saint
Thomas : In
regard to occurrence of the term Yoga , you remarked , If it does, can you
give me chapter and verse as some Christians like to say.
8.My submission is, Egypt
and India , both , areancient countries and it is
not surprising if they did develop cultural
and trade relations in the antiquity before what we call recorded history
came into vogue.I believe the Greek/Egypt trade with India
and the Roman one that followed thereafter came as a culmination of the
relations that existed between India
and the West even centuries earlier to Christian era. Incidentally,
the Hindi news bulletins carried over the Indian TV and Radio channels still
refer to Egypt as Misr (from Mitsrayim in Hebrew?), perhaps reminiscent of those
bygone eras.
Both
the countries had a rather rollercoaster type of histories .Their fortunes and
affiliations have not been either consistent or uniform. They had their
glorious days; they fell on bad days and had plenty of indifferent and
forgettable periods. They drifted apart for long periods. Each had been open to
foreign influences, in varying degrees, reshaping their appearances and
destinies. However, No one ever suggested that India
alone influenced ancient Egypt.
Why should it disturb us if some one, with reason, suggests that the two ancient
countries, amidst the then existing network, did succeed in developing close
trade and cultural relations ? That, to my mind, is not a problem.
It is always a pleasure to converse with
you. Take care.
1.India connection: I wish to invite your attention to two projects concerning India and Egypt. One is in progress in the Malabar Coast of Southern India and the other taken up in Berenike, a long-abandoned Egyptian port on the Red Sea near the border with Sudan.
A. The excavations in India are ongoing at Pattanam in Kerala, believed to be the place where the ancient port of Miziris was located.
i) Muziris, as the ancient Greeks called it, was an important port on the Malabar Coast in Southern India. The ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Romans frequented it.Eudoxus of Cyzicus sailed into Muziris during his two voyages undertaken between 118 and 116 BC. Muzris, is mentioned in the Periplous of the Erythraean Sea and in Ptolemy's Geography and is prominent on the Peutinger Table. Pliny referred to it several times in his Naturalis Historia.Pliny called this port primum emporium Indiae.
ii) There is no doubt Muziris was a major port and was an Emporium, as Pliny called it. However, it suddenly disappeared in around sixth century and no one has a clue to it. And, by about the same time the trade between Rome/Egypt and India went into decline. I am NOT suggesting the two occurrences were related.
iv)The artifacts recovered from the excavation site include amphora (holding vessels) of Roman make and Yemenese, Mesopotamian, and West Asian ones too, indicating that Pattanam had trade not only with Rome but also with places in the Persian Gulf. The other artifacts recovered include pottery shards, beads, Roman copper coins and ancient wine bottles. In addition, a boat believed to be about 2000(?) years old, Glass and precious stones, roman pottery, bricks and a structure to keep the boat with five wooden structures to tie down the boat.
Roberta Tomber of BritishMuseum who is involved in similar other projects visited the site.She remarked, several factors go to strengthen the belief that the objects found on site are remnants of first century Roman trade and thatsimilar objects were found during excavations in Egypt. Excavations on the Pattanam site are in progress.
v) I believe the Greek/Egyptian and the Roman trade ( that followed later) , with India, came as culmination of relations that existed between India and the West even centuries earlier to Christian era.
i) In early Roman times, Myos Hormos was the most frequented of the Red Sea ports.However, Berenike eventually replaced Myos Hormos as the most prominent port because it had one great advantage over Myos Hormos: it was situated some 230 nautical miles further south and therefore spared the homebound vessels days of beating against the northerly winds.http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~jason2/papers/bnikeppr.htm
iii) Berenike (Berenice Troglodytica) a Graeco-Roman harbor is located on the Red SeaCoast in the far south of the EgyptianEasternDesert. It was mentioned in the Periplous of the Erythraean Sea and in Ptolemy's Geography. Pliny referred to it several times in his Naturalis Historia. Eduxous set sail to India from Berenice in 118-116 BC. From here, ships sailed to India and to the East by taking advantage of the monsoon (Hippalus) winds in search of spices, precious stones and other exotic goods. The place where the port was located is now buried under desert. The Archeological teams say, they found here extensive remains of the ancient world's sea trade between East and West.
iv) Some of the finds of excavation at Myos Hormos and Berenike concerning links with India are briefly as under:
Among the buried ruins of buildings that date back to Roman rule, the team discovered vast quantities of teak, a wood indigenous to India and today's Myanmar, but not capable of growing in Egypt, Africa or Europe.
The archaeologists were especially intrigued by the large amounts of teak, a hardwood native to India, found in the ruins. The presence of so much teak also suggested to the researchers that many of ships were built in India, one of the indications of a major Indian role in the trade
In addition to this evidence of seafaring activities between India and Egypt, the archaeologists uncovered the largest array of ancient Indian goods ever found along the Red Sea, including the largest single cache of black pepper from antiquity - 16 pounds - ever excavated in the former Roman Empire. The team dates these peppercorns, grown only in South India during antiquity, to the first century. Peppercorns of the same vintage excavated as far away as Germany.
In a dump that dates back to Roman times, the team also found Indian coconuts and batik cloth from the first century, as well as an array of exotic gems, including sapphires and glass beads that appear to come from Sri Lanka and carnelian beads that appear to come from India.The excavations also yielded coinsand pots with Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions.
As developed by Greeks and Egyptians, then expanded by the Romans, the Red Sea ports served as transfer points for cargoes to and from India and other places in Africa and Arabia
The co-directors of excavations at Berenike Dr. Steven E. Sidebotham, a historian at the University of Delaware, and Dr. Willeke Wendrich, an archaeologist at the University of California at Los Angeles, said the research showed that the maritime trade route between India and Egypt in antiquity appeared to be even more productive and lasted longer than scholars had thought.
In addition, it was not an overwhelmingly Roman enterprise, as had been generally assumed. The researchers said artifacts at the site indicated that the ships might have been built in India and were probably crewed by Indians.
V) Dr. Lionel Casson, an author and a retired professor of classics at New York University, said, "It's nice to have archaeologists find concrete evidence for what is attested in the texts."
vi) As in the case of Miziris, Berenike port too was active until about A.D. 500 when shipping activities stopped, mysteriously. I am not suggesting the occurrences were related, in any manner.
I like the way you connect the dots between Berenike and Muziris. It makes it most compelling. Yes, scholars have known about Indo-Hellenistic and Roman connections. The evidence for such is quite satisfactory. The problem has to do with earlier periods. It would be arrogant presumption not to say that earlier periods did not have this trade relationship between India and Egypt, but without physical evidence for such, the question has to remain open.
I've already cited the evidence for southern Mesopotamia for such a trade relationship with India. The era of the Indus artefacts in Mesopotamia is consistent with the dating of the Indus Civ. itself. If the reference to Meluhha has any bearing on this trade, we know that Meluhha was to the east of Elam, according to an Akkadian royal inscription dealing with a war between Elam and Akkad with Meluhha in alliance with Elam. The term fell into disuse just when the evidence for the Mesopotamian trade ceased. This trade was never renewed. Thus far, there is nothing in the literature to suggest that Indus artefacts have been found in Egypt.
If Mesopotamia, being closer to India, can be used as an indicator, then, any trade going on with Egypt should also be reflected in Mesopotamia, but, it does not. Without physical evidence to support the assertation that there was an earlier trade with Egypt, it is, in the present time safe to assume that supposed earlier periods of trade with Egypt were at least improbable.
2.Older Texts : I have not suggested any solutions , simple or otherwise. I have cited texts. Some of the texts I referred to have stood the test of time. Here, in the context of Egypt-India study, I cannot help echoing Dr. Lionel Casson, who said, "It's nice to have archaeologists find concrete evidence for what is attested in the texts."
Yes, with the operative phrase being "concrete evidence". Thus far, there is no such evidence for dynastic or pre-dynastic Egypt.
3.Independent Texts: I was referring to books based on an authors study and recent excavations and works carried out in the field , rather than those that mouth earlier texts, as most of us do.
I see. So, independent texts are rare because original research is rare. I don't know if this is truly the case. Every time I read a periodical or journal concerning ancient Egypt, I learn something new. A lot of it is minor but sometimes it gets very interesting, for instance, the idea that pharaonic kingship may have originated in Nubia, based upon excavations in the Sudan and southern Egypt.
4.Race; I cited a range of opinions aired , over the years by several scholars , on the subject of the race of the Egyptian people. I summed it up and said that I tend to go with Eva Nthoki Mwanikas view, which says that we are trying to impose a modern term race on an ancient people who had a non-racial self-perception and a different worldview. Further, I agree it is a question that is best left to Egyptians themselves.
Nevertheless it provided the push to do the research to place the ancient Egyptians on the "genetic map" to see how they compare to moderns. The results themselves simply defy our modern concepts of "race"
5.Punt: Much has been said , written and speculated about Punt and its probable location. I cited quite a number of those views and said it could be Somalia or anywhere else. Now, Please look at what Jacke Phillips, says in "Punt and Aksum: Egypt and the Horn of Africa", Journal of African History, vol. 37, 1997.
" no archaeological remains have ever been identified, even tentatively as 'Puntite'. Punt exists, for us, only in the Egyptian records; even the name we use is taken directly from the Egyptian name PWNT. These sources have given us a general idea of where Punt was located, what it was like, and the period of its existence (generally, c. 2500 to ?600 B.C.) Punt has never been identified with certainty. The textual records that have survived, when their information is pooled, provide us with enough information to suggest strongly a generalized area within the eastern coastal regions of the modern Sudan south of modern Port Sudan, Eritrea and northern-most Ethiopia, or somewhere further inland ." (http://awkir.com/punt.htm )
Although the location of Punt is yet to be verified, Africa's southern Red Sea region (Eritrea?) appears to be the leading candidate, until , of course ,a credible archaeological evidence leads to the final solution.
Thanks for the above quote. That was quite illuminating. For references to a civilization which lasted a very long time, there should have been an abundance of artefacts which should have been identified as "Puntite" but none have been identified as such. Yet, we have an abundance of references which demand its existence. We even have pictures of its king and queen as well as of flora and houses. The only thing I can account for such an absence of artefacts is that all that was imported was simply perishable or consumable. The list of items imported from Punt as known from the inscriptions all fit this category.
6.Sphinx Sphij :I made a reference to the Princeton/Stanford Working papers under which Joshua T Katz has written a scholarly paper titled The Riddle of the sp(h)ij-: The Greek Sphinx and her Indic and Indo-European Background .Mr. Katz, as an academician, has, in that paper, put forward a certain hypothesis. I drew attention to that.
You said in your comments that,the connection (of Sphinx) with a Sanskrit word is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Now , please tell me , what can I possibly say in resoponse to such a remark?
I've already cited some obvious objections to the theory, but I am rather curious to know how he answers such objections. The Greek word "sphinx" already occurs in the 8th century BC (Hesiod's Theogony). Hence any contact between the Greeks and Indians would have had to have occured by that time. No physical evidence occurs until Hellenistic and Roman times. The Greek word already has an acceptable etymology, hence, I cannot see its connection with the Sanskrit term.
7.Saint Thomas : In regard to occurrence of the term Yoga , you remarked , If it does, can you give me chapter and verse as some Christians like to say.
8.My submission is, Egypt and India , both , areancient countries and it is not surprising if they did develop cultural and trade relations in the antiquity before what we call recorded history came into vogue.I believe the Greek/Egypt trade with India and the Roman one that followed thereafter came as a culmination of the relations that existed between India and the West even centuries earlier to Christian era.
My submission is that without evidence, none of the secondary considerations make any sense. Some of it simply looks falsified (perhaps unintentionally). Has there been ancient Egyptian artefacts found in India? This evidence should do quite nicely. The nature of trade isn't always consistent. Periods of trade are followed by periods of none. One the one hand, Egypt for most of its history was one country (perhaps the first nation-state), India on the other hand for most of its history was fragmented into many tribes and states. Most of its ancient literature concerns native matters, hence it would seem like trade beyond the subcontinent was not a priority most of the time. When we do find accounts, they are related to the Silk Road trade routes, rather than the sea. It is only even much later that there was an Indian influence on Madagascar and southern Africa.
Incidentally, the Hindi news bulletins carried over the Indian TV and Radio channels still refer to Egypt as Misr (from Mitsrayim in Hebrew?), perhaps reminiscent of those bygone eras.
A much more simpler solution is to see the name of Egypt as an adoption from the Arabic, either through trade with Arabia or through the introduction of Islam into India where the Koran was traditionally read in the Arabic, and thus the Indians adopted the name through this influence. Misr is in fact the name of Egypt in Arabic.
Both the countries had a rather rollercoaster type of histories .Their fortunes and affiliations have not been either consistent or uniform. They had their glorious days; they fell on bad days and had plenty of indifferent and forgettable periods. They drifted apart for long periods. Each had been open to foreign influences, in varying degrees, reshaping their appearances and destinies. However, No one ever suggested that India alone influenced ancient Egypt. Why should it disturb us if some one, with reason, suggests that the two ancient countries, amidst the then existing network, did succeed in developing close trade and cultural relations ? That, to my mind, is not a problem.
To my mind, the problem is physical evidence. It only exists from the Hellenistic and Roman times, but not before.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Google
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
reddit
Facebook
MySpace
Newsvine
Furl
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Quote 
Topic: ANCIENT EGYPT AND INDIA
