again I swim to the surface with a Geography topic. But the reason will be known to you all shortly, I just need information from as many sources as I can get.

 

I know that the true science of geography hadn't yet developed, although the Sassanid Empire and it's successors had many great scholars, although it is already out of our time period. So I would begin:

 

1) The Sumerians, being great in Astronomy and Astrology, did they excess in knowing the lands too? Did they make maps or plans of their empires? Did they chart the routes of the Eufrates and the Tigris?

 

2) Assyrians and Babylonians had large empires, but did they conquer their neighbours by means of rumours or already known facts that there were those lands or by random events?

 

3) How large was the Hittite Empire in general, and what were it's connections to the sea routes on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea?

 

4) How far did the Pheonicians go on their trips? Did they draw or chart any maps of the world?

 

5) Were there any connections to the northern steppes, Chinese civilzations, Indian civilizations, Thrace, Hellas (Greece) or to the Arabian Peninsula's southern part? 

 

6) How much did these civilizations use the following naval places in their trade and war relations: the Persian Gulf, Tigris, Eufrates, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf, the Dead Sea?

 

 

Thanks for anyone who replies,

Rider

1) The Sumerians, being great in Astronomy and Astrology, did they excess in knowing the lands too? Did they make maps or plans of their empires? Did they chart the routes of the Eufrates and the Tigris?

 

The Sumerians were great explorers as well.  The south of Mesopotamia was poor in many resources, hence the Sumerians had to come out from their home cities into the greater part of the Middle East in order to find the resources necessary (or desired) for their civilization.  They actually built emporiums in some non-native cities as well as even building garrisons in regions in order to controll the resources in those regions. 

 

We do have primitive maps of Babylonia.  While we don't have maps dating from Sumerian times, we do have descriptions of locations of various places.  The implication is that the Sumerians probably did use maps.

 

The Sumerians almost certainly charted both the Tigris and Euphrates.  By the time of Sargon of Akkad, he already knew where the other powerful cities were on the Euphrates.  According to his own inscriptions, he followed the course of the Euphrates conquering the great cities of Mari and Ebla, powers in the their own right, who possessed the trade routes of northern Mesopotamia including the Euphrates trade route.

 

2) Assyrians and Babylonians had large empires, but did they conquer their neighbours by means of rumours or already known facts that there were those lands or by random events?

 

The Assyrians conquered at first knowing who their neighbors were, but later through either their own intelligence network or through their conquered neighbors, conquered those distant lands.

 

3) How large was the Hittite Empire in general, and what were it's connections to the sea routes on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea?

 

The Hittite Empire at its greatest extent, extended from the Aegean in the west (Arzawa) to a little beyond the Euphrates in the east (Mitanni), from a point on the Black Sea in the north (Pala) to northern Syria in the south (Qadesh).

 

The Black Sea connection has already been answered.  On the Mediterranean, the Hittites had possession of Cilicia (Kizzuwadna) and northern Phoenicia (Ugarit). 

 

4) How far did the Pheonicians go on their trips? Did they draw or chart any maps of the world?

 

According to both Egyptian and Biblical sources, the Phoenicians circumnavigated around Africa.  Both sources described such an enterprise as taking three years to make, with stops on various African ports and other landings.

 

5) Were there any connections to the northern steppes, Chinese civilzations, Indian civilizations, Thrace, Hellas (Greece) or to the Arabian Peninsula's southern part?

 

No for the steppes, and the Far East.  We know that the Sumerians traded with the Indus Valley Civ. (Indus artefacts have been found in Mesopotamia).  The most modern theory identifies the Indus Civ. with the term Meluhha.  We know of a trade route between Thrace and Anatolia.  The Hittites had friendly (and not so friendly) relations with the Greeks.  The Arabian peninsula was known for trade in incense and other rarities.  The earliest Arabian civs (Dilmun and Magan) already had trading relations with the Sumerians.   We are not aware of trade with Yemen until the 1st millennium BC.

 

6) How much did these civilizations use the following naval places in their trade and war relations: the Persian Gulf,....

 

all the time.

 

Tigris....

 

All the time.

 

Eufrates....

 

All the time.

 

the Caspian Sea....

 

poorly documented

 

the Black Sea....   poorly documented   the Mediterranean Sea....   poorly documented until classical times   the Red Sea....   all the time   [quote]the Arabian Gulf, the Dead Sea?

 

isn't the "Arabian Gulf" the same as the Persian Gulf?

 

there is poor documentation for the Dead Sea.

 

Yes, the Phoenicians.  According to the Bible, Solomon employed the Phoenicians to built for him "Tarshish ships" from a port at Elath on the southern limit of Edom to make the trip around Africa.

 

According to Herodotus, the Phoenicians built for pharoah Necho a fleet to sail down the Red Sea along the African coast to go around Africa as well.

 

Even much earlier, the Egyptians were ordered by Hapshepsut, queen of Egypt to sail the Punt.  While it remains a mystery where Punt actually is, it was probably beyong the Red Sea.  A port in eastern Africa may not be far from the truth.

 

It would not be impossible.  The problem is the identification of Punt.

So the Pheonicians circled round Africa both ways?

 

The curious thing is that we only know of only one way they did that - from east to west.  It shouldn't be impossible that they sailed both ways.

 

MAybe they went to Madagascar too, isn't it possible?

 

It should be possible.  The problem is that we don't have documentary evidence of it. 

 

Did they settle themselves anywhere specifically on the African coasts?

 

Unknown.  There is no documentary evidence to show that they did. 

I heard Hanno the Carthaginian refounded 7 cities, what could they have been?

 

They were locales between the African coast opposite Cadiz and the wadi Loukkos which was the classical Lixus (or the greater length of coastal Morocco).  Of the seven names mentioned the first, Thymiaterion, can be identified with Tangier.  The third, Gutte could be Ras Achakar.   

 

And how far did the Pheonician rule actually extend?

 

Probably no more than the length of the Mediterranean, where Greek influence was weak.  This state of affairs lasted until the Babylonians took Tyre by about 580 BC.  This left the colonies to fend for themselves, but by about 550 BC, Carthage became the leading Phoenician colony to succeed in pulling together the other Phoenician colonies in a form of merchantile empire.

Did the Phoenicians travel to India or Indonesia as well?

 

Again, unknown.  The biblical account (I Kings 9:28) as to where the "Tarshish ships" went included a place called Ophir.  Some place it in India because of the reference to there being much gold there, although the reference could have been to other places.

What were the Phoenician ships like, or why did they become such great sea-faring peoples?

 

http://perso.orange.fr/miltiade/nav_phenicien.gif - http://perso.orange.fr/miltiade/nav_phenicien.gif

 

http://www.buildingthetitanic.co.uk/gfx/ph_ship.png - http://www.buildingthetitanic.co.uk/gfx/ph_ship.png

 

http://www.science.sakhalin.ru/Ship/Img-S/His_07.jpg - http://www.science.sakhalin.ru/Ship/Img-S/His_07.jpg

 

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=4732 - http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=4732

 

 

It should be more accurate to say that the Phoenicians only colonized parts of the coast of northern Africa (of which there is much archaeological evidence), however there is no physical evidence (to date) of them settling any other part of Africa.

 

Probably no more than the length of the Mediterranean, where Greek influence was weak. But they traded with Britain too? Did they have permanent settlers there (hard of course to find evidence to) or did they prefer to go there and return immediately?

 

Apparently the Phoenicians did not want to make permanent settlements beyond the Mediterranaean.  It was enough that they controlled the routes (especially) of the western Mediterranean, to give them unrivalled access to ports in western Europe including the British isles.

What would you indentify Punt as?

 

According to the inscriptions of the Egyptian queen Hatshepsut, I would venture to say that it was relatively close by.  The Somali coast, as some scholars have conjectured would probably be a good guess.

 

Does it have a etnographical background to something?

 

The Egyptian hieroglyphs only denoted it as a land-name.  If it does have an ethnological significence, we are completely ignorant of it.

 

Yes, as well as other grave goods, tombs, remains of towns, inscriptions, sculptures, idols, and many other kinds of artefacts.

 

If it is a land name, it should be easier to find it.

 

Not necessarily.  There are many Egyptian 'land-names' which are still unknown to us, because we cannot match them with any internal description or correspondence with place-names known by other civilizations.  Some unknown place-names can be generally located due to a study of their etymology, but in the case of Punt (alternatively, known as Pwenet), it has the Egyptian etymology of "land of the god".

 

So, aren't there any descriptions by other nearby civilizations for a place such as this (not even by name, but by the goods traded there perhaps?), the Etiopians and Assyrians being two guesses I can think of.

 

There are no such matches.  The only hints we have are the items which were acquired from Punt.  These included gold, aromatic resins, African blackwood, ebony, ivory, slaves, monkeys (including baboons), and possibly pygmies.  This points to anywhere in southern Sudan or the Eritrean region of Ethiopia or further south. 

 

While it is true that Punt was reached by sea, the Egyptian evidence also described land routes as well.  Punt was reached both ways.  This points to a location in Africa.

 

Ummm, no.  This idea of "advanced civilization" is purely an interpretation.  As for Punt being the origin of the ancient Egyptians, I have not found a text which stated such.  If this idea was glossed from the fact that Punt was associated with the land-name Ta-Netjer "land of the god", then this simply is not enough to even say that the Egyptians came from there.

 

Which place would be able to export spices & cloth, sweet timberwood amongst others.

 

All the products given to the Egyptians, can be found in Africa, and so there is no necessity in trying to find these things anywhere else.

 

Yes, thats it. They traded by sea.

 

They also traded by land. 

 

The Egyptian name for egypt was Khem,....

 

The Egyptian name for Egypt was Kemet, meaning "black land" because the fertile soil was dark, as opposed to Deshret, the "red land", the desert soil.

 

....their reigning diety was Khem,.....

 

No.  As a matter of fact, the Egyptians had many "reigning deities, depending on which city was the king's capital.  I've looked up the name "Khem" and there is no Egyptian deity by that name.  There is one called Khnum, but he was never a "reigning deity". 

 

The quote to the "Tarshish ships" is interesting as well, because it point to Tartesos or Tarsis. The ancient civilization of Spain, located somewhere in the Guadalquivir, and which has contact with the phoenicians and hebrews of those times.

 

Pinguin

 

I don't know where you have got your surfaces from, but it is firmly known that the Phonecians settled in Italy, Sicily and the Iberian Penninsula as well as north africa. Read Herodotus and other Greek historians- they will confirm my claims.

 

...I thought that Amon was the egyptian king of the gods, also, wasn't the temple of Amon at Karnak similar in comparision to the Parthanon or Delphic Oracle? One of, if not the major religious site in egypt. 

 

Now, what's also clear is that Punt is also in Africa as all the evidence, despite what some scholars in the past tried to claim, all point to an African area. Not the Levant, not Arabia, and certainly not India, but Africa.  Egyptian sources point to two main ways of reaching Punt--- either by the Red Sea or by land.  Judging from the depictions from Hatshepsut's tomb of the landscape, fauna, and especially people, as well as recently discovered texts of an invasion by Kush*tes who had the Puntites as their allies. the Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor, and not to mention the myrrh plants, it is likely that Punt lay somewhere in the conjuctive area of southeastern Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea.

 

As for the term Kemet, that word did not make any references to the soil or earth but to the country or nation itself which as you can see is personified in the feminine (a vowel follwed by 't' in the end).  Just one of the countless parallels Egyptian culture had with many other African cultures is the symbolism with the color black.  In contradiction to the many of culture of Western Asia and Europe, the color black or 'kem' symbolize many positive aspects, the most important of which was re-birth and fertility.  Thus, although Kem was not the name of any one god it was an epithet used for various gods such as Asar (Osiris) was also called Kem Wer (Great Black) as well as Aset (Isis) and various other significant deities.  A similarity can be seen with other Afrasian speaking groups like the Oromo in Ethiopia who also call their deity Waaka black.

 

Now getting back to Punt, there is a likelyhood that there was indeed a complex culture or civilization lying far to the south of the Nile Valley somewhere in the Horn as historians and archeaologists have merely scratched the surface of the history of that region of Africa. 

 

Incorrect. The term Kemet or 'Kmt' is almost certain to refer to the land rather then the color of skin like Afrocentrists are willing to believe. As for the term 'Near East' was a term used for the nation of Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Egypt even in ancient times later called 'Middle East' by Europeans. Today this encompasses Turkey, Iran, and the rest of North Africa.

 

Egyptians did not consider themselves Sub-Saharans but had close contact with them. They taught them many things in terms of warfare and civilization.

 

again I swim to the surface with a Geography topic. But the reason will be known to you all shortly, I just need information from as many sources as I can get.

 

I know that the true science of geography hadn't yet developed, although the Sassanid Empire and it's successors had many great scholars, although it is already out of our time period. So I would begin:

 

1) The Sumerians, being great in Astronomy and Astrology, did they excess in knowing the lands too? Did they make maps or plans of their empires? Did they chart the routes of the Eufrates and the Tigris?

 

 

Darius of Parsa...

 

There were two other rivers at the time of Sumeria, the Piones and the Orientos ( I am most sure I am those are incorrect names of the rivers ). The Persian Gulf was also a river. This may be the location of the Garden Of Eden ( four rivers connecting, Euphrates, Tigris, Piones, and Orientos ) and the location of the mythological Atlantis. The Indian Ocean swelled the region with water after the Ice Age. The Zargos and other ranges trapped the water into basins and when that became high, the water went into the next. This is an explaination of the Bible's tale of the Great Flood and the dissapearence of Atlantis. Sumerian mythology also takes place around these ancient rivers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly, indigenous "blacks" from Africa -- primarily the interior, did not migrate to Egypt.  It was the Semitic Egyptian peoples who originally enslaved the African blacks, until after centuries, the blacks became the semites equals, even surpassing them in rank and religious office, all the way to Pharohood. 

 

All historical recordss indicate the North of Africa was settled by not only semites, but actual Europeans (i.e. Carthaginians) and Arabians.  It is of interest to note, however, that indigenous Africans probably found the North of Africa useless, as did their followers.  Desert, little rain, few prey to hunt with the exception of the lion.  It was and is not a place conducive to settlement.  So it is not surprising at all that the indiginous Africans travelled there, then left, for obvious reasons, while their neighbor's to the farther North proceeded to eeke out a living in that hostile clime.

 

Thanks,

rhodanus

 

Clearly, indigenous "blacks" from Africa -- primarily the interior, did not migrate to Egypt.  It was the Semitic Egyptian peoples who originally enslaved the African blacks, until after centuries, the blacks became the semites equals, even surpassing them in rank and religious office, all the way to Pharohood. 

 

All historical recordss indicate the North of Africa was settled by not only semites, but actual Europeans (i.e. Carthaginians) and Arabians. 


***Once again, this is revisionist history. The Cartheginians were NOT Europeans, nor were they Arabs. They were Phonecians and when they came to North Africa there were already people living there. Once agin, this is more rivisionist colonialist feel good history. Trying to justify their colonial presence by showing that they were in fact the original inhabitants in antiquity. As I have mentioned in other post on this topic, there is DNA evidence that the Berbers did originate in the East. However, this does nopt mean that they were the first or only people there. More on this in response to your next statement***

It is of interest to note, however, that indigenous Africans probably found the North of Africa useless, as did their followers.  Desert, little rain, few prey to hunt with the exception of the lion.  It was and is not a place conducive to settlement.  So it is not surprising at all that the indiginous Africans travelled there, then left, for obvious reasons, while their neighbor's to the farther North proceeded to eeke out a living in that hostile clime.

 

Thanks,

rhodanus

 

Did the Phoenicians leave a great cultural or ethnic influence of the people they came into contact with?

Hi. Sure they had maps, as did numerous equally ancient nations. Ancient Egypt was a conquering empire and would have had war maps; the distances between cities are also listed [3 days journey from Goshen; etc]. The Phoenecians had a naval partnership with King Solomon 2,900 years ago, trading in spices, oils, perfumes and stone. Many nations [Medianites, Mobites, Hittites] are listed in gegraphical locations, with dates, names and routes in the Hebrew bble, now confirmed by Archeological findings. It is implausible no form of map drawings existed.

 

2) Assyrians and Babylonians had large empires, but did they conquer their neighbours by means of rumours or already known facts that there were those lands or by random events?

Babylon invaded and destroyed Jerusalem 2,700 years ago.

3) How large was the Hittite Empire in general, and what were it's connections to the sea routes on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea?

This is a hills people, listed first as one of the Canaanite tribes, then it grew to a warrior nation - they even conquered Egypt for some time.

4) How far did the Pheonicians go on their trips? Did they draw or chart any maps of the world?

They travelled throughout the then known main world centers. IMHO, the Phoenecians got their alphabetical writings from the Hebrew, which contradicts the widespread premise of the other way around.