> As it can be appreciated, that voyage followed the opposite direction to those that the Portuguese would do centuries later: instead of sail south the Atlantic Ocean and round the Cape of Good Hope to the east, they had to sail from Egypt in summer, cross the Red Sea (the Arabian Gulf which Herodotus says) taking advantage of the north wind and leaving behind the Horn of Africa.
So it is possible/likely that the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa in a clockwise direction while the Portuguese solved the harder problem of circumnavigating Africa counter-clockwise.
Back to the original question: how did shipworms get to ancient Greece? Both narratives support the idea that shipworms were most likely carried from the Red Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. The question is how early the Canal of the Pharaohs was operational. The shipworms may actual help set this date.
I wonder if a Phoenician equivalent of the Roman/Byzantine Periplus of the Erythraean Sea existed in Carthage and was lost after the Third Punic War.
It quotes Herodotus, this is first link from google, wiki has some pages as well. I am not an historian, but it seems credible. Some details are matching.
> At some point between 610 and before 594 BC, Necho reputedly commissioned an expedition of Phoenicians, who it is said in three years sailed from the Red Sea around Africa back to the mouth of the Nile; and would thereby be the first completion of the Cape Route. Herodotus' account was handed down to him by oral tradition, but is seen as potentially credible because he stated with disbelief that the Phoenicians "as they sailed on a westerly course round the southern end of Libya (Africa), they had the sun on their right"—to northward of them (The Histories 4.42).
While Herodotus may serve as a motivation for someone to make such a claim, the OP did not link to either Herodotus or to a reputable scholarly commentary on Herodotus. He linked to a pop-sci website with an obsession with fringe history – just look at some of the other wacky things on La Brujula Verde.
I read the article and it is sound. I know nothing about the nature of the other articles this website publishes. This is nothing like Graham Hancock pseudo-science.
Graham Hancock has never pretended to be a scientist, so what he writes is, by definition, not pseudoscience. "I don't like it" also does not define pseudoscience, as much as some wish otherwise.
Much of it is pure speculation, and rot, but his direct observations -- he actually does go places, and takes copious, excellent photographs (his wife is a pro) -- have proven reliable; much more so than his armchair critics. He is scrupulously careful to distinguish observation from speculation, something many of his critics could learn from.
Ignore both the speculation and the armchair critics, and you may learn, too.
https://www.labrujulaverde.com/en/2018/11/the-egyptian-phoen...