Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 15th, 2010, 11:03 AM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Europe
Posts: 1,080
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by corrocamino View Post
Is there concrete evidence, barlier, that in ancient Egypt there were the equivalent of the Venetian "fondaco", which comprised import warehouses and living quarters of foreign merchants?
No idea, my knowledge does not go that deep. In any case that would have been in the delta where not much was left, on the other hand A.E spans across 3000 years and rules, as anybody can guess, were not always the same.

AFAIK Egyptians were not high sea sailors, this is another raison to find foreign settlement in the delta.
barlier is offline  
Remove Ads
Old January 15th, 2010, 11:21 AM   #12
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
From: Ozarkistan
Posts: 11,340
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


I thought the Egyptians manned their own ships at least as far away as Lebanon (coasting, of course), and down the Red Sea to Punt.

FOOTNOTES:

1)The powerful civilization centered on the huge metropolis Teotihuacan in Mexico had, according to archaeologists, a "merchant and/or embassy barrio", with separate sectors identifiable by decoration with client polities and/or trading partners.

2) I mentioned the Venetian fondaco, which term is traced by etymologists to Arabic fondak (variously transliterated; inn), but I've wondered what textual evidence, if any, there is for such derivation. Latin fundo would seem a quite plausible antecedent, since the fondaco served as a base for foreign traders/diplomats.
corrocamino is offline  
Old January 15th, 2010, 12:07 PM   #13

Kronos's Avatar
Wanderer Warrior of the Ancient Ages
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: third rock counting from the Sun
Posts: 785
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Wasn't the word 'Hyksos' deriving from the egyptian 'hiq-khase' - 'lord of a foreign hill-country' ?

The Hyksos probably would have had origine in Palestine or Syria, or both. It might have been the pressure from the Hitites coming from Asia Minor that brought the Hyksos to move southwards into Egypt. From their contact with the Hitites they learned to master the charriot use in war and with such mobility, allied to a strong fire-power and armoured protection were the Hyksos in much advantage in relation to the inhabitants of Lower Egypt of the 17th century BC, whose warfare methods were much flimsy due to a all millenia being not invaded by foreigners.

Unfortunelly there's no detailed record of the Hyksos invasion survided but it is known that Lower Egypt fell virtually with a single strike, the egyptians (whatever force might have been raised) were no match to the invading and speedy chariots. The Hyksos overran the Delta and settled to enjoy life. Perhaps lacking the war, ruthless spirit of the Assyrians they ultimately left Upper Egypt to their own means which proved fatal to them, as from there would start the 'crusade' to expell them, sucessfully achieved by king Amose about 1570 BC. Indeed Egypt would feel strong enough to dare further afterwards and about 1479 Tuthmosis III with a sequence of conquests initiated thus the Empire period.
Kronos is offline  
Old January 15th, 2010, 01:20 PM   #14
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Europe
Posts: 1,080
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
Wasn't the word 'Hyksos' deriving from the egyptian 'hiq-khase' - 'lord of a foreign hill-country' ?
Not exactly, see first page of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
It might have been the pressure from the Hitites coming from Asia Minor that brought the Hyksos to move southwards into Egypt.
Hatti was not a threat at that time. The strongest nation was Mitanni who teached them how to train horses. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikkuli"]Kikkuli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
Unfortunelly there's no detailed record of the Hyksos invasion survided but it is known that Lower Egypt fell virtually with a single strike,
Known from who ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
the egyptians were no match to the invading and speedy chariots.
Chariots were useless in the Delta which was full of islands. To take over the Delta one needed boats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
they ultimately left Upper Egypt to their own means which proved fatal to them, as from there would start the 'crusade' to expell them, sucessfully achieved by king Amose about 1570 BC.
So we do not know where these "Hyksos" were coming from and when beaten we do not know where they went (Gosts In - Gosts Out) BTW Out of 19 prisonners, 16 had an egyptian name (Ahmose [son of Ebana] tomb at El-Kab).


In the Speos Artemidos, Queen Hatshepsut wrote she expulsed the Asians who ignored Ra. To be considered as an Egyptian one had to live like and Egyptian and this implyed to worship traditional egyptian gods. It is known that the last kings of the Xvth dyn.made Baal/Seth the state god. This fact was sufficient to call foreigners (ie Asians), Egyptians who worshipped a foreign god [People still do that in our world when someone is different]

Last edited by barlier; January 15th, 2010 at 01:43 PM.
barlier is offline  
Old January 15th, 2010, 01:52 PM   #15
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Europe
Posts: 1,080
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


For those interrested, there are ancient translations of Egyptian texts on http://www.etana.org/coretexts.shtml look for James Breasted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrocamino View Post
I thought the Egyptians manned their own ships at least as far away as Lebanon (coasting, of course), and down the Red Sea to Punt.
You may be right, however I do not recall a text where they say so. From memory, boats for high sea were called Byblos boats. Manned is one thing, build them another one and the most important person is the captain.
barlier is offline  
Old January 15th, 2010, 02:33 PM   #16

Kronos's Avatar
Wanderer Warrior of the Ancient Ages
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: third rock counting from the Sun
Posts: 785
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by barlier View Post
Not exactly, see first page of this thread.
If not exactly, quite near at least.
Quote:
Hatti was not a threat at that time. The strongest nation was Mitanni who teached them how to train horses.
Evidence from the Hitites occured to the period between 1600-1400 BC, it is reported that they tried to invade Mesopotamia but were halted by the egyptians and Mitanni. Who can tell that the Hyksos had no contact with the Hittites ?
Quote:
Known from who ?
Is it not known that resistance wasn't found along the Delta ? I fought archaeological evidence proved that, however i don't have a link to provide you with.
Quote:
Chariots were useless in the Delta which was full of islands. To take over the Delta one needed boats.
So you mean chariots weren't used at all ? As far as i understand exists 2 main opinions on the matter: one supporting a fulminating invasion, with little or no resistance, and another tending to aver a non violent migration or at least with little violence involved.
Quote:
So we do not know where these "Hyksos" were coming from and when beaten we do not know where they went (Gosts In - Gosts Out) BTW Out of 19 prisonners, 16 had an egyptian name (Ahmose [son of Ebana] tomb at El-Kab).
There are unfortunelly a lot of things that we don't know that have come to pass, specially those faraway ones.. Eventually tribes and peoples get assimilated without much record, for not everything has been recorded as if an ancient version of the 'Times' being accountable.
Kronos is offline  
Old January 16th, 2010, 12:52 AM   #17
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Europe
Posts: 1,080
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
Evidence from the Hitites occured to the period between 1600-1400 BC, it is reported that they tried to invade Mesopotamia but were halted by the egyptians and Mitanni.
Mitanni and Egypt were allied at best when Thutmose IV was king. Nobody stopped the Hittites when following the Euphrates they made a raid on Babylon.

"Yet beyond, the actual military successes and the booty which flowed from them, it is difficult to see any long-term gains from Mursili's conquests. The Babylonian expedition in particular raises some fundamental questions about its purpose and Mursili's expectations of it. He could not have hoped to convert the entire region from Aleppo to Babylon into Hittite subject territory. The vastness of this region, its remoteness from the Hittite homeland, and the very limited capacity of the Hittites to exercise permanent control over conquered territories would have made such a prospect unthinkable. In any case, his conquest paved the way for the eventual establishment of a Kassite dynasty in Babylonia. Conceivably, the Hittite expedition arose from an alliance between the Hittites and the Kassites, the incentive for the Hittites being the rich spoils of Babylon, and for the Kassites the prospect of creating a new ruling dynasty in Babylonia. A Hittite-Kassite alliance might also have helped offset the ever-present threat of Hurrian political and military expansion, both in Syria and Anatolia. Indeed the passage in the Proclamation which records the destruction of Aleppo and Babylon refers also to a Hittite conflict with the Hurrians. Thus the Babylonian expedition may have been undertaken by Mursili not only for booty, but also to gain future Kassite support, if it needed to be called upon, against the Hurrian menace in the region." (Trevor Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites) So the Hittites were not a threat for cities in Palestine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
So you mean chariots weren't used at all ?
No, useless for a violent invasion on the Delta.
barlier is offline  
Old January 16th, 2010, 01:19 AM   #18
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Europe
Posts: 1,080
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kronos View Post
Is it not known that resistance wasn't found along the Delta ?
If it was, I would have had a different view. The only resistance was when vassals from Thebes attacked the Delta.
barlier is offline  
Old January 16th, 2010, 05:19 AM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jun 2009
From: Europe
Posts: 1,080
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


Quote:
Originally Posted by barlier View Post
HEINSOHN Gunnar, 6th International Congress of Egyptology
As the name of Heinsohn was mentionned on another thread, I just remember that his paper regarding Hyksos is on my PC. I do not share his view as you can guess, however you may find some valuable informations for you to make your own opinion :

I The Graveyard of Theories on the Hyksos
The graveyard of theories concerning the Hyksos has
been expanding for nearly 2,300 years. The tombstones for
its 12 major burials carry the names of an impressive array of
candidates for the Hyksos title "Rulers of Foreign Lands."
Eleven of the candidates are Asian , one is European. These
12 candidates can be identified as:
(1) pre-Exodus Israelites [Manetho {Waddell 1940, 89};
Josephus Flavius "Contra Apionem"{I, 14}];
(2) Marauding Arab Bedouins (many authors);
(3) -1st millennium Phoenicians [Newton 1728; Illig 1992, 111];
(4) only the invention of a narrator [Uhlemann, 1858];
(5) Indo Aryans [Meyker, 1928 {1952-58}];
(6) Hittites [Procksch, 1914; Pieper 1925];
(7) 15th century BCE Biblical Amalekites [Velikovsky, 1952];
(8) the United Kingdom of Israel from Saul to Solomon [Sieff
1988; Chetwynd 1991];
(9) Old-Babylonian Amorites [Van Seters 1966];
(10) Hurrites [Watzinger 1933; Helck 1971];
(11) Mycenaeans [Dayton 1978]; and
(12) Syro-Canaanites [Weinstein 1981; Kempinsky 1985;
Dever 1985; Mazar 1990].

Only the twelfth theory, which equates the Hyksos with
Palestinian princes or Syro-Canaanites in general, can still
muster a considerable number of supporters. Syro-Palestine's
Middle Bronze Age IIB-C shows a strong archaeological similarity
with Hyksos sites in Egypt, e.g. Tell Daba. However,
Mesopotamia proves to be another serious contender in this
field. More important, the ancient Egyptians themselves did not
identify the Hyksos with Canaanites. On the Amada Stela from
the time of Amenophis II (1439-1413) "the Hyksos _and_ the
princes of Palestine (Retenu)" are mentioned together
(Stock, 1942, 71 - italics added; also Bietak 1980, col. 102].
Obviously the Egyptians could tell the difference between
Canaanite chieftains and their non-Canaanite overlords.

Another problem for the Canaanite option is provided
by an undeniable Hurrian element [Helck, 1971, 89ff] within the
predominantly Semitic Hyksos. The Hurrians are not indigenous
to Early Bronze or Middle Bronze Palestine. The Canaanite
option also suffers if one considers the case of a female slave,
"Ishtar-ummi," who was captured by an Egyptian in the Hyksos wars.
"This name belongs to north Mesopotamia and not to Canaan, where
it would have been Astarte." [Helck 1971, 101].

II Stratigraphy versus Textbook Chronology: The Mitanni
as Immediate Successors of Hyksos and Old-Akkadians Alike

How can we justify annoying the public with a 13th theory
on the identity of the Hyksos? Would it not be more appropriate
to accept the fact that "a solution to this enigma of world history
lies beyond the scope of scholarship" [ Beckerath, 1964, 113]?
Yet, this author felt encouraged to approach the problem afresh
because the classical tools of scholarship have never been
rigorously used in a search for an Asian home for the Hyksos.
Neither comparative stratigraphy and archaeology (architecture,
pottery, small finds, etc.) nor paleography and the evaluation of
original historiographical source material has been applied to
check possible Asian alter egos of the Hyksos.

As long as the textbook date of some candidate comes close
to the textbook date of the "Rulers of Foreign Lands" as new theory
about the Hyksos can be expected to spring up. Researchers took
the dates for both the Hyksos and the various candidates for granted,
although there exists wide agreement that the chronological systems
in use are highly unreliable. This holds notably for the Sothic
dating of Egyptologists. This pseudo-astronomical scheme never
looked well under scientific scrutiny [Neugebauer, 1938; Velikovsky
1973; Newton 1977] but it was not until 1985 that mainstream
Egyptology also questioned it. "Work on chronology has clearly
arrived at a crisis. The reason for this is in part due to the
adoption of dogmatic [Sothic -G.H.] scientific facts without
testing their applicability to Egyptian material and the reliability
of this material [Helck 1985, 95].

The chronology ideas of Assyriologists do not look more
convincing than Egyptological ones. Third millennium Mesopotamia
is dated by counting backwards from Hammurabi, whose "date is the
keystone of the chronology of the -2nd and -3rd millennia"
[Roux 1980, 43]. Within the last 90 years Hammurabi's date has
oscillated between the years -2300 and -1700, with a median date
of ca. -2000. It was originally derived from Genesis 14:1, where
"Amraphel king of Shinar" is mentioned in connection with Abraham
[Genesis 13:18]. For many years Amraphel was equated with
Hammurabi, who thereby got his date via Abraham's Bible
fundamentalist date. Today many scholars have dropped Abraham as
a historical person, and the equation Amraphel = Hammurabi is also
no longer adhered to. Yet, unconsciously, Abraham's pious date was
kept as Hammurabi's date and, thereby, to this very day serves as
the hidden anchor of Mesopotamia's absolute chronology [cf. Heinsohn
1988b, 13-5].

If one wants to forego the quicksand of Bible fundamentalism
and pseudo-astronomy alike, -- not to speak of wildly differing C14
dates [cf. Illig 1991a; Bloss/Niemitz 1996] - comparative chronology
has to resort to comparative stratigraphy. What does this mean for
the Hyksos of Syro-Palestine's Middle Bronze Age? _Stratigraphically_
and, therefore, also historically, they immediately preceded the
Mitanni/Hurrians of the Late Bronze Age. If the Hyksos originated
in Mesopotamia, as is suggested by their being a mixture of Semites
and Hurrians, their Mesopotamian alter ego must have preceded the
Late Bronze Age Mitanni/Hurrians between the Euphrates and the
Tigris in very much the same manner as they preceded the Late Bronze
Age in their Syro-Palestinian and Egyptian realm. Any credible
candidate for the Hyksos on Mesopotamian territory must be located
_stratigraphically immediately underneath_ the Mitanni/Hurrians.

The two long-standing enigmas of (1) the Semitic
Hyksos with no world history of their own, but with
substantial archaeological records in the Nile Valley, as
well as records written about them in Egypt, and (2) the
Semitic Old-Akkadians with cuneiform records of their rule
in Egypt and Ethiopia ("Magan and Melukhha") but no material
remains or texts in Egypt mentioning them, are solved
simultaneously. The Old-Akkadians are the Hyksos.
Therefore, it is not by chance that the Hyksos fortress
cities with their triple gates lie scattered along the
strategic routes between the Nile and the Euphrates.

Neither the early -2nd millennium date for the Hyksos
nor the -3rd millennium date for the Old-Akkadians can be
upheld. Stratigraphically both are found just three strata
groups beneath the Hellenistic period in Syro-Palestine/Daba
or Mesopotamia respectively. The author (Heinsohn)
tentatively equates the Hyksos/Old-Akkadians with the pre-
Medish Assyrian superpower mentioned in Herodotus I:95,
which is not to be confused with the Sargonid Assyrians
found immediately beneath Hellenistic strata. The Medish
successors of Herodotus' I:95-102 Assyrians, whose vast
Mesopotamian empire supposedly did not leave a single brick
or potsherd, are equated with the Mitanni, who only became
known a century ago. _Stratigraphically_ the Medes=Mitanni
follow the Old-Akkadians in the east as directly as they
follow the Hyksos in the west and the "Neo-Sumerians" follow
the Old-Akkadians in Babylonia. The alleged gap between
Old-Akkadian and Mitanni/Hurrian strata in many Mesopotamian
sites represents a pseudo-hiatus.

Between the strata of the Medes = Mitanni and Hellenists
only one additional strata group could be found in any one
individual _north_ Mesopotamian site. It is assigned to
"Middle Assyria" known for its enigmatic conquest of Egypt
("Musri"). In the _south,_ the immediately pre-Hellenist
stratum is called "Old Babylonian," and lies directly on the
"Neo-Sumerians," who _stratigraphically_ are contemporary
with the Medes=Mitanni and, therefore, must be identified as
the Chaldaeans known from Assyrian, Jewish and Greek
sources. Applying historical and stratigraphical reasoning,
"Middle Assyria" and "Old-Babylonia" can be none other than
the long sought after Persian satrapies Assyria and
Babylonia. Their Amorit(d)e or Mart(d)u ethnic background
is rooted in Cyrus the Great's tribe of Mardoi (Amardians)
mentioned by Herodotus and Ctesias.

The duplication of Herodotus' I:95 Assyrians of the -
8th/7th centuries to -17th /16th century Hyksos and their
triplication to -24th/23rd century Old-Akkadians is due to
pseudo-astronomical and Bible fundamentalist chronology
ideas of modern Egyptology and Assyriology respectively.
Because of these unscholarly dating ideas, the Bronze and
Iron Age chronologies of the ancient Near East and Egypt are
haunted by some 2,000 phantom years for which there is no
convincing basis in stratigraphy. It is only because of
these ghost millennia that the ancient Near East, from Egypt
to the Indus Valley, gained its enormous head start into
high civilization over the Ganges Valley, India, Southeast
Asia, China and Meso-America (Heinsohn, 1990).


COMPARATIVE STRATIGRAPHY-BASED CHRONOLOGY

Syro-Palestine/Daba Mesopotamia
Hellenistic Hellenistic
Iron Age
(1) Middle Assyrians (north) Old Babylonians (south) IA
(2) Late Bronze Mitanni (2) Mitanni (north) UR-III Sumerians (south)
(3) Middle Bronze IIB-C (3) Old-Akkadians (=EB IV) Hyksos
(4) Middle Bronze IIA (4) ED IIIb Sumerians (=EB IV)
----------- *
(5) Early Bronze I-III (5) Early Dynastic I-IIIa
(6) Chalcolithic (6) Chalcolithic

* Early Bronze IV/MBI is without a clear-cut stratum in
major tells of Israel [Mazar 1990, 152].
barlier is offline  
Old January 17th, 2010, 02:55 PM   #20
Citizen
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 1
Re: The Hyksos -- historical reality or myth?


I find it very hard to accept that the world power at the time was invaded and dominated for a hundred years by a people whom we are told we know nothing about.


The documentary "RING OF POWER" tells much, and why they hide so much info form the masses.

I own it, I bought 30 copies and gav e them to my family and friends. you should do the same.

get this info out there to the masses.
Magog is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
hyksos, myth, reality



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Merlin -Historical man or Historical myth ? Kronos Speculative History 12 September 5th, 2015 05:46 PM
Were the Hyksos the Hebrews? Ahmose Ancient History 70 December 21st, 2009 12:52 AM
Ninja - Myth or Reality? Salah Asian History 41 December 9th, 2009 05:57 PM
There is no Godís Eye View of Reality coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 8 February 5th, 2009 02:23 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.