How was Egypt before the arrival of Hyksos?

Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
#11
Is this a trend here, or did people always do it . I have noticed it more and more lately, it seems to come from people that either have some problem with the people of culture in question. It arises mostly when we compare older cultures (like Australian Aboriginals ) or other prehistory periods ;

" They didnt have proper agriculture ..... there was no complex trade ..... they didnt do x y z 'as we do now' ...... there was no real communication ..... "

:rolleyes:
It's a fact that a lot of these older cultures - specifically the Australian Aboriginals - did not have things like agriculture. Do you want to dispute this, or just act offended by basic history?
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,351
Australia
#12
It's a fact that a lot of these older cultures - specifically the Australian Aboriginals - did not have things like agriculture. Do you want to dispute this, or just act offended by basic history?
Whats that got to do with it ?

What I am 'offended by' is the vague terms 'better' , 'not proper' 'as good as' , etc .

And also I have another issue, now that you mention it . No I am NOT 'offended by basic history. What I am saying is - people that DO seem offended by basic history, try to squirm out of it by running an argument using these terms .

And for an example , since you also mentioned it , go look in the threads here about Australian Indigenous agriculture .

Your 'specific claim' ; " did not " (in italics, I assume to give it emphasis ) have things like agriculture is WRONG and not historical.

They certainly had things LIKE agriculture ( and because you yourself used the term 'like agriculture' , you have no need to run the 'proper agriculture' argument :D ) .
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,986
Crows nest
#13
It seem to me that Egypt was quite primitive before the Hyksos invasion :

-They didn't know how to use bronze
They didn't have boats (I mean those which could navigate on the sea)
- No elaborate weaponry
-No cattle culture
-No knowledge of elaborate trading or commercial exchange
-No real state with a real and centralized administration
-Primitive farming technology
...

Some people like talking about Egypt as a "cradle of civilisation" (I hate this word) even if the majority of it's innovation came from foreigners (Hyksos, Lybians, Ancient Greek/Romans). Did Hyksos bring "civilisation" to Egypt?
What sources can you use to say that they had no bronze?

The Egyptians had sea going boats in the Old Kingdom and were trading across the Red Sea and up the Mediterranean to the Levant. This article deals with the subject very comprehensively http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/IntSP_1_Ancient_EgyptSP.pdf

Certainly the chariot and the khopesh came with the Hyksos.

Domesticated cattle had been in Egypt about 7,000 years before the Hyksos.

The issue of trading is dealt with in point 2.

The were in fact the first known nation state, and as has been mentioned, building the pyramids could never have occurred without a very advanced bureaucracy and logistics capability.

Define "primitive" farming technology in relation to techniques used by the Hyksos, if you can find any information about how they farmed in their homelands.
 
Likes: specul8
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
#14
Whats that got to do with it ?

What I am 'offended by' is the vague terms 'better' , 'not proper' 'as good as' , etc .

And also I have another issue, now that you mention it . No I am NOT 'offended by basic history. What I am saying is - people that DO seem offended by basic history, try to squirm out of it by running an argument using these terms .

And for an example , since you also mentioned it , go look in the threads here about Australian Indigenous agriculture .

Your 'specific claim' ; " did not " (in italics, I assume to give it emphasis ) have things like agriculture is WRONG and not historical.

They certainly had things LIKE agriculture ( and because you yourself used the term 'like agriculture' , you have no need to run the 'proper agriculture' argument :D ) .
Nonsense. You speak a bunch of nonsense.
 
Nov 2016
968
Germany
#16
-No real state with a real and centralized administration
Pharaoh was the highest administrative authority already in the Old Kingdom, supported by the vizierate, the central adminstration, which was established during the 3rd dynasty at the latest. From their role as guarantors of the world order, the Pharaohs derived a multitude of tasks and rights. For the continuance of the community it was necessary that the existence and effectiveness of the ruler in life and after death were secured by the provision of means to a degree that corresponded to his outstanding social position. The observance of the norms of living together in the country had to be centrally supervised and guaranteed. Pharaoh was the highest legal authority and as the only one authorized to issue instructions with law character. Pharaoh was, at least in theory, the supreme priest of all gods und had as such to care for the benevolence of the gods and the effectiveness of the forces of nature. He was the representative of the community to the outside world and supreme commander.

This outstanding social position, in which the existence of the world seemed to be dependent on the existence of the kingdom, made Pharaoh the sole and actual owner of the material resources of the land and the adjoining areas, of the land itself and of the manpower of the people.

Since a man alone, even if divine qualities were attributed to him, could not fulfil all these tasks personally, the ruler himself reserved only the supervision and the possibility of intervening where it seemed necessary or personally desirable to him.

For example, one gets the impression from the sources that the great building projects have always been the subject of an immediate, personal interest of Pharaoh. He orders the construction of temples, pyramids, palaces and tombs, orders officials to carry out the construction, takes a look at the construction plans himself, sends out expeditions to procure building materials and manpower to carry out the construction, personally controls the progress of the work, at least on the most important construction projects.

In order to carry out the varied tasks in concrete terms, Pharaoh had to delegate parts of his power to a group of persons who had a particularly close personal relationship with him, and at first certainly even one of kinship.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2018
751
UK
#17
Yep, an very biased vision (more mythical than a realist depiction of what really was Egypt)
A page full of meaningful counter arguments to your points, highlighting which parts of history contradict you, and the only thing you choose to interact with is one about what some people thought? I'm not sure that repeating one of your original points without further evidence/argumentation even counts as engagement...
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,351
Australia
#20
@WhatAnArtist & @specul8
Avoid to go out of topic, making the thread derailing, introducing debates which are not related with the OP. Thanks.
I was trying to point out the use of those terms ; ' like' , 'proper' , 'advanced' . And I note it is common with some .

I was trying to avoid the de-railer by sending him to the appropriate section.

I was accused of 'taking offense at history' and when cite history am told it is nonsense - I dont mean to derail, but I will not just let that go by .

But I will avoid any further, as requested .