Were the Hyksos the Hebrews?

Feb 2011
732
Kitchener. Ont.
#82
It is clear from other egyptian documents that Fenkhu refers to the precursors of the Phoenicians.........
Certainly, no question. Perhaps you misunderstood, I had not intended to provide an exhaustive interpretation (opinion) of who the Fenkhu were.

Throughout the 2nd millennium from pottery evidence and remains of fresco's we know of contact & prolific trade between the West Aegean and the coastal Levant, Cyprus & southern Anatolia. The Egyptian texts as you show identify Fenkhu occupying lands in the Levant between the Orontes & the Med. Sea.
This evidence though does not prove who the Fenkhu were, only that they were at that location, either as indigenous Asiatics or as foreign colonials.

I highly doubt Asiatics controlled the West Aegean in sufficient numbers to cause the Egyptian Pharaoh to accept their rule over mainlands Greece & the island of Crete, ie; "Lands of the Fenkhu", especially without a sound archaeological argument. Therefore, this statue base present us with an anomaly.

I think it is far safer to go with the present state of affairs - with some support from archaeology. That the people who dominated the north Levantine coast and gained mention in Egyptian texts in the 2nd mil. were colonials or descentants of colonials from the West Aegean.

This leads me to another proverbial 'thorn in the side' of conventional wisdom - the Canopus Decree.
With reference to the mention of Tinay & Keftiu as separate toponyms from the rest of the Aegean names on the aforementioned statue base.
Tinay can only be Adana in S/E Anatolia, and the Canopus Decree parallels Keftiu with Phoenicia.
Archaeology has also shown us that Adana/Danuna/Danoi & Keftiu must have been heavily influenced if not direct decendants of West Ageans.

So, should we view the Fenkhu as indigenous, or as peoples from across the sea?
 
Last edited:
Apr 2017
285
Northern lands
#83
I'm just going to throw out this possibility. But is it possible that Abram and Sarah were the same ethnic group as the Pharaohs?

According to Biblical sources, we know that Sarah was considered very especially beautiful as the couple entered Egypt, such that the Pharaoh was informed. It's also thought that the Pharaoh had attempted to take Sarah as a wife. Knowing the ancient Egyptians, they would not just take anyone as a wife.

Now, having said its been thought that the "land of the gods" to Egyptians, referring to Punt, is the land of the Egyptian's ancestors based on this being a common denominator for such connections. Punt is East Africa, somewhere around the source of the Nile probably. Thus perhaps it makes the most sense that Abram and Sarah came down the Nile River into Egypt from the original homeland of the Egyptian royalty, which was possibly around the source of the Nile River in East Africa.

This might not seem to make any sense though because most people would probably wonder, what civilization was at the source of the Nile. We know the seafaring Phoenicians were from somewhere around here too. I've had people dispute this but I think the Phoenicians were from Punt because that's just what ancient historians believed.
 
Last edited:
Aug 2018
150
Italy
#84
Certainly, no question. Perhaps you misunderstood, I had not intended to provide an exhaustive interpretation (opinion) of who the Fenkhu were.

Throughout the 2nd millennium from pottery evidence and remains of fresco's we know of contact & prolific trade between the West Aegean and the coastal Levant, Cyprus & southern Anatolia. The Egyptian texts as you show identify Fenkhu occupying lands in the Levant between the Orontes & the Med. Sea.
This evidence though does not prove who the Fenkhu were, only that they were at that location, either as indigenous Asiatics or as foreign colonials.

I highly doubt Asiatics controlled the West Aegean in sufficient numbers to cause the Egyptian Pharaoh to accept their rule over mainlands Greece & the island of Crete, ie; "Lands of the Fenkhu", especially without a sound archaeological argument. Therefore, this statue base present us with an anomaly.

I think it is far safer to go with the present state of affairs - with some support from archaeology. That the people who dominated the north Levantine coast and gained mention in Egyptian texts in the 2nd mil. were colonials or descentants of colonials from the West Aegean.

This leads me to another proverbial 'thorn in the side' of conventional wisdom - the Canopus Decree.
With reference to the mention of Tinay & Keftiu as separate toponyms from the rest of the Aegean names on the aforementioned statue base.
Tinay can only be Adana in S/E Anatolia, and the Canopus Decree parallels Keftiu with Phoenicia.
Archaeology has also shown us that Adana/Danuna/Danoi & Keftiu must have been heavily influenced if not direct decendants of West Ageans.

So, should we view the Fenkhu as indigenous, or as peoples from across the sea?
The problem with your hypothesis is that the Fenkhu already occupied that part of the Levant since at least the early second millennium bc, but probably even before that period. Is there any evidence of an aegean colonization during such a remote period? Not to my knowledge. Yes, the minoans were great merchants and artists/craftsmen, and during the 18th century bc they had a sort of golden age and interacted frequently with the Levant. They did have some influence in the Levant and Egypt, see for example the frescoes from Avaris in Egypt, Qatna in Syria, and some others from palaces in Israel, however these do not prove that the aegean people colonized those places, only that they traded with them and had some cultural influence on them, in fact Cyprus ended up adopting a minoan derived script, that didn't happen at all however in the Levant proper. It's only during the late bronze age that textual and material evidence for Aegean peoples colonizing the Levant seem to appear. The Hittites document jointed Mycenaean and South Western anatolian attempts at taking over Cyprus, the last hittite emperor Suppiluliuma II documents cypriot attacks and the naval battles agains them, egyptian sources document different waves of invasions from northen peoples with clear cypriot and aegean affiliation, Ugarit's archive documents pirate raids, it's only during this period that we see mycenaean pottery appearing in significant quantities in the Levant, especially in Palestine where the Peleset settled.

There's loads of evidence for the Peleset/Philistines being aegean migrants, starting from the motifs in their helladic pottery of clear aegean derivation, their hearths, bathtubs, cypro-minoan script, indoeuropean names, weaponry, the arrival of european fauna in correspondence to their settlement, that isn't true at all for the Fenkhu. While the Peleset are mentioned to occupy the Southern Levant only 70 years after their invasion from the North both by sea and by land along with other tribes, the same isn't true for the Fenkhu; and while the appearence of the Peleset in the Southern Levant corresponds with a clear change in the material culture, with a clear intrustion of foreign customs on all aspects, the Fenkhu material culture was pretty mcuh identical to the rest of the Levant, with no significant aegean intrusions.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Tulius
Feb 2011
732
Kitchener. Ont.
#85
The problem with your hypothesis is that the Fenkhu already occupied that part of the Levant since at least the early second millennium bc, but probably even before that period. Is there any evidence of an aegean colonization during such a remote period? Not to my knowledge. Yes, the minoans were great merchants and artists/craftsmen, and during the 18th century bc they had a sort of golden age and interacted frequently with the Levant.
Ok, I'm not following you. The 18th century BC is the early 2nd millennium.


....They did have some influence in the Levant and Egypt, see for example the frescoes from Avaris in Egypt, Qatna in Syria, and some others from palaces in Israel, however these do not prove that the aegean people colonized those places, only that they traded with them and had some cultural influence on them,...
Which is what I was alluding to in the previous post.

.......in fact Cyprus ended up adopting a minoan derived script, that didn't happen at all however in the Levant proper.
Correct, but the Levant had something more advanced than the Minoan script.

....It's only during the late bronze age that textual and material evidence for Aegean peoples colonizing the Levant seem to appear. The Hittites document jointed Mycenaean and South Western anatolian attempts at taking over Cyprus, the last hittite emperor Suppiluliuma II documents cypriot attacks and the naval battles agains them, egyptian sources document different waves of invasions from northen peoples with clear cypriot and aegean affiliation, Ugarit's archive documents pirate raids, it's only during this period that we see mycenaean pottery appearing in significant quantities in the Levant, especially in Palestine where the Peleset settled.
Now you're inching towards the 1st millennium, and my subject of choice.

...There's loads of evidence for the Peleset/Philistines being aegean migrants, starting from the motifs in their helladic pottery of clear aegean derivation, their hearths, bathtubs, cypro-minoan script, indoeuropean names, weaponry, the arrival of european fauna in correspondence to their settlement, that isn't true at all for the Fenkhu.
We are indebted to more recent indepth research into the only real evidence that remains from this period.
The accepted paradigm is slowly being eroded, the so-called "evidence" for an arrival of migrants from the west Aegean is showing to be nothing of the sort.
Take for instance the Hearths found at Ekron, Ashdod, Tel Qasile & Ashkelon find their nearest examples on Cyprus, not the west Aegean (Killebrew).
The Lion-headed cups unearthed at Ekron, Gath & Tel Qasile, have long been touted as similar to the Rhyta on mainland Greece, yet it has now been determined that both the Rhyta & the Levantine examples both derive from Anatolian & North Syrian originals. (Mazow).
The Ashdoda figurine from Ashdod finds no parallels in the west Aegean, but closely resembles the Anatolian mother Goddess Kybele/Kubaba (Singer).
Then there is the incised scapulae, which also has no parallel in the west Aegean, but is thoroughly well represented in Mesopotamia, Syria, Anatolia & Cyprus.

...While the Peleset are mentioned to occupy the Southern Levant only 70 years after their invasion from the North both by sea and by land along with other tribes, the same isn't true for the Fenkhu; and while the appearence of the Peleset in the Southern Levant corresponds with a clear change in the material culture, with a clear intrustion of foreign customs on all aspects, the Fenkhu material culture was pretty mcuh identical to the rest of the Levant, with no significant aegean intrusions.
The Peleset, after more recent analysis, appear to have descended on the Levant from north Syria, some as yet undefined region between Alalakh & Aleppo, nowhere near Crete or mainland Greece.
Phoenicia did not play a role in the so-called Sea Peoples invasion so we have no record of the nature of their society in this period.

This presently appears to be a bit of a one-sided argument. If the Kom el-Hetan statue base informs us that Crete & mainland Greece were "lands of the Fenkhu", and you believe these Fenkhu were Semites, then where is the evidence on Crete & mainland Greece for such a Semitic society dominating these lands?
 
Aug 2018
150
Italy
#86
Ok, I'm not following you. The 18th century BC is the early 2nd millennium.
You're not following what? I'm saying that there's no material or textual evidence that the Minoans or other aegean peoples colonized the Levant during that time period, they're just recorded as merchants and the material evidence points to the same thing, since there are no significant aegean intrusions in the material culture of the Levant anywhere.




Now you're inching towards the 1st millennium, and my subject of choice.
No, I'm not. The Peleset/Philistine migration happened during the 12th century bc, that's late second millennium bc



We are indebted to more recent indepth research into the only real evidence that remains from this period.
The accepted paradigm is slowly being eroded, the so-called "evidence" for an arrival of migrants from the west Aegean is showing to be nothing of the sort.
No, not at all. Philistine pottery clearly derives from the Aegean, not Cilicia or not even Cyprus, even recent studies have confirmed that.

"The survey sample consists of approximately 150 birds and fish in the Philistine 1 (monochrome) and Philistine 2 (bichrome) pottery styles from the 12th and 11th centuries B.C.E. These examples were stylistically compared to some 650 birds and fish on Late Minoan and Late Helladic pictorial pottery, as well as on Aegean-style pottery from Cyprus and coastal Anatolia from the 14th to the 12th centuries B.C.E. ^ The results of the comparative analysis show that the majority of elements comprising the Philistine birds and fish, such as the birds' triglyph body-fill and chevron wing as well as idiosyncratic features of the fishes' gill-lines and head, can be traced back to the Aegean world. Particularly revealing was that a number of features indicated inspiration from Cretan prototypes, while inspiration from Cyprus is not well represented. ^ The findings support the notion that the Philistines migrated from multiple regions within the Aegean world, including Crete, and that Cyprus and Anatolia, though perhaps playing a certain role in the process, were not among the primary places of the origin of the Philistines.^ "

Meiberg, L.G. 2011. Figural Motifs on Philistine Pottery and Their Connection to the Aegean World, Cyprus, and Coastal Anatolia. Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania.


Take for instance the Hearths found at Ekron, Ashdod, Tel Qasile & Ashkelon find their nearest examples on Cyprus, not the west Aegean (Killebrew).

Newly introduced mycenaean pottery, which constituted 30% of the pottery, is more relevant than hearths in telling the place of origins of a new ethnicity, plus there are similar hearths in Crete too, not to mention that the practice of using hearths itself was introduced to Cyprus from the Aegean.


The Lion-headed cups unearthed at Ekron, Gath & Tel Qasile, have long been touted as similar to the Rhyta on mainland Greece, yet it has now been determined that both the Rhyta & the Levantine examples both derive from Anatolian & North Syrian originals. (Mazow)..
Obviously there were many different influences, especially considering that the Peleset migrated with some other 10 ethnicities, still the mycenaean pottery is way more indicative than a few cups considering that it constituted more than 1/3rd of the pottery after the arrival of the Philistines in the southern Levant.

Phoenicia did not play a role in the so-called Sea Peoples invasion so we have no record of the nature of their society in this period.
No one argued that, it's clear that the Fenkhu/Phoenicians were West Semites who occupied the Levant since 2000 bc or before.


The Peleset, after more recent analysis, appear to have descended on the Levant from north Syria, some as yet undefined region between Alalakh & Aleppo, nowhere near Crete or mainland Greece.
A recent analysis of what? a dubious inscription which was written after the sea peoples' invasions under Ramses III?

This presently appears to be a bit of a one-sided argument. If the Kom el-Hetan statue base informs us that Crete & mainland Greece were "lands of the Fenkhu", and you believe these Fenkhu were Semites, then where is the evidence on Crete & mainland Greece for such a Semitic society dominating these lands?
Except that's your forced interpretion which is against all the most recent translations of the inscription, where Crete and mainland Greece are identified respectively as Keftiu and Tanaju, not as "the lands of the Fenkhu" which were clearly located in the Levant since time immemorial. I reiterate: the story of Sinuhe, written around the 20th century bc clearly confirms that the Fenkhu were local Levantines, not aegean migrants:


"And Meki in Qedem, the mountain-men leading Kesh, Menus from the land of Fenkhu,
These are the rulers by their exact names who have come into your affection
Without mentioning Retenu (Syria), as much yours as are your dogs"
 
Last edited:
Sep 2018
9
greek isles
#87
NO..,, its absolutely silly.

No compelling proofs, evidences to support such notion - written records, archaeological or substantive historical views.
 
Sep 2018
9
greek isles
#88
Edgewaters: How does that depend on how I look at things? Even if your theory was true, all that I wrote still stands, and Exodus still is just a myth.

Btw, according to the theory you cite, during which century did the rebellion happen?
I agree.
 
Feb 2011
732
Kitchener. Ont.
#89
No, not at all. Philistine pottery clearly derives from the Aegean, not Cilicia or not even Cyprus, even recent studies have confirmed that.
There is no monochrome/Bichrome pottery in the Aegean. It is purely a local phenomena between Cyprus, Cilicia, Phoenicia & Palestine.
The artwork certainly reflects Aegean influences, but that does not indicate ethnicity.

Killebrew explains the pottery evidence suggests, ".....that Cyprus and possibly the surrounding regions are most likely the original point of departure of the Philistines. This is not to detract from the obvious fact that the ultimate inspiration of Aegean-style material culture in the east and Philistia lie in the Aegean, albeit removed by several generations."
Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity, Killebrew, p.231, 2005.

As I was saying, it was the 2nd millennium when Aegeans spread their culture around the east Mediterranean. It was their descendants, Aegean settlers, who created local wares with Aegean inspired decorations. These peoples are the ones who moved against Egypt.


Newly introduced mycenaean pottery, which constituted 30% of the pottery, is more relevant than hearths in telling the place of origins of a new ethnicity, plus there are similar hearths in Crete too, not to mention that the practice of using hearths itself was introduced to Cyprus from the Aegean.
Using the term 'Mycenaean' for the pottery has always created confusion. All they are really saying is, the pottery was made locally but in the Aegean style.


Obviously there were many different influences, especially considering that the Peleset migrated with some other 10 ethnicities, still the mycenaean pottery is way more indicative than a few cups considering that it constituted more than 1/3rd of the pottery after the arrival of the Philistines in the southern Levant.
Ok, so if these invaders came directly from the Aegean, where is the pottery they brought with them?
Why is there no Aegean-made pottery directly on top of the burn horizons at the numerous devastated sites in the southern Levant?

No one argued that, it's clear that the Fenkhu/Phoenicians were West Semites who occupied the Levant since 2000 bc or before.
The question has been raised why Phoenicia seems to have remained unaffected by the same widespread devastation that the southern Levant fell victim to.

A recent analysis of what? a dubious inscription which was written after the sea peoples' invasions under Ramses III?
There's more to that inscription than people realize. for the most part, scholars pay little attention to the entire record.

Except that's your forced interpretion which is against all the most recent translations of the inscription, where Crete and mainland Greece are identified respectively as Keftiu and Tanaju, not as "the lands of the Fenkhu" which were clearly located in the Levant since time immemorial.
Perhaps they should look at the actual inscription, and not repeat what others write.
Photographs show the "Lands of the Fenkhu" is written above the Aegean names, not above Tanai & Keftiu.
Photo's show exactly how I quoted it, maybe you should look it up.
It wouldn't be the first time I researched the argument of an academic and found it at fault.

I reiterate: the story of Sinuhe, written around the 20th century bc clearly confirms that the Fenkhu were local Levantines, not aegean migrants:

"And Meki in Qedem, the mountain-men leading Kesh, Menus from the land of Fenkhu,
These are the rulers by their exact names who have come into your affection
Without mentioning Retenu (Syria), as much yours as are your dogs"
It's just a variation of very common hyperbole.
mki m qdm xntyw-s m xnt kS mnw s m tAw fnxw

All it seems to say is they come from the East, from the South, and from the West.
 
#90
The Hyksos were mostly Canaanites and the Hebrews were an off-shoot of the Canaanites because Hebrew is a Canaanite language in origin. So maybe some of the Canaanites who conquered Egypt were the ancestors of the Hebrews. The Hyksos conquered Egypt long before the Israelites were supposedly in Egypt. There is absolutely no proof Israelites ever went to Egypt.