posted
Who were they? What was there ethnicity? Where did they come from?
I am having a discussion on another board with a lady who seems to think they were white men ruling lower Egypt (Delta region) during the 13th thru the 15th centuries b.c.e.
The few souces I have come across seem to say that no one knows were these "shepard kings" (supposedly a misnomer) came from or who they really were. One source connected them with Syria and Canaan.
Can someone please provide some additional links/information that can help the both of us come to an understanding concerning this time in Ancient Egyptian history? I'd greatly appreciate it.
Posts: 303 | From: Inside my Mind | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hyksos is alternately defined as “Foreign Kings” or “Shepherd Kings” depending on which translation you prefer. In any case they are both right: They were foreign kings as they came from Sumer, and they were Shepherd kings because that’s what Sumerians called their kings i.e “THE SHEPHERD or THE GOOD SHEPHERD”. Example…
The lament for Sumer and Urim: translation
The people, in their fear, breathed only with difficulty. The storm immobilised them, the storm did not let them return. There was no return for them, the time of captivity did not pass. What did Enlil, the shepherd of the black-headed people, do? Enlil, to destroy the loyal households, to decimate the loyal men, to put the evil eye on the sons of the loyal men, on the first-born, Enlil then sent down Gutium from the mountains. Their advance was as the flood of Enlil that cannot be withstood. The great wind of the countryside filled the countryside, it advanced before them. The extensive countryside was destroyed, no one moved about there.
Collectively they are known as Amorites; in Sumer they were known as Martu, in Egypt they were known as Hebrews. In both Sumer and Egypt, they managed to take power and establish dynasties that lasted for hundreds of years. Historically their most famous kings were Hammurabi in Sumer, and Jesus (if you’re religious). Shortly after the formation of Israel, other Amorites formed the country of Aram in what is now north-eastern Syria. If you watched the movie “The Passion of the Christ” you might have noticed that at that time, the Hebrews spoke the Aramaean language.
Circa 2,500 B.C. the Amorites were a nomadic people, who are thought to have originated in south-central Anatolia (Turkey). This belief is reinforced by new finds at Gobekli Tepe in south-east Turkey, which is an ancient site from 11,500 B.C. Here the burial practice of defleshing the corpse and then burying the bones in a container has been discovered. This particular practice is known only to Persians and Hebrews; both of which are thought to originate in Anatolia. However; in Anatolia the relationship of the various ancient people is uncertain; the most obvious problem is that the Amorites were Nomads, whereas the people of Gobekli Tepe built the worlds first monumental structures.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledgeiskey718 - That little statue of Mother and Child is authentic, and is the only known piece of Hyksos art from Egypt. The question of why it is the only surviving piece of Hyksos art; is so far unanswered. But as with so many things related to ancient artifacts, the answer may lay more with politics than with a lack of Hyksos artifacts.
The MAIN body of the Hyksos, were NOT hated invaders, like the later Assyrians and Persians; instead, they were nationalized Amorite Egyptians and migrant workers from Mesopotamia, lured to Egypt by the building boom of the 12th dynasty.
The guess would be; that the first Hyksos king of Egypt “Salitis (also Saites)” was a member of the royal family of the LAST Amorite king in Sumer “Samsuditana (about 1625-1595 B.C.)” Salitis upon seeing the numerical advantage of Amorites in Egypt; probably saw an opportunity to establish a NEW home in Egypt, after being expelled from Sumer by the Hattie. [The fact that the Hattie and the Amorites are BOTH from Anatolia, is TOO much of a coincidence, there must have been something else going on.] If you are religious: you will also note that this is also about the time when Abraham and his family leave Sumer, clearly Amorites were no longer welcome there.
The following accounts of the Hyksos invasion of Egypt; is seriously doubted by all, because there is no collateral evidence. It may be that these accounts are cover-ups for Egyptian mismanagement, which led to Hyksos usurpation of government in the delta.
Manetho on the Hyksos Manetho, Aegyptiaca., frag. 42, 1.75-79.2
Tutimaeus. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions. Above all, he fortified the district to the east, foreseeing that the Assyrians, as they grew stronger, would one day covet and attack his kingdom.
[Note the quote: “From the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land”].
Flavius Josephus: Against Apion
(Slightly different, longer version)
Book 1, section 73 Under a king of ours named Timaus (Tutimaeus) God became angry with us, I know not how, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of obscure birth from the east, and had the temerity to invade our country, and easily conquered it by force, as we did not do battle against them. After they had subdued our rulers, they burnt down our cities, and destroyed the temples of the gods, and treated the inhabitants most cruelly; killing some and enslaving their wives and their children.
Then they made one of their own king. His name was Salatis; he lived at Memphis, and both the upper and lower regions had to pay tribute to him. He installed garrisons in places that were the most suited for them. His main aim was to make the eastern parts safe, expecting the Assyrians, at the height of their power, to covet his kingdom, and invade it. In the Saite Nome there was a city very proper for this purpose, by the Bubastic arm of the Nile. With regard to a certain theological notion it was called Avaris. He rebuilt and strengthened this city by surrounding it with walls. and by stationing a large garrison of two hundred and forty thousand armed men there. Salitis came there in the summer, to gather corn in order to pay his soldiers, and to exercise his men, and thus to terrify foreigners.
After a reign of thirteen years, he was followed by one whose name was Beon, who ruled for for forty-four years. After him reigned Apachnas for thirty-six years and seven months. After him Apophis was king for sixty-one years, followed by Janins for fifty years and one month. After all these Assis reigned during forty-nine years and two months. These six were their first kings. They all along waged war against the Egyptians, and wanted to destroy them to the very roots.
"These people, whom we have called kings before, and shepherds too, and their descendants," as he says, "held Egypt for five hundred and eleven years. Then," he says, "the kings of Thebes and the other parts of Egypt rose against the shepherds, and a long and terrible war was fought between them." He says further, "By a king, named Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued, and were driven out of the most parts of Egypt and shut up in a place named Avaris, measuring ten thousand acres." Manetho says, "The shepherds had built a wall surrounding this city, which was large and strong, in order to keep all their possessions and plunder in a place of strength.
[Note the quote “These people, whom we have called kings before, and shepherds too” (see post above)].
The fact that the Hyksos governed with the acquiescence of local Egyptians is demonstrated by the fact that they maintained extensive business relationships even with the people of UPPER Egypt! In fact, they were so well accepted by Egyptians, that Tao II found it necessary to come up with the ridicules thumped-up charge that he was insulted by a letter that Apepy I sent him, complaining that his pet Hippos were disturbing Apepy’s sleep, (from 600 miles away), as an excuse to attack them. And after the Hyksos were expelled, Ahmose even launched a campaign of severe punishment for Egyptians who sided with them (the Hyksos). (I believe that the letter, now in the British museum, might be an Egyptian fake that they used as an excuse for war against the Hyksos).
I mention all of this, to make a point about the little statue above. Contrary to popular belief; there is nothing mysterious about the Hyksos, as a matter of fact, they are fairly well documented. As are the Amorite kings in Sumer, and the Aramaean kings of Arum. When the Amorites (Hyksos) ruled Egypt, normal Egyptian life continued. They built temples and palaces and all other things that they normally did. And just as before and after: paintings and Stele and statues were made.
So why is the little statue of the Hyksos woman the ONLY one? While we’re at it, where are the statues of all the Hyksos kings? Better yet, where are the statues of the later Amorite kings in Israel, like Solomon and David. But best of all; where are the paintings and statues of Jesus? Egyptians, Amorites, and Romans were quite fond of making Stele and statues and Busts. (There are lots of busts of Constantine – he established the Christianity that we know today; but none of the King-of-Kings – how strange!). So nowhere is to be found a LOCAL painting or statue or bust of ANY HEBREW from that time period – stranger still!
Close examination of the Hyksos statue will explain why: She is a Black woman! ALL depictions by other people, of Amorites-Hyksos-Hebrews, show them to be Black people. What a problem that presents for White people, especially those who call themselves religious. Luckily there are depictions of Amorites-Hyksos-Hebrews from other sources.
posted
^ I agree with everything here except where the Hyksos are called 'Hebrews'. As far as I know there is nothing to identify the Hyksos as being the historical Hebrews.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: I searched for pics of hyksos in Egyptian art, I found this, not too sure if it's correct.
It's correct. This is one of the few surviving depictions of Hyksos by the Egyptians. What's funny is that many scholars upon finding this piece were puzzled also due to the female figure's 'features'. It kind of breaks their stereotypes on what Asiatics looked like.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with everything here except where the Hyksos are called 'Hebrews'. As far as I know there is nothing to identify the Hyksos as being the historical Hebrews.
Well since statues and depictions of hyksos are rare from Egyptian art, and we can see from this photo, the individual really doesn't have an Asiatic look, as we can notice in the Syrians.
I agree with not calling these Hyksos, Hebrews, thats assuming Hebrew originated in the Near East.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Well since statues and depictions of hyksos are rare from Egyptian art, and we can see from this photo, the individual really doesn't have an Asiatic look, as we can notice in the Syrians..
You speak as if there is just one 'Asiatic look'. The peoples of Southwest Asia were diverse in looks as well as in lineage. So would it not be unfair to stereotype Asiatics as having a certain look?
posted
^^^Has either of you bothered to do any research, or do you always approach a scientific subject with such impudent and careless arrogance; youthfulness is not always an excuse.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Oh put a sock in it! First of all, of course I do research or have some knowledge in something I discuss on this board. Second, the only one who acts arrogant and impudent is YOU! You don't even know what you're talking about half of the time! What with your claims in Classical Greeks being black and that all the depictions we have of them are frauds! LOL You also seem to support Marc's position that whites aren't native to Europe! So what pray tell is your problem in this thread?!
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - You say that you have researched the subject; then SUPPORT your position. Why are the Amorites and the Hyksos and the Hebrews, NOT the same people.
The two of you keep mentioning what you think; well who gives a sh1t what two know-nothing kids think. Give us the opinions of people who have researched, and do know something, what they think has value, not what you think. But in order to do that, you have to do some research of your own - do it, then talk about what you think.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Well since statues and depictions of hyksos are rare from Egyptian art, and we can see from this photo, the individual really doesn't have an Asiatic look, as we can notice in the Syrians..
You speak as if there is just one 'Asiatic look'. The peoples of Southwest Asia were diverse in looks as well as in lineage. So would it not be unfair to stereotype Asiatics as having a certain look?
I knew I would get this response, well the first image doesn't look any different from the Asiatic I posted, and the second link didn't work. But no I wasn't stereotyping I was just saying that he doesn't have an Asiatic look as we can see in a Syrian or some Lybians in Egyptian art..
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - You say that you have researched the subject; then SUPPORT your position. Why are the Amorites and the Hyksos and the Hebrews, NOT the same people.
The two of you keep mentioning what you think; well who gives a sh1t what two know-nothing kids think. Give us the opinions of people who have researched, and do know something, what they think has value, not what you think. But in order to do that, you have to do some research of your own - do it, then talk about what you think.
Lmao, don't take your anger out towards me. Oh I see, this is yet another attempt to try and prove that the Hebrews were Africans? Is that it?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with everything here except where the Hyksos are called 'Hebrews'. As far as I know there is nothing to identify the Hyksos as being the historical Hebrews.
Well since statues and depictions of hyksos are rare from Egyptian art, and we can see from this photo, the individual really doesn't have an Asiatic look, as we can notice in the Syrians.
I agree with not calling these Hyksos, Hebrews, thats assuming Hebrew originated in the Near East.
so you're the "hyksos" women above depicts a black person instead of a near easterner? Posts: 447 | From: Somewhere son... | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Knowledgeiskey718 - Lmao, don't take your anger out towards me. Oh I see, this is yet another attempt to try and prove that the Hebrews were Africans? Is that it?
If you wonder why your carelessness annoys me, read my post above. I clearly say that the Amorites originate in Anatolia; or don't you feel it necessary to actually read something that you would presume to give your opinion on.
Furthermore, didn't you know that ALL Humans originate in Africa? The difference is when they left Africa, and what route they took to reach their current place of residence. The exception being Whites and Mongols, who apparently went through some sort of a physical change. If you can't be bothered to bring yourself up to speed on this basic stuff, how can you hope to contribute? Or is it that you wish to join Djehuti and rasol in the peanut gallery, just ignorant kids making mindless noise.
ASIAN TYPE?? - Are you all really serious about using a DRAWING of unknown authenticity to make judgments about human populations? You gotta be kidding.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ I agree with everything here except where the Hyksos are called 'Hebrews'. As far as I know there is nothing to identify the Hyksos as being the historical Hebrews.
Well since statues and depictions of hyksos are rare from Egyptian art, and we can see from this photo, the individual really doesn't have an Asiatic look, as we can notice in the Syrians.
I agree with not calling these Hyksos, Hebrews, thats assuming Hebrew originated in the Near East.
so you're the "hyksos" women above depicts a black person instead of a near easterner?
If eyeball anthropology counts, I would say I see a Broad, flat face. prognathous.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Knowledgeiskey718 - Lmao, don't take your anger out towards me. Oh I see, this is yet another attempt to try and prove that the Hebrews were Africans? Is that it?
If you wonder why your carelessness annoys me, read my post above. I clearly say that the Amorites originate in Anatolia; or don't you feel it necessary to actually read something that you would presume to give your opinion on.
Furthermore, didn't you know that ALL Humans originate in Africa? The difference is when they left Africa, and what route they took to reach their current place of residence. The exception being Whites and Mongols, who apparently went through some sort of a physical change. If you can't be bothered to bring yourself up to speed on this basic stuff, how can you hope to contribute? Or is it that you wish to join Djehuti and rasol in the peanut gallery, just ignorant kids making mindless noise.
ASIAN TYPE?? - Are you all really serious about using a DRAWING of unknown authenticity to make judgments about human populations? You gotta be kidding.
^^^^^Nonsense!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^youtube?? You wish to take us down to the level of youtube!! This is NOT A CHAT ROOM; This is a board that presumes to speak on scientific issues that relate to anthropology. Or didn't they tell you that, then again, looking at the quality of your posts, perhaps they didn't.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^^^youtube?? You wish to take us down to the level of youtube!! This is NOT A CHAT ROOM; This is a board that presumes to speak on scientific issues that relate to anthropology. Or didn't they tell you that, then again, looking at the quality of your posts, perhaps they didn't.
^^^^^Lmao, guy you need to really wake up, you're delirious seriously. Did you even watch the videos? I am pretty sure you didn't. Just like you said the Met Museum was a racist white Museum, and they have no authentic statues depicting Egyptians as Africans, meanwhile in my next post, I showed you 8 statues right off the bat. You seem just like the Euro-centrists seriously deluded. Stop with the personal insecurities please. Believe me, it's very telling of your doltishness!! The nerve of you, to say something about anthropology? Lmao, are you serious?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Djehuti - You say that you have researched the subject; then SUPPORT your position. Why are the Amorites and the Hyksos and the Hebrews, NOT the same people.
LOL Because for one, Hebrew scriptures identify the Amorites as as seperate people. The Hebrews themselves weren't even identified in history until the late 2nd millennium B.C. While the Amorites were attested well before then. As for the Hyksos, it not even known what their exact ethnicity was. It is only inferred from the names of some of their rulers that they were Canaanites. That is there is a connection between all 3 peoples is not in doubt as all three groups inhabited the same area of land in close proximity, but it is another thing to say they are all the same single people!
quote:The two of you keep mentioning what you think; well who gives a sh1t what two know-nothing kids think. Give us the opinions of people who have researched, and do know something, what they think has value, not what you think. But in order to do that, you have to do some research of your own - do it, then talk about what you think.
LOL Correction, we are telling you what we KNOW! The only one in here who doesn't know a thing is obviously YOU as your no intellect frustration betrays you with your cussing and what not! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: I knew I would get this response, well the first image doesn't look any different from the Asiatic I posted, and the second link didn't work. But no I wasn't stereotyping I was just saying that he doesn't have an Asiatic look as we can see in a Syrian or some Lybians in Egyptian art..
Try the second link again. It shows pics of two men with features similar to the woman. I understand what you meant, but I just wanted to be clear that 'Asiatic' meant a person from Asia or in this case Western Asia and the populations of which varied in phenotype. I also wanted to show that some of the Asiatics the Egyptians depicted were not the light-skinned stereotyped Middle-Easterners we usually think of today but were much darker.
quote:Originally posted by Obelisk_18: so you're the "hyksos" woman above depicts a black person instead of a near easterner?
"Near Eastern" is a Eurocentric geo-political term of which says nothing about the populations who live there or how they looked like. Remember, even Egypt is described as being part of the 'Near East' and even then there were and still are black peoples in Southwest Asia.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: Lmao, guy you need to really wake up, you're delirious seriously. Did you even watch the videos? I am pretty sure you didn't. Just like you said the Met Museum was a racist white Museum, and they have no authentic statues depicting Egyptians as Africans, meanwhile in my next post, I showed you 8 statues right off the bat. You seem just like the Euro-centrists seriously deluded. Stop with the personal insecurities please. Believe me, it's very telling of your doltishness!! The nerve of you, to say something about anthropology? Lmao, are you serious?
LOL Knowledge, don't pay Mike any mind. He is just a foolish nutcase who distrusts any mainstream source as "white racism" while offering either bogus sources or non at all. He is quick to call white scholars racist despite of what they say or not even bothering to know what they say while all making claims such as Classical Greeks were black and all depictions we have of them are fakes, and more recently a supporter of Marc's preposterous claims that whites invaded Europe recenty! LOL
You see it is HE who is racist but is too unintelligent to know it. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Djehuti - LOL Because for one, Hebrew scriptures identify the Amorites as as seperate people. The Hebrews themselves weren't even identified in history until the late 2nd millennium B.C. While the Amorites were attested well before then. As for the Hyksos, it not even known what their exact ethnicity was. It is only inferred from the names of some of their rulers that they were Canaanites. That is there is a connection between all 3 peoples is not in doubt as all three groups inhabited the same area of land in close proximity, but it is another thing to say they are all the same single people!
Generally speaking, we don't us the Bible as a historical source - it's a RELIGIOUS BOOK, written with a religious intent.
I think that if you were to read what you, yourself wrote, you might get the drift.
Let me help you: Amorites the ethnic name of the people, is old and well documented. Hyksos, an Egyptian nickname is younger. Hebrew, another Egyptian nickname, is younger still. Ya, I can see where you might have a problem, that's real complicated stuff.
So I guess there is no hope that you would look-up the Hebrew Exodus and the Hyksos Expulsion, and compare the two. Hint, one doesn't appear to have actually happened, whereas the other has lot's of documentation.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Generally speaking, we don't us the Bible as a historical source - it's a RELIGIOUS BOOK, written with a religious intent."
While this is true, pertaining to the supernatural events in the Bible. There has been archaeological findings from descriptions in the Bible.
Btw, if you WERE to watch the videos from that thread I posted, it speaks, as I said, about the hyksos. If you choose to be ignorant and not watch it, hey not my fault.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Generally speaking, we don't us the Bible as a historical source - it's a RELIGIOUS BOOK, written with a religious intent.
First off, the Bible is not my only source. I have read many other and more academic sources about the historical ethno-geography of the so-called Near-East. I can't cite any of them off the top of my head nor do I have time to go looking for them again. And second, the Bible as purely a religious book is not entirely accurate as much of what is written in Bible is actually historical narratives or accounts. Using logic, one can easily seperate the context of what is truly mythological from the historical. That all the accounts on peoples, places, and certain events such as wars, trading, and other dealings with peoples has been further proven from other historical primary or secondary texts as well as archaeology.
quote:I think that if you were to read what you, yourself wrote, you might get the drift.
Let me help you: Amorites the ethnic name of the people, is old and well documented. Hyksos, an Egyptian nickname is younger. Hebrew, another Egyptian nickname, is younger still. Ya, I can see where you might have a problem, that's real complicated stuff.
I understand what you mean, but again I also take other records into account. The Amorites were known to the Babylonians as Amaru or Martu to other peoples in the area. 'Hebrews' were only recorded much more recently in history-- even later than the Hyksos. According to writings by Hebrews or to be more specific Israelites (not including the Bible), Amorites were a different people. And again, we don't have enough data to tell exactly what ethnicity the Hyksos belonged to only that they originated in the Levant.
quote:So I guess there is no hope that you would look-up the Hebrew Exodus and the Hyksos Expulsion, and compare the two. Hint, one doesn't appear to have actually happened, whereas the other has lot's of documentation.
LOL I never wrote or even inferred such a thing. Perhaps YOU do since you identify the 'Hebrews' with the Hyksos. By the way, such a topic has been discussed several times in this forum before.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic