quote:1881 “ A third body of the Cushites went to the north of the Egypt and founded, on the east of the Delta, the kingdom of the so-called Hyksos , whom tradition designated sometimes as Phoenicians sometimes as Arabians, and in both cases rightly…Lepsius has proved by excellent reasons the Cushite origins of the Hyksos statues from San (Tanis) now in the museum of Boulaq and has made more than merely probable the immigration of the Cushites into the region of the Delta…” p. 402 Heinrich Karl Brugsh in A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs Derived Entirely from the Monuments, published by John Murray 1881, Vol 2, 2nd edition.
posted
The Hyksos ( or known as the Shepherd Kings according to Josephus ) were a Semitic speaking people from Syria. Most likely associated with the Habiru people described in New Kingdom. Cushites (or River Nubians) formed an alliance with the Hyksos. We see this alliance being overcome in New Kingdom drawings. These are echoes of the story of Moses to some degree.
There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos. Genetic evidence of West Asian genes in Nubian people is likely from this ancient alliance period as well as more modern invasions.
The mixture of Hyksos and Cushite was significant to the point that many of the resulting off spring would ultimately become part of the Eastern Cushitic people or Midianites.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Kush at that time were allies of the Hyksos but where does that lead to mass mixing with west-Asian genes in said Kushtites. you are forgetting that Kemites still ruled middle Kemet...I just don't see a large migration of Asiatics moving up river to mate with kushtites bypassing Kemite ruled middle Kemet.Now was there a local ruler in the Delta during the Hyksos era with the personal name of Nahasi..but it is unclear weither he had any connections with Kushtites further up-river...What we do know is that up river soldiers and perhaps businessmen were living in the area of Isreal/Palestine even before there was a Kemet.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: These are echoes of the story of Moses to some degree.
How so? The connection seems very weak to me.
You have two Asiatic people leaving Egypt.
However one is a ruling class being driven out by the natives and the other is a slave class escaping to freedom.
Posts: 647 | From: Atlanta | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Habiru or Hebrew people settled in Egypt during the Hyksos era. When Upper Egypt re-united the two kingdoms and drove out the Hyksos the Habiru people were enslaved. This is the closes we are going to get to the story of Moses from an Egyptian perspective.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
osirion – The Midianites may be though of as the “Pro-Hebrews” as they were the originators of Hebrew religion.
According to the Book of Genesis, the Midianites were descended from Midian, who was the son of the Hebrew patriarch Abraham by the latter's second wife, Keturah. Jethro, priest-leader of the Midianite sub-tribe known as the Kenites, and his daughter Zipporah (a wife of Moses), influenced early Hebrew thought: it was Yahweh, the lord of the Midianites, who was revealed to Moses as the God of the Hebrews. Circumcision was practiced by the Midianites before the Israelites.
Also called Ishmaelite in the Old Testament, they were members of a group of nomadic tribes related to the Israelites and most likely living east of the Gulf of Aqaba in the northwestern regions of the Arabian Desert. They engaged in pastoral pursuits, caravan trading, and banditry, and their main contacts with the Israelites were from the period of the Exodus (13th century B.C.) through the period of the judges (12th–11th century B.C.). According to the Book of Judges, the Israelite chieftain Gideon drove the Midianites into western Palestine, after which they largely disappear from the biblical narrative.
There is nothing to suggest that the Hebrews were separate from the Hyksos, but everything to suggest that they WERE the Hyksos.
As to them being enslaved – Kind of hard to be enslaved in Egypt, while you are making WAR against Egypt in Canaan.
Letters by Rib-Addi of Biblos to Amenhotep IV
Note: Apiru = Habiru = Hebrew.
Amorite = All the Semitic tribes.
The power of Egypt in Retenu was decreasing; the Hatti conquered Mitanni and extended their power southwards. The Amorite king Aziru conquered a number of Phoenician cities such as Niy, Tunip and Sumur, which were either allied to or governed by Egypt.
Rib-Addi, a faithful vassal of Egypt, was old and ill.
Rib-addi spoke to his lord, the King of Lands:
May the Mistress of Gubla grant power to my lord. At the feet of my lord, my sun, I fall down seven times and seven times. Let the king, my lord, know that Gubla, your handmaid from ancient times, is well. However, the war of the 'Apiru against me is severe. (Our) sons (and) daughters are gone, (as well as) the furnishings of the houses, because they have been sold in Yarimuta to keep us alive. My field is "a wife without a husband," lacking in cultivation. I have repeatedly written to the palace regarding the distress afflicting me, . . but no one has paid attention to the words that keep arriving.
Let the king heed the words of his servant........... They . . . all the lands of the king, my lord. Aduna, the king of Irqata, mercenaries have killed, and there is no one who has said anything to Abdi-Ashirta, although you knew about it. Miya, the ruler of Arashni, has taken Ardata; and behold now the people of Ammiya have killed their lord; so I am frightened.
Let the king, my lord, know that the king of Hatti has overcome all the lands that belonged to the king of Mittani or the king of Nahma [4] the land of the great kings. Abdi-Ashirta, the slave, the dog, has gone with him. Send archers. The hostility toward me is great. ................ and send a man to the city of . . . I will . . . his words.
Another letter:
Rib-addi says to his lord, the King of Lands, the Great King, the King of Battle: May the Lady of Gubla grant power to the king, my lord. At the feet of my lord, my Sun, I fall down seven times and seven times. Be informed that since Amanappa's arrival to me, all the 'Apiru have turned their face against me at the instigation of Abdi-Ashirta.
Let my lord listen to the words of his servant, and let him send me a garrison to defend the city of the king, until the archers come out. And if there are no archers, then all the lands will unite with the 'Apiru. Listen, since the conquest of Bit-Arha in accordance with the demand of Abdi-Ashirta, they seek in the same way to unite Gubla and Batruna; and thus all lands would be united with the 'Apiru. Two cities remain with me, and they are also attempting to take them from the king's hand.
Let my lord send a garrison to his two cities until the arrival of the archers, and give me something to feed them. I have nothing. Like a bird that lies in a net, a kilubi/cage, so I am in Gubla. Furthermore, if the king is not able to rescue me from the hand of his enemy, then all lands will unite with Abdi-Ashirta. What is he, the dog, that he takes the king's lands for himself?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The Hyksos ( or known as the Shepherd Kings according to Josephus ) were a Semitic speaking people from Syria. Most likely associated with the Habiru people described in New Kingdom. Cushites (or River Nubians) formed an alliance with the Hyksos. We see this alliance being overcome in New Kingdom drawings. These are echoes of the story of Moses to some degree.
There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos. Genetic evidence of West Asian genes in Nubian people is likely from this ancient alliance period as well as more modern invasions.
The mixture of Hyksos and Cushite was significant to the point that many of the resulting off spring would ultimately become part of the Eastern Cushitic people or Midianites.
While there is some reason to believe that the Hyksos expulsion coincides with the Hebrew exodus (which is even stated explicitly by the Egyptian priest Manetho), I recall reading that there was actually never a Hyksos and Sudanese alliance. The Sudanese were uncooperative with the Hyksos to the point where Apophis wrote a letter to the king of Kush asking him why he'd neglected to inform them of a recent change in their monarchy and appealing to them for help against Kamose. There was however, no response and so-called Cushites (the Medjay) actually fought against the Hyksos to help expell them from the Nile valley. The raids from Kush on Egypt directly preceding that were a consequence of a SOUTHERN alliance that included Punt, but not the Hyksos. It's a lot more complex than some "Nubian vs. Egyptian" scenario.
posted
Iirc, Manetho distinguishes the Hyksos from Osarsiph's crew.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ain't it amazing how some refuse to learn, lay low, then spring up with their imaginative hypotheses when they think no one's looking?
And for the life of me, I can't figure how this scene of a battle against Hittites is supposed to support "Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos." Explain, please do.
.
.
[all underscores are hyperlinks]Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Ain't it amazing how some refuse to learn, lay low, then spring up with their imaginative hypotheses when they think no one's looking?
And for the life of me, I can't figure how this scene of a battle against Hittites is supposed to support "Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos." Explain, please do.
.
.
[all underscores are hyperlinks]
Come on you are smarter than that. Nubians are not a single peopl. To the Egyptians there were Nubians that were allied with them and against them. The reason why the Hyksos were repelled from Egypt was precisely due to the Nubians and not really the Egyptians. It was the Nubians that expelled the Hyksos - technically. It was also the Nubians that allowed the Hyksos to invade in the first place. But again, there were different Nubian groups. The failure of the alliance between the Hyksos and the Nubians or more precisely, the splintering of alliances, resulted in the fall of the Hyksos dynasties.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ain't it amazing how some refuse to learn, lay low, then spring up with their imaginative hypotheses when they think no one's looking?
And for the life of me, I can't figure how this scene of a battle against Hittites is supposed to support "Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos." Explain, please do.
.
.
[all underscores are hyperlinks]
Again, I don't see anything that distinguishes the West Asian people of Palestine and Syria from the people called Habiru.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Josephus, being unfamiliar with Egyptic, took the word heqa:khast away from its literal meaning, ruler:foreign. He mistook the heqa glyph (a crook) for shepherd. We have no need to advocate his error.
Habiru were simply roaming bands of brigands. They were not a distinctive ethnic group. We've gone over this before in the Hapiru of Ancient Egypt thread.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: The Hyksos ( or known as the Shepherd Kings according to Josephus ) were a Semitic speaking people from Syria. Most likely associated with the Habiru people described in New Kingdom.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I don't see anything that distinguishes the West Asian people of Palestine and Syria from the people called Habiru.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please admit your supplied Egyptian inspired art piece has nothing to do with the captioning you give it.
It has none of your Nubians. It shows not even one Hyksos.
Did you think to slip it by on us and no one would notice?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Cushites (or River Nubians) formed an alliance with the Hyksos. We see this alliance being overcome in New Kingdom drawings. These are echoes of the story of Moses to some degree.
There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Please admit your supplied Egyptian inspired art piece has nothing to do with the captioning you give it.
It has none of your Nubians. It shows not even one Hyksos.
Did you think to slip it by on us and no one would notice?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Cushites (or River Nubians) formed an alliance with the Hyksos. We see this alliance being overcome in New Kingdom drawings. These are echoes of the story of Moses to some degree.
There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos.
Never said it had Hyksos or Nubians but rather Habiru and Egyptians. I claim that this is a depiction of how the Egyptians wanted the Exodus to end. That Tut himself was the 1st son that died in the passover plague and that Egyptians created this depiction of him killing fleeing Hebrews when in fact they escaped.
I claim that this is suppose to be the Habiru people crossing the Red Sea but getting caught and that this is the way the Egyptians told the story. We know otherwise and that most of these Habiru people escaped. I do not claim that the Habiru are Hyksos but rather took advantage of Hyksos rule and settled in Egypt. Hebrew and Habiru mean the same thing - Nomadic people. They were like gypsies in the dessert.
In terms of an alliance, study the depictions of Tut's art work and note that Egyptians are fight again Nubians and in the midst of them are Asiatics.
Note the Asiatic and Nubian being stepped on by Tut. And yet we know that Nubians were fighting with Tut against Asiatics.
posted
Bernard Leeman recently wrote in his, "The Kebra Nagast: New Insights into Old Testament History", that "Biblical scholars looking for the earliest records of the Hebrews have grabbed at dubious linguistic straws such as hapiru, `pr and `prm unconvincingly to "prove" the Hebrews (`br) were known in ancient times to the Egyptians and the Ungaritic speakers of Syria."
Kamal Salibi in his text, The Bible Came from Arabia, also suggested this connection was based on a lack of knowledge of the structure semitic dialects and that it was the same as the Apiru of Amarna records. His theory was that the Akkadian name Hapiru and Apiru of the Amarna records is to be identified with the place name al-Afra near Taif in the Hejaz and with the people or tribal name of the Al-Afir or Afariyah in Arabia, which would link them to the modern Afari or Afar tribes of Oman, Hadramaut and the Horn of Africa. Kamal was able to identify many of the ancient Amarna place and people names in the same region.
(I would be interested in seeing what tomb this painting came from and the period as it looks very unEgyptian and certainly not dating the to Hyksos period. )
It is probable that the Hyksos were in fact Hebrew peoples but that name is not related to Hebrew and those Hebrews were not necessarily the Israelites of the Exodus.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is likely the Hyksos were an Arabian population from Hejaz who correlate with the Amalekites or Adites of Arabian tradition. The latter after some great natural catastrophe were supposed to have taken over Egypt, Syria, Mesopotami and parts of the Aegean at one time- and to have fought against Joshua and other early Kenite/Kalebite leaders near Mecca (by tradition). They also advanced into the Maghreb after being expelled from Egypt.
Recently David Rohl has found such names as Yaqub - Hor, Nakhi and Sheshi among the Hyksos scarabs - seemingly the same names as the rulers Jacob, Anak and Sheshai whom Genesis calls early kings of Canaan and Israel. According to Arabian tradition during the time of the Amalekite kings "Qabus" and "Rayan" - Asaf(Josef?) was placed on the throne of Misra. His wife being Asiyah or Washiya who is Asenath.
It is not certain whether this is a reference to the Arabian Misra or Misrama or the Nile kingdom which became known as Misra after the period of the Hyksos. Salibi who found 100s of place names correlating with ancient Israel/Canaan in their proper places in the area of south Arabia has suggested this region was the true geographical region of the Old Testament before the Canaanites moved northward into Syria. It may be the reason most major Biblical archeologists in Israel are claiming the age of David and Solomon was likely a folk tale.
According to an archeologist named Finkelstein the story of the patriarchs and united monarchy of David and Solomon -- is really "the creative expression of the religious reform movement that flourished in the kingdom of Judah in the Late Iron Age" quoted from Al Ahram Weekly on-line Cairo issue 873. Similarly there is no agreement about if and when an exodus from a Nilotic Egypt by Israelites ever occurred.
Meanwhile their is a major group of Arabian traditions speaking of a Muzaikiya (Moses?)and wife prophetess Zarifah (Zipporah also known as Tarikha al Himyari) who moved from Marib after the breaking of the dam with leaders named Jafnah (Jephunah?), Caleb and Amran (Amram). This Marib is undoubtedly the Meriba of the book of Exodus. This movement was responsible for the Azdites (sons of Set?)spreading across Arabia and into the region of Ghussan (Kishon?)near Zabid (Zerid?)in the Hejaz. No doubt this occurred before the time of Solomon and David whose kingdom was in the region of the original Southwest Arabian Judah or Wahd and the Sarat.
Apparently in the late Greek translations of the Torah/Bible - the term Misraim is often translated as "Egypt", just as Kush a common Arabian place and people name was often translated "Ethiopia". The history and heritage of the Hebrews (children of Heber) or descendants of Joktan (Qahtan) and Paleg has been confused ever since.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Today more than 90% of scholars agree that there was no Exodus from Egypt, 80% feel that that the Conquest of the Land did not take place as described in the Bible, and about 50% agree that there was no powerful United Monarchy."
asserted by archeologist Israel Finkelstein.
one blogger wrote that "it couldn't have happened in the tenth century BCE because, at the time of David and Solomon, Israel had far fewer than 100,000 population"
And that is because modern Israel is NOT the Israel of the Old Testament. The "daughter of Zion" is not the original Si'yan of the Yemen and the later Jerusalem was rightly called "the daughter of Jerusalim or Ieru Salim founded by the Solymi (of Greek and Roman writings) whose modern descendants Banu Salim or Soleim bin Manas'ir (Manasseh?). The latter came originally from the far south of the Arabian peninsula and whose descendants must have been followers of Muzaikiyah.
According to an article written by Gary Byers on Biblical Archeology .net "The good news is that Finkelstein has publicly declared that he does not deny the existence of either David or Solomon (Shanks 2002: 45). The bad news is that he does not believe they were who the Bible described them to be. As an archaeologist, Finkelstein sees no evidence for David’s capital in Jerusalem and no evidence for his kingdom anywhere else in the region. Neither is there a capital city or temple in Jerusalem during Solomon’s time, nor is there archaeological evidence of Solomon’s reign elsewhere – especially at Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer (I Kgs 9:15).
On the other hand Salibi found all of the Bible place names such as Megiddo, Hazor and Gezer as well as all of "the gates of Israel" in regions further south, in the area still said to have been originally occupied by Ad, Amalek, Saba and Himyar.
“The first concrete fact in the history of the Yaman is the birth of Joktan son of Eber, B.C., 2246. I identify Eber with Heber the pophet, or Hud as the Arabs call him, who preached to the Adites and warned them of the Divine vengeance..."
“This is said to have overtaken them in the form of a raging simoom along the western margin of what is now called the Rub al Khali or the Empty Quarter…But to return to Joktan or Kahtan as the Arabs call him. He was a native of Hadramaut valley but settled in Yemen and introduced architecture and agriculture among the pastoral and ten dwelling tribes. His son Yarab (Jerah of Genesis) was the progenitor of Yamen Arabic and first separated the yamen tongue from ancient Hebrew. He it was who founded the Sabaean Kingdom in Yamen on the ruins of the old Minaean dynasty which had dwindled to a mere tribal confederation in the southern Jauf and was known then and since as Maan – the Arab title for the dynasty itself. From Arabia infelix or The Turks in Yamen Georg Wyman Bury, 1915. pp. 2-3.
Most people in the West think of Biblical people such as “the Hebrews”, Aramaeans and Amalekites in a semilegendary sense as if such populations weren’t still living. However in most cases the peoples of Genesis are in fact still known under their same tribal names and can be found often practicing their age old customs. They are now mainly found in Africa and southern Arabia.
The name of a tribe of Jews called Hubir is still found in Somalia and the Horn.
In 1859 speaking of the town of Mokalla or Makulla in Hadramaut, Robert Latham wrote “…the tribes further to the east are those of Mahara, Ad and Amelik” By Robert Gordon Latham p. 83 Descriptive Ethnology Vol. II London
In the 13th century, Ibn Mudjawir asserted that the Mahra “a tall and handsome” people were “the remnant of Ad” whom “when God destroyed the greater part of them” went to live in the mountains of Zufar and Sokotra and al Masirah in the Yemen and Oman, a tradition elaborated on by Ibn Khaldun and others. (The Encylopaedia of Islam NEW EDITION Volume 6 Hamdani mentions the camels of the Mahra as the Idite camels after their clan of Id (Ad). Ibn Khaldun calls the Mahra language the language of Ad. (See Bosworth 1986, p. 83).
In talking of Ad and Amalek we are talking about a modern day people now represented by the Mahra, Shahra or Shahara. Mahra (also written in documents Mahri, Mahara or Maheyra) is the modern name of a population of southern Arabia and the horn of Africa. There are branches of this population in Somalia.
Today the name Mahra according to modern specialists is used in a general sense in southeastern Arabia for the Bedouin groups that look African still southeastern Arabia from Oman to Hadramaut.
Thus in 2001, David Phillips wrote - “Mahra is the Arab name for the Bedouin tribes who are different in appearance to other Arabs, having almost beardless faces, fuzzy hair and dark pigmentation – such as the Qarra, Mahra and Harasis with parts of other tribes. The language is derived from the language of the Sabaeans, Minaeans and Himyarites. The Mahra with other Southern Arabian peoples seem aligned to the Hamitic race of north-east Africa…” p. 250-251, Peoples on the Move.
If the Hyksos were in fact the Ad and Amalekites then the assertion that they were Hyksos were Cushites was in a sense right. Because the Adites evidently still are.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, as far as the 'Exodus' story is concerned, weren't the Hebrews NOT slaves but payed laborers?? I remember that the Jewish scriptures never used the word for slave.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is where the Hyksos farce comes from, trying to prove Israelites ruled Egypt and they were white Because I have lots of pictures I divided the blog into one post at a time. If you are into the Hyksos caper, start here http://hyksos-hoax.blogspot.com/2009/07/hys-chariots-horses.html then at the bottom of each page, click on newer post
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
The captioning around the image is all authored by you. The people you list are:
Cushites (or River Nubians)
Hyksos
Bad Nubians.
You further say the given image shows an alliance involving the above and it is only one of many depictions of such alliance.
The fact remains
the given image isn't authentic
there are neither 'Nubians' nor Hyksos in it
the pharoah in it is not Tutankhamen.
There's no reason to detail the rest of your ahistorical suppositions. I would indeed be a fool were I to take your 'hypothesis' seriously.
Have fun, an audience of similar enthusiast await further distortion of factual African history like you've just done by turning Ramses at the Battle of Qadesh into a crossing of the Sea of Reeds.
No wonder the average person on the street refuses to believe Africa has a history when tail spinning like this goes unchecked on a forum once acclaimed for its masterful presentation of Africana.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Please admit your supplied Egyptian inspired art piece has nothing to do with the captioning you give it.
It has none of your Nubians. It shows not even one Hyksos.
Did you think to slip it by on us and no one would notice?
There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos.
Never said it had Hyksos or Nubians but rather Habiru and Egyptians. I claim that this is a depiction of how the Egyptians wanted the Exodus to end. That Tut himself was the 1st son that died in the passover plague and that Egyptians created this depiction of him killing fleeing Hebrews when in fact they escaped.
I claim that this is suppose to be the Habiru people crossing the Red Sea but getting caught and that this is the way the Egyptians told the story. We know otherwise and that most of these Habiru people escaped. I do not claim that the Habiru are Hyksos but rather took advantage of Hyksos rule and settled in Egypt. Hebrew and Habiru mean the same thing - Nomadic people. They were like gypsies in the dessert.
In terms of an alliance, study the depictions of Tut's art work and note that Egyptians are fight again Nubians and in the midst of them are Asiatics.
Note the Asiatic and Nubian being stepped on by Tut. And yet we know that Nubians were fighting with Tut against Asiatics.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Indeed, the image is a recreated tomb image of Ramses II fighting Hittites in the Battle of Kadesh. Osirion, perhaps you should know what you're posting.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also, as far as the 'Exodus' story is concerned, weren't the Hebrews NOT slaves but payed laborers?? I remember that the Jewish scriptures never used the word for slave.
Since the Exodus story appears to be a movement of the Azd groups from southwest region of Marib I would say that it was probably more a matter of the client tribes of the Azd uprising against their protectors. In "Afro-Asiatic" cultures in Arabia and Africa you often have smith castes that live among the more dominant or domineering nomads who look down on smiths who are often of a different cultural and ethnic origin. These are often subject peoples but not always slaves in the western sense of the world. Thus you can find such smith groups among the Tuareg or Berbers of the southern Atlas and in Somalia and other the countries of the Horn you have the lower caste Yubir, Hubir and Sabi who are either smiths or fishermen and looked down upon by the more nomadic and warlike groups in Somalia or Ethiopia because of what they do.
This is why Saul is said to have made the Kenites get from under the Amalekites before they attacked them. In the Hebrew Bible 1 Samuel 15:6 - Saul says "Get away from the Amalekites so that I won't destroy you with them. ... And the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites."
If we look at who were involved in the Azd movement from Marib the Banu Tanukh, al Qayn (or Kenites,) Ghassan (or Jokshan), Khazraj (Gezer), Aus (Uz), Kaleb, etc. we know that such groups as the Qayn or Qaynuka are described as small and smiths even in Midieval times while other groups like the Aus, Khazraj and Amalekites are sometimes described as "huge". One famous member Ubadah bin Samit living in Mohamed's time by tradition is at leat 8 feet in height.
They and the Qenite group who included Banu Nazir or Nadir and Qurayza lived in Khaibar and Yathrib are described as smiths, black and small in stature.
Thus we have a 16th century AD writing of Ludovico Bartema on the Jews of Arabia remaining in Khaibar the last capital of Judaism in North Arabia: The Jews of Kaibar were said to be the remnant of the Banu Nadzir, Nazir or Nazirenes belonging to the Hadal (Hudayl or Hudha’il) of ancient Arabia. Bartema stated “in the space of eyght days we came to a mountayne which conteyneth in circuite ten ot twelve myles. This is inhabited with jewes, to the number of 5 thousande or thereabout.. They are very little stature, as of the height of five or sixe spannes, and some much lesse. They have small voices like women, and (are) of blacke colour, yet some blacker than others. They feed of none other meate than goat fleshes. They are circumcised and deny not themselves to be Jewes. If by chaunce, any Mahumetan come into their handes, they flay him alyve.” Cited by Richard Burton in Pilgrimage to Al-Medinah and Mecca published.
So as far as the term "Hebrew" goes that word apparently refers to these descendants of Qahtan who left Marib and are Amalek or Amlukh or Adites as well as the smaller-statured groups as Qayn (Kenites and Kalebites, etc.)
"Arabs" not uncommonly took other Arab tribes as slaves or subject peoples (client tribes)well into the midieval period.
Kamal Salibi found 100s of names of the ancient Israelite peoples mentioned in the Hebrew?Biblical book of Nehemiah and Ezra in the region of Jizan Province in the Asir region of South West Arabia (modern Saudi Arabia north of Yemen). See Jizan dancers below.
In the region of Asir are the names mentioned in the book of Exodus such as Dothan or Dathana and Pithom and Rameses. He wrote " The Goshen (gsn), Pithon (ptm) and Raamses (r'mss) mentioned in Genesis and Exodus in connection with the stay of the Israelites in the land of msrym have never been satisfactorily loca5ed in Egypt (see entries in J. Simons, The geographical and Topographical Texts of the old Testament...possible Goshens (Ghathan, and Qashanin, qsnn, plural of qsn ) a Pithom (al Futaymah, ptym, unvocalised ptm) and a Raamses (Masas, mss) are still to be found i inland Asir, in the region of the West Arabian msyrm. .."
Salibi found hundreds of names of Canaanite and Philistine villages - and many dozens of Israelite villate names in the Jizan province alone while many of the others totaling hundreds were in adjacent areas further south and north.
In the Jizan province alone were located Atibiyyeh or the Ateyba (Tabbaoth), Kirs (Keros), Fadanah (Padon), Huqbah(Hagabah), Aqibah ( Akkub), Shamla (Shamlai), Juhrah (Gahar), Reaiah (Rayay, Naajid (Nekoda), Jazayin (Gazzam, Safah (Pasea) Baswah and Ma'ayin Me'unim (the Minaeans), Sirr Zahra (Sisera) , Tamahah (Tamah), Khatfa (Hatipha), Al Sut (Sutai), Rasafah (Hassophereth), Shutayfiyah (Shephatiah) al Huluti (Hattil), Antutah (Anathoth), Usaymat (Asmaveth) to name just a few. These are clan and village names and the people there were likely the Israelites or Judaeans who were invaded by Nebuchadnezzar.
Maqfalah, Batilah and Khirban or the Machpelah and Bethel and Hebron where Abraham visited are not far away and further south in Qunfudhah.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The depiction on King Tut's chest is much more interesting:
On one side Tut is trampling Nubians and on the other Asiatics.
Other depictions in Tut's tomb is of Nubians paying tribute.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Indeed, the image is a recreated tomb image of Ramses II...
Was under the same impression. Don't know where on the image, the idea of the figure being that of Tut came from.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
He just saw a pharaoh in a chariot in a war scene and the only one he knew of was the famous one of Tutankhamen and assumed every such scene must be the boy king in the chariot, must be Levantines and Sudanese, etc. The typical sloppy conclusions of an enthusiast who'd rather read into history than apply to the task of studying and learning the history.
That's why even when he finally scrounges up the scene with Tut there's still no Hyksos nor Haribu alliance with 'Nubians' (river, bad, or whatever).
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>> What dealings would Hatsheput have with the Hyksos <<<
Hatshepsut's temple records that they had "ruled without Re," whatever that means, even though almost a century had passed since they'd been expelled by Ahmose. /// I thought Amoses was the pharaoh who drove out the Hyksos. Before another pharaoh gets the job, those before them must be dead... Ahmose Amenhotep I Thutmose II Hatshepsut
It looks like the Hyksos were long gone before Hatsheput came along, so
#1 What kind of dealings would Hatsheput have with the Hyksos
I have yet to see the actual account that Hyksos are in the context from Hatsheput #2 Do you know where an image of the Hatsheput/Hyksos hieroglyph that mentions Hyksos.
#3 Do you know where there is a complete translation of the Hatsheput/Hyksos hieroglyph
#4 In the Hatsheput verbal attack on the Hyksos, is the word Hyksos in that hieroglyph or is there any thing in the context that identifies those being scolded as Hyksos? If so, please show the lines that identify Hyksos.
Thanks Sam
If this message is relayed by some means other than this Yahoo group, you can respond to me at this e-mail address EncEg_Hyksos-owner@yahoogroups.com
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very common to see portrayals of Nubians along side Habiru people in New Kingdom depictions as enemies:
BTW - I said New Kingdom and not just Tut.
In the same period we know that Nubians also fought for Egyptians. So we clearly can make a case for two different groups of Nubians (basically a pro-Egyptian Nubian people and a group that is associated with the Hyksos).
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
^ Indeed, the image is a recreated tomb image of Ramses II...
Was under the same impression. Don't know where on the image, the idea of the figure being that of Tut came from.
Not from me, I said New Kingdom depictions. King Tut comes up when I discuss my theory that Tutankhamun died during the legendary passover. Not a novel theory by any means. Alot of people have speculated that Ahkenaton was the Pharoah of the Moses period. Some argue that he himself was Moses.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Egyptian priest Manetho existence depends on Josephus.
All Manetho was supposed to have written, comes not from Manetho, but from Josephus
If you want to look at the actual writings of Josephus, you will have to look in the place where snipes live
The text of Josephus or Manetho are nothing but a myth of European 'Jews'
Josephus.. Talmud guy, his existence is found only in the text of Europeans who published the Talmud. Some of Josephus stuff is such at the story of Masada in which he said the Jews and all their families jumped to their death.. was Josephus on the mountain, how would he know unless he was a roman soldier.. none of the jumpers were alive to tell.
Josephus is also the author who wrote that the Romans murdered over a billion jewish children in a city that never held 50,000 people at any time in history.
How Josephus got to Egypt to meet up with Manetho is a clue to me.. because Maentho was dead centuries before the birth of Josephus
Manetho was not born until centuries after the supposed events of the Hyksos .. he wrote in Greek not Hieroglyphics Josephus was not born until after the AD time line
How these boys got their stories is for the imagination.. and remember neither the text of Manetho or Josephus has ever been in the hands of any men who write the accounts of these guys
... and just how do you create and publish copies of what some one wrote, when you do not have the originals to copy from?
If you read all the historic accounts of Josephus, he must have had a helecoptor to get to all those places or a flying carpet
The most fun is when you read the accounts of Josephus that existed centuries before he was born.
Remember Josephus is the cartoon character created in the writings of european jews.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a shameless liar. First he gave the image with this captioning
quote: Cushites (or River Nubians) formed an alliance with the Hyksos. We see this alliance being overcome in New Kingdom drawings. There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos.
Then after being exposed he spins
quote: Never said it had Hyksos or Nubians but rather Habiru and Egyptians. I claim that this is a depiction of how the Egyptians wanted the Exodus to end. That Tut himself was the 1st son that died in the passover plague and that Egyptians created this depiction of him killing fleeing Hebrews when in fact they escaped.
Now with that being exposed as fantasy too he writes
quote:Not from me, I said New Kingdom depictions.
Desist dispicable distortion inveterate liar. You have neither a novel nor a theory. What you have is change up by the minute fairy tale that makes a laughingstock of yourself and a fool out of any who do other than expose your fantastic lies.
posted
The image on this page with the Chariot /// Indeed, the image is a recreated tomb image of Ramses II fighting Hittites in the Battle of Kadesh. /// Where is this original image at?
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: What a shameless liar. First he gave the image with this captioning
quote: Cushites (or River Nubians) formed an alliance with the Hyksos. We see this alliance being overcome in New Kingdom drawings. There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos.
Then after being exposed he spins
quote: Never said it had Hyksos or Nubians but rather Habiru and Egyptians. I claim that this is a depiction of how the Egyptians wanted the Exodus to end. That Tut himself was the 1st son that died in the passover plague and that Egyptians created this depiction of him killing fleeing Hebrews when in fact they escaped.
Now with that being exposed as fantasy too he writes
quote:Not from me, I said New Kingdom depictions.
Desist dispicable distortion inveterate liar. You have neither a novel nor a theory. What you have is change up by the minute fairy tale that makes a laughingstock of yourself and a fool out of any who do other than expose your fantastic lies.
Aren't you getting worked up. You connected the dot when I did not intend for them to be connected.
"There many depictions of the so called Bad Nubians fighting alongside Hyksos. Genetic evidence of West Asian genes in Nubian people is likely from this ancient alliance period as well as more modern invasions."
Obviously that is not what is depicted in the picture. There are no Nubians fighting in the picture at all. So I did not intend for the picture to be illustrative of that. I merely mentioned that there were depictions of such.
As for Tut killing Asiatics. I also did not mean this picture to be an illustration of that but rather the chest that clearly shows him fighting against Asiatics and Nubians.
Perhaps I was a bit confusion but liar? No, there's plenty of depictions as I stated. I only used the first picture as a generalization.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the same period we know that Nubians also fought for Egyptians. So we clearly can make a case for two different groups of Nubians (basically a pro-Egyptian Nubian people and a group that is associated with the Hyksos).
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by myth buster: The Egyptian priest Manetho existence depends on Josephus.
All Manetho was supposed to have written, comes not from Manetho, but from Josephus
If you want to look at the actual writings of Josephus, you will have to look in the place where snipes live
The text of Josephus or Manetho are nothing but a myth of European 'Jews'
Josephus.. Talmud guy, his existence is found only in the text of Europeans who published the Talmud. Some of Josephus stuff is such at the story of Masada in which he said the Jews and all their families jumped to their death.. was Josephus on the mountain, how would he know unless he was a roman soldier.. none of the jumpers were alive to tell.
Josephus is also the author who wrote that the Romans murdered over a billion jewish children in a city that never held 50,000 people at any time in history.
How Josephus got to Egypt to meet up with Manetho is a clue to me.. because Maentho was dead centuries before the birth of Josephus
Manetho was not born until centuries after the supposed events of the Hyksos .. he wrote in Greek not Hieroglyphics Josephus was not born until after the AD time line
How these boys got their stories is for the imagination.. and remember neither the text of Manetho or Josephus has ever been in the hands of any men who write the accounts of these guys
... and just how do you create and publish copies of what some one wrote, when you do not have the originals to copy from?
If you read all the historic accounts of Josephus, he must have had a helecoptor to get to all those places or a flying carpet
The most fun is when you read the accounts of Josephus that existed centuries before he was born.
Remember Josephus is the cartoon character created in the writings of european jews.
Josephus is entertaining and in the same genre as Herodotus.
If there was an Exodus then the New Kingdom is by far the best place to look and when one does there are plenty of possibilities. The fact that Moses himself married a Cushite (Eastern Cushite - ie Sabean), the fact that attemps were made by the Hyksos to make an alliance with the Nubians makes the story more plausible than once imagined. The pieces of the puzzle fit better than most give them credit for.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.' Copping that plea won't work. We for sure know what you wrote is what you meant.
There are no depictions of Hyksos (and certainly not any haribu) fighting alongside your 'Nubians.' Yet you persist in the lie that there are many.
Two choices 1. Please produce them or confess error 2. Remain a backpedaling liar spreading confusion.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Obviously that is not what is depicted in the picture. There are no Nubians fighting in the picture at all. So I did not intend for the picture to be illustrative of that. I merely mentioned that there were depictions of such.
As for Tut killing Asiatics. I also did not mean this picture to be an illustration of that but rather the chest that clearly shows him fighting against Asiatics and Nubians.
Perhaps I was a bit confusion but liar? No, there's plenty of depictions as I stated. I only used the first picture as a generalization.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Yes I made a statement without backing it up with an illustration. I have indeed seen a very good illustration of Asiatics fighting alonside Nubians. I will post it as soon as I dig it up.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I would be curious to know Osirion got the idea that the pale skinned, heavily bearded man depicted with the African is a "Habiru".
Time period and the depiction style. Interesting question though. Habiru was probably an exonym and was used by Egyptians (and others) for the people living in the Canaanite area that were considered invaders to Egypt. The Hkysos would have also been called Habiru. Its a very broad term but in this case correctly applied considering the depiction style and the period that this artifact is found in.
See also Haratin which is an exonym for the indigenous Black people of the Sahara. The usage is overly applied to Black people in general living in NW Africa. Habiru had negative connotations similar to Gypsie.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: 'I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.' Copping that plea won't work. We for sure know what you wrote is what you meant.
There are no depictions of Hyksos (and certainly not any haribu) fighting alongside your 'Nubians.' Yet you persist in the lie that there are many.
Two choices 1. Please produce them or confess error 2. Remain a backpedaling liar spreading confusion.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Obviously that is not what is depicted in the picture. There are no Nubians fighting in the picture at all. So I did not intend for the picture to be illustrative of that. I merely mentioned that there were depictions of such.
As for Tut killing Asiatics. I also did not mean this picture to be an illustration of that but rather the chest that clearly shows him fighting against Asiatics and Nubians.
Perhaps I was a bit confusion but liar? No, there's plenty of depictions as I stated. I only used the first picture as a generalization.
I will dig up the source on depictions of Nubians and Hyksos (Asiatics) fighting along side each other. I can assure you that I have seen such a depiction.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I would be curious to know Osirion got the idea that the pale skinned, heavily bearded man depicted with the African is a "Habiru".
Time period and the depiction style. Interesting question though. Habiru was probably an exonym and was used by Egyptians (and others) for the people living in the Canaanite area that were considered invaders to Egypt. The Hyksos would have also been called Habiru. Its a very broad term but in this case correctly applied considering the depiction style and the period that this artifact is found in.
See also Haratin which is an exonym for the indigenous Black people of the Sahara. The usage is overly applied to Black people in general living in NW Africa. Habiru had negative connotations similar to Gypsie.
That wasn't a very good explanation about where you got the information that the heavily bearded whitish looking man was a Habiru. And if the Canaanites were Habiru than that makes the question even more pertinent.
Also such phrases as "the Hyksos would have been called Habiru" are coming from nowhere. Let us not put up unwarranted and outlandish assertions unless we can back them up. We have enough of that going on in other forums and it really leaves us nothing to argue or "debate" about.
Your use of the terms "semite", "Hebrew", "Canaanites" as well need to be qualified for future reference as it is clear people have different ideas of who such people were and what they looked like.
The idea that "Nubians" were associated with the Hyksos is also coming out of nowhere as far as I know, unless we are confusing the Kush, Kushi or Ghassan/Kishon groups of Arabian Hejaz Tehama and Asir who were in fact the peoples known as Canaaniya, with ancient Nubians.
The Haratin assertion, Osirion, is also a new one for me. Do you live in Africa?
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've gone over this before. You can't look at an image an determine the person was a habiru. The word just means 'roaming brigand' and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Where O gets any of this disinformation from is obvious, he makes it up as he goes along popping it out of thin air ("Watch me pull a habiru from out my, ah, ... hat.").
We don't have to guess what habiru were. They were neither Hyksos nor Hebrew. Habiru were bands of disconnected people of various ethicities who made no claim to having a ethnonymous ancestor. Nor did the AE's invent the title Habiru/`Apiru. Mesopotamian and Levantine writings first note "Those who make dust".
Habiru is an ancient designation for a low class of people It's not a specific ethnicity. Alternate spellings of the term are 'Apiru and Khapiru.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I would be curious to know Osirion got the idea that the pale skinned, heavily bearded man depicted with the African is a "Habiru".
Time period and the depiction style. Interesting question though. Habiru was probably an exonym and was used by Egyptians (and others) for the people living in the Canaanite area that were considered invaders to Egypt. The Hkysos would have also been called Habiru. Its a very broad term but in this case correctly applied considering the depiction style and the period that this artifact is found in.
Habiru had negative connotations similar to Gypsie.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard Al Takruri that the word Habiru/Apiru came to signify roving brigand too, but what do you think of the idea put forth by Salibi that the word as used first by the Mesopotamians could be related to the place and tribal name of al Afir or Afari (also known as Danakil). There is still some debate over what the term originally meant. Certainly the people known as Afar today in Arabia and Africa were similarly described.
I had also read somewhere that the the Assyrians in fact did call Afir in the Hejaz near modern Medina Apiru or Apparu. it is now called Ghifar. Salibi claimed this to have been the Apiru of Amarna records.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I would be curious to know Osirion got the idea that the pale skinned, heavily bearded man depicted with the African is a "Habiru".
Time period and the depiction style. Interesting question though. Habiru was probably an exonym and was used by Egyptians (and others) for the people living in the Canaanite area that were considered invaders to Egypt. The Hyksos would have also been called Habiru. Its a very broad term but in this case correctly applied considering the depiction style and the period that this artifact is found in.
See also Haratin which is an exonym for the indigenous Black people of the Sahara. The usage is overly applied to Black people in general living in NW Africa. Habiru had negative connotations similar to Gypsie.
That wasn't a very good explanation about where you got the information that the heavily bearded whitish looking man was a Habiru. And if the Canaanites were Habiru than that makes the question even more pertinent.
Also such phrases as "the Hyksos would have been called Habiru" are coming from nowhere. Let us not put up unwarranted and outlandish assertions unless we can back them up. We have enough of that going on in other forums and it really leaves us nothing to argue or "debate" about.
Your use of the terms "semite", "Hebrew", "Canaanites" as well need to be qualified for future reference as it is clear people have different ideas of who such people were and what they looked like.
The idea that "Nubians" were associated with the Hyksos is also coming out of nowhere as far as I know, unless we are confusing the Kush, Kushi or Ghassan/Kishon groups of Arabian Hejaz Tehama and Asir who were in fact the peoples known as Canaaniya, with ancient Nubians.
The Haratin assertion, Osirion, is also a new one for me. Do you live in Africa?
The Oxford History of the Biblical World, citing the Amarna texts, characterizes a "troublesome group of people found in ancient Syria-Palestine called the 'Apiru/'Abiru or Hapiru/Habiru. Scholars eagerly equated these Apiru with bibliclal ibri , or "Hebrew", and at first thought that they had found confirming, independent evidence of the invading Hebrews under Joshua. As more texts were uncovered througout the Near East, however, it became clear that these Apiru were found throughout most of the Fertile Crecent" The Oxford History 's scholars conclude that the "Habiru" had no common ethnic affiliations, that they spoke no common language, and that they normally led a marginal and sometimes lawless existence on the fringes of settled society. Oxford characterizes the various Habiru/Apiru as a loosely defined, inferior social class composed of shifting population elements without secure ties to settled communities. Apiru are frequently encountered in texts as outlaws, mercenaries, and slaves.
- Like I said - an exonym similar to calling someone a Gypsie.
An Asiatic invader would be considered a Habiru by the Egyptians and were called that in the Amarna texts.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: We've gone over this before. You can't look at an image an determine the person was a habiru. The word just means 'roaming brigand' and has nothing to do with ethnicity.
Where O gets any of this disinformation from is obvious, he makes it up as he goes along popping it out of thin air ("Watch me pull a habiru from out my, ah, ... hat.").
We don't have to guess what habiru were. They were neither Hyksos nor Hebrew. Habiru were bands of disconnected people of various ethicities who made no claim to having a ethnonymous ancestor. Nor did the AE's invent the title Habiru/`Apiru. Mesopotamian and Levantine writings first note "Those who make dust".
Habiru is an ancient designation for a low class of people It's not a specific ethnicity. Alternate spellings of the term are 'Apiru and Khapiru.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by dana marniche: I would be curious to know Osirion got the idea that the pale skinned, heavily bearded man depicted with the African is a "Habiru".
Time period and the depiction style. Interesting question though. Habiru was probably an exonym and was used by Egyptians (and others) for the people living in the Canaanite area that were considered invaders to Egypt. The Hkysos would have also been called Habiru. Its a very broad term but in this case correctly applied considering the depiction style and the period that this artifact is found in.
Habiru had negative connotations similar to Gypsie.
And how doe what you said differ from what I said?
Note what I said: Habiru had negative connotations similar to Gypsie. You said it mean low class. SAME BLOODY THING!
Its an exoynm, etc, etc, etc.
It is controversial if Hebrew and Habiru are the same but the meaning has become very similar since Abraham was also known as a nomadic person.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also want to say that there must be some connection between such names as Barzu Fulitani mentioned by the Byzantines or Romans in the Levant (Jordan?), the Hebrew or Israelite name Birzeit YaPhlet or Japhlet (Heber begat Japhlet) or Palti of Numbers xiii. of the tribe of Asher and the name Warith and Felata used by for the Fulani. I believe the people may very well have been one and the same and established beginning before the Old Kingdom when the Lebu-Tjehenu of the Fayum were trading and living in the area between the Sahara, Fayum and Sinai.
In the Hejaz and Levant these people were ancestral to the tribes of Banu Luhaba living today(Lehabim?) and Banu Masra (Misraim?) and early Pelethites ( Philistines?) of the Hebraic tradition. I believe these tall groups were all from the same stock and became the Amalekites, Adites of later tradition.
Some of these people also occupied the Rub al Khali and are the tall "oval headed Negroids" depicted in rock art and found by Anati. The Amalek were said to have stretched from Medina to Sanaa and their ancestors the Adites had come to occupy all of southern Arabia and Oman after "the flood" of Noah.
In Arabian Muslim tradition of Noah's flood happened at Jebel Quti or Judi which is also said to be in Arabia and not Turkey as other interpreters had it. Salibi says the term Ararat was a mistranslation of Ar or Har Harrat the mountains in Saudi Arabia where the Arabian Jebel Judi is situated.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic