quote:well actually that's still the mainstream (biblical)opinion, that the Hebrew(Jews) buildt the pyramids, if not with their engineering skills atleast their labour due to enslavement.
Btw, is their any evidence that Eyptians enslaved hebrews (outside the jewish religious scripts)?
Yonis brought up a interesting topic. A topic that has been beat nearly to death on this board and in the academic community. The question of the authenticity of the Exodus tradition is debatable. The secular evidence for so-called Hebrew enslavement is scant.
We do have evidence of large Western Asian foreign pressence of both skilled workers and captives settled in the Delta region during the First Intermediate Period through the Middle Kingdom. Not much evidence for the mass enslavement proposed by the Torahy or Qu'ran because ancient Kmt[Egypt] was never a large scale slave soceity. The insitution did exist but only on a small scale. Most of the so-called slaves in Egyptian society were most likely war captives taken as war booty during various wars. No slave markets nor chattel slavery existed in ancient Kmt.
The whole issue about Jews building the pyramids comes not from the Bible but from Joesphus. He was the person who incorporated this myth into history.The Pyramids were never mentioned once in the bible or Qu'ran.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi If I remember correctly Egyptians had to spend some part of the year working on public projects. It was the participation of Egyptians in public projects for part of the year that provided the labor necessary to build the pyramids.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hi If I remember correctly Egyptians had to spend some part of the year working on public projects. It was the participation of Egyptians in public projects for part of the year that provided the labor necessary to build the pyramids
Yes, the system is what is called Corve' labor. Every person in ancient Egypt had to work on building projects. The issue of wheather the ancient Egytians built the pyramids or not is another subject in itself.
What is the evidence of the Exodus tradition in ancient Egypt? Any opinions?
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a program I saw on the history channel about the Exodus, and that the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic warrior people.
I will try to find the info on this, but from I remember the evidence the program presents are those of laborers who were paid to do manual work around the Delta. I forgot which period of Egyptian history it took place in, but something happened which caused the Hebrew community to leave Egypt and to do so in an uproar, for even the Bible states this the quote that "the Hebrews left Egypt boldly"-- meaning they looted and stole on their way out.
The show also states that the Hebrews were able to escape using military strategies, some of which may have been adopted from the Egyptians.
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow.
If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hebrews were not originally slaves in Egypt. If we are referring to Semitic people in general then there is a long history of trade between Egyptians and Semitic cultures of Canaan and so on. Large scale slaverly was probably introduced to Egyptians by the Hysoks. The Hysok story is echoed in Jewish scripture to some extent though the Hebrews certainly are not the Hysoks like Josephus suggests. And the Jews certainly did not build the Pyramids. The Bible is very clear on where the Jews were enslaved and what they worked on.
What is interesting is that the Egyptians should have incorporated technology from the Hebrews but seemingly didn't. Technology such as the wheel and metalurgy was known to the Hebrews but perhaps not well utilized. Egyptians didn't seem to utilize such technology until the New Kingdom. They seem to be still in the stoneage when it comes to tools they utilized.
Interesting.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hebrews were not originally slaves in Egypt. If we are referring to Semitic people in general then there is a long history of trade between Egyptians and Semitic cultures of Canaan and so on. Large scale slaverly was probably introduced to Egyptians by the Hysoks. The Hysok story is echoed in Jewish scripture to some extent though the Hebrews certainly are not the Hysoks like Josephus suggests. And the Jews certainly did not build the Pyramids. The Bible is very clear on where the Jews were enslaved and what they worked on.
What is interesting is that the Egyptians should have incorporated technology from the Hebrews but seemingly didn't. Technology such as the wheel and metalurgy was known to the Hebrews but perhaps not well utilized. Egyptians didn't seem to utilize such technology until the New Kingdom. They seem to be still in the stoneage when it comes to tools they utilized.
Interesting
There is some debate about how much hegemony ancient Egypt had on Caana and other areas in Western Asia. Certain regions like Byblos located in Lebanon were basically political vassal states. The same goes for many other regions in Western Asia and the Levant.
We also have evidence of possible ancient Egyptian settlement in Caanan during the pre-dyanstic era.
Your claim that Egyptians never adopted metalurgy or the wheel untill the New Kingdom is actually incorrect. Ancient Egyptians used the wheel during the Old Kingdom but only for siege towers. During the New Kingdom chariots was introducts by the Hykos. Early Egyptians actually worked cooper and bronze from a early period.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judean expounders on the Hebrew book Shemoth say that the Hebrews were offered good pay jobs in constructing/rebuilding the store cities Pithom and Ramses. That it was a ruse for bit by bit the pay was rescinded and the brick making materials were no longer supplied. It was not a general enslavement but a particular policy enforced against the Hebrews who were increasing in number and feared of shaky loyalty likely to assist any Aamw invasion of KM.t.
The Children of Israel (Hebrews) imparted no technology to the Kmtyw. The earlier Semites (from the chalcolithic on up), of whom the later Hebrews (18th dynasties) are only a subset, may have made some few technological contributions generations after numbers of them nationalized and assimilated into Kmty culture and society.
There are 5th dynasty reliefs depicting metallurgy. So it was employed long before the New Kingdom. While it looks like the Hyksos introduced wheel along with the chariot. Except for pottery the Kmtyw seem to reject common use of the wheel. Threshing gears and pulleys may be notable exceptions No idea when they came into use. Again, though, certainly long before the New Kingdom, especially for the pulley. Really not sure about the threshing gear.
Precisely what technologies from which "Hebrews" were incorporated in KM.t and exactly when did each of them happen?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: What is interesting is that the Egyptians should have incorporated technology from the Hebrews but seemingly didn't. Technology such as the wheel and metalurgy was known to the Hebrews but perhaps not well utilized. Egyptians didn't seem to utilize such technology until the New Kingdom. They seem to be still in the stoneage when it comes to tools they utilized.
Interesting.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The story of Exodus provides a good example of the strength and limitations of written records in history.
The strengths are self-evident, they are the closest that you can come to eye-witness testimony in history.
The weaknesses are less apparent - eyewitness testimony is sometimes incomplete, biased, unreliable or just flat out incompetent/wrong.
All evidence that is not 1st person witness evidence is circumstantial - that includes physical evidence.
Physical evidence also has limitations.
Physical evidence, or lack thereof ultimately requires inferences or logical deduction, and like eyewitness testimony, powers of reason sometimes fail us as well.
May we infer from the lack of eyewitness corroboration of mass Hebrew enslavement, and the lack of recorded resistance/violence associated with their departure from Km.t - evidence against the case for mass enslavement?
It's difficult to say.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There was a program I saw on the history channel about the Exodus, and that the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic warrior people.
I will try to find the info on this, but from I remember the evidence the program presents are those of laborers who were paid to do manual work around the Delta. I forgot which period of Egyptian history it took place in, but something happened which caused the Hebrew community to leave Egypt and to do so in an uproar, for even the Bible states this the quote that "the Hebrews left Egypt boldly"-- meaning they looted and stole on their way out.
The show also states that the Hebrews were able to escape using military strategies, some of which may have been adopted from the Egyptians.
I got the dvd from the library,it's called rameses wrath of god or man. i just saw today.
Posts: 2688 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
al Takruri quote: _______________________________________________________________ There are 5th dynasty reliefs depicting metallurgy. So it was employed long before the New Kingdom. While it looks like the Hyksos introduced wheel along with the chariot. Except for pottery the Kmtyw seem to reject common use of the wheel. Threshing gears and pulleys may be notable exceptions No idea when they came into use. Again, though, certainly long before the New Kingdom, especially for the pulley. Really not sure about the threshing gear. ______________________________________________________________________
I don't think they rejected use of the wheel. I believe that because of the Nile river they didn't really see the ox cart and etc.,as an important means of transportation.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hebrews were not originally slaves in Egypt. If we are referring to Semitic people in general then there is a long history of trade between Egyptians and Semitic cultures of Canaan and so on. Large scale slaverly was probably introduced to Egyptians by the Hysoks. The Hysok story is echoed in Jewish scripture to some extent though the Hebrews certainly are not the Hysoks like Josephus suggests. And the Jews certainly did not build the Pyramids. The Bible is very clear on where the Jews were enslaved and what they worked on.
What is interesting is that the Egyptians should have incorporated technology from the Hebrews but seemingly didn't. Technology such as the wheel and metalurgy was known to the Hebrews but perhaps not well utilized. Egyptians didn't seem to utilize such technology until the New Kingdom. They seem to be still in the stoneage when it comes to tools they utilized.
Interesting
There is some debate about how much hegemony ancient Egypt had on Caana and other areas in Western Asia. Certain regions like Byblos located in Lebanon were basically political vassal states. The same goes for many other regions in Western Asia and the Levant.
We also have evidence of possible ancient Egyptian settlement in Caanan during the pre-dyanstic era.
Your claim that Egyptians never adopted metalurgy or the wheel untill the New Kingdom is actually incorrect. Ancient Egyptians used the wheel during the Old Kingdom but only for siege towers. During the New Kingdom chariots was introducts by the Hykos. Early Egyptians actually worked cooper and bronze from a early period.
I am not saying that the Egyptians were not aware of metalurgy, they certainly would have known of it from the Hebrews that traded with them. But they didn't seem to utilize it like most other societies. You would think that the wheel would be of great advantage to any society and that metalurgy would replace stone tools. It just doesn't appear that these technologies took off in Egypt like they did in Eurasia and Europe. There's no sudden transition to these technologies emasse until the New Kingdom largely due to Semitic influences during the Hysok dynasty. Metal seems to have been relegated to the court rather than used as a means to produce tools for farming and architecture.
Clearly Iron was of Asiatic origins. One of the Kings of the Hittites sent Rameses II, the celebrated Pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty, an iron sword and a promise of a shipment of the same metal.
Also the use of the Horse appears to be Asiatic in terms of its origin in Egyptian society.
Were not the Ziggurats built before the pyramids and weren't the first pyramid of Djoser essentially built like a Ziggurat?
Again, we know that Egypt controlled and sometimes was controlled by Canaan. We know that the people of Canaan were Semitic speaking people who in turn would have been in contact with other Asiatic cultures such as the Summerians.
It appears to me that we have a trade route and an exchange of ideas that benefit 3 separate societies. I call that cultural synergy.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a very early date the ancient Egyptians used copper tools for the purposes you mentioned. Agritcultural equipment was mainly from wood but architectural tools like adzes were made from copper. Bronze was also worked throughout ancient Egyptian society,and was not introduced by foreigners.
I mentioned earlier that the wheel during the Old Kingdom was utilized but only for siege towers. We have depictions of wheels on 5th dyansty tombs.
Another error in your post is ascribing the accomplishments to Semitic speaking people. Semitic speakers donot appear in Western Asia or Mesopotamia untill a much later period. The first such people in Mesopotamia are actually the Akkadians. The Hebrew people are a much younger people than the ancient Egyptians or surrounding cultures.
You also fail to grasp that pyramids and temples all had a type of spirtual connections to them that architecture within Mesopotamia did not have. From the mastaba and down the Mirs[Kemetic name for pyramids] were seen as vessels to where the soul of the pharaoh would travel to the sky to be with Wsir[Osiris].
BTW. The following is off-topic because there is another topic already on the board dicussion cultural diffusion.
For discussion in Cultural diffusion see the following topic:
quote:Originally posted by ausar: From a very early date the ancient Egyptians used copper tools for the purposes you mentioned. Agritcultural equipment was mainly from wood but architectural tools like adzes were made from copper. Bronze was also worked throughout ancient Egyptian society,and was not introduced by foreigners.
I mentioned earlier that the wheel during the Old Kingdom was utilized but only for siege towers. We have depictions of wheels on 5th dyansty tombs.
Another error in your post is ascribing the accomplishments to Semitic speaking people. Semitic speakers donot appear in Western Asia or Mesopotamia untill a much later period. The first such people in Mesopotamia are actually the Akkadians. The Hebrew people are a much younger people than the ancient Egyptians or surrounding cultures.
You also fail to grasp that pyramids and temples all had a type of spirtual connections to them that architecture within Mesopotamia did not have. From the mastaba and down the Mirs[Kemetic name for pyramids] were seen as vessels to where the soul of the pharaoh would travel to the sky to be with Wsir[Osiris].
BTW. The following is off-topic because there is another topic already on the board dicussion cultural diffusion.
For discussion in Cultural diffusion see the following topic:
Approximately 40% of Jewish males are haplogroup J. This compares quite well with Middle Eastern populations. The J haplogroup is quite old. I have seen reports that say modern day Egyptians are 30% J. J is of Asiatic origins unlike E3b (PN2).
Essentially if we go beyond the language phylum of the Semitic people and talk about their origins, we seem to have Mesopatamia as the most likely candidate before these people became nomdic. My understanding is that Hebrew actually means nomadic.
The people who built Jericho were a mixture of E3b and J. Jericho was one of the first agricultural cities. Again, its proximity to Egypt and the potential of trade cannot be excluded.
As for the Ziggurats in Mesopatamia. I absolutely agree that they were built for differing purposes from the Egyptian pyramids. These are cultural differences. What I was referring to is some of the technological similarities. Not that there are not differences there as well and quite a few. Information could have exchanged that would have had a synergistic affect for both cultures.
As for copper tools in Egypt. Yes, I can't imagine that there weren't but I have just not seen any documentation talking about the use of metal for this purpose in large amounts. Can you help me out on that? Everything I have read suggest that the Egyptians were primarily stoneage with metal used for religious purposes and such.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fact of 5th dynasty pictorial documentation for metallurgy makes it impossible to be a Hebrew introduced innovation, period. The Hebrews in KM.t date completely within the 18th dynasty.
The Israelites' own history states that they became a people or nation in Egypt. Before living in Egypt they were only an extended family. Their stay in Egypt was for 210 years. There, after immigrating as transhumant pastoralists, they learned the arts of cosmopolitan civilization. All this is according to their book B*reshiyth.
As for metal architectural tools
quote:Dieter Arnold writes:
Egyptian metal tools consisted of essentially unalloyed copper, arsenical copper, tin bronze, and leaded tin bronze. A very high iron content is found occasionally and suggests that the tools were made from unrefined metal.
...The question that must be considered, then, is to what extent metal chisels were used in comparison with stone tools.
Metal chisels were used for stoneworking, and many have been found. It seems not coincidental that the number of preserved metal chisels increases with the beginnings of monumental stone building in the Third Dynasty. Copper chisels (perhaps models) from tombs are known since the First Dynasty. We have to suppose that they were used for woodworking. Some of the chisels from the Third Dynasty were certainly used for dressing stone, especially those from the Djoser precinct.
The two main types used for dressing stone were the round bar chisel and the flat mortise chisel Both are represented by dozens of specimens, ranging from the reign of Djoser to the New Kingdom. . . . From Petrie's rich collection, we learn about the existence of many more chisel types. Most of them, however, were certainly not used for the production of building stones but for sculpting or for woodworking. . . . Such chisels were used for cutting small and deep mortises and holes or areas difficult to reach. Mortise chisels could also have been used by carpenters.
Building in Egypt; Pharaonic Stone Masonry New York and Oxford 1991
.
.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I am not saying that the Egyptians were not aware of metalurgy, they certainly would have known of it from the Hebrews that traded with them. . . . . Metal seems to have been relegated to the court rather than used as a means to produce tools for farming and architecture.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The fact of 5th dynasty pictorial documentation for metallurgy makes it impossible to be a Hebrew introduced innovation, period. The Hebrews in KM.t date completely within the 18th dynasty.
The Israelites' own history states that they became a people or nation in Egypt. Before living in Egypt they were only an extended family. Their stay in Egypt was for 210 years. There, after immigrating as transhumant pastoralists, they learned the arts of cosmopolitan civilization. All this is according to their book B*reshiyth.
As for metal archetectural tools
quote:Dieter Arnold writes:
[qi]Egyptian metal tools27 consisted of essentially unalloyed copper, arsenical copper, tin bronze, and leaded tin bronze.28 A very high iron content is found occasionally and suggests that the tools were made from unrefined metal.
...The question that must be considered, then, is to what extent metal chisels were used in comparison with stone tools.
Metal chisels were used for stoneworking, and many have been found. It seems not coincidental that the number of preserved metal chisels increases with the beginnings of monumental stone building in the Third Dynasty. Copper chisels (perhaps models) from tombs are known since the First Dynasty.33 We have to suppose that they were used for woodworking. Some of the chisels from the Third Dynasty were certainly used for dressing stone, especially those from the Djoser precinct.
The two main types used for dressing stone were the round bar chisel (Petrie's type D) (fig. 6.10) and the flat mortise chisel (Petrie's type B) (fig. 6.11). Both are represented by dozens of specimens, ranging from the reign of Djoser to the New Kingdom. . . . From Petrie's rich collection, we learn about the existence of many more chisel types.34 Most of them, however, were certainly not used for the production of building stones but for sculpting or for woodworking. . . . Such chisels were used for cutting small and deep mortises and holes or areas difficult to reach. Mortise chisels could also have been used by carpenters. [/qi]
Building in Egypt; Pharaonic Stone Masonry New York and Oxford 1991
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I am not saying that the Egyptians were not aware of metalurgy, they certainly would have known of it from the Hebrews that traded with them. . . . . Metal seems to have been relegated to the court rather than used as a means to produce tools for farming and architecture.
Didn't mean to imply that Egyptians learned of metalurgy from Hebrews. I am saying they certainly would have if they didn't already know about it. They certainly did know about it before the mythical Abrahamic time period.
They just didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect for such an advance society.
When referring to Hebrews in ancient time I am normally talking about the J haplogroup. Most people think I am referring to the Jewish religion.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you use the standard terminology then people will understand. When you apply the term Hebrew in definition of your own design you lose clarity.
Hebrew refers to a language and the people speaking or using that language. That people would be the Israelites. Hebrew devolved from Canaanitic.
While not retracting erroneous direct statements you keep saying you didn't mean to imply them. No, you didn't imply them you directly stated
"would have known of it from the Hebrews that traded "
which implies indebtedness and is a far cry from
"would have if they didn't already know"
Primary documentation flat out makes it an error to in any way or by any method to associate Kmtyw metallurgy with your "Hebrews" or with any of the Levantine and/or Mesopotamian peoples (`M) the Kmtyw knew as Aamu (`3MW).
You may equate "Hebrew" to haplogroup J but keep in mind Hg J has a pre-metal age expansion from the Balkans to India. Is it your intent to include such a swath of temporally, culturally and linguistically unrelated populations in your definition of "Hebrews"?
Also when you say "didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect" it looks like you didn't see the uses Arnold showed or you have a usage criteria that needs further elucidation. If so can you list those criteria and show which "advanced societies" implemented them? Thank you.
I ask this not in the spirit of debate but of academic discussion.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Didn't mean to imply that Egyptians learned of metalurgy from Hebrews. I am saying they certainly would have if they didn't already know about it. They certainly did know about it before the mythical Abrahamic time period.
They just didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect for such an advance society.
When referring to Hebrews in ancient time I am normally talking about the J haplogroup. Most people think I am referring to the Jewish religion.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: There was a program I saw on the history channel about the Exodus, and that the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic warrior people.
I will try to find the info on this, but from I remember the evidence the program presents are those of laborers who were paid to do manual work around the Delta. I forgot which period of Egyptian history it took place in, but something happened which caused the Hebrew community to leave Egypt and to do so in an uproar, for even the Bible states this the quote that "the Hebrews left Egypt boldly"-- meaning they looted and stole on their way out.
The show also states that the Hebrews were able to escape using military strategies, some of which may have been adopted from the Egyptians.
I got the dvd from the library,it's called rameses wrath of god or man. i just saw today.
No, not that one! I know about the Ramases: Wrath of God or Man, but the one I am referring to dealt specifically with the Hebrews and not the Egyptians. Also, it aired on the History Channel.
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I am not saying that the Egyptians were not aware of metalurgy, they certainly would have known of it from the Hebrews that traded with them...
You seriously can't be contributing the Egyptians' use of metalurgy to Hebrews!!
quote:But they didn't seem to utilize it like most other societies. You would think that the wheel would be of great advantage to any society and that metalurgy would replace stone tools. It just doesn't appear that these technologies took off in Egypt like they did in Eurasia and Europe. There's no sudden transition to these technologies emasse until the New Kingdom largely due to Semitic influences during the Hysok dynasty. Metal seems to have been relegated to the court rather than used as a means to produce tools for farming and architecture.
Osrion, you seriously need to read up on Egyptian technology! Egyptians have been using metal as early as the Near-East. Their first use of metal was with copper and that took place around the 4th millenium BC. You don't really think all the early monuments in the Old Kingdom were built by Stone Age technology, from the pyramids to the Great Sphinx??!!
quote:Clearly Iron was of Asiatic origins. One of the Kings of the Hittites sent Rameses II, the celebrated Pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty, an iron sword and a promise of a shipment of the same metal.
Yes Iron was introduced by the Assyrians, but again the Egyptians have been using the weaker metals like copper and bronze long before the introduction of iron and way before the Hyksos period or any other Asiat 'influence'.
quote:Also the use of the Horse appears to be Asiatic in terms of its origin in Egyptian society.
This part is true. The horse might have originally come from Central Asia, where it was introduced to Western Asia probably by Indo-European speakers.
quote:Were not the Ziggurats built before the pyramids and weren't the first pyramid of Djoser essentially built like a Ziggurat?
I am not sure about the exact date of the ziggurat, but the pyramids were definitely of indigenous ingenuity and were NOT the result of foreign ideas.
quote:Again, we know that Egypt controlled and sometimes was controlled by Canaan. We know that the people of Canaan were Semitic speaking people who in turn would have been in contact with other Asiatic cultures such as the Summerians.
Your point?
quote:It appears to me that we have a trade route and an exchange of ideas that benefit 3 separate societies. I call that cultural synergy.
Yes, but the kind YOU speak of where much of Egyptian innovations including their use of metal came from Asiatics!!!
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, we know that Egypt controlled and sometimes was controlled by Canaan. We know that the people of Canaan were Semitic speaking people who in turn would have been in contact with other Asiatic cultures such as the Summerians.
I am aware of Egyptian control extending into Canaan, but I don't recall Canaanites controlling Egypt. What do you mean by "Canaan" here...it doesn't have to do with the Hyksos, or the Persians, does it?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, we know that Egypt controlled and sometimes was controlled by Canaan. We know that the people of Canaan were Semitic speaking people who in turn would have been in contact with other Asiatic cultures such as the Summerians.
I am aware of Egyptian control extending into Canaan, but I don't recall Canaanites controlling Egypt. What do you mean by "Canaan" here...it doesn't have to do with the Hyksos, or the Persians, does it?
Hyksos were either from Canaan or Syria as far as documents I have read. Certainly Semitic people.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Hyksos were either from Canaan or Syria as far as documents I have read. Certainly Semitic people.
Even if the Hyksos were from "Canaan", it wasn't "Canaan" that controlled Egypt. Do you see the difference!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I am not saying that the Egyptians were not aware of metalurgy, they certainly would have known of it from the Hebrews that traded with them...
You seriously can't be contributing the Egyptians' use of metalurgy to Hebrews!!
quote:But they didn't seem to utilize it like most other societies. You would think that the wheel would be of great advantage to any society and that metalurgy would replace stone tools. It just doesn't appear that these technologies took off in Egypt like they did in Eurasia and Europe. There's no sudden transition to these technologies emasse until the New Kingdom largely due to Semitic influences during the Hysok dynasty. Metal seems to have been relegated to the court rather than used as a means to produce tools for farming and architecture.
Osrion, you seriously need to read up on Egyptian technology! Egyptians have been using metal as early as the Near-East. Their first use of metal was with copper and that took place around the 4th millenium BC. You don't really think all the early monuments in the Old Kingdom were built by Stone Age technology, from the pyramids to the Great Sphinx??!!
quote:Clearly Iron was of Asiatic origins. One of the Kings of the Hittites sent Rameses II, the celebrated Pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty, an iron sword and a promise of a shipment of the same metal.
Yes Iron was introduced by the Assyrians, but again the Egyptians have been using the weaker metals like copper and bronze long before the introduction of iron and way before the Hyksos period or any other Asiat 'influence'.
quote:Also the use of the Horse appears to be Asiatic in terms of its origin in Egyptian society.
This part is true. The horse might have originally come from Central Asia, where it was introduced to Western Asia probably by Indo-European speakers.
quote:Were not the Ziggurats built before the pyramids and weren't the first pyramid of Djoser essentially built like a Ziggurat?
I am not sure about the exact date of the ziggurat, but the pyramids were definitely of indigenous ingenuity and were NOT the result of foreign ideas.
quote:Again, we know that Egypt controlled and sometimes was controlled by Canaan. We know that the people of Canaan were Semitic speaking people who in turn would have been in contact with other Asiatic cultures such as the Summerians.
Your point?
quote:It appears to me that we have a trade route and an exchange of ideas that benefit 3 separate societies. I call that cultural synergy.
Yes, but the kind YOU speak of where much of Egyptian innovations including their use of metal came from Asiatics!!!
Read more into the thread. I didn't mean to suggest that metalurgy came from the Hebrews. Never thought that. I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies.
I am also not saying that Pyramid technology comes from Asiatics either. However, perhaps there's inspirational connections. Obviously the Egyptians mastered the monumental building and eclipses the Summerian civilization. Hard for me to ignore that there might be a connection especially considering the J haplogroup marker presence amongst Egyptians. Is this really of recent origins?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A fuller view of the wheeled device depicted in Kaemheset's tomb appears to be a builder's caffold rather than a war machine. Note the men on it have contractor's tools not weapons. Also nothing going on on the four floors inside the building remotely suggest a siege is happening,
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I mentioned earlier that the wheel during the Old Kingdom was utilized but only for siege towers. We have depictions of wheels on 5th dyansty tombs.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Hyksos were either from Canaan or Syria as far as documents I have read. Certainly Semitic people.
Even if the Hyksos were from "Canaan", it wasn't "Canaan" that controlled Egypt. Do you see the difference!
Be careful now. I have a hard time imagining these Canaanites invading Egypt, taking over the Delta and not leaving the gate wide open for other Semitic people to simply migrate into Egypt at will. In fact, is this not how the Jews got into Egypt in the first place according to our tradition? So we have people who not only controlled Egypt but certainly controlled cities in Canaan. I think that is sufficient to say that if they were Canaanites and they invaded Egypt and then allowed of further emigration from Canaan into Egypt that we have a situation where Canaan (or whatever the nation was referred as), had political control of Egypt.
But then we are splitting hairs and I rather not do that. Lets just say that Semitic people probably originating from Canaan took control over Egypt. Special note, they did so with technology that they gleemed from the Sumerian or Babylonians (not sure who controlled the fertile crescent at that time - probably the Babylonians).
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: A fuller view of the wheeled device depicted in Kaemheset's tomb appears to be a builder's caffold rather than a war machine. Note the men on it have contractor's tools not weapons. Also nothing going on on the four floors inside the building remotely suggest a siege is happening,
quote:Originally posted by ausar: I mentioned earlier that the wheel during the Old Kingdom was utilized but only for siege towers. We have depictions of wheels on 5th dyansty tombs.
Yes it does look like its used for construction. Strange, why wasn't this further developed?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Be careful now. I have a hard time imagining these Canaanites invading Egypt, taking over the Delta and not leaving the gate wide open for other Semitic people to simply migrate into Egypt at will. In fact, is this not how the Jews got into Egypt in the first place according to our tradition? So we have people who not only controlled Egypt but certainly controlled cities in Canaan. I think that is sufficient to say that if they were Canaanites and they invaded Egypt and then allowed of further emigration from Canaan into Egypt that we have a situation where Canaan (or whatever the nation was referred as), had political control of Egypt.
But then we are splitting hairs and I rather not do that. Lets just say that Semitic people probably originating from Canaan took control over Egypt. Special note, they did so with technology that they gleemed from the Sumerian or Babylonians (not sure who controlled the fertile crescent at that time - probably the Babylonians).
What evidence do you have which suggests that the Hyksos came through military force as an initiative of a "state" in Canaan, rather than coming in as immigrants, assimilating into the society first, and then slowly making their way to elite sections of the society?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's getting hard to take your various "Hebrew" hypotheses seriously. You aren't backing them with any credible evidence, references, or sources. Failing that, you haven't even succinctly posited your hypotheses in all detail, i.e., complete description.
Do you have a criterial frame of reference for your statement
"I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies."
or do you need more time to compile one?
When you say "didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect" it looks like you didn't see the uses Arnold(1991) showed or you have usage criterion needing further elucidation. Please list criteria and show which "advanced societies" implemented them and when.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
It's getting hard to take your various "Hebrew" hypotheses seriously. You aren't backing them with any credible evidence, references, or sources. Failing that, you haven't even succintly posited your hypotheses in all detail, i.e., complete description.
Do you have a criterial frame of reference for your statement
"I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies."
or do you need more time to compile one?
When you say "didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect" it looks like you didn't see the uses Arnold(1991) showed or you have usage criterion needing further elucidation. Please list criteria and show which "advanced societies" implemented them and when.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies.
For thousands of years the Egyptians built monumental archtectural achievements and all we have in terms of metal tools are a few saws and chisels and very few pictures actually depicting the use of these tools? The Nile Valley should be littered with various metal tools if that is what they used commonly.
More often than not the Egyptians used sand, wooden pegs, igneous rock and water. Copper was probably used but mostly for wood work. Plenty of theories about this stuff and none of them very conclusive. Bronze came into play but much later. I don't even want to talk about Iron. Not sure but didn't West Africans develop the use of iron well in advance of the Egyptians?
Still don't hear how we account for 30% of haplotype J amongst Egyptians when we know this is of Asiatic origins.
Here is an interesting reference to Egyptian history in regards to cultural influence from Canaan:
Protodynastic Period (ca. 3300Đ3100 B.C.) --------------------- Lower Egypt increasingly infiltrated by Upper Egyptian culture,probably through trade that also included goods from Canaan. Rich cultural influences also from western Asia. Political unity achieved gradually by the spread of a uniform material culture and a series of conflicts rather than by one single conquest.
So what were those goods in the Delta that slowly infirltrated into Egyptian culture? Would these people of Canaan not be J type and therefore proto-Semitic people?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You know Osirion, I started a topic specifically to deal with what you are getting at here, where you can actually tell us the specifics of "Canaanite" influences in ancient Egypt, that made it "unique and something new", but nothing was forthcoming. Why is that?
quote:osirion: So what were those goods in the Delta that slowly infirltrated into Egyptian culture?
This is what we would like to know from you.
quote:osirion: Would these people of Canaan not be J type and therefore proto-Semitic people?
Could possibly be J, but could also possibly include people who carry E3b lineages. We've gone through this issue of the possible time frames of J arrival in the Nile Valley many times, and here is a relatively recent example of such a discussion:
posted
OK, I was hoping for some evidence, documentation, or original post clearly delineating your position, even allowing you time to defer for well thought response but you just rehash the same suppositions while all factual presentation counter to your hypotheses is transparently not acknowledged.
I draw an unfavorable conclusion that will remain so until you point by point address the facts opposing your novel set of hypotheses.
Shalom geyresh
.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Osirion
Do you have a criterial frame of reference for your statement
"I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies."
or do you need more time to compile one?
[u]Please list criteria and show which "advanced societies" implemented them and when.[/u]
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies.
... all we have in terms of metal tools are a [u]few[/u] saws and chisels and [u]very few[/u] pictures actually depicting the use of these tools? [u]The Nile Valley should be littered with various metal tools if that is what they used commonly[/u].
More often than not the Egyptians used sand, wooden pegs, igneous rock and water. Copper was [u]probably[/u] used but mostly for wood work. Plenty of theories about this stuff and none of them very conclusive. Bronze came into play but much later. I don't even want to talk about Iron. Not sure but didn't West Africans develop the use of iron well in advance of the Egyptians?
Still don't hear how we account for 30% of haplotype J amongst Egyptians when we know this is of Asiatic origins.
Here is an interesting reference to Egyptian history in regards to cultural influence from Canaan:
Protodynastic Period (ca. 3300Đ3100 B.C.) --------------------- Lower Egypt increasingly infiltrated by Upper Egyptian culture,probably through trade that also included goods from Canaan. Rich cultural influences also from western Asia. Political unity achieved gradually by the spread of a uniform material culture and a series of conflicts rather than by one single conquest.
So what were those goods in the Delta that slowly infirltrated into Egyptian culture? Would these people of Canaan not be J type and therefore proto-Semitic people?
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: OK, I was hoping for some evidence, documentation, or original post clearly delineating your position, even allowing you time to defer for well thought response but you just rehash the same suppositions while all factual presentation counter to your hypotheses is transparently not acknowledged.
I draw an unfavorable conclusion that will remain so until you point by point address the facts opposing your novel set of hypotheses.
Shalom geyresh
.
.
.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Osirion
Do you have a criterial frame of reference for your statement
"I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies."
or do you need more time to compile one?
[u]Please list criteria and show which "advanced societies" implemented them and when.[/u]
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I think it is interesting that Egyptians didn't utilize it as much as other advance societies.
... all we have in terms of metal tools are a [u]few[/u] saws and chisels and [u]very few[/u] pictures actually depicting the use of these tools? [u]The Nile Valley should be littered with various metal tools if that is what they used commonly[/u].
More often than not the Egyptians used sand, wooden pegs, igneous rock and water. Copper was [u]probably[/u] used but mostly for wood work. Plenty of theories about this stuff and none of them very conclusive. Bronze came into play but much later. I don't even want to talk about Iron. Not sure but didn't West Africans develop the use of iron well in advance of the Egyptians?
Still don't hear how we account for 30% of haplotype J amongst Egyptians when we know this is of Asiatic origins.
Here is an interesting reference to Egyptian history in regards to cultural influence from Canaan:
Protodynastic Period (ca. 3300Đ3100 B.C.) --------------------- Lower Egypt increasingly infiltrated by Upper Egyptian culture,probably through trade that also included goods from Canaan. Rich cultural influences also from western Asia. Political unity achieved gradually by the spread of a uniform material culture and a series of conflicts rather than by one single conquest.
So what were those goods in the Delta that slowly infirltrated into Egyptian culture? Would these people of Canaan not be J type and therefore proto-Semitic people?
Address what counterpoints? Trade from Canaan into predynastic Egypt is a known fact. No one has countered any of that.
Wheel, Horses, Iron, Glass are all substatiated Asiatic influences in Egypt. Religious, artistic and various cultural influence from Egypt flowed into Western Asia.
Specifically addressing goods flowing into the Delta from Canaan in predynastic time is rather easy to do. It however doesn't well support my hyposthesis that cultural trade led to synergestic advancement in Egypt.
That I admit is armchair logic. Like I said it is simply based on the evidence of trade between the proto-Semitic people of Canaan and the Kushitic people of the Horn.
I still think that Egypt was primarily stoneage society. I really don't see that a few chisels with copper tips changes that by much. I would like to see more evidence of metalurgy used by Egyptians. I going to look into that more.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Hebrews are those who left KM.t in 1313 BCE, as they report it, after being there for 210 years, per their reckoning then their Hyksos affiliation is tenuous.
In the Hebrew account found in B*reshiyth, Yoseph encounters Kmtyw smugness against his ethnicity typically displayed to the Aamu. If he was in Hyksos ruled KM.t, fellow Aamu would hardly have put on anti-Aamu airs with him.
In the Kmty record neither Cheremon nor Manetho make Hyksos out of the leper expellees. They rather state the expellees recruited Hyksos descendants already living in the Levant to come and assist them.
Then there's Merneptah's "Israel" stela. Doesn't say much except that Merenptah anihilated a beduin group with a name very similar if not identical to the Semitic word YSR'L. And the Hebrews do have a recollection of a fragment of a tribe leaving KM.t a generation before the Exodus. They say that tribal fragment was wiped out. Later Judaean commentary suggests the reason the Exodus wended through Sinai was to avoid the disheartenment of seeing the remains of that decimated host.
There are later Kmty toponymic references to southern Judaean peoples and a notice of commissarying clans from Edom, a twin brother kinfolk to the Israelites and thus technically Hebrews too.
But its as you say. Outside of the Hebrew's Joseph saga there's no historical evidence of any but a minor passive role for Hebrews in regard to KM.t where they were virtually unnoticed outside of one incident.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow.
If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow.
If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Be careful now. I have a hard time imagining these Canaanites invading Egypt, taking over the Delta and not leaving the gate wide open for other Semitic people to simply migrate into Egypt at will. In fact, is this not how the Jews got into Egypt in the first place according to our tradition? So we have people who not only controlled Egypt but certainly controlled cities in Canaan. I think that is sufficient to say that if they were Canaanites and they invaded Egypt and then allowed of further emigration from Canaan into Egypt that we have a situation where Canaan (or whatever the nation was referred as), had political control of Egypt.
But then we are splitting hairs and I rather not do that. Lets just say that Semitic people probably originating from Canaan took control over Egypt. Special note, they did so with technology that they gleemed from the Sumerian or Babylonians (not sure who controlled the fertile crescent at that time - probably the Babylonians).
What evidence do you have which suggests that the Hyksos came through military force as an initiative of a "state" in Canaan, rather than coming in as immigrants, assimilating into the society first, and then slowly making their way to elite sections of the society?
I can give you references if that's what you mean. What you are suggesting is actually appealing to me. What do you have to support the suggestion you are making?
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: If the Hebrews are those who left KM.t in 1313 BCE, as they report it, after being there for 210 years, per their reckoning then their Hyksos affiliation is tenuous.
In the Hebrew account found in B*reshiyth, Yoseph encounters Kmtyw smugness against his ethnicity typically displayed to the Aamu. If he was in Hyksos ruled KM.t, fellow Aamu would hardly have put on anti-Aamu airs with him.
In the Kmty record neither Cheremon nor Manetho make Hyksos out of the leper expellees. They rather state the expellees recruited Hyksos descendants already living in the Levant to come and assist them.
Then there's Merneptah's "Israel" stela. Doesn't say much except that Merenptah anihilated a beduin group with a name very similar if not identical to the Semitic word YSR'L. And the Hebrews do have a recollection of a fragment of a tribe leaving KM.t a generation before the Exodus. They say that tribal fragment was wiped out. Later Judaean commentary suggests the reason the Exodus wended through Sinai was to avoid the disheartenment of seeing the remains of that decimated host.
There are later Kmty toponymic references to southern Judaean peoples and a notice of commissarying clans from Edom, a twin brother kinfolk to the Israelites and thus technically Hebrews too.
But its as you say. Outside of the Hebrew's Joseph saga there's no historical evidence of any but a minor passive role for Hebrews in regard to KM.t where they were virtually unnoticed outside of one incident.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow.
If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Hebrews really do seem to be affiliated with the Hyksos somehow.
If not, then they were apparently such 'small players' in Km.t history, so as to go virtually unmentioned.
Actually iy is a very difficult to estimate when Hebrews were in Egypt based on the oral tradition of us Jews. I found that kind of dicussion non-productive and certainly should not exclude evidence support the exodus in conjuction with the expulsion of the Hysoks.
I think the story of the Hysoks is the best connection we have between Egypt and Jews in terms of the actual legend of the Exodus.
I think the enslavement of Hebrews in Egypt was a reprisal for the Hyksos invasion. Perhaps when the new Kingdom was established, Asiatics were seen as a threat!
In a word, it appears that the biblical, historical, and archaeological data are perhaps best served by theorizing that it was a Hyksos monarch before whom Joseph stood as an interpreter of dreams (Gen. 41:14-37) and who later ceded a choice parcel of land (Goshen) to Joseph's family (Gen. 47:6). According to such a theory, the "new king" of Exodus 1:8 would have been one of the native Egyptian monarchs of the New Kingdom who, as part of his Hyksos purge, resolutely refused to recognize the validity of the Goshen land grant. Discerning in the Israelites a multitude who might very well join with his Asiatic enemies in war, this new king moreover acted quickly to enslave the Israelites.
The above-mentioned theory also fits well with the historical profile attested in the book of Genesis. The patriarchs moved in and through Palestine for some 215 years (cf. Gen. 12:4; 21:5; 25:26; 47:9), seemingly with the greatest of ease, mobility and freedom. Yet, it is inconceivable that their movements should have gone unnoticed (e.g., Gen. 14:14). That bespeaks a political climate in Palestine that would have been free from any sort of national or international domination, which is truly characteristic of that period between 1850 and 1550 B.C. The theory might also humanly explain how Joseph, a non-Egyptian, was able to rise to a position of Grand Vizier in a foreign land -- the court itself would not have been Egyptian, but Hyksos. It also might explain why there is no historical mention of Joseph.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I can give you references if that's what you mean. What you are suggesting is actually appealing to me. What do you have to support the suggestion you are making?
You are the one who is making an 'out-of-ordinary' claim about how the Hyksos came into the region, and so, where is the evidence?
I present an earlier post of mine, on this issue...
From Manetho's list, Egyptologists relate the 13th and 17th dynasties to the Theban kings, while the 15th and 16th Dynasties are associated with the Hyksos. The 14th dynasty could have been contemporaneous with the 13th dynasty, and could have either belonged to a line of native Kings or Hyksos. This seems to be a rather chaotic period of dynastic Egypt, and it appears to be reflected in available Kings lists. The Hyksos period is therefore not called the 'dark' period for nothing.
The relative uncertainity about 14th dynasty, based in the Xois city of the north, may well be due to the possibility that, around this time, its local line of rulers were probably under some degree of Hyksos influence or authority, like vassaldom. And as far as the 16th dynasty is concerned, absence of archeological evidence in support of a line of kings belonging to the Hyksos, makes its existence rather questionable.
It should be examined how the Hyksos might have come into the country, because it appears that the Egyptians had a fortified eastern border, with troop presence. So any influx into the nation would have been checked. It seems probable that Egyptians themselves allowed some infiltration of Asiatics into the Delta, possibly for trade reasons:
Hyksos rule of Egypt was probably the climax of waves of Asiatic immigration and infiltration into the northeastern Delta of the Nile. This process was perhaps aided by the Egyptians themselves. For example, Amenemhat II records, in unmistakable language, a campaign by sea to the Lebanese coast that resulted in a list of booty comprising 1,554 Asiatics, and considering that Egypt's eastern border was fortified and probably patrolled by soldiers, it is difficult to understand how massive numbers of foreign people could have simply migrated into northern Egypt. These people migrated, or otherwise moved to the region from the 12th Dynasty onward, and by the 13th Dynasty, this migration became widespread...
...One hypothesis is that the basic population of Egyptians allowed, from time to time, a new influx of settlers, first from the region of Lebanon and Syria, and subsequently from Palestine and Cyprus.
The leaders of these people eventually married into the local Egyptian families, a theory that is somewhat supported by preliminary studies of human remains at Tell el-Dab'a. Indeed, parallels for the foreign traits of the Hyksos at Tell el-Dab'a have been found at southern Palestinian sites such as Tell el-Ajjul, at the Syrian site of Ebla and at Byblos in modern Labanon. - TourEgypt.Net
At any rate, it appears that ambitious leaders among these immigrants, were aided in their adventure, in part due to new imported military concepts they came with, and on the other hand, the existing political weakness during the late 13th dynasty. They subsequently (in late 18th century B.C.) were able to make their capital at Avaris, and then Memphis, 50 years later or so. It should be noted however, that the expansion of Hyksos rule towards upper Egypt was slow paced, and they were never able to adequately rule upper Egypt.
As a matter of fact, no clear chronological line demarcates the 13th dynasty from the 17th dynasty, both of which appeared to have been running in Upper Egypt, during the Hyksos period. Some Egyptologists have been tempted to further subdivide these two dynasties into a number of dynasties, under the suspicion that some of the kings in these dynasties formed an independent political entity from their immediate predecessor, particularly the last few kings of the 17th dynasty.
It is generally accepted that Kamose, the Theban King, took the initiative of launching a war of liberation to drive out the Hyksos. The subsequent victory was completed under Ahmose's watch, with the re-unification of Egypt, and bringing the Theban authority to the fore again.
Prior to Ahmose's re-unification of Egypt, Nebhepetre's (Menthotpe II) moving of the capital to Thebes upon victory over Herakleopolis, left a lasting impact on the minds of Egyptians. Evidence of this, is a temple inscription, dating to the 19th dynasty, bringing together the names of three kings; Menes, Nebhepetre (Menthotpe II) and Ahmose. According to William C. Hayes, these folks were "obviously" regarded "as the founders of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms". It appears from this, that in the 19th dynasty, Egyptians viewed national history in terms of these three epochs, each marked by unification of the nation by a Pharaoh, after political upheaval. This probably explains the confusion expressed in the following article:
Archeologists have found the tomb of pharaoh Nubkeperre Inyotef with the aid of a papyrus document that could help find more royal tombs
Cairo, July 01, 2001 (AFP/Agence France Presse) - Archeologists have discovered the tomb of an Egyptian pharaoh with the aid of a papyrus document they now realize could help them find more royal tombs, antiquities officials have said. A German working on the west bank of the Nile near present-day Luxor found the tomb of Nubkeperre Inyotef, who is believed to have started the war of liberation against Hyksos invaders around 3,500 years ago, they said.
"Historically speaking, it is a very exciting find," the secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, Gaballah Ali Gaballah, said when asked to comment on a German news report of the find. "It validates the information on the papyrus document," he said.Nubkeperre Inyotef's tomb was mentioned in the so-called Abbot Papyrus, a 20th dynasty document now in the British Museum which detailed royal tombs that were pillaged in a period of anarchy under that dynasty, he said...
quote:Originally posted by osirion: I can give you references if that's what you mean. What you are suggesting is actually appealing to me. What do you have to support the suggestion you are making?
You are the one who is making an 'out-of-ordinary' claim about how the Hyksos came into the region, and so, where is the evidence?
I present an earlier post of mine, on this issue...
From Manetho's list, Egyptologists relate the 13th and 17th dynasties to the Theban kings, while the 15th and 16th Dynasties are associated with the Hyksos. The 14th dynasty could have been contemporaneous with the 13th dynasty, and could have either belonged to a line of native Kings or Hyksos. This seems to be a rather chaotic period of dynastic Egypt, and it appears to be reflected in available Kings lists. The Hyksos period is therefore not called the 'dark' period for nothing.
The relative uncertainity about 14th dynasty, based in the Xois city of the north, may well be due to the possibility that, around this time, its local line of rulers were probably under some degree of Hyksos influence or authority, like vassaldom. And as far as the 16th dynasty is concerned, absence of archeological evidence in support of a line of kings belonging to the Hyksos, makes its existence rather questionable.
It should be examined how the Hyksos might have come into the country, because it appears that the Egyptians had a fortified eastern border, with troop presence. So any influx into the nation would have been checked. It seems probable that Egyptians themselves allowed some infiltration of Asiatics into the Delta, possibly for trade reasons:
Hyksos rule of Egypt was probably the climax of waves of Asiatic immigration and infiltration into the northeastern Delta of the Nile. This process was perhaps aided by the Egyptians themselves. For example, Amenemhat II records, in unmistakable language, a campaign by sea to the Lebanese coast that resulted in a list of booty comprising 1,554 Asiatics, and considering that Egypt's eastern border was fortified and probably patrolled by soldiers, it is difficult to understand how massive numbers of foreign people could have simply migrated into northern Egypt. These people migrated, or otherwise moved to the region from the 12th Dynasty onward, and by the 13th Dynasty, this migration became widespread...
...One hypothesis is that the basic population of Egyptians allowed, from time to time, a new influx of settlers, first from the region of Lebanon and Syria, and subsequently from Palestine and Cyprus.
The leaders of these people eventually married into the local Egyptian families, a theory that is somewhat supported by preliminary studies of human remains at Tell el-Dab'a. Indeed, parallels for the foreign traits of the Hyksos at Tell el-Dab'a have been found at southern Palestinian sites such as Tell el-Ajjul, at the Syrian site of Ebla and at Byblos in modern Labanon. - TourEgypt.Net
At any rate, it appears that ambitious leaders among these immigrants, were aided in their adventure, in part due to new imported military concepts they came with, and on the other hand, the existing political weakness during the late 13th dynasty. They subsequently (in late 18th century B.C.) were able to make their capital at Avaris, and then Memphis, 50 years later or so. It should be noted however, that the expansion of Hyksos rule towards upper Egypt was slow paced, and they were never able to adequately rule upper Egypt.
As a matter of fact, no clear chronological line demarcates the 13th dynasty from the 17th dynasty, both of which appeared to have been running in Upper Egypt, during the Hyksos period. Some Egyptologists have been tempted to further subdivide these two dynasties into a number of dynasties, under the suspicion that some of the kings in these dynasties formed an independent political entity from their immediate predecessor, particularly the last few kings of the 17th dynasty.
It is generally accepted that Kamose, the Theban King, took the initiative of launching a war of liberation to drive out the Hyksos. The subsequent victory was completed under Ahmose's watch, with the re-unification of Egypt, and bringing the Theban authority to the fore again.
Prior to Ahmose's re-unification of Egypt, Nebhepetre's (Menthotpe II) moving of the capital to Thebes upon victory over Herakleopolis, left a lasting impact on the minds of Egyptians. Evidence of this, is a temple inscription, dating to the 19th dynasty, bringing together the names of three kings; Menes, Nebhepetre (Menthotpe II) and Ahmose. According to William C. Hayes, these folks were "obviously" regarded "as the founders of the Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms". It appears from this, that in the 19th dynasty, Egyptians viewed national history in terms of these three epochs, each marked by unification of the nation by a Pharaoh, after political upheaval. This probably explains the confusion expressed in the following article:
Archeologists have found the tomb of pharaoh Nubkeperre Inyotef with the aid of a papyrus document that could help find more royal tombs
Cairo, July 01, 2001 (AFP/Agence France Presse) - Archeologists have discovered the tomb of an Egyptian pharaoh with the aid of a papyrus document they now realize could help them find more royal tombs, antiquities officials have said. A German working on the west bank of the Nile near present-day Luxor found the tomb of Nubkeperre Inyotef, who is believed to have started the war of liberation against Hyksos invaders around 3,500 years ago, they said.
"Historically speaking, it is a very exciting find," the secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, Gaballah Ali Gaballah, said when asked to comment on a German news report of the find. "It validates the information on the papyrus document," he said.Nubkeperre Inyotef's tomb was mentioned in the so-called Abbot Papyrus, a 20th dynasty document now in the British Museum which detailed royal tombs that were pillaged in a period of anarchy under that dynasty, he said...
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Out of ordinary claims? My understanding is strictly from what I have read.
When I say 'out-of-ordinary', what I mean by this, is that there is no evidence of the Hyksos rule being the culmination of some outright military initiative of a 'state' or 'empire' in Canaan, at least not that I am aware of. However, if you can provide substantiation [with evidence of course] to the contrary, I will be willing to analyze the specifics provided therein.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Didn't mean to imply that Egyptians learned of metalurgy from Hebrews. I am saying they certainly would have if they didn't already know about it. They certainly did know about it before the mythical Abrahamic time period.
They just didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect for such an advance society.
So you actually think that metal usage in ancient Egypt was not extensive and that the Egyptians built things from mudbrick houses to gigantic granite monuments with stone age tools alone??
quote:When referring to Hebrews in ancient time I am normally talking about the J haplogroup. Most people think I am referring to the Jewish religion.
Again I ask, how you assign this haplogroup to Jews all of a sudden when such a clade is not specific to them and was around long before 'Jews' ever existed??
This is like me calling E3b1 haplogroup 'Somali' even though this haplogroup is also predominant among the Borana, and that this haplogroup was carried by the ancestors of both groups before either ever existed!!
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also in the topic of iron metalurgy, even though iron was introduced to Egypt by the Assyrians, the Kushites later refined it and/or some scholars say invented it independently.
In fact many scholars think that the kingdom of Meroe itself was founded in the area that its in because of the presense of rich iron ore.
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way Kenndo, was that your first time seeing that program Ramses: Wrath of God or Man?
What do you think?
Also, does the program offer any info on the actress who played Nefertari?
I first thought she was Somali because of the way she looked, and that folks here recommended to Borg, one of the Discovery producers who used to post here, to cast more African looking actors. But I think Borg said she was Moroccan.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Out of ordinary claims? My understanding is strictly from what I have read.
When I say 'out-of-ordinary', what I mean by this, is that there is no evidence of the Hyksos rule being the culmination of some outright military initiative of a 'state' or 'empire' in Canaan, at least not that I am aware of. However, if you can provide substantiation [with evidence of course] to the contrary, I will be willing to analyze the specifics provided therein.
The Hyksos made an alliance with the Nubians. This imagery of Egypts hatred for the Hyksos Asiatics and Nubians clearly demonstrates the New Kingdom's aggressive policy of imperialism.
In review of the story of Moses this is an interesting correlation. An alliance between Asiatics and Nubians that when crushed brings about the New Kingdom which starts a policy of aggressive imperialism which results in enslavement of the Hebrew people.
Furthermore, such a reprisal against the Hyksos may have been due to the aggressive military control that the Hyksos used to maintain their dominance over the native Egyptian people. When we consider that the introduction of copper weapons, horses and charriots came from the Hyksos, we immeadiately see a technological advantage that these Semitic people had over the Egyptians. The result may have been that the Hyksos were a minority in the Egyptian nation but due to technological advantage was able to maintain control over the populace. Though like during Ptolemic times, the Hyksos colonial lords adopted Egyptian culture like the Greeks did, they were still despised. Considering this evidence, the Hyksos may not have used military power to gain dominance in Egypt but they certainly used it to maintain such dominance. That dominance included the use of Nubians to maintain the subjugation of the native Egyptians.
Then we add in the story of Moses and a Nubian woman:
Numbers 12 1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
Considering the alliance between Hyksos and Nubians it is not surprising that such a marriage would be noted and passed down in oral history.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Didn't mean to imply that Egyptians learned of metalurgy from Hebrews. I am saying they certainly would have if they didn't already know about it. They certainly did know about it before the mythical Abrahamic time period.
They just didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect for such an advance society.
So you actually think that metal usage in ancient Egypt was not extensive and that the Egyptians built things from mudbrick houses to gigantic granite monuments with stone age tools alone??
quote:When referring to Hebrews in ancient time I am normally talking about the J haplogroup. Most people think I am referring to the Jewish religion.
Again I ask, how you assign this haplogroup to Jews all of a sudden when such a clade is not specific to them and was around long before 'Jews' ever existed??
This is like me calling E3b1 haplogroup 'Somali' even though this haplogroup is also predominant among the Borana, and that this haplogroup was carried by the ancestors of both groups before either ever existed!!
The Aztecs never had metal of any kind and look at what they accomplished!
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Didn't mean to imply that Egyptians learned of metalurgy from Hebrews. I am saying they certainly would have if they didn't already know about it. They certainly did know about it before the mythical Abrahamic time period.
They just didn't seem to use it as much as you would expect for such an advance society.
So you actually think that metal usage in ancient Egypt was not extensive and that the Egyptians built things from mudbrick houses to gigantic granite monuments with stone age tools alone??
quote:When referring to Hebrews in ancient time I am normally talking about the J haplogroup. Most people think I am referring to the Jewish religion.
Again I ask, how you assign this haplogroup to Jews all of a sudden when such a clade is not specific to them and was around long before 'Jews' ever existed??
This is like me calling E3b1 haplogroup 'Somali' even though this haplogroup is also predominant among the Borana, and that this haplogroup was carried by the ancestors of both groups before either ever existed!!
I consider Arabs to be Hebrews but not Jews. I consider the J haplogroup to be a marker of people who have a common ancestor which I refer as a Hebrew ancestry.
Do we not often refer to E3b origins as Kushitic? Use to be Hamitic was the term we used for the PN2 clade (somewhat racist). I know it is incorrect to a certain degree but J does appear to be the marker of Middle Eastern people and most Jewish people have this marker at 40% (even European Jews). Different tribes and religions but the same people genetically speaking.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That 40% of Jews with the J haplotype, where was that sample taken? Europe or the Fertile Crescent? All slaves everywhere were under the whim of the master and not isolated communities, henceforth there were of various admixtures and that will show up in genotying.
In Israel, this is possible (40% J) only because the Askenazi have marginalized the Separad/Jews from Middle Eastern background. What percentage of American Jews show this J haplotype?
Posts: 1290 | From: usa | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by yazid904: That 40% of Jews with the J haplotype, where was that sample taken? Europe or the Fertile Crescent? All slaves everywhere were under the whim of the master and not isolated communities, henceforth there were of various admixtures and that will show up in genotying.
In Israel, this is possible (40% J) only because the Askenazi have marginalized the Separad/Jews from Middle Eastern background. What percentage of American Jews show this J haplotype?
M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 97, Issue 12, 6769-6774, June 6, 2000
Hammer et al. (2000) published an exploratory paper with this conclusion "The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 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 made an alliance with the Nubians. This imagery of Egypts hatred for the Hyksos Asiatics and Nubians clearly demonstrates the New Kingdom's aggressive policy of imperialism.
Both Asiatics and Kushites threatened Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Valley, not to mention the nation-state itself so of course the Egyptians during the New Kingdom had aggressive foreign policies!
quote:In review of the story of Moses this is an interesting correlation. An alliance between Asiatics and Nubians that when crushed brings about the New Kingdom which starts a policy of aggressive imperialism which results in enslavement of the Hebrew people.
Perhaps, but many Asiatics were enslaved regardless of whether they were Hebrew or not.
quote:Furthermore, such a reprisal against the Hyksos may have been due to the aggressive military control that the Hyksos used to maintain their dominance over the native Egyptian people. When we consider that the introduction of copper weapons, horses and charriots came from the Hyksos, we immeadiately see a technological advantage that these Semitic people had over the Egyptians. The result may have been that the Hyksos were a minority in the Egyptian nation but due to technological advantage was able to maintain control over the populace. Though like during Ptolemic times, the Hyksos colonial lords adopted Egyptian culture like the Greeks did, they were still despised. Considering this evidence, the Hyksos may not have used military power to gain dominance in Egypt but they certainly used it to maintain such dominance. That dominance included the use of Nubians to maintain the subjugation of the native Egyptians.
You have already been told that metalurgy, specifically copper was already used by the Egyptians since the beginning of the dynastic age. Why are you still talking about Hyksos introducing copper weapons?!
The only new and useful technology the Hyksos introduced which the Egyptians adopted was the horse and chariot and the composite bow.
quote:Then we add in the story of Moses and a Nubian woman:
Numbers 12 1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
Considering the alliance between Hyksos and Nubians it is not surprising that such a marriage would be noted and passed down in oral history.
Actually, scripture merely described Moses's wife as 'kushi' meaning black and states that he met her and her family in the deserts to the east in Sinai. We really don't know for certain what her origins are.
Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 97, Issue 12, 6769-6774, June 6, 2000
Hammer et al. (2000) published an exploratory paper with this conclusion "The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."
Again, we know J is Middle Eastern, but it's very fool-hardy and may I say a little foolish in describing the whole clade as being 'Jewish'.
Mind you there are many peoples in the Middle East today who carry J, even J2 but would probably kill anyone who called them 'Jews'!!
Seriously, your 'Hebrew-centrism' is getting the better of you! You are beginning to sound like Kenndo in his rants about Nubia or worse yet, like Lion or Mr. Winters in their rants about black Africans around the world!! Posts: 26295 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: M. F. Hammer, A. J. Redd, et al. (2000) Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 97, Issue 12, 6769-6774, June 6, 2000
Hammer et al. (2000) published an exploratory paper with this conclusion "The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora."
Again, we know J is Middle Eastern, but it's very fool-hardy and may I say a little foolish in describing the whole clade as being 'Jewish'.
Mind you there are many peoples in the Middle East today who carry J, even J2 but would probably kill anyone who called them 'Jews'!!
Seriously, your 'Hebrew-centrism' is getting the better of you! You are beginning to sound like Kenndo in his rants about Nubia or worse yet, like Lion or Mr. Winters in their rants about black Africans around the world!!
Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said that J clade is Jewish. I refer to Semitic speaking nomads of Western Asia as Hebrews having a common paternal ancester from 4 or 5 thousand years ago. Jews does not equate to Hebrew.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You seriously can't be contributing the Egyptians' use of metalurgy to Hebrews!! 
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
You have already been told that metalurgy, specifically copper was already used by the Egyptians since the beginning of the dynastic age. Why are you still talking about Hyksos introducing copper weapons?! 
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic