Egypt’s New Kingdom emerged from a period of regionalisation, when local communities had developed according to different trajectories that gave rise to diverse socio-cultural transformations. Dynamic and multifaceted, these processes involved a range of internal and external forces, some of which were influenced by cultural encounters. Indeed, those with the ‘rulers of foreign lands’, the Hyksos, have been commonly associated with the introduction of a host of ideas and entities into Egypt. However, the validity and extent of the impact of the Hyksos on the New Kingdom remain insufficiently addressed. Anna-Latifa Mourad explores these points of enquiry, but also expands its analysis in line with current theoretical understandings on the complexity of cultural encounters. Her study ascertains whether and how consistent Egyptian-Near Eastern encounters in the Middle Bronze Age influenced New Kingdom society, and culture. By assessing a range of archaeological, artistic, and textual material, it clarifies contexts of encounters as well as interrelated agents and mechanisms, questioning the fate of those ruled by the Hyksos. It elucidates the tangible and intangible effects of contact on historical, socio-political, religious, and technological developments, revealing how, amid the many processes of negotiation and change, elements from the Near East seeped into the dynamic and complex socio-cultural framework of Egypt, as it irreversibly transformed into the New Kingdom.
Mourad, Anna-Latifa The Enigma of the Hyksos Volume II Transforming Egypt into the New Kingdom. The Impact of the Hyksos and Egyptian-Near Eastern Relations series: Contributions to the Archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and the Levant volume: 10 pages/dimensions: 464 pages, 172 ill., 4 maps, 8 tables language: English binding: Book (Hardback) dimensions: 21.00 × 29.70 cm weight: 1867g publishing date: 04.08.2021 prices: 128,00 Eur[D] / 131,60 Eur[A] ISBN: 978-3-447-11590-2 DOI: 10.13173/9783447115902
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
People often forget how significant the Hyksos were to the development of Egyptian civilization, specifically the New Kingdom. Not only did they bring in new technology but also new religious ideas and customs which especially affected Lower Egypt. In fact, the Hyksos could very well be the first group to significantly alter the Egyptian demographics with Asiatic genetic influence.
posted
Keep in mind that the crux of the website and research led by Manfred Bietak is related to the fact that they have not yet found any archaeological or anthropological evidence for a group called "the Hyksos" from anywhere in the Levant. Therefore most of their work is basically documenting the various artifacts and written evidence to identify cultural influence over time in the Nile Delta.
quote: The Hyksos (Greek rendering of the Egyptian title ‘rulers of the foreign countries’) were a dynasty of foreign rulers being in power in Egypt between c.1640 and 1530 BC. Some modern researchers, following the ancient historian Flavius Josephus (1st cent. AD), thought them to be ancestors of the early Israelites. Others suggested that their appearance has to be tied to the expansion of the Hurrian people into the Levant, starting at the end of the 18th cent. BC. Nowadays those opinions are largely rejected. Most scholars dealing with the subject today believe, according to the existing onomastic data, that they were western Semites. Their exact geographical origin in the Levant, the process of their seizure of power in Egypt and their specific role in history remains, however, an enigma, as the period is poorly represented in texts. Nevertheless the Hyksos phenomenon has therefore mainly been studied by text-based Egyptology, ignoring other possible sources, like archaeological remains, burial customs, settlement patterns, not to mention biological data.
quote: Determination of the geographic origins and ethnicity of the western Asiatic people living in the Delta during the Middle Kingdom (MK) and the Second Intermediate Period (SIP) and to ascertain whether they were a homogenous group or arrived in waves and from different geographical areas. The timing, the factors and ways of immigration of that population. Definition of the culture of the western Asiatic population in the eastern Delta during the MK and SIP in all its aspects, including their spiritual life and roots in the Levant and Egypt, furthermore to assess the interference of the Middle Bronze Age (MB) in the Levant with the Egyptian culture. The identification of the mechanisms through which the Hyksos came to power, to reconstruct the mechanisms of their rule, the spatial structure of their kingdom and the nature of its internal and external relations. To distinguish the reasons why the Hyksos failed, by studying the foundations and fluctuations of economy and trade in respect to prosperity and crisis. Furthermore to compare the economy and subsistence regime with the health records over the course of their time in Egypt. Collecting evidence as to whether the Hyksos and the Western Asiatic population in the eastern Delta disappeared ‘without a trace’ or whether they had an impact on the culture and spiritual world such as religion, literature and language of the New Kingdom.
As such a lot of this research just boils down to trying to understand the scope of influence on the Nile Valley from various populations in the Levant/Eastern Mediterranean far beyond just the Hyksos era. This document spends a lot of time discussing things like storm gods of the Levant and connections to the Nile Valley deity Set. Unfortunately at one point this used to be an argument for suggesting that the Ramessid dynasty was of Levantine origin. And ultimately goes back to previous interpretations of Seth as being associated with the Lower Nile Valley, when in reality both Heru and Set were from the Upper Nile going back to the predynastic.
The issue here is ultimately that the Nile Valley as a region borders the Levant and there has always been physical interaction and exchange between the two regions throughout history. And there has to be a way to distinguish those various aspects of cultural exchange beyond just the Hyksos. For example, they often speak of the chariot being a Hyksos introduction into the Nile Valley, but how many of these Hyksos chariots have been found? We know for a fact that the Nile Valley kingdom had extended into the Levant during the Old Kingdom, so why would they need the "Hyksos" to introduce chariots to their arsenal? This doesn't mean that there wasn't Levantine influence on this evolution, just that it wasn't necessarily due to the "Hyksos" per se. And this goes back to why these people are considered an enigma.
quote: The discovery of horse remains dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty (during the second intermediate period) may suggest that horses were introduced into ancient Egypt, at least in some limited sense, before the Hyksos occupation. A stela depicts Army Commander Khonsuemwaset, son of Dudimose (an obscure Thirteenth Dynasty King) seated with his wife on a chair with a pair of gloves depicted underneath him, which may indicate that he was a charioteer. However, the text of the autobiography of Ahmose son of Ibana (which describes the war between Ahmose I and the Hyksos) implies that the ancient Egyptians used marines rather than chariots when attacking Avaris and may not have integrated the chariot into their army until the Hyksos had been expelled.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Whut? Waitaminnit. Egy Civ was developed more than 1000 yrs before the 2nd, note, 2nd Intermediate Period. Contributions aside, Aamu originating 16th cent BCE invaders/conquerers as civ developers is poppycock. But please do list their contributions tabled alongside AE 'significant development' for the Levant from NE Sinai to Syria sorted by date . Yes, steppe derived elements of the "Hyksos" introduced horse&chariot which stimulated complete hegemonic imperialism of Egypt over the Levant and the Sudan. So of course deities were swapped and blended all three ways in the cosmopolitan NK empire.
Also when were "Asiatics" not in at least the Eastern Delta? The beginnings of Dynastic Egyptian Civilization do indeed lie with aSwanet bordering populations but the extreme Lower Nile's peopling included "Asiatics" and "Libyans".
Let's give creds where due w/o over exaggeration to cancel ethnocentricism and racial bias. It seems the "Asiatic" gave at least wheat grain cultigens and ovacaprid domesticates to nascient AE. Considering the time period, that was a factual part of the civ's food production development. Plus so-called Asiatics also entered from Sinai turning south along the Red Sea. A "confusion" of the Mentiu nu Setet ethnonym attests to a seemingly related Nubia eastern hi-lands to Palestine bi-directional demic interflow. Direct Aamw entrance was put under control only since the Middle Kingdom.
[insert more about preD Asio-Egyptian cultures]
From an old book I read. Direct pg copy I didn't edit out the hierarchical racism standards common in the literature before the pressures of 60's Pan-Africanists in the Struggle.
Folk looking like these northerners lived everywhere above 29° N ever since the Last Humid Maximum. They had no state. Coincidently the upper left man forms the marsh label, you know, as in the name of that beduin sheiykh and family received by Khnum Hotep during the 12th(?) dynasty.
They were conquered by southern people with these features who forged them into a freshly created state, the northern seat of the see-saw of the political/philosophical Two Lands, ta Wiy.
quote: Aamu stock people residing in Ta Meri probably aided by tribesmen relatives outside Ta Tamehh in the Sinai and Levant seized rulership of over third of Egypt in the northmost part of the country. One of these kings was named Yaqob Har(SP) assuredly a Semitic language personal noun.
...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: People often forget how significant the Hyksos were to the development of Egyptian civilization, specifically the New Kingdom. Not only did they bring in new technology but also new religious ideas and customs which especially affected Lower Egypt. In fact, the Hyksos could very well be the first group to significantly alter the Egyptian demographics with Asiatic Periodgenetic influence.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Whut? Waitaminnit. Egy Civ was developed more than 1000 yrs before the 2nd, note, 2nd Intermediate Period. Contributions aside, Aamu originating 16th cent BCE invaders/conquerers as civ developers is poppycock. But please do list their contributions tabled alongside AE 'significant development' for the Levant from NE Sinai to Syria sorted by date . Yes, steppe derived elements of the "Hyksos" introduced horse&chariot which stimulated complete hegemonic imperialism of Egypt over the Levant and the Sudan. So of course deities were swapped and blended all three ways in the cosmopolitan NK empire.
Also when were "Asiatics" not in at least the Eastern Delta? The beginnings of Dynastic Egyptian Civilization do indeed lie with aSwanet bordering populations but the extreme Lower Nile's peopling included "Asiatics" and "Libyans".
Let's give creds where due w/o over exaggeration to cancel ethnocentricism and racial bias. It seems the "Asiatic" gave at least wheat grain cultigens and ovacaprid domesticates to nascient AE. Considering the time period, that was a factual part of the civ's food production development. Plus so-called Asiatics also entered from Sinai turning south along the Red Sea. A "confusion" of the Mentiu nu Setet ethnonym attests to a seemingly related Nubia eastern hi-lands to Palestine bi-directional demic interflow. Direct Aamw entrance was put under control only since the Middle Kingdom.
[insert more about preD Asio-Egyptian cultures]
From an old book I read. Direct pg copy I didn't edit out the hierarchical racism standards common in the literature before the pressures of 60's Pan-Africanists in the Struggle.
Folk looking like these northerners lived everywhere above 29° N ever since the Last Humid Maximum. They had no state. Coincidently the upper left man forms the marsh label, you know, as in the name of that beduin sheiykh and family received by Khnum Hotep during the 12th(?) dynasty.
They were conquered by southern people with these features who forged them into a freshly created state, the northern seat of the see-saw of the political/philosophical Two Lands, ta Wiy.
quote: Aamu stock people residing in Ta Meri probably aided by tribesmen relatives outside Ta Tamehh in the Sinai and Levant seized rulership of over third of Egypt in the northmost part of the country. One of these kings was named Yaqob Har(SP) assuredly a Semitic language personal noun.
...
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: People often forget how significant the Hyksos were to the development of Egyptian civilization, specifically the New Kingdom. Not only did they bring in new technology but also new religious ideas and customs which especially affected Lower Egypt. In fact, the Hyksos could very well be the first group to significantly alter the Egyptian demographics with Asiatic Periodgenetic influence.
I think you are overly sensitive, because I said that there is a difference between "the Hyksos" as a cultural or political entity and the wider sphere of influence and interaction between the Nile Valley and Levant going back thousands and thousands of years. As can be seen in the examples of precursors to agriculture and animal husbandry in the Nile Valley and Sahara tens of thousands of years before any "near eastern" agriculture. Not to mention the existence of pottery within the early African neolithic as opposed to the "pre pottery" phases of the Neolithic in the Tigris and Euphrates valley.
Again, the reason why the Hyksos are an "enigma" (not my words but the words of beitak and others studying them) is because very little actual EVIDENCE of them has been found as a political, social or cultural entity OUTSIDE of the Nile Valley context. Meaning these ideas of a nation state called "Hyksos" (or whatever) that invaded the Delta and brought about the 2nd intermediate period doesn't exist. And that is exactly the mythology around the Hyksos that has been debunked by much of the current scholarship.....
Shepherd kings with donkeys is far different than invaders on chariots. And there is little to no evidence for chariots and horses so far in any Nile Delta "Hyksos" contexts to this point so far. That does not mean that chariots in the Nile Valley do not represent steppe and Levantine influence on the Nile, as opposed to it not being from "the Hyksos" because again, there is no state or polity in the Levant that can be associated with said group as an 'invading army'. Lumping any predynastic or early dynastic populations from the Delta of Levantine origin does not have anything to do with the lack of a clear ethnic, geographic, political or cultural entity called "the Hyksos" as a singular, political, ethnic or cultural entity.
And as has been discussed before, the idea of the Hyksos being an enigma owes to the lack of physical evidence corroborating a lot of the stories of their invasion as recorded by Manetho.
quote: Manetho states “during the reign of Tutimaos a blast of God smote us, and unexpectedly from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others… Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had his seat in Memphis, levying tribute from upper Egypt.. In the Saite nome he founded a city.. and called it Auaris”.
He named these invaders the “Hyksos” which he translated as “shepherd kings” although now the term is often translated as “foreign rulers” or “desert princes”.
Contrary to the impression given by Manetho, the Hyksos (“heqa khasut” in Ancient Egyptian) were not in fact a distinct racial grouping, but rather the term used to refer to the rulers of the area around Avaris and Sharuhen during the Second Intermediate Period (Asiatics were more generally known as “Aamu”). Their subjects comprised of a number of Semitic peoples driven from Western Asia into Africa by instability and famine during the Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties Thirteen to Seventeen) and native Egyptians.
Thutimaos is generally thought to be the obscure Thirteenth Dynasty king Dudimose (the other kings with a similar reign are too late to be contenders) who reigned shortly before or concurrently with the Hyksos Dynasty at Avaris. The passage is ambiguous, but it may refer to two events; the smiting by God (which some have chosen to see as a reference to the events surrounding the Exodus), and the invasion of the Hyksos. It was previously thought that one reason for their ease in conquering upper Egypt was that they had chariots (unlike the Egyptians) and were exceptional archers. There is some evidence that the Egyptians already had chariots, but they may well have been less experienced in their use. More speculatively, you could argue that the smiting by god left Egypt undefended, allowing the Hyksos to take control “without striking a blow”.
The Hyksos did indeed sack Memphis, but the description of their attitude to the gods could be anti-Hyksos propaganda, after all they took Seth as their main god while retaining their worship of Astarte (the Phonecian mother-goddess) and Reshep (a Phoenician storm god). Furthermore, the Hyksos adopted Egyptian customs and even preserved Egyptian culture.
Apophis, the fifth Hyksos king, instructed scribes to copy Egyptian texts so they would not be lost. Because of his foresight we have recovered priceless documents such as the “Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus” (the oldest known surgical handbook), the “Westcar Papyrus” and “the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus” (the most important document describing Egyptian mathematical theory).
Some of the Hyksos may have been Hurrian or Hittite, but no firm evidence has been discovered to confirm their origins fully. They were by no means the first Asiatics to settle in Egypt, prompting some to suggest that there was no major battle, just a steady influx of settlers who worked themselves into positions of power while retaining their own cultural differences. Evidence from the excavation at Tell el-Dab’a, confirms that the settlement was constantly evolving and changing as the new cultures adapted to the Egyptian way of life. Settlements discovered in Tell el-Ajjul (southern Palestinian), Ebla (Syrian) and Byblos (Lebanon) share many characteristics with the settlement at Tell el Dab’a.
The Hyksos brought with them knowledge of bronze weapons, chariots and composite bows. But it is not clear that they were required to use this military know-how to take control of upper Egypt. Certainly they had to fight to keep power, but Manetho may be right to infer that there was no initial battle for dominance. This supports the suggestion that immigration and the political weakness of the Egyptian kings of the time had set up the environment to allow a group to seize power relatively easily.
Given this slow advance by the Hyksos rulers into southern Egypt, it seems reasonable to infer that the superior military technology of the Hyksos was only an element of their strength. Their success may also have relied upon their exploitation of the political weakness of the late Middle Kingdom. Another intriguing possibility exists. It is possible that the whole area was blighted by plague (was this god smiting?) and that the Hyksos were badly affected by this too. Perhaps they took over during a time of crisis and were unable to push further into Egypt because they too were suffering the effects of the plague.
So this idea of the Hyksos being an "enigma" and trying to piece together the facts versus relying on textual sources from a thousand years later is something coming from academia and researchers in the field.
quote: ABSTRACT The end of the Middle Bronze Age and its connection with the end of the Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the alleged expulsion of the Hyksos is of key-importance for understanding the development of the subsequent Late Bronze Age and the rising Egyptian interest in the region. For a long time it was assumed that the destruction levels observed at many Middle Bronze Age sites throughout the southern Levant could be linked to the Hyksos expulsion and the immediate aftermath. The low chronology of Manfred Bietak and others dated the end of the Middle Bronze Age to the early 18th Dynasty, up to the Thutmosid period and implicitly opened the possibility to connect these destructions with the attested military campaigns of the Thutmosid kings. Recent radiocarbon data, however, challenged both the low and the conventional chronology and placed the end of the Middle Bronze Age earlier, probably even before the start of the New Kingdom. This paper reviews both the chronologies and the historical narratives involved and argues for a new model for the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age.
After a heated debate in the 1980s and early 1990s, the discussion concerning the absolute chronology of the Middle Bronze Age and its synchronization with Egypt became rather quiet. 2 While general handbooks still followed the traditional chronology,3 several leading archaeologists in the field seemed to have settled on the low chronology,4 which was most prominently advertised by Manfred Bietak based on his excavation results at the site of Tell el-Dab?a in the eastern Nile Delta (ancient Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos rulers in Egypt). 5 However, the 2012 publication of a radiocarbon sequence of Tell el- Dab?a by Walter Kutschera and colleagues not only challenged Bietak’s dating of Tell el-Dab?a and undermined his arguments for a low chronology, but also sparked a new wave of debate around the absolute date of the Middle Bronze Age and its synchronization with Egypt.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
R u talking 2 me ??? I never as much as noticed you posted to this thread. My first post was in reply to Djehuti. So who's "sensitive in their feelings"? (Meanwhile you leave Swedes and Beurs unanswered SMDH)
Hyksos, --as an exclusive identifier or even title of Aamu rulers of ~1640-1532BCE of Egypt's dynasties 15 16 and 17-- is a self-serving Western (= white European civilization) misnomer. Especially the notion the Egyptian hieroglyphics written in English etc as hyksos should translate to 'shepherd kings'.
Josephus made that deliberate 'mistake' in an anti-Egyptian polemic claiming to quote Manetho (whose original works are lost).
No literate Egyptian, or anyone of any time period who can read the glyphs, finds shepherd anywhere in the words heqa:khast or heqa:khaswt. A non-reader like Josephus sees the crock glyph and turns it into shepherd(s), but that glyph denotes the power of rulership.
Heqa:khaswt = ruler:foreigners, hyksos, first appears in the 6th dynasty and refers to the rulers in foreign lower Sudan.
As for Arabian plate Levant-Taurus origin foreigners for whom theWest exclusively reserve the word hyksos
[ coming ]
None other than Kamose himself said
quote: "His Majesty spoke in his palace to his council of magistrates who were in his train:
Each man has his slice in this Egypt and so the land is partitioned with me!
None can pass through it as far as Memphis (although it is) Egyptian water! See he (even) has Hermopolis! No one can be at ease when they are milked by the taxes of the Asiatics. I shall grapple with him that I might crush his belly,(for) my desire is to rescue Egypt which the Asiatics have destroyed.'
.
Nothing about any "thee Hyksos". The foreign rulers controlling to Kamose's north are generic Aamw and the foreign rulers to Kamose's south are generic Nehesi or specifically Kush. Kamose only calls the former destroyers of Egypt.
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: R u talking 2 me ??? I never as much as noticed you posted to this thread. My first post was in reply to Djehuti. So who's "sensitive in their feelings"? (Meanwhile you leave Swedes and Beurs unanswered SMDH)
Probably was reading too fast. My misunderstanding.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
. Yes, steppe derived elements of the "Hyksos" introduced horse&chariot which 
Printer-friendly view of this topic