Talk:Hyksos/Archive 2

Languages

Why is the phrase in Arabic and not also Hebrew and Aramaic? The subject is of interest to several Rabbim with whom I am familliar, and it would benefit their students, at least. 87.97.123.164 (talk) 21:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Lee Goddard

Well I hardly think the Arabic comes from ancient writings but for clarity the author should give the source. Second they were "from abroad" from the Egyptian perspective not the Hebrew or Mesopotamian. So why it would be referenced in Jewish classics or in Mesopotamian literature in Aramaic, I can't imagine. I know it's not in Torah which I have read numerous times in the original language and that makes sense. It's not a history book, it's the basis of Jewish law and culture, and the ethnic background of Egyptian rulers is irrelevant to their relations with the patriarchs or the generation of the Exodus. Have your rabbis post on the Google group on Judaism (the moderated one, the other won't give them much help) and somebody can probably answer.

4.249.63.251 (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Introduction of horses

Ancient Egypt (now at FAC) says the Hyksos introduced horses into Egypt; this article says they introduced the horse-drawn chariot. More details about this, in particular whether the Hyksos used horses in other ways, eg for riding, would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The horse is domesticated and ridden throughout the ANE by c 2000 BC. Egypt had little use for horses because most travel was along either the Nile, the Red Sea or irrigation canals, and most agricultural work cargo overland transport and heavy lifting was by bullock.

horses could not become heavy draft animals until invention of the horse collar which puts the weight on their shoulders, not their neck like an ox yoke. An ox-type yoke would choke a horse. Check around: the horse collar was invented in China and didn't reach the west for centuries. Images of Hyksos chariots show a harness of straps, meaning that the chariot had to be lightweight. These images don't show one person in the chariot because he was the most important -- although he was, and rich, too, horses having always been luxury items -- but because the straps couldn't draw a heavier burden without snapping. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

In Canaan a group of mercenaries (ha ibr w) with ha the semitic definitive article , ibr the egyptian word for horse and w the plural, organized as light cavalry armed with bows. Egyptian army commanders used them as a sort of pony express service to carry messages, not using chariots but riding bareback. This is portrayed on the inscriptions of the Battle of Kadesh c 1285 BC Rktect (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology? See Greek "'IKKOS" and Latin "EQUUS". It seems absolutely obvious that Hyksos means (HORSE-"RIDING" PEOPLE) the Cowboys of olden day. P.S. (Finkelstein should not be used as a valid reference to the original meaning of the word.) btw. Horse bears a strong resemblance to the French word H'ors, and since many French words have Arabic origins it could indicate that Horse comes from the word for Light(UR); in this case giving to it the meaning of moving very fast. Since the Hyksos came with Horses, Chariots and stronger Bows, what better way to describe this people than "Fast as Light". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.152.175 (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Iko is linear B not known from texts until 1400 BCE, 200 years after the Hyksos were expelled and chased to Sharuhen where Ahmose I destroyed them. You're doing philology which has led smarter people than you into trouble. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

The recent addition of material claiming Israel means "Ra + El", that the Hyksos are the original Jews and that modern Ashkenazim are "Khazar converts" is uncited bigoted fringe theory. Citations to a Youtube video is not going to suffice as "scholarship". Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 16:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, uncited, yes. Fringe? I don't know, this theory has a lot of background. Maybe it is fringe, I don't know enough about it. There are plenty of citations available for this theory, but I couldn't tell you if its mainstream. Maybe you could give some evidence that it is fringe.

Thats not what you did, of course. You said the editor was a vandal. There is no evidence of this. It seemed clearly to be an honest attempted at an edit, even if misguided.

Also, you said the editor was a bigot. Again, no evidence was given for this. Calling people vandals and bigots when they add things you disagree with isn't playing by the rules. Steve kap (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but it's vandalism if its deliberate addition of bigotry... and the video in question is firmly in that category. It's an anti-Semitic rant. Note the usual White Power/Neo-Nazi claims that the Jews aren't really Jews and that Judaism came from the worship of Ra. It's far beyond moonbat. It is certainly inappropriate - read the rest of the article, it's like the most random fragment jammed into an otherwise well-written and well-sourced article. This is not the place to bring up the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It's an article about ancient Egypt. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The word 'bigot' does appear to be inappropriate here: please refer to the wikipedia entry on bigotry. I agree that the writer may indeed be a bigot, but that does not appear in the writing in question. 87.97.123.164 (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What Israel meant in the time of the Hyksos shouldn't be confused with what it meant at other times. Ra el refers to the sun god, no question but how about its prefix IS. At that time the god of Israel was chiefly the moon god iah. Since Hebrew didn't exist as a language at that time and the people of Israel were all over the place, just migrating into Egypt, the languages they spoke include five different language groups, two of them unclassified. Back then gods generally had consorts, wives and sisters, sometimes picked up from living among other people and merging your gods with theirs. IS could refer to Isis and later Hathor, Qetesh, Asherah and other goddesses thought to have been the consorts of El. Indeed the goddess could be thought of as having el for a mate rather than the other way around as originally it was the goddess who was worshipped as a protection against the wrath of the god. That persisted through the time of Judges when Deborah was the one summioning Barak from Kadesh to Tanacchs waters. By Phoenician times Israel was a land where every high place had its Asherah pole and every Green tree its goddess. The Greeks preserve the idea of having women in the trees in the form of nymphs and dryads.

El, al, baal, or bael, iah, yah, allah, are all equivalent in refering to lord, power, authority, but for example a lugal might be a big man and have power, he could even be a tribal chief, govenor or king but he wouldn't necessarily be any more than a big man. The same thing applies to el. it can refer to the power of the wind. Since Israel was never exactly monotheistic and El, al, baal, or bael, iah, yah, all had a consort Asherah there is no real reason to translate Israel as anything but a reverence for power and authority. Rktect (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

not npov

This article is not NPOV, since it takes no account of the research and evidence of Immanual Velikovskys, as presented in his books 'Ages in Chaos' and subsequent supporting publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.206.127 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Velikovsky is not fringe, he wrote thousands of pages with excellent supporting evidence. The author of this article even fail to quote Manethos' account, which is hardly 'fringe' and hardly insignificant:

when Velikovsky's publishing house decided to class his work as science, the real science writers threatened to pull their contracts if that happened. The publisher backed down. Velikovsky was a crank. Using his data invalidates statements that have no other supporting data from a non-crank. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

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".

This does not describe a 'slow peaceful invasion' as the article tried to insist.. Quite the opposite. I would contend this article is the fringe theory.

Read WP:NPOV again, and WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'author' of this article, and it explicitly discusses Manetho's claim. There is nothing NPOV about the article that I can see. Velikovsky wrote what we call 'pseudohistory' and he is clearly fringe by Wikipedia's standards. There is no justification for the npov tag. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The tag ought to be removed. Immanuel Velikovsky is not a reliable source. Aramgar (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed the unnecessary POV tag. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

agree 100%, Velikovsky is not reliable. In fact when his publisher wanted to categorize his work as science, the real scientists said they would pull their work from that publisher. The publisher blinked.

4.249.63.251 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

singular and plural?

Is the term "Hyksos" both singular and plural? I looked through the article, and the term "Hyksos" is used as singular as well as plural. I would have thought the singular was "Hykso", but I could have been wrong... Gringo300 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible origins in the Sinai

Anyone who has Google Earth can fly around and see that there was once an agricultural people who must have numbered perhaps in the hundreds of thousands living throughout the Sinai and beyond. I have tried to find out something about them, but no one seems to know who they were, or when they lived there, or even that they ever existed.

Given that no one seems to know exactly where the Hyksos came from before migrating to the Nile delta, or where they went after leaving Egypt, a possible link to those mysterious people of the Sinai is obvious.

Other points are:

1. Given that all of those people had to eat and that there must have been a substantial number of them to farm all of those floodplains (and the open plains of the northern Negev and western Sinai), and build all of those upstream dams and terraces... there must have been sufficient rainfall to result in a regular seasonal flooding of those river valleys... and that must mean that they lived there at a time when rainfall in the area was significantly higher than it is today.

2. Given the lack of any architectural remains (such as would certainly be evident if they lived there during the Greco-Roman era), it would seem that they might have lived there in VERY ancient times, or perhaps they simply lived in grass huts or tents made from animal hides and had no architectural tradition...

Can anyone tell us anything about those people??? 24.18.3.168 (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Alan Barber

15th dynasty

This article conflates all Asiatics (³mw) with the Hyksos. A large number of people from Asia had immigrated or been brought as prisoners of war into Egypt from the 11th dynasty on. But it does not follow that these were the Hyksos invaders who conquered Egypt and ruled most of it for about 100 - 150 years around 1,600BCE. So all that about 11-18th dynasties should be out of the lede. And any theory that the Hyksos were already in or attacking Egypt 500 years before the 15th dynasty should be cited.

The Hyksos (Egyptian heqa khasewet(hk³h³swt), "foreign rulers"; Greek Ὑκσώς, Ὑξώς, Arabic: الملوك الرعاة, shepherd kings) were an Asiatic people who invaded the eastern Nile Delta, circa 1,500 BCE, initiating the Second Intermediate Period of Ancient Egypt. Listed as the Fifteenth Dynasty they ruled the Delta and central Egypt for about a century. Nitpyck (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian & Luxor?

"Hyksos in popular and Judeo-Christian culture" "In the computer game Luxor one level is titled: Invasion of the Hyksos." Could some please explain the connection here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.59.168 (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Computer game is a part of popular culture, why not? If you think it doesn't fit, feel free to remove, I guess no one is going to miss it too much. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Image Caption

The second image on the page (the first on the left side) bears the following caption (emphasis added):

A group of Asiatic peoples (perhaps the future Hyksos) depicted entering Egypt c.1900 BC from the tomb of a 12th dynasty official Khnumhotep under pharaoh Senusret II at Beni Hasan. The glyphs above are above the head of the first animal

Is the last sentence a grammatical error or sentence fragment (note there is no ending punctuation)? Maybe it's just me but "The glyphs above are above..." sounds wierd and I do not understand the significance of the statement. It sounds sort of like someone saying "The picture above is a picture above this caption." which is silly of course. Because I do not know if there is a reason the writer of the caption included that sentence I will defer to those more familiar with the subject matter to please try and clarify/cleanup that caption. 66.97.213.94 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It has as subject, a verb, and an object, and has meaning, so, yes, its a sentence. All it needs is a period. And the meaning: the firt "above" ref to the graphics in relationship to the text. The 2nd ref to the glyphs in relationship to the head of the first animal. So, no, its not redundent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve kap (talk • contribs) 20:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Who were the Hyksos ?

May I suggest to see at this Url as an external link :

http://www.antiqua91.fr/cariboost_files/the_20causes_20of_20the_20hyksos_20invasion_20of_20egypt.doc

and also : http://www.antiqua91.fr/cariboost_files/solymes_20or_20pisidians.pdf.

I am the author and I allow Wikipedia to take and reproduce all data from these documents at the condition it cite my web site : http://www.antiqua91.fr/index.html 86.69.146.186 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We have criteria for the sort of sources that can be used, and I don't think your site meets them, see WP:RS and in particular WP:SPS. Also, if we used your material anyone could copy it so long as they credited Wikipedia, I'm not sure that's what you would want. But I doubt we can use it. Thanks though.Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that the identity of the Hyksos, as convincingly setforth by Josephus Flavius - a Jew himself, is well settled to be the Jews of the Exodus.

Ancient authors are useful as evidence that their times had certain stories, not that they are factual. If you can't tell the different, remember that Herodotus said absolutely in the 400s BCE that only three peoples practiced circumcision, and none of them were Jews -- note that this is AFTER the Babylonian Captivity. If you buy into what ancient authors say, you also have to buy Pliny's statement about people with their heads in the middle of their chests. I'm not a Josephus hater. The point is that you have to take everything before about 1600 CE with a huge grain of salt unless you have modern results that back it up. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is, as always, very disappointing to see biblical apologetics yet again at work here. I sincerly hope the time will come when archaeological findings, along with antiquated historical documents, can be discussed without the pressure from these apologists to force it to conform to the texts of their religious books (the Old and New Testaments). The Judeo/Christian Bible has been proven to be (at the very least) extremely unreliable as a historical reference. The inclusion of mysticism alone, we find so often in the Holy Bible, should allow for an exceptionally critical analysis of these books. No other topics, such as those relating to these "Testaments", are treated in the same lop-sided manner in which these are. The simple fact remains that Judaism and Christianity are no more credible as myths than are any of the many other mythologies of antiquity. Wherefore, it is very odd that the ancient evidence is always askewed so as to be viewed in their favor. I have learned that any attempt to offer another perspective here at Wiki on topics of this class is futile. The sources, regardless of their veracity, are never viewed as satisfactory, and the label of "fringe theory", is consistently and overtly applied to any alternative position. I am encouraged however, that presently it would appear that the apologists are slowly losing their influence among the scholars, and some of these arbitrarily labeled "fringe theories" are being accepted into mainstream academics. The one example I like to point to reflects the History Channel's absolute reversal on the identity of the: "Habiru". Presently, an increasingly popular theory among scholars that suggests the Habiru, mentioned so often in the Armana Letters, and several other ancient sources: Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Mitanni, and Ugaritic, were probably the Israelites, is being presented as well settled fact in certain documentaries aired by the channel. Not too long ago, this theory was shunned by all mainstream academics. It is very refreshing, and extremely encouraging that the channel has decided to take a more academic approach to such topics. Hopefully this approach will continue, and have a positive impact on other sources of historical presentation. It would be nice to see Wiki move forward in this same manner. The evidence is there, and if allowed, could possibly settle some age old problems with the biblical treatment of Jewish history. Perhaps the answer lies in the approach to this lopsided perspective. It seems to me that the majority of Wiki's administrators believe that those editors wishing to offer alternative theories on religious history, only have an anti-semitic or anti-religious agenda. From what I've notice, and experienced personally, the reluctance to move toward any agreement to accept even the slightest alternative position stems from this belief. However, I have not found that this belief is entirely accurate. While it's probably true that some editors have an maleficent agenda, I do believe that the majority of these "editors" are merely frustrated by the reluctance of the administrators to even consider these so-called fringe theories. I can understand their frustration, especially considering the overwhelming amount of evidence currently available to support some of these alternative theories. Considering that very few of these topics are well settled amongst even the most prestigious of scholars, I believe that any alternative theory, with a reasonable amount of circumstantial evidence, should at least be considered. Given that this particular theory (The Hyksos were the Jews) is supported by the writings of an accomplished historian of antiquity, I believe it merits more credibility than the majority of the other theories suggested here. Especially considering that not one of the other theories is supported by any historians of antiquity. That this particular historian is in fact an apologetic Jew, lends even more credibility to his theoretical suppositions. It seems to me that any evidence that supports the historical veracity of the bible, even to a most limited degree, is given every oppurtunity to be viewed in the most favorable light. For this assumption I offer the handling of the Merneptah stela. The simple truth regarding this bit of so-called biblical evidence (that suggests the stela mentions the Israelites) is that the interpretation is inconclusive. Several other possibilities have been suggested, as summarized by Hasel. One possibility that has been setforth suggests that another translation could be rendered, resulting in the name: Iezreel or Jezreal. Another possibility suggests that the name has a descriptive meaning: “the wearers of the side lock”, and that it would apply to the Libyans. The point being that, yet again, the biblical apologists support that translation that best suits their needs, and while the results are clearly inconclusive, they present it as if it were well settled fact. I can only hope that the day will come that we can openly and honestly assess any and all evidence of antiquity without the undue pressure of the biblical apologists to conform it to suit their needs. JM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

The prevailing academic opinion is against the idea that the Habiru or Hyksos were Hebrews, and I'd have to see some evidence that this has changed. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The evidence is simply too overwhelming to hide for any considerable time. I've noticed a shift in the last two years. Check out the History Channel sometime. Manson 07:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

The History Channel is hardly a reliable source - have you got some academic books or articles that back you up? Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The History Channel, is, at a minimum, evidence of a large school of thought existing. Or does 'neutrality' now mean we are to play referee and not simply report everything? Sounds like Orwellian neutrality. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't said that. The History Channel is not a RS for claiming that "I've noticed a shift in the last two years." And are you also suggesting that some evidence is being hidden? Are we talking about the 2005 HC film Bible Battles that also claimed that the Israelites who left in the Exodus were actually some sort of military unit with Moses a Habiru military leader? I guess by your reasoning that's evidence for a large school of thought that Moses was led some sort of army out of Israel. Dougweller (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"Evidence for a large school of thought"? I wonder what Cecil B DeMille would say! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, I resent your sacastically crude mention of the "Bible Battles" film. I've never suggested any school of thought that is completely outside of mainstream academic consideration. The irony is actually quite comical though, considering the academically accepted version of events regarding Moses, the Jews, and the Exodus. What I meant by "seeing a shift" is actually toward religion in general. The internet is doing to religion exactly what the Ottoman Empire's sacking of Constantinople and the invention of the printing press did in the 15th century. Only the internet is much quicker moving information than a group of elderly Greek scholars. Manson 01:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talk • contribs)

Resentment is not going to get you anywhere. History Channel and Discovery Channel are entertainment, as proven by their frequent running of material about space aliens that includes material debunked about 50 years ago. Because of that, your "seeing a shift" is irrelevant because you refuse to pony up academic material. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Was there a Hyksos invasion?

Some reason the author of the article left out the last sentence as indicated below.

Here is the complete translation of the Josephus, quoting from the work of the historian Manetho;

Manetho, Aegyptiaca., frag. 42, 1.75-79.2

Hyksos king Tutimaeus [0]. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. "By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, (Part Omitted in article) (("and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.")) Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions. Above all, he fortified the district to the east, foreseeing that the Assyrians, as they grew stronger, would one day covet and attack his kingdom." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillyJDial (talk • contribs) 15:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail shirts

I'm not an expert on armor, but the Wikipedia entry on (chain) Mail suggests that it was invented in 300 BCE. The Hyksos are 1200 - 1500 years before then. There seems to be a contradiction. Presumably there are other types of armor, but perhaps mail is the wrong term to use here. Pollira (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The source for the 300 BC date in the mail (armor) article is a book on Roman weapons. This would be referring to chain mail and is probably the correct date for the introduction of chain mail into the Roman army. However, the Romans did not invent it, they got it from the Celts who had already been using it for a century or two. There is an another type of mail, which may be the inspiration for chain mail, called fishscale which is much older. It was used by all the ancient civilizations of antiquity in the Middle East. The Sumerians, 5000 BC, had it and I am guessing this is the mail being referred to regarding the Hyksos. SpinningSpark 17:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Location

Whom ever wrote this is mistaken as Avaris is in Lower Egypt. Yes I know the city is located near the top of the country (geographically) however, Egypt was divided as the Nile flows. Thereby as the Nile flows southward the lower half of Egypt was termed upper Egypt. As such the upper half (where Avaris resided) was deemed Lower Egypt.(this was added to the article by an IP, 76.2.216.142, a little while ago - I've moved it here intactDougweller (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) }

I presume this should have said 'flows northward'. I'll try to fix the problem tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Bed time. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A sentence I don't understand

“The Hyksos practiced horse burials, and their chief deity "BAAL" who became associated with the Egyptian storm and desert god, Seth, whom they identified with their native storm god.”
I'm trying to understand the sentence above. After simplification:
“their chief deity "BAAL" ... became associated with ❶, whom they identified with ❷.”
What does this mean?

And the first half again:
“The Hyksos practiced horse burials, and their chief deity "BAAL" ... .”
Did they practice burials and a god? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborgulya (talk • contribs) 21:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing the extra word "who" from that sentence should fix it... Let's see if anyone beats me to it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you remove the "who" that solves my problem with the first half. But the second half remains: “their chief deity "BAAL" became associated with ❶, whom they identified with ❷” -- what would that mean then? --Gaborgulya (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

You would have to go through the article history to find out who added the word BAAL to that sentence and when. It was not there originally, and there is no mention of BAAL in the reference provided. As for the convoluted wording, I think I have fixed that too now, have a look. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Find another source on "horse burials." "Equid" is not strictly equivalent to horse; I always heard that they were donkeys. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Asiatic people?

Hello, "Asiatic" refers to Mongoloid race but Hyksos were multi-race (Middle Eastern and whites), they were not Mongoloid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.220.50 (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Asia includes southwest Asia, the site of the Holy Land and Mesopotamia. There is no racial distinction between Middle Eastern and Caucasian. You need to start using 21st century dictionaries and read the genetic studies showing that proto-Semitic developed south of the Caucasus. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

197.200 has a point. Firstly, terms such as Asiatic or Asian are so broad, on ethnological contexts, that they are meaningless. Secondly, in current English language usage (at least) Asian is favoured over Asiatic, which is regarded as an archaic term, and (thirdly) tends to imply East Asian and (fouthly) therefore looks very odd in a sentence saying that they were from "Western Asia". Fifthly, even if "Asiatic" were a pertinent term, the mention of Western Asia in same sentence would render it tautological. Grant | Talk 17:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hyksos Sphinx

There is an image on Commons of a "Hyksos Sphinx". OrganicEarth (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Outdated dates

Bietak was wrong when he said that the end of Avaris as the Hyksos capital was 1450 BCE. He refused to recognize or even request radiometric verification. See Manning, S.W., and B. Kromer, “Radiocarbon Dating Archaeological Samples In The Eastern Mediterranean, 1730 To 1480 Bc: Further Exploring The Atmospheric Radiocarbon Calibration Record And The Archaeological Implications”, Archaeometry, Vol. 53, Issue 2, pp. 413-439, April 2011. First published online: 29 OCT 2010, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4754.2010.00556.x/full, Downloaded November 28, 2011 which shows that the pumice layer at the top of Avaris dates to the time of the Thera explosion. After that there was precious little until Ramses re-founded the site using his own name. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Merge

It has been proposed by user:91.144.0.101 back in February 2013 to merge Origins of the Hyksos with Hyksos, though no discussion has been properly made. I herewith raise this proposal in an organized manner.GreyShark (dibra) 20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - considering the limited size of both articles (15k for origins and 43k for Hyksos), and large overlap - the merge seems as a positive move.GreyShark (dibra) 20:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Agreed, largely redundant. GreyShark, go ahead and do the merge. Fences&Windows 00:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
• Yip. scope_creep (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
• The article Origins of the Hyksos could be put to the section History.  Anchorvale ^T@lk  06:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done Klbrain (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Connection to Greeks

Someone wrote:

The story of the Hyksos was known to the Greeks, who attempted to identify it within their own mythology with the expulsion from Egypt of Belos (Baal?) and the daughters of Danaos, associated with the origin of the Argive Dynasty.

This claim had to be deleted as unsourced and implausible speculation. The first reference is a late (1st century AD) pseudonymous work, Apollodorus 2.1.4, discussing the Danaus myth with no mention of the Hyksos. The second reference, equating Belos to Baal, is dubious. As per the first reference, Belus was a mythical Egyptian and was not expelled from Egypt. He was the father of Danaus, who settled in Libya and later fled to Rhodes and Argos from Libya, not Egypt. If that paragraph was an attempt to establish a lineage of the Greek kingdom of Argos from the Hyksos..Jews please just stop. The Phoenicians settled Libya around 600 BC, long after the Greek line of Argos had been established in The Iliad, so don't try that angle either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.157.191 (talk) 03:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

IP 74, please sign your comments on talk pages, start new sections on talk pages at the bottom of the page not the top, and refrain from deleting sourced material based on your own opinions.Smeat75 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Israel vs Palestine vs the Levant

Palestine doesn't really refer to a region, it is a roman bastardization of the word Philistine, which is as much a nation as Israel. Wouldn't the Levant be the best word choice for this article? Darokrithia (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Palestine seems mainly mentioned in quotations, and we obviously can't change them. Which other mentions are you referring to? Doug Weller talk 20:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Honestly didn't read the changes that well, so if it is a quote it should definitely stay Palestine. I was just talking in a more general sense based on what Khruner said in his edit summary. If there is a non quoted part of this (or any) article specifically referring to the region that is today considered Palestine / Israel, the Levant is a better, less biased word.Darokrithia (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Etymology

I am struggling to parse the grammar of this sentence.

Once a time in all the Ancient Greek-language known literature, the word ὑκσώς (trasl. hyksόs, with the rough breathing and the final grave accent, upon omega) is told to be derived from the Egyptian and used with the unique meaning of "king shepherd", by Manetho (in Ios. Ap. I,14), priest and historician writing in the Greek language[22], which till the XX century was the only available source for the list of the egyptian kings, and well knew the unique pre-Ptolemaic papyrus about that.

I suggest that this might work better:

The word ὑκσώς (trasl. hyksόs, with the rough breathing and the final grave accent, upon omega) is said to be derived from the Egyptian and used with the unique meaning of "king shepherd", by Manetho (in Ios. Ap. I,14), priest and historician writing in the Greek language[22]. Until the twentieth century Manetho provided the only available source for an Egyptian king list which he had derived from pre-Ptolemaic papyri.

Perhaps the second sentence can be removed as it is lacks a citation anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krisgest (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Khaset, normally translated as shepherd or foreign, was also the name of Xois, which was the capital of the preceding 14th dynasty. The term could easily mean "rulers of Xois". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.42.169 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Do they look Persian or what?

There's two pictures on the page now with depictions of these Hyksos. They look as Persian as possible.

How can they possibly be from any other genealogical line if they look THAT Persian?

Consider the following:

Persians look like nobody else in the world.

The depictions look like depictions done of Achaemenids. Even the way they are holding the spears is Persian.

---

If they were not only Persians, then it can be hypothesized that Armenians with their Zoroastrian-looking winged deities (Zoroaster's family was Armenian) may have come WITH the Persians, but I don't know if any credible argument can possibly be made that the people in the pictures from that person's tomb are not Persian or Armenian.

74.96.93.174 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)The Kid74.96.93.174 (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead needs a rewrite

It is supposed to summarise the main points of the article: "The lead should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." It doesn't do that at the moment. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is a discrepancy between the lead and the body. As the body itself is of quite low quality, in particular when it comes to structre, it might be a better idea to rewrite the entire article. Krakkos (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Britannica Online a reliable source?

I think it's about time we stopped regarding BO as a reliable source - it's open source, just like WIkipedia, with all the drawbacks that entails. See this from Wiki's article on BO: "On 22 January 2009, Britannica's president, Jorge Cauz, announced that the company would be accepting edits and additions to the online Britannica website from the public." (I raise this because BO is used as a source in this article - I think new and reliable sourcing is needed). PiCo (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I know of one article where someone who is a recurring sock here was able to add fringe material to an article. I agree - generalist encyclopedias are rarely good sources for a lot of topics, including history and archaeology. Doug Weller talk 12:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a good point. The Encyclopedia Britannica articles used here are however mostly written by credited experts. Among them are Kathleen Kenyon, Claude Frédéric-Armand Schaeffer, William L. Ochsenwald, Richard David Barnett, John Baines (Egyptologist), Peter Dorman and others. When written by such experts Britannica articles should not be considered unreliable. Krakkos (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Krakkos. Yes, the person is the reliable source, not the medium. If the article is signed by someone like that I won't object.PiCo (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Britannica had at the time solicited input from users, similar to the way Wikipedia has user contributions, but the contributions are vetted by the Britannica staff before they are posted. They are not - as Wikipedia does - open contributions posted by whomever feels like it... And the editorial staff of Wikipedia is largely headed by professional academics. Stevenmitchell (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Greek accentuation

The article states that Hyksos in Greek ends in a grave accent, though the accent shown in the Greek text is acute, not a grave. It then goes on to give this as evidence of its non Greek origins, as this violates the rules of Greek accentuation. In Greek, the ultima can of course take the acute, so the writer is implying that the Greek for Hyksos ends in a grave. So this is confusing to say the least. It’s not the first place in Wikipedia where an author asserts mistaken ideas about Greek accentuation. SirHuddlestonFuddleston (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hyksos' expulsion

The other major Arnold Toynbee’s error common at his era without any sufficient archaeological evidences was his belief the invented military campaign of the “barbarian Aryan” Hyksos of Manetho (Μανέθων, Manethōn, Μανέθωνος). An Egyptian priest from Sebennytos (Coptic: ϫⲉⲙⲛⲟⲩϯ, džemnouti) Maneth in the Ptolemaic Kingdom in the early third century BC during the Hellenistic period authored the Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt) in Greek language to promote local nationalism against Asiatic-Syriac intruders. In fact, the Hyksos as the conglomerate of Semitic speaking North Palestinian people gained their immigrant trade foothold in Egypt about the year 1782 BC at the city of Avaris in Lower Egypt, thus initiating the era known in Egyptian history as the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782-c. 1570 BC). Their name, Heqau-khasut, translates as 'Rulers of Foreign Lands' suggests that they were driven from their homes in western Asia by invasion who found refuge in the port city of Avaris (ḥw.t wr.t, Hut-waret, Αὔαρις, Auaris, modern Tell el-Dab'a in the northeastern region of the Nile Delta) and managed to establish a strong power base during the decline of the 13th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE). Most likely, they were traders who were at first welcomed at Avaris, prospered, and sent word to their friends and neighbors to come join them, resulting in a large population which was able to finally exert political and then military power by marriage with the daughters of former Egyptian rulers. The Hyksos of mixed Semitic-Aryan tribes using Semitic language introduced horses and chariot into Egypt. They initially worshiped Hadad (Haddu, Adad, Haddad, Iškur) as the storm and rain god and Baal in the Canaanite and ancient Mesopotamian religions but soon adopted Egyptian villain god Set (Seth, stẖ, Setesh, Sutekh, Setekh, Suty, Sēth, Σήθ) as a god of chaos, fire, deserts, trickery, storms, envy, disorder, violence, and foreigners in ancient Egyptian religion as an opposition to the Osiris myth, the most important Egyptian myth of then Egyptiac internal proletariat, Set is portrayed as the usurper who killed and mutilated his own brother Osiris. Osiris's wife Isis reassembled his corpse and resurrected her dead husband long enough to conceive his son (or third brother) and heir Horus. Horus sought revenge upon Set, and the myths describe their conflicts. The Hyksos’ Set had somewhat better relations with them dominant god creator solar falcon Amon-Ra (Re) of the Egyptian dominant minority as Set was depicted standing on the prow of Ra's barge defeating the dark serpent of chaos Apep. In some Late Period representations, such as in the Persian Period Temple of Hibis at Khargah, Set was represented in this role with a falcon's head, taking on the guise of Horus. In the Amduat Set is described as having a key role in overcoming Apep. As Hyksos’ 15th dynasty heritage was mostly destroyed, only the Egyptian version of the 18th dynasty of new kingdom offensive from Thebes (Θῆβαι, Thēbai) against 800 km northern Hyksos in the delta of the Nil river narrates as the expelling of the evil Asiatic invaders in some connections with the simultaneous Moses’ exodus by 3rd century BCE Egyptian writer Manetho whose work has been lost but was extensively quoted by later writers like Flavius Josephus (37- c. 100 CE). Manetho's flawed understanding of the meaning of the Hyksos' name, and Josephus' further misinterpretation gives the translation of 'Hyksos' as 'captive shepherds,' and this complete misunderstanding has given rise in recent years to the claim that the Hyksos were a Hebrew community of Moses even if the Hyksos were no slaves. The expulsion of Hyksos back to Sinai and further to Palestine-Syria promoted the Egyptian nationalism of 18th dynasty to make Egyptians the imperialist chariot driven force in Syria as a tampon zone protecting Egypt by annihilating the possible threating powers of Syrian-Palestinian-Sinai areas until the Persians of 27th dynasty and Alexander the Great repeated the threat from faraway Hellenic-Iranian nowhere, just like the later expulsion of Mongolic Yuan dynasty of Kublai Khan promoted the similar xenophobic nationalism of Chinese Han Ming dynasty until Opiate Brits Warriors repeated the threat from faraway Hellenic nowhere, also because Egyptiac Hyksos and Mongolian Chinese eras were the similar petrified-fossilized states of Toynbee’s nomenclature. With an important additional similarity: like the Egyptianized but religiously Egyptian heretic Hyksos, the nomadic Mongols never adopted to Sinicization also as they preferred Tantric mahāyāna begotten in Bengal but adjusted in Tibet as Tantric path in Buddhism, called the Vajrayana or indestructible vehicle (Vajrayāna (वज्रयान), Mantrayāna, Tantrayāna, Esoteric Buddhism). Similar expulsion of those same Mongols in that same times promoted the local nationalisms in Persian-Turkish-Arabic Middle East areas, while the Russian conquest of the whole steppes of those nomads finally promoted Russian national awareness. The Napoleonic invasions provoked similar xenophobic Italian and German nationalisms which proved to be the worst of them all in WW2188.230.165.145 (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)dr. Juznic.

Characterization as an Invasion

I think this article is presenting obsolete historical research and that the Hyksos should not be classified as invaders. This is how the Egyptians classified the Hyksos, but historians believe that this was more of a xenophobic reaction to a peaceful foreign ethnic group becoming more powerful. Obviously any civilization would label foreign ethnic groups who temporarily held power as invaders, but they weren't actually invaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.125.30.10 (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References