Posted on 07/16/2020 2:37:49 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
The Hyksos were a foreign dynasty that ruled parts of Egypt between approximately 1638-1530 BCE, the first instance of Egypt being ruled by individuals of a foreign origin. The common story is that the Hyksos were invaders from a far-off land, but this idea has been drawn into question. Archaeological evidence does link Hyksos culture with an origin in the Near East, but exactly how they rose to power is unclear.
...Stantis and colleagues collected enamel samples from the teeth of 75 humans buried in the ancient Hyksos capital city of Tell el-Dab'a in the northeast Nile Delta. Comparing ratios of strontium isotopes in the teeth to environmental isotope signatures from Egypt and elsewhere, they assessed the geographic origins of the individuals who lived in the city. They found that a large percentage of the populace were non-locals who immigrated from a wide variety of other places. This pattern was true both before and during the Hyksos dynasty.
This pattern does not match the story of a sudden invasion from a single far-off land, but of a multi-cultural region where one internal group - the Hyksos - eventually rose to power after living there for generations. This is the first study to use archaeological chemistry to address the origins of the Hyksos rulers, but the authors note that more investigations and broader chemical techniques will be needed to identify the specific ancestries of the Hyksos and other non-local residents of Egypt.
Stantis adds: "Archaeological chemistry, specifically isotopic analysis, shows us first-generation migration during a time of major cultural transformations in ancient Egypt. Rather than the old scholastic theories of invasion, we see more people, especially women, migrating to Egypt before Hyksos rule, suggesting economic and cultural changes leading to foreign rule rather than violence."
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
Seal amulet with the name of the Hyksos pharoah Apophis. Credit: The Metropolitan Museum of Art (CC0)
(doesn't look like a seal. Turtle maybe...
It’s turtles all the way down.....
...samples from the teeth of 75 humans buried in the ancient Hyksos capital city of Tell el-Dab'a...
Tell el-Dab'a has been claimed to be Avaris. The problem here is, Tell el-Dab'a WASN'T Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos.
And they’re swimmin’ in soup... turtle soup...
Theses for the Reconstruction of Ancient History by Immanuel Velikovsky | Section I
FIFY
“the first instance of Egypt being ruled by individuals of a foreign origin”
Even this is a dubious conjecture, since it ignores all the evidence that the Mesopotamians came in and did a little “regime change” around the 1st Dynasty.
Like the Roman Empire, the powerful and successful (at the time) Egyptian dynasties welcomed folks from other areas and likely even recruited some of them as soldiers, locally, when Egyptian armies fought outside of Egypt.
There were likely even alliances of convenience the Egyptian rulers made with leaders of non-Egyptian tribal groups across the Middle East.
Trade also brought in “foreigners”.
It surely did not happen at once, but gradually over time an alliance of “outsiders” settled in Egypt for quite some time thought they had been getting the short end of the stick and took over. They were probably found at the time spread all over Egyptian society, including the military.
Some Roman losses of territory of the empire happened the same way.
Interesting. Thanks for posting. History BUMP!
Joseph, whose sojourn in Egypt was chronicled in the book of Genesis may have dealt with a Hyksos ruler. And the subsequent king “who knew not Joseph” and enslaved the Hebrews (Exodus 1:8-11) may have been from the native dynasty that replaced the Hyksos.
I blame the Sea Peoples. Why not? - they get blamed for a lot anyway.
There is no compelling evidence of that, although that is one of David Rohl's claims. Sargon the Great, founder of the Akkadian Empire, records that Musri (Egypt) paid tribute to him. Egyptian disunity was probably more the rule than the exception, with the various city-states coming into and going out of dominance, a pattern also seen in Mesopotamia, until Sargon.
Egyptian unity during the Old Kingdom appears to have been fragile. At its peak, the 4th dynasty was in charge, but there was a dynastic struggle (internal to the ruling family, Khufu's eldest son succeeded him, he died early, his young son succeeded him, then uncle Khafre took over). The 5th dynasty was apparently descended from the 4th, but lost control of the north (lower Egypt) or at least of Giza, evident from the burials of the pharaohs in the older southern areas and in mastabas instead of pyramids.
There is no evidence of that, although that was one of David Rohl's claims. Sargon the Great, founder of the Akkadian Empire, records that Musri (Egypt) paid tribute. Egyptian disunity was probably more the rule than the exception, with the various city-states coming into and going out of dominance, a pattern also seen in Mesopotamia, until Sargon conquered all Sumerian city-states.
My pleasure.
Joseph was long dead by the era of the Hyksos (which begins at the time of the Exodus).
The story of Joseph is one of the best known in the Bible... in order to find out whether the personality of Joseph or the patron of the early stage of his career, Potiphar, is referred to in the historical documents, we have to look into those of the Middle Kingdom. The task appears simple. According to the Book of Genesis Potiphar was "an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard." In the register of the private names to the Ancient Records of Egypt by James Breasted, we find the name Ptahwer... at the service of the Pharaoh Amenemhet III of the Twelfth Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom. According to an inscription of Ptahwer at Sarbut el-Khadem in Sinai dated in the forty-fifth year of Amenemhet III, his office was that of "master of the double cabinet, chief of the treasury." ...The inscription records the successful accomplishment of some peaceful expedition. Since there is only one Ptahwer in the historical documents, and since he lived in the time when we expect to find him, we are probably not wrong in identifying the biblical Potiphar with the historical Ptahwer. This being the conclusion concerning Potiphar, we are curious to find whether any mention of Joseph is found in historical documents, too. the fact that from the great and glorious age of the Middle Kingdom only a very few historical inscriptions are extant. Since a great famine took place in the days of Joseph, it is, of course, important to trace such a famine in the age of which we speak. In the days of Amenemhet III there occurred in Egypt a famine enduring nine long years... Thus it seems that the Pharaoh in whose days was the seven years' famine was the successor of the Pharaoh in whose days began the rise of Joseph's career (if Yatu is Joseph). Potiphar, who lived under Amenemhet III, probably lived also under his successor. The inscription which deals with Ptahwer mentions a man whose name is transliterated by Breasted as Y-t-w. Among the monuments of Amenemhet III's reign is one of the Storekeeper... The inscription that mentions Ptahwer refers to his activity in the mines of the Sinai peninsula. In this respect it is of interest to find that the Jewish traditions connect Joseph with the area of the Sinai Peninsula saying that he kept a large quantity of treasuries near Baal Zaphon, the scene of the Passage of the Sea.Joseph and Potiphar, Immanuel Velikovsky
It's tough being an imaginary bad guy, I'll say that.
Hyksos as local boys.
“There is no compelling evidence of that...”
Well, that really depends on what you personally feel is compelling. There certainly is evidence for it. Evidence that this article ignores.
Thank you. I hate the woke idiotic BCE - CE BS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.