Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Our ancient civilizations were a mixture of space aliens with weird helmets, and rugged horse riding, steep living Russians. At least according to a self proclaimed expert on this very forum.
Thanks Kovert. The Chicago library system has three copies of the first book but none of the second; odd that, you'd think it would.
Now it's clear, Mr. Politics Forum guy is confusing the story of Moses with the Hyksos! Kovert - you're an envangelist at heart! What's next, you telling us the story of Noah and his ark? Explains your strange preoccupation with space aliens perhaps.
Just to push your buttons, I offer one more.
Barbara Mertz "Temples, Tombs, & Hieroglyphs"
"Asiatics were always seeping down into Egypt; they came as immigrants, traders, and in later periods, slaes, and some seem to have settled down quite peacefully in various parts of the Delta....there was considerable restlessness in Asia during this period, and great movement of tribes and ethnic groups. New faces and names appear in other areas of the Near East, and it may be that the Hyksos were part of the wide Volkerwanderung, which originated, perhaps, in the steppes of the Caucasus and picked up additional components as it wondered."
Note the caviat "perhaps", no one really knows. Certainly Mr. Politics Forum guy doesnt. So you can see I can simply match your resources and links to my resources and links, those are 3 I provided. Or we can agree that the evidence is inconclusive for the origination of the Hyksos and there are various theories (no, none that involve space aliens, so perhaps we can move on from your obsession in that topic).
Thanks Kovert. The Chicago library system has three copies of the first book but none of the second; odd that, you'd think it would.
You're in Chicago? The university of Chicago has produced some excellent scholars and publications on north african civilizations, like Bruce Williams (showed A-Group Ta Seti was a major player in the Nile during the predynastic period) & Robert Rittner (has a great text on Heka, egyptian magic ).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Now it's clear, Mr. Politics Forum guy is confusing the story of Moses with the Hyksos! Kovert - you're an envangelist at heart! What's next, you telling us the story of Noah and his ark? Explains your strange preoccupation with space aliens perhaps.
The only thing that is clear is your inability to understand and/or accept reality. There is NO EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIANS INVADED EGYPT, PERIOD.
What is also clear is that somehow you think your delusions should be accepted over great scholarly works such as Donald Redford's text.
I feel like I'm talking to an angry kid brother that refuses to accept that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
Sorry Virginia in the real world, there is no Santa Claus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Just to push your buttons, I offer one more.
Son, based on what you've been demonstrating my manual is way over your head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714
Barbara Mertz "Temples, Tombs, & Hieroglyphs"
"Asiatics were always seeping down into Egypt; they came as immigrants, traders, and in later periods, slaes, and some seem to have settled down quite peacefully in various parts of the Delta....there was considerable restlessness in Asia during this period, and great movement of tribes and ethnic groups. New faces and names appear in other areas of the Near East, and it may be that the Hyksos were part of the wide Volkerwanderung, which originated, perhaps, in the steppes of the Caucasus and picked up additional components as it wondered."
Note the caviat "perhaps", no one really knows. Certainly Mr. Politics Forum guy doesnt. So you can see I can simply match your resources and links to my resources and links, those are 3 I provided. Or we can agree that the evidence is inconclusive for the origination of the Hyksos and there are various theories (no, none that involve space aliens, so perhaps we can move on from your obsession in that topic).
Junior, lets use logic for a second.
I already ready posted that in terms of artifacts like pottery, architecture, burial customs the Hyksos ruled territories are most similar to those of Palestine.
In terms of physical anthropology, the human remains from the Hyksos ruled territories are most similar to those of Palestine.
The words for names of rulers and others in Hyksos ruled territory were all west Semitic, a language spoken by the people of palestine.
The Egyptian word to refer to the Hyksos, Aamu was also the name Egyptians used to refer to the west Semitic peoples of the Sinai, Negev and Canaan.
You would have known this if you actually bothered to read and research Redford's text.
Now I know you're disappointed no Russians and space aliens are involved but all the evidence points to the Hyksos originating from southwest Asian and specifically Palestine.
But I'm in a good mood, so I'll give you a couple more lessons Junior.
The evidence points to the Hyksos use of horses at the end of their rule over Egypt during the late 17th dynasty. There is no evidence of the Hyksos using them before that time. There is no evidence of Hurrian influence (which would be of southwestern Asian and not Russian origin) and the chariot of the Egyptians and the Hyksos are most similar to those of Canaan. (see p. 239)
And besides as Grimal points out, the horse was known and reared in the Nile valley at least as early if not earlier than when the Hyksos used them. (see p. 186-187)
And I know this will rub you the wrong way, the horse was already in the Nubian Nile BEFORE its appearance among the rebelling Theban dynasties. (see p. 77)
Therefore based on your usual fuzzy logic reasoning, I could argue that the 17th and 18th dynasty Egyptians were of Ta Nehesy (term Egyptians used for Nubian Nile Valley inhabitants AND Libyans) origin because the horse first appeared in THEIR territories before in Egypt.
The only thing that is clear is your inability to understand and/or accept reality. There is NO EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIANS INVADED EGYPT, PERIOD.
The evidence points to the Hyksos use of horses at the end of their rule over Egypt during the late 17th dynasty. There is no evidence of the Hyksos using them before that time.
Who is this junior guy? A condescending attitude does not help you, it adds an element of hysterics to your responses, emotional outbursts. At least you got rid of the emoticons.
Well, anyways, this debate has turned into one, not of the issues, but one of your ability to debate the issues. You seem stuck on specifics, misdirection, and irrelevance, while I continue to stress general points that you seem to, purposely or due to ignorance, miss. Or, maybe it is a quality of posting in the Politics Forum. It's a bad habit to break, you should break it.
There is no evidence Russians invaded egypt obviously, and I never stated they did. What I did state was that the invaders, migrants, etc to Egypt in ancient times included peoples from the steppes/northern arabia, which includes lands that are now in Russia and Turkey. It's not hard to imagine that they also mixed with people from what is now Palestine and elsewhere to the south, perhaps settled in that area, and then they became what is commonly refered to as the Hyksos. Aliens? I am still puzzled on your strange preoccupation with that topic (misdirection?).
Now, again about your ability to debate. The method here isn't to suddently look for internet links that supports ones position, but to come up with your own conclusions. The problem here is that: 1.) Most of what one finds on the internet is rubbish, and 2.) One takes something out of context, or can not interpret it correctly (see the last thread from the LouisvilleSlugger guy for a perfect example). I am not saying your links are wrong, I don;'t even necessarily disagree, but I would prefer a responder to have read a book, know the subject, and interpret the writers conclusions himself. WHich is why I had referenced books that I have read.
Now, on the subject of Chariots and the Hyksos. I am going to do what I just advised against above, and post some quotes and links:
The role of the chariot in Egypts rise to power - by Mark Hopkins - Helium
"A period of instability known to Egyptologists as the 'Second Intermediate Period' began around 1700 BC and is marked by the incursion of an Asiatic people known to history as the Hyksos. It seems likely, though not certain, that it was they who introduced the chariot to Egypt. Its origins seem to lie in Asia, where horses were native."
The chariot in Egypt
"Chariots have not--so far--been recovered from tombs or other digs dating to the Old Kingdom. Thus conventional Egyptologists assume that the Hyksos used chariots to conquer Egypt, and when the Egyptians finally expelled the Hyksos, they captured enough prototypical chariots to start designing their own." (note - the writer then offers some counter-arguments).
Ancient Egypt; Chariots
"It is generally considered that the Hyksos introduced the chairot to Egypt"
WeaponDesigns.com
"Some historians believe that chariots were first developed in the Eurasian steppes, somewhere near Russia and Uzbekistan. After the introduction of horse, an animal that was found to be much faster than donkey, the chariot became a more fierce weapon with the combination of speed, strength and mobility.[16] The Hyksos introduced chariots in Egypt. These chariots were later modified into the Egyptian style."
The point is twofold - 1.) We can post internet links that support our relative positions until the end of days, and 2.) More clearly - there is obviously no consensus among Egyptologists! There is just not enough evidence out there to conclude where the Hyksos came from, or for that matter the origination of the chariot in Egypt. And in regards to your comments "their is no evidence...". I like this quote from one of my links above:
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense. "
The horse? No doubt the horse existed in Egypt before the Hyksos. But horses evolved. Before the Hyksos and other migration from the north the common egyptian horse was small, suitable for simple farm work but certainly not adequate for the requirements of a chariot and the stress of warfare. Horses from the steppes, culled and grown purposely big and strong thanks to the supeior grazing land and horse cultures that lived in those areas, eventually came south as a result of trade, migration, and, yes, the Hyksos. Again, this comes from a book that I *gasp!!!* read, not from internet links - Keegan's renowned "History of Warfare".
You read Keegan's latest book, on the American Civil War? What a mess; he's gotten either lazy or senile. Or maybe both.
I've heard that about his civil war book, very dissapointing, and have thus avoided it, I'm on a Napoleon kick right now anyways and most of my readings are devoted to that subject. I still recommend his "History of Warfare" and "Face of Battle". Indespensable.
Paul Revere & The Raiders - no it's gotta be "Kicks"! I saw them in concert about 5 years ago at the "Indio Date Festival", I think by this time they are only down to one original raider.
Yeah, time to close this topic down. It's run it's course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
