Talk:Hyksos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Ancient Egypt
Ancient Egypt Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
WikiProject Equine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hyksos article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Discussion

Why is there a "discussion" in the second paragraph? It should be moved here. BOARshevik 20:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I looked up in the history, and it looks like it was taken care of. :) ViolinGirl♪ 17:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

" Another standpoint for this theory is one of the important Hyksos cities, Avaris, which is called modernly Tel el-Yahudiyeh (meaning "mound of the Jews") known for its distinctive black and whiteware. "..

This is not a sentence as written. I don't know what is meant here. Also, I've never heard of the phrase "standpoint for a theory".. don't know what it means Steve kap 16:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ..

[edit] {{confusing}}

Is it just me, or is this article confusing? I feel it's not clear enough about who the Hyksos were. Were they actually Pharaohs, or were they a group of people in rebellion to the Pharaohs? Is it confusing to anyone else? Does anyone object to me putting the {{confusing}} template on? Please let me know here or here. --ViolinGirl♪ 17:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both. They were foreign asiatic (from a location in Asia Minor) rulers who took over the country for a while and ruled as Pharaohs. They ruled from a base at the Nile delta (lower Egypt).

Meanwhile, to the south, in Thebes, indigenous local rulers started getting annoyed by this, and were particularly xenophobic. Eventually, after many years, the local rulers of Thebes appointed themselves Pharaoh, raised an army, and attacked the Hyksos rulers, pushing them out of Egypt.

No-one knows for sure where the Hyksos came from, and they essentially suddenly appear in the historical record, and there isn't much indication how they came to be rulers; we don't know if they were appointed as heirs to the indigenous Pharaohs, they took it by force, they were immigrants who just came to power by steady increase of influence, or if they invaded en masse.

What is clear, however, from the records, is that they were asiatic (from Asia Minor - the middle east and surrounding area to the north), and that is where they returned to after being chased out. Hence many people associate them with the Israelites in the Exodus period, though this causes several contradictions with parts of the biblical record. Others think them to be quite a different group.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up for me! I guess now the {{confusing}} template isn't needed. --ViolinGirl♪ 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In the "Theban offensive" part, "Under Seqenenre Tao (II)" I changed "defeats" to victories as it doesn't seem make sense otherwise (in the next paragraph only victories are mentioned). 78.51.114.96 (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrews ?

Shouldn' this article contain a bit more about the association with the Hebrews? I just added a little blurb in the intro, which I hopes helps explain the various references that were scattered in the article (The words "Hebrew" and "Israelite" did not appear in the article before).

Other articles, such as Exodus, or Plagues of Egypt contain references to that controversy; in Plagues of Egypt:

In an historical context, the greatest candidate for the Israelite presence in Egypt is that of the Hyksos. However, rather than being slaves who escaped, the Hyksos were rulers who were chased out of Egypt. The extreme resistance, in the story, of the unnamed Pharaoh to releasing them therefore, according to such an historical-critical view, serves to provide an explanation of why an Egyptian Pharaoh so angrily chased after the Israelites.

This is quite different from what we find on this page :P Maybe this mini-controversy deserves it's own section? Flammifer 06:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I would like more info on the Hebrew-Hyksos connection (if any). To me, this article just has a small blrub poo-pooing the idea. I would love to have either an expanded section showing both sides, or a new article. If there is a connection, it would explan so much, how a group of "ex-slaves" defeated mighty armys and concured land. If its not true, well, that would be good to know too! Steve kap 13:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I find confusion here, but in a different manner. It becomes apparent to me in studying Biblical texts (Talmud, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Nag Hammadi among others) that the term Hebrew as we use it was only recently strictly codified. I usually prefer to use the term Semite until about 200 AD. Many of the terms we use to describe Semitic people before that were interchangeable at the time. There was no difference between a Nazerene and an "Essene who marries". Nazarene never meant from Nazareth, as it is currently commonly thought. Maccabbees (please forgive my poor spellings in this section)and Sadducees would both refer to themselves as Zaddukkites, even though they hated each other. The Hyksos and the Hebrew have always been the same people, and the terminology problems merely those of squares, rectangles, and parrallelograms. 207.118.9.58 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

what the hell does this last sentance mean? 75.85.48.24 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The real question that I want answered (and I feel is relevant) is were the Hyksos monotheists? 207.118.9.58 04:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

no. they were not. but i think that they belived into "god-pyramide" were one ruller god rule others as king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.120.122 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 23 February 2007

[edit] Summary paragraph

Why is this paragraph here? Shouldn't this be the intro? Brutannica 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't there any educated scholars who can cite historical sources that refute that the "hyksos" were "Israelites" ? Is there any historical records which indicate that the "hyksos" did not treat Israelites well while they were already in Egypt?

It would be nice to see an educated reply, and so much for making a "big story" and presuming to quote josephus as indicating these "hyksoos" as being "Israelite" I would like to see some quotes to support these fantastic claims.

It appears the writings of Josephus can be used to reject the assumption that "hyksos" are "Israelite" >> I would like to see an educated scholar actually admit this, and provide documentation, rather than feeding into fantastic claims.

Josephus, quoting from the work of the historian Manetho, described the invasion:

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 gods… Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis.

This seems to me a pretty strong indication that "Hyksos" kings were >>NOT<< "Israelite, not only this, but the duration of the Hyksos rule was limited to approximately 100 years >> far less than the 400 years of "Israelite" bodage. (see scholarly sites like narmer.us)

The fact that these kings took names similar sounding to inhabitants already in the area, including some who were notable in the area for thousands of years, should simply be seen as a means of securing political legitimacy by attempting to associate themselves with other distinct cultural groups.

Sorry, I'm not getting the point here. The 400 years vs 100 years, that I get, and it can be debated. But the rest of it, "..pretty strong incitiaion that Hysos kings were >>NOT<< Israiletes".. I just don't get it. Are you saying that Israiletes would never do something by main force? Are you saying that Isrialetes would never raze to the ground the temples of gods? What is this "pretty strong indiction"? Steve kap 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyksos and the Exodus

Do you not agree that the chances of Egypt allowing two sets of foreigners to infiltrate its society within 400 years, is an unlikely scenario, regardless of the decadence of Pharonic rule. Considering the inaccuracies contained wihin the Old Testament and the vague dates and double inclusions of Maneto's timeline it is logical to assume that there were several groups of foreigners in Egypt circa 1600BC. Egypt alsp underwent a massive social change at this time under the hands of Akenaten (I grant the timing is tricky) As the recognised first monotheisic ruler in history, I suggest that he had close contact with a culture that already believed in one God - the Hyksos,Hebrews,Israellites. If Tuthmosis 111(Akenaten's dad) was the Exodus Pharoah, not Horemheb as popular belief would have it, and Akenaten had sympathies for the expelled peoples, this would tie up a lot of loose ends, not least of which is, "How did one odd looking bloke overthrow 2000 years of culture and formalised relegion within 5 years taking on the priesthood and the army?" Sotty about the spelling, its late! Rumble

First, we don't know if the Old Testament is inaccurate or not until we have a firm hold on every event in it. Also, while I believe him to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression (not Exodus), most do not believe Horemheb was either of the described Pharaohs, in favor of Ramses II. Tuthmosis III was not Akhenaten's father, he was his great-grandfather, and no, that would not tie many loose ends together. Finally, to the point, I removed the notion about Akh-mose as it is just a mispronunciation of Ahmose I (AH-mos), and his name does not mean "brother of Moses" in either language, rather it means "the moon is born". And he was not newly discovered.mikey 23:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Suppose the Hyksos, in populating Northern Egypt, invited other Asiatic/Semitic parties in to help settle, just as today Israel invites Jews in to settle the land. In that fashion during the timeperiod they could have conceivably invited in the Jews. Therefore, the friendly Pharaoh that welcomed Joseph and his brothers could have been a Hyksos pharaoh. Possible? 24.247.157.122 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course it is possible, but that doesn't explain all the chariots, which didn't come until late in the Hyksos period, and that Joseph was appointed over ALL of Egypt, or that Joseph's brothers had to use the interpretor, the Canaanite language used by the Hyksos was virtually the same as Hebrew, and was the language used by the Israelites. I noticed something also about the Hyksos pharaohs Khayan and Auserra Apopi: In the Haggada, the Pharaoh whom Sarai, wife of Abram marries is said to be a man originally from Mesopotamia named Rakayan, and the previous pharaoh, Ashwerosh, abdicated the throne to Rakayan very early in his reign because of the great service Rakayan did for him. Ashwero (Ash-ware-ah) is equivalent to Auserra, with the sh maybe added on to reduce the stress at the end of the word, and the name Rakayan may be explained by the reducing of "Ra" because of it maybe being a reference to the god Ra, while the "ra" in the names of others may be talking about the sun. I think the similarity of names is interesting, and maybe we should see if there is any evidence to Auserra reigning BEFORE Khayan briefly and then taking over after. The problem is the Hyksos kings were very elusive, but it may be worth looking into. So maybe Abraham and Sarah lived a little later than thought, and in turn Joseph and the Exodus was later. Very interesting to me.mikey 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Or, perhaps Rakayan is a contraction of Seuserenra Khayan. mikey 02:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

69.29.255.17 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Actually, I find frequent influxes of foreigners into Egypt to be a quite likely scenario. While some details are in debate, there is evidence to suggest multiple Semitic influxes into Egypt from the time of Imhotep through the time of Ramses II.

Also, regarding language, The Semites didn't use the Hebrew language as we know it until after the time of the Santorini Explosion, so translations would be necessary if Joseph predates that period. They used ProtoSinaitic.

Edit: My bad. PS is an alphabet, not a language.

I do agree with Rumble regarding monotheism coming to Egypt from Semites as opposed to the Semites getting monotheism from Akhenaton.

Akhnaton was not a "monotheist" because the Aton was not a deity. It is equivalent to the Chinese Tsin Tan (or Chin Tan), meaning 'Yellow Ball' ('tan' = 'ball'), also translated as 'Golden Flower'. It is not clear which end of the Silk Road was the origin of this although it most likely is Egypt. Monotheism is what Akhnaton overthrew - i.e. the worship of Amon = 'The One God' of Lower Egypt(Gk. Amon 'o theos ==> 'monotheism'). Of course, the original One God was Ptah of Memphis, father of all the lesser gods, ignored by those who continually try to justify biblical theism by falsifying history because Ptah predates all of it. Moreover, Judaism is not truly a monotheistic religion because of all those other lesser gods, or 'angels', which are essentially no different from the lesser gods of Ptah of Memphis. Religionists should stay out of a discussion such as this one because of their hidden agenda.Sault 00:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sound like you have a "hidden agenda" of your own. The views of all sides will be considered, and not just those you happen to like. Further, those without citations, such as your own, are unlikely to make it into the article. 75.85.48.24 17:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't hold your breath. Also, talk pages are not the place to sound off with Original research and unpublished conjectures. Cite 'em if you got 'em, else we can't even use 'em. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have just inserted {{talkheader}} to remind users that talk pages are not intended as a general forum for discussing the topic. The above discussion was clearly more of that kind than discussing how to improve the article. DFH 18:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

This page needs the attention of an expert. My experties only goes back as far as the 17th dynasty, but I can at least tell that some parts need a rewrite.

The Hurrian theory is obsolete. The Indo-Iranian theory is not the dominant replacement. The mainstream theory is that they were, to quote my professors, "garden variety caananites." Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel... would probably be useful here.

The Hebrew-Hyksos theory is mainained by exremely few people, and "Decoding the Exodus" is neither a Reliable source nor a Majority thesis. It should probably be removed or mentioned in only a sentance or so. Thanatosimii 03:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobovici?

I never read Jacobovici's Exodus Decoded, so I'm not sure what phrase he actually uses... but "(whom he calls "Amo Israel", "the people of God")" seems a bit odd, as Am Israel or Am Yisra'el is a common way to refer to the Jewish people in Hebrew, meaning 'the People of Israel'. No Gods involved. Benji man 13:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barbaric

I removed the descriptor 'the barbaric' from in front of 'Central Asia' in the 'Was there really a Hyksos Invasion?' section. I can see no point in the term in it's literal sense (non-greek speaker), nor any in its commonly accepted sense (people with a lesser level of civilisation). The former is irrelevant, and that latter appears to me to be a value judgement which has no place in an encyclopedia article. Hegar 14:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don't believe it was necesarry to the prose in that section, barbaric is a frequent neutral word used in encyclopedias of history of far better repute than wikipedia ever will have to describe untechnologically advanced peoples. People generally need to calm down when they see words used in specific contexts of certain fields of study that wouldn't make sense in other fields. Thanatosimii 17:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Captive Shepherds"?

I deleted the following (uncited) etymology for "Hyksos" as if from "captive shepherds", since it contradicts the explanation in the opening paragraph as from "foreign rulers". If the deleted etymology has serious scholars supporting it, please cite them and organize the encyclopedia entry so that discussions about etymology occur together. Here is the deleted text:

  • Josephus' translation is understandable, as Hekw is spelled with the shepherd's crook glyph, but hyk came from the Egyptian word for "captive", so that hyksos meant "captive shepherds".

--70.171.38.69 15:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No... that's entierly wrong. hAq means chieftain, not captive, and any etymology which claims that Hyksos has anything to do with shephers is based upon the fact that in the last few centuries BC, xwst was pronounced the same way as Swst, shepherd. Thanatosimii 20:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indo-Iranian dispute

Several months ago a user named Ararat Arev made a gigantic fuss, adding Armenian propoganda to every page he could get his hands on, including a number of ancient history pages. He was constantly going on about the Armenians ruling an empire as far as Egypt, and he used those scholars used in the currently disputed section as evidence. He got blocked, but somehow he had a changing IP adress and spammed this kind of stuff from hundreds upon hundreds of IP only sockpuppets. One of the ranges which he spammed from always had the first digit in the middle 60's. Now, another Anon keeps readding this, and has mannerisms very similar to Ararat's, but denies that they are the same person. If so, please take your case here, and tell me why the paragraph should stand. It's backed by scholars with no credentials whatsoever to make the kind of statements they are making, and is otherwise an extreme minority thesis. Per either undue weight or WP:RS it shouldn't be there. Thanatosimii 05:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, an IP adress is adding Ararat's material. Anyone know how to get a sockpuppet blocked? Thanatosimii 03:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering of sections in the article

Any opinions on whether the structure of the existing article? It strikes me that the questions relating to their history ought to come before the "Who were the Hyksos?" question. Certainly the lead paragraphs first emphasize the historical background and then summarize the "who were they?" question -- shouldn't the article be similarly structured? I may be wrong, but wouldn't anyone who is likely to land on this article (likely from a link relating to Ancient Egyptian history) prefer to know what they did prior to the more academic question of what their ethnic background was? Captmondo 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, it is indeed out of order. If there were only a short summary of their origins, that could come first. However, due to the speculative nature of that question, a longer section is in order, but should be relegated to the "appendix", so to speak. Additionally, I suggest the origin section should be cut back severely. I'm sorry; there's a huge difference between scholarly speculation and "the exodus decoded." It's a fringe theory that belongs in an ancillary article, per the rules. Thanatosimii 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, I have re-structured the article so that the new order is as follows:

1 Hyksos rule in Egypt
2 Was there a Hyksos invasion?
3 Theban offensive
  3.1 Under Seqenenre Tao (II)
  3.2 Under Kamose
  3.3 Under Ahmose
4 Later times
5 Who were the Hyksos?
  5.1 Identification as Hurrians and Indo-Aryans
  5.2 Identification as Hebrews
    5.2.1 Josephus and Apion
    5.2.2 Jacobovici's Exodus Decoded
  5.3 Other suggested identifications
6 Summary 7 Hyksos in popular culture

Other than swapping the ordering of the history with "who were they?", I also moved up the "Was there a Hyksos invasion?" up to the history section, as that seemed a topic largely (but admittedly not wholly) removed from the "who were they?" question.
I can add a bit more to the first two sections at least, and possibly to other sections as well.
Captmondo 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmose in the image

This image is deceiving.. That is Ahmose on the chariot in his war against the Hyksos. Nuwaubian Hotep 02:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

...and doesn't actually represent the Hyksos themselves, right? In other words, you mean that the image is not of or by the Hyksos but of a conquering king from another civilization conquering the Hyksos? In which case you are right -- though at this point I don't think there is such an image available on Wikimedia Commons. In the meantime, will add a caption to the existing image which ought to at least explain the context of the image. Captmondo 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyksos was Yemeni tribe

Hyksos was Yemeni Qahtani tribe call Banu Amilah or Banu 'amilah (بني عاملة) Which traveled to Syria then to North Egypt

At that time Fifteenth Dynasty ruled over Egypt, whose rulers are known in history as the Hyksos kings. They belonged to the Arab race, but had migrated from Palestine and Syria to Egypt in or about 2000 B. C. and taken possession of the country. The Arab historians and the commentators of the Quran have given them the name of Amaliq (the Amalekites), and this has been corroborated by the recent researches made by the Egyptologists. They were foreign invaders who had got the opportunity of establishing their kingdom because of the internal feuds in the country.

We also learn from the history of Egypt that the "Hyksos kings" did not acknowledge the gods of Egypt and, therefore, had imported their own gods from Syria, with a view to spreading their own religion in Egypt. This is the reason why the Quran has not called the king who was the contemporary of Prophet Joseph by the title of "Pharaoh," because this title was associated with the religion of the original people of Egypt and the Hyksos did not believe in it, but the Bible erroneously calls him "Pharaoh". It appears that the editors of the Bible had the misunderstanding that all the kings of Egypt were "Pharaohs."

Egyptians called these kings "shepherd kings," translated in Egyptian as "hega-khase". Greek authors later rendered this as "Hyksos,"

[edit] Finkelstein's comment

This maybe a silly questions, but how does Finkesteins assertion that Israelites can be seen as distinct people only starting in final decades of 13th century BCE contradict the Biblical account? Last time I checked, according to the Jewish tradition, Exodus was 3320 years ago, which places the invasion lead by Joshua starting 3280 years ago, or c. 1273BCE, leaving a rather confrortable margin of error for archeology? (I realize, this doesn't mesh so well with the Hyksos being Israelites, but AFAIK Egyptian chronology is not beyond controversy anyway) Omegarad 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

According to tradition perhaps, but according to adding the dates together, it was 3455 years ago, in 1446-1447. Thanatosimii 21:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move the "Who were..." section to a new article page?

Given the seemingly endless amount of speculation as to who the Hyksos were, and the fact that that speculation is now greater in size than the rest of the article, shouldn't that be shunted off onto a separate page?

A good precedent for this would be the Shakespearean authorship question under the William Shakespeare article, as an example. I think the "Who were the Hykosos?" sub-section is at the size where this ought to be done

Any thoughts? Captmondo 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By my count, there are about 5.5 pages for the "Who were the Hyksos?" section, and about 7.5 pages for the rest of the text above it, plus the Summary and References below it. I don't know if that's enough to split it off, but it's not "greater in size than the rest of the article". I would not necessarily oppose it. ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough -- my perception of the dog wagging the tail, so to speak.
Then we have the issue as to what to call it. I suggest: "The origins of the Hyksos", or perhaps "The identification of the Hyksos" (though the last one strikes me as awkward). Perhaps "The disputed ethnicity of the Hyksos"? Any other suggestions? Captmondo 19:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Origin works best I suspect. I'm skeptical about articles with the word "dispute" or any synonym thereof within their titles. Thanatosimii 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, done. New article can be found at: The origins of the Hyksos, and is directly linked to within this article. Have also taken the liberty of removing the "expert review" notice at the top of the page, since I believe that what remains of the original article is well-documented and there is a general scholarly consensus to support what's there (though if someone thinks otherwise please go ahead and add it back).
For myself, I would like to see more about the culture of the Hyksos examined in this article (based on archeological findings), and would appreciate seeing more images to illustrate the article. (I can help with the former, though not so much with the latter). Captmondo 12:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, but now you need to move some of it back -- we should have some information here, so people at least understand enough to know whether they want to read the other article. ~ MD Otley (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought that that had to be done as well initially, but there is precedent for just having the title and wikilink alone. But I agree that it does seem bare all by itself. Will cobble together a summary of the linked-to article and place it under the link, hopefully later today. Captmondo 12:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection request

Since there has been a huge amount of edit warring on this page (mostly by anonymous IP addresses), I am going to request a page protection for the page, so everyone can take a deep breath. Cheers Markh 10:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry of banned user

It's pretty apparent to me that the anons currently editing this page (with the exception of one, who I believe is Leoboudv when not signed in) are all one user, User:Ararat_arev, who has recieved a community ban for editing through anons while under a ban. The particulars of the POV he was pushing, which got reverted and which he reverted back in frequent violation of the 3rr, resulting in his ban, were all surrounding an attempt to push Armenian history further into the ancient era, by arguing that the Hurrians, Mitannians, and Hyksos were in fact Armenians. I think I've brought this up on other occasions when he edited here too. Examine and you'll see that he's edited under anons in the 216.175.xxx.xxx, the 76.232.xxx.xxx, and the 75.51.xxx.xx ranges before. So, we have three anons editing within Ararat's IP range and with his typical modus operandi (see edit summaries here: [1] and [2]). I think it's safe to assume that he's the source of all this editing. The page should be protected, in agreement with Markh, but we have what looks like a sockpuppet problem here too. Thanatosimii 20:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thana, first off you are the last person should be talking about "ancient" Armenian history and people. Second you have no interest, which you told me a while ago. So please dont start bringing up "outdated" info, you have a lot of catching up to do on your reading. New things are being discovered almost every month or year. New info is shedding light on people, of the past, not just Armenians, but other peoples too. 75.51.160.223 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

And he admits it. This is clearly the same user who was banned months ago. Armenian antiquity POV, same IP range, and he's the only other user that's ever called me just "thana." See his first word of new text here: [3] Can we get semiprotection and some sockpuppet bans? Thanatosimii 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see you ignoring me, thats ok. By the way who is Ararat arev? Dont you realize there is more than one person of a natioanlity on Wikipedia? You think everyone is that person? 75.51.160.223 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Same IP range, same pov, same style of language. You are the same person. I did indeed tell you that I had no interest. You admitted this. But I did it in a conversation with the user Ararat arev. That makes him you. Thanatosimii 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I dont know any Ararat arev, sorry you are confusing with someone else. But one thing, this IP range, (since I a networking engineer) is used a lot from people, since its a big service provider, from SBC Global, so perhaps this is why you confuse with users. 75.51.160.223 00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Being a network engineer does not make you remember elements of conversations I had with other users. Which is why I know you are no other at all. Thanatosimii 00:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Read careful what I wrote, I was simply stating network engineer, cause this IP range is used by a GLobal scale , and no other reason but that. 75.51.160.223 00:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

So sorry, Im not the person you are looking for. 75.51.160.223 00:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thanatosimi, Yes, you've convinced me our anonymous IPer is indeed Ararat arev. The "thana" reference is clear enough. I would never call you by that name since I know who you are. Leoboudv 02:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

AA has shown he is serious about wasting his time and ours. Anonymous AA-style edits should just be rolled back, and the IPs banned and articles semi-protected as needed. I do not intend to waste any more time debating with this character. dab (𒁳) 18:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amaleqs

(Arabic: عماليق‎, Amaleq)

Amaleq ancient Arab tribe lineage to Iram son of Shem son of Noah ,their language was not language of Quraysh which call to day 'the arabic language because like all arab tribes every tribe have their own language like Sabaean ,Minaean, Qatabanian, Hadhramautic, Mehri ...

they rule Egypt 108 years.

At that time Fifteenth Dynasty ruled over Egypt, whose rulers are known in history as the Hyksos kings. They belonged to the Arab race, but had migrated from Palestine and Syria to Egypt in or about 2000 B. C. and taken possession of the country. The Arab historians and the commentators of the Quran have given them the name of Amaliq (the Amalekites:عماليق), and this has been corroborated by the recent researches made by the Egyptologists. They were foreign invaders who had got the opportunity of establishing their kingdom because of the internal feuds in the country. We also learn from the history of Egypt that the "Hyksos kings" did not acknowledge the gods of Egypt and, therefore, had imported their own religion from Syria, with a view to spreading their own religion in Egypt. This is the reason why the Quran has not called the king who was the contemporary of Prophet Joseph by the title of "Pharaoh," because this title was associated with the religion of the original people of Egypt and the Amaleqs did not believe in it, but the Bible erroneously calls him "Pharaoh". It appears that the editors of the Bible had the misunderstanding that all the kings of Egypt were "Pharaohs." Egyptians called these kings "shepherd kings," translated in Egyptian as "hega-khase". Greek authors later rendered this as "Hyksos,"

[edit] The Amorites: Hejaz to the Levant 2500BC-1200BC

Tracing the Amorites migration from Hejaz to the Levant.

The West Arabian Amorites sprung out Arabia in waves of tribal federations roaming the desert/semidesert region between the Euphrates in the west and the Mediterrianean sea in the East. They were restricted from Mesopotamia by their Eastern Arabian kinsmen, the Akkadians. The Amorites of the Nroth will settle the highlands and later fall under Hittie influence, after the fall of the Hittites they will emerge as the highlanders (Armeans). The Amorites of Western Canaan will establish the coastal Canaanite towns that will later evolve into Phoenicia and Philistia. The third group of the Amorites were the East Cannanites (lowlanders) concentrated along the Euphrates, mainly following the water and pasture in the midwest Euphrates region. The Meso-Akkadians regarded the Amorites as an uncivilized unproductive group because they didn't have a harvest they can loot or a town to sack to supply their growing empire. To them the Amorites were troublesome Nomadic shepherds a people with no submission and no house in a lifetime! The Amorites viewed the Akkadians as the oppressive imperial power that controlled their only source for survival; the Euphrates water and the needed pasture for their livestock. This Mesopotamian animosity between the Akkadians and Amorites will give birth to the Zodiac as we know it. THe Amorites marked their age with the fall of the Akkadian empire 2160BC (the Akkadian Bull) and the start of the Shepherds age (The Ram). At this point The Zodiac was still two ages and will later become divided into 12 astrological ages once the Amorites enter Babylon. By the 20th Century BC the Amoires were already established in mid-Mesopotamia and started sacking the Neo-Sumerian towns; eventually conquering Babylon, making it their capital in 1959BC. UR survived another 9 years, until it was taken by the Elamites. The Amorites established their authority as he absolute Arabian/Semitic dynasty by crushing the Elamites, starting the Old Babylonian Kingdom. Hammurabi receiving he laws from the sun god. With the death of Hammurabi The Kingdom disintegrated into smaller city states ruled by weak kings. Babylon proper survived for another 100 years. In 1659BC the technologically advanced Hitties conquered Babylon. 1659BC - 1648BC: After the fall of Babylon, the Amorite dialect disappeared from Babylon and was replaced by an Assyro-Akkadian dialect interrupting the gap between Old and Neo-Babylonian and clearly shows that the East-Canaanites disappeared from Mesopotamia. 1649BC: The Amorites conquered Egypt, starting the 15th dynasty. The Amorites will control Egypt for 108 years as the elite class in Egypt. The Amorite Hyksos ruled Egypt for 108 years. However, the Egyptian-born Amorites lacked what their Nomadic ancestors had three generations earlier. By the 1540s BC the East Canaanite Amorites (Hyksos) lost control of Egypt and sensed the danger of remaining in Egypt after the atrocities the first generation commited in Egypt, so they escaped to Sinai fleeing the angry Egyptians. The Hykso escape from Egypt is very similar to the later Judean biblical folkore (the Exodus). In Against Apion, the 1st century historian Josephus simply equates the ProtoHebrews with the Hyksos. In the three centuries between the Exodus and the appearance of the Hebrews. The Egyptians documented raids by Semitic tribes into Canaan. The Egyptians knew them as the HABIRU this group included the remains of the Hyksos and the Pre-Hyksos East Canaanites who remained in Souther Canaan. The Egyptian and Hittite Imperial powers will clash in Kadesh 1274BC The treaty of Kadesh was the beginning of the end of the Imperial influence in Canaan. The power vacuum of the 1200s in Canaan allowed the Phoenician and Philistinian Arabian/Semitic cultures to flourish on their own. Taking advantage of the Egyptian absence, the Hebrews moved into Central Canaan pushing into the Egyptian protected Philistia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDfG4Hz8QI0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.242.113 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)