These Hyksos in lower egypt eventually suffered huge damages because of the Thera eruption (loss of ports, loss of trade routes over sea) and became weakened and left back to their ancestral homeland in Canaan after being unable to defend their area against the Theban kings. This story was told over and over again until it entered into their religious texts and became known as the exodus.
Yes. Hyksos are the Israelites. The eruption of Santorini is what caused the Tsunami (parting of the Reed sea) it's all there, they just tell the story in the bible with added nonsense
Funny how they always pick and choose what they want to accept or reject from Ancient Egypt writings. The Hyksos were outsiders who did not own any claim to Egypt. The Hyksos rule was doomed from the beginning.
Nice video. Learned a lot. But why do archaeologist think they will find a destruction level of a Hyksos invasion. Manetho says the Hyksos invaded "without striking a blow" so what archaeological evidence would you find of an invasion without any real war. Also the early levels in Stratum F in Avaris show burials of Asiatic warriors with servant burials attached to them. Does that not show some type of invasion by warriors?
Maneto is a very late source to be historical. All the studies i have seen so far point to a very diverse group of peoples from inside Egypt. So the story of the invasion is a bit dubious.
Israel? What do you mean by that. You are saying that repeatedly... Excluding Judah? The modern post ww 2 Jewish colony? Or is it ancient Canaan what you meant?
No, the Hyksos were NOT the Israelites. I thought so myself because Josephus knows what he's talking about 99% of the time, but in this case, Manthon got it wrong and confused him, cuz the meaning in Egyptian was not Shepherd kings, it was rulers from foreign lands, and also he didn't get the timeline back then, and now we know it doesn't fit. Hyksos were Canaanites, probably the Jebusites, Perizzites and the Sinites dwelling in the Sinai desert that migrated to Egypt. The Pharaoh meeting with Abraham in Genesis was from Hyksos dynasty.
So you only believe accounts of history that you like lol? The DNA studies are correcting most of the misunderstandings around ancient North Africa. It is about time we started to accept the fact that the Ancient North Africans were a separate genetic group to anything south of the Sahara and anything north of Levant.
@@davidgreen6490 No, I used to think he was right first, but after researching the data it was proved impossible!)) No, actually the genetic data only proves that 90% of Africa, including North Africa is indigenous to Africa - E1b haplogroups are Hamitic = African, and the Canaanites were of the African race, only settled in the Levant among the Semites, therefore were only linguistically Semitic, not genetically, as other Afro-Asiatics
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy All humans are indigenous to Africa. The back migrations into Africa since then started atound 40,000 years ago and affect all north African populations as far down as Sudan.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxy Secondly there is non African admixture as far south as Cameroon. Not everyone who is indigenous African has the usual black phenotype. If you are from West Africa then ancient Egypt has nothing to do with you.
There was not Israel in that time , Canaanites we can say correctly and they were enemies with Israelites, people might understand you wrongly. As well as scholars don’t use Israel, they use Levantine lands. Thanks
I have run across several British Egyptian RU-vid Channels which are amateurish, shallow and error prone. Thank you and Cy for getting down to the truth, even bringing us quotes, which bring history to life.
The last 14the dynasty king is called yakubhar which is similar to yakub or Jacob and at the end of the 14th dynasty there was a major drought and famine. It’s too much to be a coincidence
I have mixed feelings about this presentation, so I will not be voting either way on the video. The idea of cultural blending is not lost on anyone whose seen any documentary on ancient Egypt's history of their military technology. I didn't have to learn that in college, I learned it as a child watching television. Not a good source, admittedly, but my point is that as far as I've seen the Hyksos/South-west Asiatics have always been credited for enhancing the technology of ancient Egyptians. I agree, ignoring cultural blending is folly and many of the books I've read on this subject do talk about it, yet you talk about it as though it's a new thought. There is obvious complexity to a situation such as this. Perhaps you were just ensuring your students were enlightened to this just in case some were not? Also, quoting Hawass is not a representation of all Egyptologists or even most Egyptologists. I felt quoting him ingrained an idea that his thoughts deeply affect Egyptian studies beyond mainstream media. Many experts in the field have negative views on his depiction of things but give him respect because he has still made contributions worthy of that respect. Again, I assume you did this to enlighten any students that may have a wrong perception. Also, highlighting the Hyksos cultural contribution does not mean they were the "good guys", which is the seeming connotation of your presentation. Their contribution was certainly positive and I would never argue that, nor would any good Egyptologist. We simply don't have enough archaeological source material to clearly see what precisely determined the cause and effect that led to the Theban monarchy's decision to take back Lower Egypt. Often in history, there are no clear-cut "good guys" or "bad guys". Politics is rarely that simple. It seems you want to dismantle some ideas that float around which break away from the study of history through an objective lens. I liked that and applaud you for it. However, the general connotation of your presentation seemed to be the switching of roles on who the villains were rather than breaking away from these ideas that do not support the scrutiny of history from a properly objective lens. One thing you never pointed out was the strongly religious importance of a unified Upper and Lower Egypt under one king. Yes, the Theban monarchy re-unified Egypt after the first-intermediate period, but the unification of Egypt that started in pre-dynastic times set the stage for the deeply religious importance, and as such the deep cultural importance, of a unified Egypt. It goes back further than the first-intermediate period. You talk about the bringing back of foreigners after a war to work as soldiers or as craftsmen without adding that this practice was started by Tuthmosis III or his reasons for starting that practice which is a very important context. Without this context, it leaves the listeners to reach their own conclusions which could be very incorrect assumptions on these practices and can lead to the spread of misinformation due to the listeners' assumptions. You mention slavery without describing what that looked like. Many people I've encountered don't realize Egypt did not have a system of printed/stamped money and most see slavery as work that has not been paid in money. Egyptian workers weren't paid in money, as it did not exist in that period, but in goods and resources which adds a level of complexity to the discussion of slavery in ancient Egypt. Of course, this video seems to be for students who may or may not have learned this information, which makes your presentation perfectly fine and commendable in that setting. For a youtube video, however, it is messy and improper since a great many people haven't studied ancient Egypt in-depth and are often without that information. In short, it was a great college presentation, but a terrible youtube video for the reasons I expressed above.
To be fair, her platform was limited (and perhaps her time, given her comment about running long at one point), so she may have discussed these points you've brought up if given the opportunity. She may have had to simplify this presentation for the above reasons and while your commentary is constructive, it's also unfair.
How could the Hyksos enhance Egyptian technology when they didn't come from a place that was "enhanced"? You do not come to a land to build pyramids if you didn't know how to build them at home.
Thank you for these comments. There is a lot of "now the other side should be considered the good side" going on and is just waiting for scholarship in 20 - 30 years to come along and reverse the prejudice and assumption of the current age, only to be "corrected" again in some decades - so it goes. I guess not only history repeats itself but the telling of history. I'm always reminded of the 1936 version of Goodbye Mr. Chips and how the pronunciation of Cicero changed back and forth over the years. It's like we got to the point to more fully realize that "the victors write history" and this skewing of perspective has to be taken into account only to jump to assuming the other history should be considered the more true and pure rather than another perspective that should be considered and considered skeptically as well. A soft advocating for one side under the guise of a more neutral meta view. Considering we live in a time when there is a concerted effort by a decent sized group of people to convince the public that a certain murderous tyrant from the middle of the last century hasn't been fully appreciated for his "good traits" this form of muddling history with desired interpretation seems particularly pernicious. And any stories, and they are stories, about how that skull wound was received by what or by whom or under what intent is just bone-headed.
Multi cultureism is always the down fall of a civilization...the Hyksos are still doing it today.. caninites Hebrews isrealites are the same Jews..the destroyers of civilization...
Don't think the pronunciation of Cicero changed. Rather its a preference using the Latin rather than the anglicized pronunciation. Romans pronounced "C" as "K". There's no inscribed "K" in any Latin text I'm aware of. And "Caesar" is actually pronounced "Kaiser" in Latin and also in modern German fie ruler.
From my personal long research I found that the Hyksos are alliance between Turkic Mongolian Akkadians who were expelled from Sumer in 2154 bc together with Amorites who invaded Kmt and caused the First Dark Period 2181-2055 BC, before being expelled by the 11th Dynasty Kerma and Kush are two totally different and opposing categories the first is for indigenous civilization while Kush is colony crafted by Hyksos stranded in Libya with Berber and West African slaves and mercenaries appeared in 1500 bc and caused the collapse of Kerma in 1000 bc following the collapse of the Modern Kingdom of Kmt in 1070 BC. The mixed bandits called themselves Kush in 780 BC and a kingdom replacing the destroyed kingdoms of the people of Kerma civilization.
Sometimes someone has to free slaves from the capitalist, matriarchal slavery of the pharaohs and their middle class, that's what patriarchal nomads do every now and then, calm down
(26 September 2023, Tuesday, 04:10 p.m. EST) I am persuaded that Professor Donald B. Redford (an Egyptologist) is correct, hidden behind the Bible's fictional Exodus, is a real Exodus, as preserved in ancient Egyptian annals: The Expulsion of the Hyksos, circa 1530 BC, by Pharaoh Ahmose I, founder of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. Redford (1992:412-413): "Despite the lateness and unreliability of the story in Exodus, no one can deny that the tradition of Israel's coming out of Egypt was one of long standing...There is only one chain of historical events that can accommodate this late tradition, and that is the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt...The memory of this major event in the history of the Levant survived not only in Egyptian sources. It would be strange indeed if the West Semitic speaking population of Palestine, whence the invaders had come in MB IIB, had not also preserved in their folk memory this great moment of (for them) glory. And in fact it is in the Exodus account that we are confronted with the "Canaanite" version of this event...In sum, therefore, we may state that the memory of the Hyksos expulsion did indeed live on in the folklore of the Canaanite population of the southern Levant. The exact details were understandably blurred and subconsciously modified over time, for the purpose of "face-saving." Their departure came not as a result of ignominious defeat, but...as salvation from bondage." (cf. pp. 412-413. Donald B. Redford. 1992. _Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times._ Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey) I note a series of amazing parallels between events preserved in ancient Egyptian records and the biblical Exodus: (1) Ahmose I expels the Hyksos from their capital of Avaris, allowing them to return to Canaan, overland, via the Way of Horus, to Gaza. (1a) Pharaoh expels the Hebrews from Ramesses, formerly called Avaris. (2) After leaving Egypt, Ahmose pursues after the Hyksos. (2a) After leaving Egypt, Pharaoh pursues after the Hebrews. (3) At a place called Sharuhen, in south coastal Canaan, Ahmose I engages in BATTLE, the Hyksos. (3a) After leaving Egypt, a BATTLE takes place between Pharaoh and the Hebrew slaves at the Reed Sea, after which Israel is in the wilderness of Shur. For me, there are simply too many parallels between these two Expulsion accounts, Egyptian and the Torah. Some scholars have denied any relationship between the Bible's Exodus and the Hyksos Expulsion. Why? They claim a non match up of dates: The Bible's Exodus is circa 1446 BC, based on 1 Kings 6:1 and its 480 years elapsing between the Exodus and Solomon's Temple, which does not align with a 1530 BC Hyksos Expulsion! However, two devout Christian Apologists, who happen to be Egyptologists, Professors James K. Hoffmeier and Kenneth A. Kitchen, working independently of each other, noted that after toting up all the years between Joshua, Judges, Saul, David and Solomon, 600+ years elapsed not 480 years. These 600+ years align the Exodus of the Bible with Hyksos Era Egypt! Yet, after this astounding finding (Exodus aligning with a Hyksos World), both Christian Apologists dismiss their findings and opt for a ca. 1260 BC Exodus on the basis of the capital city of Pi-Ramesses of Ramesses II being the city Moses' Hebrews departed from, a store city built by Hebrew slaves. Where does this leave the scholarly claim Exodus best fits the hundreds of Iron Age I settlements (ca. 1200-1100 BC) suddenly appearing out of nowhere on both sides of the Jordan river? Here, I agree with the archaeologists, Iron Age I does indeed "somewhat" reflect the conquest and settlement of Moab and Canaan by Moses and Joshua! So, It is my understanding that the Bible has confounded two historical events, separated in time by 300 years, the 1530 BC Hyksos Expulsion with the ca. 1200-1100 BC Iron Age I settlements as being one event, dated ca. 1446 BC based on 1 Kings 6:1. For me the Iron Age I settlers are not coming from Egypt, not fleeing lowland Canaan for high land Canaan, they are Syrians (Arameans) from northern Syria (Abraham is of Harran in northern Syria). To prove this clays in cooking pots need to compared with clays in Syrian cooking pots, if a match up, then the Iron Age I settlers are invaders from northern Syria. All this, of course, if true, means Exodus as presented in the Bible is fiction. A fiction preserving real events, or so-called kernels of historicity.
Let's see, Egypt has a history of distorting factual events to favor themselves and are known to change their past and even their leaders images and inscriptions, yet you believe their "facts?"
I ask all those who are interested in ancient history and politics to start group work centered on 3 specific topics. 1. The Turkic Mongolian origin of the Akkadians 2. The Akkadian Amorite origin of the Hyksos 3. The off shoots of the expelled Hyksos since 1523 bc. I consider the 4 off shoots of the Hyksos are 1. the Hebrews, 2. The Mitanni, 3. The Kassites, and 4. The Mukarribs. These groups turned to Jews, Kurds, Babylonians and Sabaeans after the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BC Another fourth topic of extreme importance the disguised and devastating alliance between Thutmose III and the Hyksos off shoots, which characterized the rest of the second half of the 18th dynasty until general Horemheb ended that dynasty
The mercenary soldier shown in the battle of Kadesh (1274 BC) scene is not asiatic, he has the typic helmet of the Sherden (Sardinian??) sea people. Which not only is shown with the typical corned helmet but also shave, not with a bushy beard of the asiatics.
I completely disagree to call them "Israelis". Despite their close link to the future population on the Israel area, this population at that time still cannot to be called Israelis and less Hebrew.
Each Nome had its own local deity, so its not surprising that rulers would promote their local deity to expand their political agendas. Seqenenre was from Waset (Thebes), were Amun was the local God. In the Old Kingdom, Memphis was the first capital of a united Egypt, the local deity was Ptah, a creator God. According to Memphis theology, Ptah created all the other gods. Heliopolis and Hermopolis had competing creation myths. As for the Hyksos, I'd expect that they brought their tribal deities like Baal (identified as Set by the Egyptians) and Anat with them. The connection is that both were associated with the destructive powers of storms. But this doesn't mean the Hyksos worshipped Set, nor the Egyptians prayed to Baal. People are very conservative when it comes to religion as these myths explain their origins and culture. As for the romping hippos, the meaning is very clear, there's no room for two competing regimes sharing the same river.
There was no Israel at the time it was Canaan, and this s the case eve according to the Torah As a scholar you should be precise and not try and sell politics Besides it seems that you are attempting to indicate that the Hyksos were Jewish which is not the case specialy when you have indicated that they are of mixed back grounds Again I would recommend that as scholar who obviously worked very hard, you need to remain precise and objective
When WOKE meets history, misleading nonsense will always result. Whatever talents you may possess, are sadly being misused in service of your warped ideology. If you can't recognize your personal biases in your crypto-pseudo-historic analysis, you are well, & truly blind to your misdeeds. Refering to Hyksos invaders, ruling despotically over native Egyptians, against their will, as welcome immigrants is discrediting beyond belief. KOut
Great talk. Just the anachronism of referring to “Israel” in the 18-14th centuries BCE is a grating anachronism. Being out by almost 1000 years ie 9th century BCE. Canaan or just sticking to Southern Levant makes sense.
Brad Meltz did this documentary and I think he was saying that the Hyksos were the ancient Israelites? Or maybe they were called the Habiru? I can't remember but he showed in a temple in Egypt writing in stone that were written by a slave in 1500 bc and it said EL save me in Hebrew. I saw it with my own eyes. I can read and write Hebrew and understand enough read it myself. So idk. But the bible does show how Cain, with the "Cannanites" think I spelled that wrong, but My family is Yemenite Hebrew and I remember my father saying that it was not only Hebrews that were freed but it was also non Hebrews as well and some went to Greece and wrote down obout the Exodus. Whoever didn't follow Moses I guess went their own way. I noticed in history, historians always try to denounce any biblical events. But everyone is Christian and Muslim? Doesn't make sense.
I think they read too much into the wound being consistent with an Egyptian axe. They could have just killed him with his own axe as an insult. I mean seriously, Apepi was making hippo jokes at the guy. I think we can agree he liked being a bit of an arse.
خيانة تحتمس الثالث وابنه واحفاده وتحالفهم مع هكسوس اعداء كمت والمنطقة جليوخيبا أو جيلوخيبا أو كليوهيبا باللغة الحورية أو كيرجيبا باللغة المصرية، هي ابنة شوتارنا الثاني، ملك ميتاني، وشقيقة توشراتا (ملك ميتاني) وبيرياوازا وأرتاشومارا. لأسباب سياسية أُرسلت جليوخيبا إلى مصر لتتزوج من الملك أمنحتب الثالث، وأصدر الملك المصري عددا خاصا من الجعارين التذكارية بمناسبة زواجه من جليوخيبا في العام العاشر من عهده، حيث سجل أن الأميرة كانت مصحوبة بـ 317 غادة حسناء من غواني القصر الملكي الميتاني. وأصبحت جليوخيبا تعرف بلقب "زوجة الملك الثانوية"، بمعنى أنها كانت في مرتبة ثانية نسبة للزوجة الملكية العظيمة تيي ، الزوجة الرئيسية للملك أمنحتب الثالث، ولم تحمل قط لقب الملكة لأنها أجنبية، وقد ذكر أمنحتب على الجعران اسم زوجته الرئيسية الملكة تيي وأسماء والديها كذلك أصبحت ابنة أخيها تدوخيبا زوجة لأمنحتب كذلك لكنه توفي بعد وقت قصير من وصولها لمصر. تدوخيبا، هي ابنة توشراتا ملك ميتاني (حكم في 1382 ق.م - 1342 ق.م) وزوجته يوني، وابنة أخي أرتاشومارا الذي ادّعى الحق في عرش مملكة ميتاني وقتل وخلفه على العرش أبوها، وقد تزوجت عمتها المسماة جليوخيبا (شقيقة توشراتا) الملك أمنحتب الثالث في السنة العاشرة من عهده، وكان على تدوخيبا أن تتزوج هي الأخرى نفس الملك بعد أكثر من عقدين من الزمن. النصف الثاني من الأسرة ١٨ كان حليف وشريك للعصابات التي نتجت من الهكسوس المطرودين وعملوا معا ضد شعب كمت وكل شعوب المنطقة في سومر وايبلا واوغاريت والعرب وبونت وكرمة وليبيا لا احد في مصر يعرف ان تحتمس الثالث وأمنحتب الثاني وتحتمس الرابع وأمنحتب الثالث وأمنحتب الرابع/إخناتون كانوا عملاء ويجب اتهامهم بالخيانة العظمي. بل المؤسف أنهم يعتبرون وطنيون وعظماء كما يريد الهكسوس ان يخدع كمت والعالم. قائد الجيش حور محب هو من خلص كمت من تلك الاسرة الخائنة يعتبر علماء المصريات أن والد تيا، يويا، كان من أصل أجنبي بسبب ملامح موميائه ووجود العديد من الطرق المختلفة لكتابة اسمه، مما قد يعني أنه كان في الأصل اسماً غير مصري. والارجح ان تيا واسرتها من الكوشيين تخيلوا بنت ملك الميتاني اسمها جليوخيبا وهم من الهكسوس الذين طردهم الملك احمس الاول واسرته والنصف الاول للأسرة 18 تدخل قصر حكم كمت وتكون زوجة الملك وتحضر معها 317 عاهرة !!!!!!!! حاجة تجنن. تحتمس الثالث وأمنحتب الثاني وتحتمس الرابع وأمنحتب الثالث وأمنحتب الرابع/إخناتون كانوا عملاء وخونة ولا يستحقوا ان يكونوا مصريين wp.me/p1TBMj-1oT
@@kamj1969 What is prevalent about Thutmose III and Amenhotep III and those who followed them from the second half of Dynasty 18 is not true at all. Because the second half, with the exception of Horemheb, reversed the national policies of the first half of the 18th Dynasty, which continued until the reign of Queen Hatshepsut. The second half of the 18th family allowed corruption, disintegration, moral decay, and foreign workers in the entourage of the palace and government. They were supporters of the expelled Hyksos gangs, the Hebrews, the Kassites, the Mitanni and the Makarib in their attacks on the peoples of Sumer, Ebla, Ugarit and the Arabs. Forging the history of Kumt and embellishing the actions and reputation of Thutmose III and Amenhotep III and those who followed them in the second half of the 18th Dynasty, from whom Kumt was liberated by the commander, General King Horemheb. The family of King Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Hatshepsut and Horemheb are the only true national heroes of the 18th dynasty.
I also want to add that stratum F in Avaris which was a stratified society and very Asiatic as opposed to the earlier stratum G1 which was much more egyptianized and more egalitarian. This is according to Bietak who excavated there. So does that show that the newcomers were different from the population who had earlier lived there. Even if both were Asiatics. again implying some type of invasion from Canaan in stratum F1.
depending on what is bad or good for you, if it is good for you when you have a free market, usury, capitalism, liberalism and strict factory slavery with a strict pyramidal system from top to bottom in your country, then for you the Hyksos will be the bad guys, the Hyksos are the steppe( desert) freedom, where there is no pyromidal system, where there is no middle and upper class who live off “factory slaves”, with the Hyksos everything is simple, they are a people of nomadic warriors and shepherds.
I dont think there was so much of a war. It was unlivable near the coast pga thera vulcano. The hyksos went home. Not a stupid thing to do. around 1570-80
I know people who visit the museums in Egypt and told me that the mummies were pure African people the art and statues and writing language is of pure African people I look online and noticed that the mummies were pure African people not Egyptian and Mediterranean dark 🌑 skin bs 💯 true facts
Why you keep relating foreign traits to "Israel" when Israel wasn't even yet created. The term to relate the Levant traits are those of Canaan. Donkeys shown in the burial might have been Onegers which are the most horse like donkeys and were use to pull war chariots, therefore the importance of them buried with the important person.
You are conflating Asiatic with Semites. They are genetically dissimilar, Asiatics have a paternal Haplotype of R1b1, the Semites are J2's. The Hyxsos are depicted with almond eyes, and frizzy hair, Semites look similar, but have origins in Anatolia, and not the Russian steeps. Today we see R1b1's associated with Blond/ red/ hair Europeans, but that is after years of intermixing with Western Hunter Gatherer Women. People change over time, we look at the people we see now, and don't take into account, some people dominated and then got dominated. The Middle East is in constant flux. The Egyptians never called them Semites, they called them Asiatics. Take everything Zawi Hawass says with a grain of natron.
r1b1 has nothing to do with the east, r1b1 is a 100% haplogroup of the Egyptians, Romans and today's western Europeans. Egyptian pharaohs are very similar in genetics to the Romans and later to Western Europeans, the pyramidal hierarchy is very present in all r1b1 populations, Urban planning, capitalism, the pronounced separation between high, middle and lower classes is always firmly implemented in r1b1 cultures, this is a purely western phenomenon.
Why don't she study the TAMAHOOS lol they love to study us but why don't they study about the TAMAHOOS lol lol o yea cu that story is not what they want you to know
Great lecture. The application of modern sociological and political analytical theories to ancient history and archaeology does seem to produce revealing insights, or at least interesting alternative interpretations and hypotheses. The processes of migration and integration in the ancient world may well teach us a lot about today's world, when mass migration is quickly becoming a big factor in current history. The description of Hyksos influence on Egypt is fascinating. On a different tack, a wild hypothesis has been proposed by the religiously-motivated Gérard Gertoux, who argues for the identification of Apepi with Moses, and therefore Kamose or Ahmose as the Pharoah of the Exodus. This work did not meet with the approval of Gertoux's doctoral committee ...
An interesting talk... however, you appear to sprinkle your presentation with comments that would appear to infer that a people of Hebrew Jewish origin existed at the time you are describing, when we know that such a group did not exist until much later in history.
If you are referring to the collective understanding that the Israelites were there around Ramses the Great, that is all based on one sentence in the bible where it is described that they built in the cities of Pithom and Ramases. Two sentences later it is stressed that the area was referred to as Goshen. The Ramases reference is used to prove the Bible was written by multiple authors, that section being written centuries later by Jews referring to what the area was known as at that time. A character like Joseph (have a quick scan through his story) could very well have entered into the high society of Hyksos Egypt. There are references in the penultimate chapter of Genesis telling how Joseph, in the name of the Pharaoh, essentially taxes the lands during the 7 year famine. It goes into surprising detail describing how he went about taking ownership of all economy, property and people into the hands of the Pharaoh. That point as well gives more than a hint of similarity to the stories told by Seqenenre-Ahmose about being oppressed and taxed by the Hyksos kings.
She referred to Israel only in a territorial sense, never to Hebrews or Jews. The great migrations indeed occurred much later with the fall of the Bronze Age network in the reign of Ramses III, and then there is attestation to tribes identifiable as Philistines and Hebrews.
@@awuma in egyptology and assyriology they agreed they would never change the term of palestine after 1948 in their studies she chosen that word in purpose because she herself is pro Zionism
Did she say hotep was a hick fuckin funny white people do all they can to have a history notice when Egypt was so called black we wrote on walls n shii like that n when everyone else who came in always tried to write they way into history only proving what what is there history ??? They only tell u ur history with there face over it but never there true beginnings
That Mushroom haircut youre referring to is the Afro of the Black man of the Americas... cuz it all ocurred in South America and it was the line of Shem, Abraham Isaac and Jacob... No wonder the dates are never agreed upon...the facts of them being my ancestors is the reason.... peep the Jesus Afro
