Monday, August 31, 2009


 HYK-Retreat direction.

The direction of retreat is not evidence of the point of origin.


Ahmose drove the Hyksos as far as Sharuhen, which, being at the
southernmost tip of Canaan

The hieroglyph use in the stela for 'Hyksos' is different than the hieroglyph used by Hatshepsut.

The hieroglyph used by Hatshepsut is different than the hieroglyph in Kamose

... There are about a half dozen ancient text said to be speaking about the same population of people and yet NONE of them use the same hieroglyphic words for 'Hyksos' or "Asiatic"

The words used by these Egyptian authors are as different as our English words, Chinese, Mexican, German, Eskimo or Africa ... and yet in all references to any enemy with different hieroglyphic spellings, the experts tell us :

The different hieroglyphic words all mean Asiatic.

The different hieroglyphic words all mean Hyksos?

In our language when we read accounts of encounters with Mexicans, British, Germans, Spaniards.. different words indicate different populations.

How do the experts determine the Egyptians were using all the different spellings to identify the same populations?


Ahmose drove the Hyksos as far as Sharuhen, which, being at the
southernmost tip of Canaan

Ahmose drove an unidentified group as far as Sharuhen, which, being at the
southernmost tip of Canaan

The lines drawn on the modern map of what is now called Israel, is not the borders of ancient Egypt (which reached into what is now called Israel)

The Sharuhen of many Egyptian maps are on the Sinai peninsula, but the Sharuhen on my Deluxe map maker with all references shows the Sharuhen of Egypt to be located about 100 miles south of Cairo, on the Nile river. (maybe the experts identified the place with the wrong Egyptian city)

Ok according to the Ahmose, the unidentified group was driven to one of these white dots.


* Being driven in a specific direction does not mean that is where a military group came from. Any one who has read about any battles, can see which direction the retreat was. When one side decides they must retreat, they move in the direction that would get them out of harm's way.

If this an unidentified group was forced to retreat because they were in a losing battle, they could not retreat by going toward the Egyptians.


Not just the Canaanites, but all the empires/tribes from Syria, Mesopotamia, Saudi Arabia, Hittites... Any army/traders from the north or east of Egypt would have came through the Sinai peninsula (where Ahmoses was said to have driven this unidentified group.

The direction any army retreats to, does NOT identify where they originally came from.

To speculate this unidentified group came from Canaan based on them being driven to Sharuhen, is quite the froggy leap.

Sharuhen would be the gate way to all empires north and east of Egypt










Can "aAmw" be the same as "Hyksos"? In the tomb inscription of the nomarch, Khnumhotep, there are the foreign people are styled "aAmw" and are shown wearing their "coats of many colors". Their leader is called "Abisha", a Semitic name.


#1 Is the hieroglyph in the upper left of this image, the word you call "aAmw"?

#2 I was told the word meant foreign rulers. When I asked how they could all be rulers, this particular person changed their translation to foreign ruler and it being a reference to one particular person in the image.

#3 Show which hieroglyph is translated to Abisha?

#4 The party doing the writing were Egyptians (not any outsiders).

NO one has a clue of the multitude of names Egyptians had.

Using the definition of the word Semite to mean one who spoke one of the middle east languages, it would not identify any population but it would be a set that would include All who spoke a middle east language.

There is no such thing as a Semitic name, unless such names are recorded in other lands and are a match.

It was not any foreigners depicted in the image who gave their name.

Any name given was given by Egyptians and what Egyptians decided to call them.

Names given were words that usually had some kind of given meaning.

#5 These were Egyptian (not Semitic) names.

As for the coats of many colors, there are more myths connected to this image.

Myth = information spread with no evidence to verify it. It is the stuff much of Egyptology is made of.

One such story is the image with the different color coats did not exist at the beginning of the 1900s. "The striped clothing" was added after 1900"

The only way to verify such a myth would be to find a photograph of the image before 1900 or have scientist examine the paint.

The point here is not, if the image has been altered or not, but it is the question, are people willing to accept myths only when it fits their agenda?


What is the reason to point out "the coats of many colors"?

Genesis 37:3  Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colors.

The reason to inject the information about the many color coats is an attempt to tie these people in with the Israelites in a bible account. These embellishers leave out the part that not all had such coats, but this was exclusive to one specific person, and in fact when his brothers saw Joseph's exclusive coat ... Genesis 37:4  And when his brethren saw that their father loved him more than all his brethren, they hated him, and could not speak peaceably unto him.

#6 If this hieroglyph means foreign ruler, note they were called foreign rulers when they were only 'immigrants'

#7  This translation is supposed to mean foreign ruler? If this image is supposed to be that of the Israelites migrating to Egypt, they were a family of less than 80 people in the land of the Canaanites... less than 20 male adults who ruled the Canaanites?

#8  We are also told this is an image of the Israelites immigrating from Canaan. The theme of the surrounding images are that of herders/farmers. What part of the hieroglyph states these people were migrating from Canaan?

It appears that some 'researchers' neglect to look at all the images around this one particular segment. No stripped coats, but all dealing with animals/livestock... and for some reason the translations of the surrounding hieroglyphs are ignored ?

If the images do not appear here you might need to go to the album




Friday, August 28, 2009



Rulers / Egyptians who lived during the 'Hyksos' Period

Pylons / Papyrus / Stela / Wall text said to mention the 'Hyksos'

Because of the multiple spellings of the same people, I am not sure what may be a repeat.

If you find any thing out of sequence or missing, let me know.


* All the events that took place with the 'Hyksos' is said to happened between the 12th and 18th Dynasties, so I started at 11 through 18.


* Next is the supposed text written on a papyrus, 300 years after the 'Hyksos' were expelled.


* Finally is the mythical works of Joseph/Manetho that has never existed.

Pink = text that is attributed to Hyksos



DYNASTY 11 -0100 Inyotef I / Sehertawy - KING 1- 2074-2064 B.C.

DYNASTY 11 -0200 Inyotef II / Wahankh - KING 2 - 2064-2015 B.C.

DYNASTY 11 -0300 Inyotef III / Nakhtnebtepnefer - KING 3 -2015-2007 B.C.

DYNASTY 11 -0400 Montuhotep II / Nebheptre - KING 4 - 2007-1956 B.C.

DYNASTY 11 -0500 Montuhotep III / Sankhkare KING 5 - 1956-1944 B.C.

DYNASTY 11 -0600 Montuhotep IV / Nebtawyre - KING 6 - 1944-1937 B.C.

DYNASTY 12    =============================

DYNASTY 12 -0000 Khnumhotep Nobelman tomb??? in what time slot does this go.. 'Hyksos on the wall.. foreign ruler'

DYNASTY 12 -0100 Sehetepibre - KING 1 - 1937-1908 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0200 Kheperkare - KING 2 - 1917-1872 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0300 Senwosret - KING 2 - 1875-1840 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0400 Amenemhet II / Nubkaure - KING 2/3 - 1875-1840 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0500 Senwosret II / Khakheperre - KING 4 - 1842-1836 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0600 Khakaure - KING 5 - 1836-1817 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0700 Amenemhet III/Nimaatre KING 6 - 1817-1772 B.C.

DYNASTY 12 -0800 Neferusobek/Sobekkare - eighth queen - 1763-1759 B.C.

DYNASTY 13    =============================

DYNASTY 13 -0100 Neferhotep I - 22 KING - 1696-1686 B.C.

DYNASTY 13 -0200 Ay - KING 27 - 1664-1641 B.C.

DYNASTY 14    =============================

DYNASTY 14 -0100 ????

DYNASTY 15    =============================

DYNASTY 15 -0100 Salitis ruler {Hyksos}

DYNASTY 15 -0200 Apepy I {Hyksos}

DYNASTY 15 -0300 Aper/Anati {Hyksos}

DYNASTY 15 -0400 Samuqenu {Hyksos}

DYNASTY 15 -0500 Apachnan/Khian - Ruler 3 {Hyksos}

DYNASTY 15 -0600 Khamudi/Khamudy - last Ruler {Hyksos}

DYNASTY 16    =============================

DYNASTY 16 -0100 ???

DYNASTY 17   =============================

DYNASTY 17 -0100 Taa II/Djehutio/Sekenenre - KING 14

DYNASTY 17 -0200 Kamose/Wadjkheperre - KING 15


DYNASTY 17 -0210 Kamose - His majesty spoke in his palace to the council of nobles - Stela 2

DYNASTY 18    =============================

DYNASTY 18 -0100 Ahmose KING 1 (Son of Taa)

DYNASTY 18 -0200 Amenhotep I/Djeserkare - KING 2 -1514-1493 B.C.

DYNASTY 18 -0205 Military Ahmose, Son of Abana,  my father being a soldier of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Sekenenre, Looks like the military Ahmoses' father served under Sekenekre?

DYNASTY 18 -0210 Military Ahmose, Son of Abana - "I conveyed King Djeserkare, the justified" Looks like the military Ahmose was around after the king Ahmose?

DYNASTY 18 -0300 Thutmose I/Akheperkare - KING 3 - 1493-1481 B.C.

DYNASTY 18 -0400 Thutmose II

DYNASTY 18 -0500 Maatkare - KING? - 1473-1458 B.C.

DYNASTY 18 -0600 Hatshepsut, Queen 5 -

DYNASTY 18 -0605 Hatshepsut  the "Speos Artemidos," a rock cut temple for Pakhet, an aspect of the lioness goddess Sekhmet.  It is here that the female pharaoh, Hatshepsut, made her declaration denouncing the Hyksos

DYNASTY 18 -0700 Thutmose III

DYNASTY 18 -0800 Amenhotep II/Akheperure - KING 7 - 1427-1392 B.C.

DYNASTY 18 -0900 Nebmaatre - KING 9 - 1382-1344 B.C.

DYNASTY 18 -1000 Akhenaten/Aten - KING 10

DYNASTY 18 -1100 Tutankhamun/Nebkheprure - KING 12 -1336-1327 B.C.

DYNASTY 18 -1200 Horemheb/Djeserkheperure - KING 14 - 1323-1295 B.C.

DYNASTY 19   =============================

DYNASTY 19 -0100 ???

DYNASTY 20    =============================

DYNASTY 20 -0100 Unknown author 1200 BC "Turin King's List" / Bernadino Drovetti, purchaced the papyrus

DYNASTY 31    =============================

DYNASTY 31 -0100 Manetho an Egyptian priest who wrote in the Greek language, probably for Ptolemy I (305–282 B.C) {King's list}

DYNASTY XX    =============================

DYNASTY XX -0100 Josephus, Flavius - 37-101 AD, mythical Jewish author in which all accounts written, are not copies of Josephu's work, because it never existed.

DYNASTY YY    =============================

DYNASTY YY -0100 Bernadino Drovetti - Turin King's List - papyrus



Tuesday, August 25, 2009


Empire vs immigrant farmer herders

What is recorded in the hieroglyphs of the north in the period the Hyksos are said to have ruled?


No historian believes that the 'Hyksos ruled Egypt'......their power was limited to Lower Egypt, specifically the Delta areas, for most of their 'rule'......Most of the ancient area of Egypt was actually 'ruled' by the Theban nobility, which can be traced to ancient Nekhen.
The 'Hyksos' [anglicized transliteration] may have lived in the delta area for 100 yrs., but they never 'ruled' all of Egypt at any time


* If you looked at the tombs of northern Egypt in the time line when the 'Hyksos' were said to have ruled, who did the Egyptians who lived in that period write about on their walls?

* If you looked at the list of all the Egyptian Kings that existed during the time period when the 'Hyksos' were supposed to be there, how many Egyptian rulers would you find between the 12th and 18th Dynasty?

Tracking who ruled in what dynasty is hard because there are so many spellings and different names for the same ruler, but here is a list from one site

Other than Egyptian rulers there are named military leaders, the names of people in the royalty ... You can't be part of any royalty unless you are connected to some kind of kingdom. You can't be the military leader unless you serve some nation.

In northern Egypt.. in the period of the supposed Hyksos, how many Egyptian tombs record the existence of Egyptian kings, Egyptian royalty, Egyptian military leaders in northern Egypt?

( Here I am on a fishing trip. If the evidence of Egyptian rule in the north during this period is recorded by Egyptians, then those who know such things will be able to issue this challenge)



As far as I have seen, these enemy recorded in different time lines and different places have no evidence connecting them. Their ideas may have been like a segment of immigrants who came to America, joined with those of like mind and hoped to cut out a portion of the land to create their own state.



After the grave robbers broke into fortified places such as the pyramids, it appears that the Egyptian rulers moved their power south.

When the political hub exist in one area, their tentacles place royal representatives in other areas to rule in their behalf.

Pylons, stela, tombs ... of northern Egypt, in the time line of the 'Hyksos', Did the Egyptians record accounts of Egyptian rulers, royalty, military leaders who thrived in the north, during the supposed period of the Hyksos control?

You who know of the content of the hieroglyphs of northern Egypt, in this time line can respond to this. IF records of Egyptian rulers in control of northern Egypt during 'the Hyksos period', then be sure to let me know.


Alexandria vs Immigrants
Empire vs immigrant farmer herders

Alexander for example, conquered many cities yet continued to leave the original government (subjected to him of course) in power to continue their rule.

I think the bottom line for most of these types of invaders was that they were to receive the taxes and fealty in place of the last sorry sucker who was in charge.


In the example of Alexandria, you are correct. That is how empires worked.

a) They would move into an area ... if there was no resistance, then they would keep or place their puppet leaders local government to send payments to the empire hub.

b) They would take healthy men from those areas to build up their military and move on to the next place.

... The snow ball would keep on rolling and the empire would keep growing.


In the accounts of the 'Hyksos' they were not an empire, but they were settlers, shepherds/herders.

They did not take control by military force, but they brought their families and their clans lived in the land of Egypt.

Alexandria story = an account of an expanding empire
Hyksos story = an account of a mass migration of families that settled in Egypt to work with their own hands, raise their flocks/live stock and live off the land.




Siege does NOT equal Rule

Siege does NOT equal Rule


Assyria, Babylon, the Greeks, the Romans ruled Egypt.. yes, but they are not the invaders/enemy that is included in this challenge.

The challenge here is that 'the Hyksos ruled Egypt for over 100 years' .


Being under siege by an enemy
Does NOT mean a nation is ruled by that enemy


... In the last 300 years The British has been involved in over 90 wars.

The question is: does invasion, attack, war, siege, battles... equate to being ruled


A lot of Britain wars involved naval battles ( Like the accounts of Kamose indicate he was involved in Naval battles.)

France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Portugal, Spain ...

In about the same number of years "The Hyksos were supposed to have ruled Egypt", the British were also fighting their enemy on their own soil and at sea.

Does invasion, attack, war, siege, battles... equate to Britain being ruled by those they fought against?


The Stela of Kamose is often used to show that Avaris was the Hyksos capital.

The stela of Kamose does not give state any where that Avaris was the Hyksos capital and NOR does the Egyptian text identify the enemy at Avaris as Hyksos

NO where does any Egyptian text state the Hyksos ruled any part of Egypt.


The stela of Kamose does state that Avaris was a location where a siege took place and continued for several years.

The enemy was not identified as Hyksos. The only information is it was in the area of Avaris and Kamose was sent to fight on a ship.

* The British was under the siege of the Germans for years ... being attacked.. being under siege does not mean, that Germany ruled Britain.

NO WHERE does any Egyptian text state any part of Egypt was ruled by outsiders.

NO WHERE does any Egyptian text state any part of Egypt was ruled by any internal uprising.

During this time line, the Egyptian records show nothing but the Egyptians fighting off some unidentified enemy.


The Egyptians NEVER identified the origins of the enemy.


There is nothing to indicate that conflicts recorded decades apart, are with the same enemy. (such an assumption would like some one reading the accounts of the British wars 3000 years from now, and assuming those mentioned in accounts of different times were always the same enemy)


The Egyptian records NEVER state that any enemy ruled any part of Egypt.



Egyptian text does state, Ahmose:

* I grew up in the town of Nekheb, my father being a soldier of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt.."

* I have grown old; I have reached old age. Favoured as before, and loved [by my lord], I [rest] in the tomb that I myself Behy. Again I am given by the King of Upper and Lower Egypt ... 60 arura in Hadjaa. In sum ... arura.

In the time line when the experts say the 'Hyksos' ruled northern Egypt, Ahmose said

* His father was a soldier of the King of northern and southern Egypt

* Ahmose said the Egyptian king of northern and southern Egypt gave him 60 arura.



During the period 'modern experts' say the Hyksos ruled northern Egypt, an Egyptian (Ahmose) who was there in the middle of the events, recorded that an Egyptian King ruled northern and southern Egypt !


NO one but the Egyptians text records any of the conflicts.

The Egyptians did NOT write any enemy ruled northern Egypt

The Egyptians did NOT write any enemy had Avaris as their capital.

The Egyptians did write there was a siege of Avaris (in which the Egyptians won in the end).. and

In the time of these conflicts, the Egyptian text does identify an Egyptian king as the king of northern and southern Egypt.


Always the same guys Assertion

In order to accept the concept that all the recorded conflicts of the Egyptians were describing events with the same clan/tribe/people, you would have to accept the (Always the same guys Assertion)

In spite of the fact that the enemy recorded in different decades, in different areas of Egypt had different names, the place of origins are NEVER given, the 'experts' identify all of them as 'Hyksos'?


Because we live in the time line where names are known and we can associate them with specific groups, this example will not work by using their actual names.

Let's jump forward 3,000 years and let our descendants read about the events that took place in our time. For this story to work, we will change their names with names that are not known in the future.

Here Egypt will be replaced with America. Those living in other countries need only exchange such events with those that took place in your own country.

On the walls of a tomb, we see the image of Lgneish immigrating on the shores of America from a foreign land.

In another century we read on the walls of another tomb about a great conflict of the established government and an enemy leader named RELEB was wounded.

In a stela found in northern America, an American fighter named Komo revealed that America had a great conflict with Dancaa

On the walls of our a tomb an enemy of the established government named Sirhi.

In another decade we read on the walls about a great conflict with the Xscnaim which lasted several years.

A hundred years later in another' tomb, an account of a Gcnevgen attack on two American palaces.


In our story we started with the first name Lgneish then followed with other names in other conflicts in other periods of time. Lgneish, RELEB, Dancaa, Xscnaim, Gcnevgen

Are we to assume that all other conflicts involving people of different names, in different places and different times, are all from the first (Lgneish) identified person?

Lgneish English landed on American shores

RELEB Confederate were a composite of all people who immigrated here

Dancaa Canada/British war

Xscnaim Mexican/American war

Gcnevgen Arab revenge attack on the twin towers.


After looking at one image in a tomb and some expert translating the word to Hyksos... these 'experts'

Use Egyptian text with out the word Hyksos, text with different names, in different conflicts, in different places, in different periods of time.. and identify them all as Hyksos.

With out a pure concoction, with out the information stated in the text, there is

NO way to know if they were the same people

NO way to know where they came from

NO way to know if/which conflicts were internal conflicts.

Egypt had encountered people from all sides for centuries and there is no way to know which of an array of tribes/empires they encountered in any of the multiple conflicts that spanned over centuries.

The only enemy of the Egyptians that are identified as Hyksos, can only be verified in hieroglyphs that the word Hyksos is written.


Ahmose drove out the Hyksos?

a) Show an image of the stela/wall painting/ancient source in which the enemy are identified as Hyksos.

b) Show the line in which the word that translates to Hyksos is found.

c) Is it written that Ahmose drove out 'the Hyksos' or is this assertion based on the concoction of imagination?


You can NOT tie any conflicts or enemy of the Egyptians with the Hyksos, unless there is information in the text that gives evidence of their connection to the Hyksos.

Lgneish, RELEB, Dancaa, Xscnaim, Gcnevgen .. accounts of people with different names, in different time periods does not mean they are the same people.

The multiple events the Egyptians recorded through the centuries with people of different names and different places, does NOT indicate the enemy were always the same people.


The enemy that Ahmose or Kamose are NOT identified as Hyksos. There is no way to connect any enemy in one decade/century with the enemy of another decade/century.

* Except the name of an enemy leader there is no identification of that enemy.

* No where does the Egyptian writers identify the named enemy as a king or a ruler. The assertion that these named enemy were kings, is a concoction. No such information exists in the Egyptian text.

* NO where did the Egyptians write Avaris was the capital of the Hyksos, nor did they identify the enemy at Avaris as Hyksos.

* NO where did the Egyptians record that the Hyksos (any enemy) ruled any part of Egypt.

* The Egyptians did write they fought against an enemy that lay siege on Egyptian cities... and that the outcome was that enemy were driven out.

* In the time period when modern experts say 'the Hyksos ruled northern Egypt', the Egyptian authors who existed in that time, wrote that an Egyptian king was ruler of southern and northern Egypt.


#1 Show the text that identifies enemy of different decades/centuries as being from the same origins as enemy in text of different decades/centuries with different names.

#2 Show the text where the enemy the Egyptians fought against are identified as Hyksos.

#4 Show the Egyptian text where the named enemy are identified as kings.

#5 Show the Egyptian text where Avaris was the capital of the Hyksos/enemy

#6 Show the Egyptian text where the Hyksos/enemy ruled any part of Egypt.

These 6 myths are repeated over and over while the ignore the Egyptian text that does state an Egyptian was the ruler of upper and lower Egypt.


So the Egyptian text does not identify any enemy as a ruler, it does not state Avaris was the capital, it does not identify the enemy as Hyksos, it does identify an Egyptian as ruler of northern and southern Egypt..

Next question: Does the place the enemy were driven to, verify where they originally came from?




Thursday, August 20, 2009



If you read about events that took place in ancient Egypt, there is usually a time line connected to events.

It took place, so many years BC <> BCE or a particular dynasty.

As you read about Egypt's interaction with a particular outside empire, there are dates associated with those chain of events.

It does not matter when any middle east empire was formed, those lands had human populations, before, during and after the formation of the empire.

On the map below, the arrows show where other populations came to Egypt from and each arrow location could be dozens of separate tribes or nations.


On one web page, some one created a time line of the Predynastic Period, being around 3100 BC.

Around 1700 BC, this particular page has the Hyksos entering Egypt. That would be about 1400 years from early Egypt, until the Hyksos were supposed to enter Egypt.

Let's be extra conservative and say the Egyptian dynasties began 1000 years before the Hyksos entered.

In the thousand years before the Hyksos entered, Egypt was surrounded with populations of different tribes or nations on every side.

Egypt's existence and encounter with outsiders does not begin with the Hyksos story.


With in each established empire, there were an array of tribes.

The birth of an empire begins with a group/tribe that hooks up with another tribe or takes them by force.

As the empire expands, it moves on to a new population. If there is a resistance, the battles are on and at the end, the aggressors put the remaining males into their own military.

The common population is left to create food and wealth to contribute to the empire.


No matter if the surrounding populations had yet formed an empire, Egypt was encircled with foreigners, before and after the mythical Hyksos were supposed to have entered.

In modern times we have fences, airplanes, hundreds of cities along our southern borders in the USA, and yet thousands of Mexicans illegally cross our borders every year.

IF the Egyptians had some kind of assets that enticed foreigners to come, the mythical Hyksos would have only been a small fraction of outsiders to migrate there.


As for Egyptians using words like Semitic, Asiatic or  Levant, these are modern words in which the Egyptians would have no such meaning.  No such meanings in the Egyptian vocabulary.

These words are based on a world map or the Bible. The 'Egyptologist' that translated any Egyptian words to Semitic, Asiatic or  Levant, would be ignorant of the knowledge available to the ancient Egyptians.


Egypt was surrounded with multiple tribes or empires. The fact that an empire was not formed at a particular time has nothing to do with the fact that Egypt was surrounded with foreigners.

The difference in now and historic Egypt is they had no fences, they had no planes, there were hundreds of square miles of un populated areas.

IF Egypt had any assets that drew foreigners to their land, it would not have just been 'Hyksos' but they would have been foreigners from every side.

It is not like they would need a passport, there were no check points, it would be as easy as walking through an un populated area.

Why do these 'archeologist' utter the word Canaanites in their mythical 'Hyksos' group?

Dutch, French, Polish, Germans, Italians, Russians, Norwegians, Spaniards ... NO, none of them came to America, right?

In the migration to North America, only the British came, right?

If people from other lands think there is something to gain in other places, they will migrate from every where.

What was Egypt supposed to have that made foreigners want to migrate there? I do not have a clue, but if there was some thing to gain by migrating to Egypt, the foreigners would have migrated from all the lands surrounding Egypt.

The idea that only Canaanites would be included in a migration is quite humorous.


Through the centuries before the migration of the mythical Hyksos, Egypt had traded with, been at war with and interacted with tribes/empires around it. Egypt would have been infested with foreigners from lands on all sides, so when you read about Egyptians having a conflict with any non Egyptian, how could you possibly identify where those enemy originally came from?


At his visit to Disney Land, Junior encountered dozens of different characters. When he got home, he sent grandma a letter telling all about those he encountered. The problem was Junior did not use the names in the accounts he told.


Pretending all of these characters were real

#1 He danced and around and made me giggle.

#2 He swam out on the pond.

#3 He ran up the hill and rolled back down.

#4 He landed on top of a telephone pole.

#5 He stole the peanut and took it up the tree.

#6 He rode around on a golf cart.

While there were no names to identify which character did these things, 3 of the descriptions give a hint who it could be.

Three of the accounts do not even give a hint of which character it is.

With out the actual character being identified in any way, why would any one pick one of the characters and assume, all events are speaking about one specific character?

When no specific character is ever identified, isn't it possible, that the different events described are about different characters that Junior encountered?


That is exactly what these 'experts' do with the Hykso story. They take different text that happened in different time periods, Letters which DO NOT IDENTIFY what tribes/nations they came from, and identify them all as Hyksos/Canaanites.

*  In all accounts of Egyptian conflicts, how many of those letters identify the enemy as Hyksos?

*  In all accounts of Egyptian conflicts, how many of those letters do not identify the enemy as Hyksos?

*  In all accounts of Egyptian conflicts in which the enemy is identified, how many are identified as people other than Hyksos?


Why do these 'experts' assert the UN Identified enemy of the Egyptians are any one they can put a name on?

It is called the power of suggestion. It is pre-conceived ideas they are brainwashed with. With out any actual identification at all, every time an enemy is mentioned, it is always the same enemy and every time that enemy is the Hyksos.

It would be like Junior mentioning in his letter that he shook hands with Goofy and when grandma read the letter, she would assume every encounter Junior described, was a description of events that took place with Goofy.

There is a whole bunch of characters at Disney Land and there was an array of tribes and nations that the Egyptians encountered.

When any letter describes events and does not identify who the encounter was with, only one with pre-conceived beliefs would jump to the conclusion of the identity.

Only Canaanites migrated to Egypt

The Egyptians only had conflicts with Canaanites

IF the Egyptian letters do not identify people in conflicts or where they came from, then those who inject an identification are not scientist, they are just plain GOOFY !

In all of the named 'Hyksos' rulers from Egyptian text written in the time of the said events, please list all the Egyptian text that identifies their enemy as Hyksos.




Monday, August 17, 2009



So "archeologist varify Hyksos were in Egypt, based on the manner they were buried"?


I started my inquiry with e-mails or post to Egyptology groups:

I used to think all Egyptians were mummified, but now it appears that only the rich and royals were mummified most of the time. Even some of them were not.

I have read of massive graves, ranging from the north to the south of Egypt, where people were just wrapped in cloth and put in wooden boxes.
Being wrapped in cloth and buried was also done in Europe.

#1 Do you have any examples of grave yards through out Egypt, where the majority were never mummified?

#2 I also remember something about the Romans in Egypt being mummified. Got any details on this ?



How were the average Egyptians buried?

cemeteries / mastaba of the non royals.


Women were generally buried with their husbands... Many of the skeletal remains were found in wooden coffins, although still not mummified.


When we read the 'Hyksos' tales, it is repeated over and over how the 'Hyksos' tried to assimilate to the culture of the Egyptians.

If this were the case, wouldn't some of the Hyksos be mummified?

The word "mummy" comes from an Arabic word for a black gooey stuff. Mummification was not limited to Egyptians. Greeks and Romans were also mummified.


There is extensive records to show the Greeks and Romans actually did rule Egypt .. and we find that those who ruled Egypt, adopted mummification for themselves... so why not the 'Hyksos"?


Boy mummy in this article on the composite image, upper right

St. Louis Science Center Mummy

It is likely that the mummified boy lived during the time when Egypt was a province of the Roman Empire, possibly under the rule of Caesar Augustus. He was probably from a middle class family who could easily afford a good quality of mummification.

Egyptian religious beliefs were adopted by some of the Romans, and it is possible that both Egyptians and Romans were mummified. Egypt served as the grain basket of the Roman Empire


Many tombs, most less than a few feet square, were made of mud, rubble and leftover stones from the pyramid construction. Some have miniature false doors, and in some, statues were found. But most are anonymous and without grave goods, and the bodies were not mummified


I don't know where they get their information, but on lots of pages it states mummification was very expensive and took a long time.

It would be my guess that the common Egyptians had no wealth, except that of housing and available food.

When they showed the graves of the pyramid workers, even they were not mummified.

There are massive cemeteries / mastaba from the extreme north to the extreme south of Egypt, filled with Egyptians who were never mummified.


We are told they can prove the Hyksos were in Egypt by the difference in burial practices?

* If Hyksos (like the Greeks and Romans) adopted the culture of the Egyptians, wouldn't those Hyksos have been mummified?


* As for identifying "Hyksos" by their burial practices, what I have read so far, 'Egyptologist' have not found the grave on one 'Hyksos ruler" ?


* If ---> SOME Egyptians were mummified and ----> there were a multitude of Egyptians who were NEVER mummified, then how would finding graves of un-mummified dead, prove they were Hyksos?



Sunday, August 16, 2009





No one on earth has a clue of what any Egyptian word sounded like. We have 26 characters in our alphabet, which make different sounds. (even s and c have similar sounds)

I thought there were about 800 characters in hieroglyphs, but that was only in a program you could buy. According to what others have written, there are between 1500 and 2500 glyphs (characters) in hieroglyphs

26 characters sum up about every sound humans can make. I can't imagine there being 2000 different sounds for each Egyptian glyph.

The word Pharaoh in our language, may have sounded like HokiePokie in the Egyptian language.

Only cons would actually show an Egyptian word and make a sound the Egyptians used when saying that word.

No one on earth has a clue of what any Egyptian word or name sounded like.



Translation is based on the known. Code breaking is a process FINDING PATTERNS.

The only way to find a way to translate an unknown language is to find patterns in the symbols. The stone found by the French was the key to open the door to hieroglyphics.

You can not deduct an unknown word means any thing, unless you know the meanings of some of the words in the context.

By seeing the unknown word several times in different context, they deduct the meaning of the word.

Who ever rendered the 'Hyksos' word or the names of any of the 'Hyksos' had to have seen that word in the context of multiple hieroglyphics.

IF the first guy got it right, those university students do not go through the process of decoding the meaning of the word.

They accept any thing they are told and that hearsay information becomes their 'facts'. It is these students who become archeologist/Egyptologist and on the basis of their status, the groupies of the world accept all they say as the gospel.


For those who would check the work of the 'experts', you might go to the source and see if you can see HOW they deduced the meaning of any word.

You can't just pick a word and assign a meaning to it. There must be some thing in the context that indicates the meaning of that word, BEFORE any one after that can look at it and assign it a meaning.

In an example of Hyksos = foreign ruler ... a compound meaning, it would appear one part of that segment would mean foreign and the other part would mean ruler.

Are any parts of the 'word Hyksos' ever used in Egyptian writing to mean foreign or ruler?


The next problem in the translation of hieroglyphics is the random education.

Today in our countries, we have uniform standards placed in books and taught universally through out the nation.

In the days of Eddy Egyptian, only a few select were educated. There was no center that created a universal standard, so even code breakers would have a problem comparing text from different time lines.


Asiatic, Egyptians had no such identifications for any one.

Semite / Hebrew / Asiatic / Levant ... no such meaning in the language of the ancient Egyptian, no more than they had words that meant computer or rocket.

Asian/Asiatic is a term based on the mapping of the world. Asiatic identifies populations of the world, that the Egyptians had no way of knowing their existence.

Semite being the identification of people who spoke a middle east language, every one in the middle east was a Semite and there were MANY "Semitic" languages.

The Egyptians did not use the term Semite to identify any specific population.

Semite / Hebrew / Asiatic / Levant ... The Egyptians had no such meanings.

By the definition of Levant, the Egyptians were Levants themselves.

Translation is the process of rendering meanings into the target language. The "English language translations" given to the Egyptian hieroglyphs were meanings that did not exist in ancient Egypt.


The only way to establish specifically who the Egyptians were talking about is:

* If the Egyptians gave land marks that exist in only one area of the middle east.

* If the Egyptians wrote about an event that took place with a certain people ... and in another empire, there also existed text about such an event with the Egyptians.

No matter what English word any hieroglyphic is rendered to.. Semite / Asiatic / Levant, the actual hieroglyph can only indicate they were talking about some one other than Egyptians. These translations do not identify who the persons were, but who they were not.. Semite / Asiatic / Levant = NON Egyptian, no other specifics exist.


We are to believe these people lived with the Egyptians for centuries, tried to assimilate, learned the language of the Egyptians, were driven out... then where ever they landed, they left no records of their ancestor's tour of Egypt, nor did they leave any hieroglyphic text?

It seems that these people who brought 'advanced technology" to Egypt didn't have any language of their own. The only thing they produced were scarab, but ALL INFORMATION WRITTEN ABOUT THESE PEOPLE, WAS WRITTEN BY THE EGYPTIANS.

According to the 'Egyptologist' tale of the Hyksos, they stunk to the Egyptians. The Egyptians were not inviting them to their tea parties or hanging out on the golf course... they were despised.

* The only information written about these people, was written by the Egyptians.

* The Egyptians who wrote about them, despised them ... ok then, where did the Egyptians get the names of these 'Hyksos"?

* The names give to any 'Hyksos' were not names the 'Hyksos' had given themselves, but they were names given by the Egyptians. These were not Hyksos names, but Egyptian symbols to create the Egyptian identity of the outcast.


Before any one could establish that these were names of Canaanites, they would have to first dig up the text or grave markers of ancient Canaanites with the same names.

The names of these outcast were assigned by the Egyptians, not the outcast.

By the time the Hyksos story was supposed to have taken place, there were millions of Egyptians who lived. You nor I nor any one else has a clue of what their names were.

Names of the past were not pat like common last names, and a list of shared first names.

Names had romantic or meanings to reflect pride or identity. This kind of naming system also existed through out Europe, and in the native Americans.

You might do a search on name origins. The names Egyptians gave to themselves and to others, had some kind of meaning.

IF the Egyptians had been in bloody battles with some enemy for decades and that ruler was known, the Egyptians were not about to invite him over to see how he spelled his name.

Names such as Apachnan (outcast rulers) were not names written by those outcast. All words given to outcast rulers by Egyptians were Egyptian names ! Egyptian words !

The assertion "they did not use Egyptian names, they used Asiatic names", is enough to make one giggle, seeing how these names were Egyptian words, assigned by Egyptians.


Are names exclusively given ONLY to descendants of a particular ancestor?

Ishmael (2 Kings 25:23)

Ishmael, a member of the royal family of Judah, son of Nethaniah and grandson of Elishama Ishmael = a descendant of Judah

Pashchur (Jeremiah 20:1)

Pashchur, son of Immer, was the priest in charge of the Temple = a Levite

Ishmael (Ezra 10:22)

Ishmael, a priest, was a descendant of Pashch. Ishmael =a Levite

Ishmael (Genesis 16:11)

Ishmael was the son of Abraham and his Egyptian concubine Hagar, Sarah's maid. Ishmael = a Chaldean/Egyptian descendant.

Are names exclusively given ONLY to descendants of a particular ancestor, or are names taken by people of different tribes or nations?

Greek, native American, mythical characters ... people give their children the names of foreigners or mythical characters that never existed.


What could an "Asiatic name" possibly be?

According to the Hyksos myth, these foreigners lived among the Egyptians for several centuries before the civil war started.

Civil war? Yes, according to the story, these people "migrated into Egypt, hung out for centuries, then the civil wars began."

It was not a massive invasion from people of a foreign land. The concept would be like Mexicans coming to America, producing families for centuries then trying to take over.

According to the 'Hyksos' story, these people attempted to assimilate into the Egyptian culture, adopting their gods, their language...

If there was any such thing as an "Egyptian name" wouldn't the Hyksos take on their names, like people who come to America from Poland or Africa and adopt the names of the locals?

I'll bet there were not many Washington Irvings, or Mary White, Negroes in Africa, but look in the phone book and see what names they give themselves today.

If the 'Hyksos' lived in Egypt for several centuries and tried to assimilate, any names they used may have came from Egyptians.


How could they speculate these were the names used in a foreign land, unless the same names are found in those foreign lands?

Names of the day had some kind of meanings. It was the Egyptian text that reveals what the Egyptians called them. One might speculate the names given to the outcast by the Egyptians may have been derogatory.

Apepy  (Greek: Apopis) from the Egyptian word stinky poo ?

What ever, no one has a clue of the names used by millions of Egyptians nor the names used by the millions of Canaanites. There is no such thing as an Asiatic name, especially when the names in question were names given by the Egyptians.






Saturday, August 15, 2009

HYK-Hyksos Images-00

HYK-Hyksos Images-00
From one web page the author wrote: Note: There are no known statues of Hyksos Kings, all such are Bogus!
Not only do people concoct or altar images, they also copy actual images from ancient Egypt and change the information that identifies the pictures.
Here I have collected some images / artifacts where those shown are identified as Hyksos.
If you know what museum or location any of these exist, let me know.
If you know any thing about them, I have them numbered for your reference

Friday, August 14, 2009



My ol daddy used to say, if you throw enough shit on the ceiling, some of it will stick.

The lesson being, no matter how worthless information is, if enough of it is blabbed, sooner or later, people will begin to believe it.

This appears to be the method of "Egyptologist", when they assert foreigners ruled ancient Egypt.

This papyrus, that stone tablet or the painting on that wall states the Hyksos ruled Egypt.

If they throw enough rumors out there to the public, it will stick, it has stuck.


When there are many areas where some thing could be hidden, RANDOM SAMPLING can be used.

If you hear of multiple sources of hieroglyphs revealing the Hyksos ruled Egypt, just pick one of them and check it out.

If you are reading this, you are reading the English language. No matter if you do or do not read hieroglyphs, when you read the assertions about what is written in the hieroglyphs, you are reading it in the English language, so how do you know if what you are reading in the English language actually exists in the hieroglyphs?


Almost all of the people who write this stuff about Hyksos have no ability to read hieroglyphs. All of these web page / book parrots, only repeat what they have read.

IF the persons at the top of the chain, those who made the translations that thousands parrot ....

IF the persons who translated that information to English, can actually translate hieroglyphs, they can show their work ( just like you were required to show your work in solving math problems in school), if these "Egyptologist" have actually made a valid translation, they can show you how they arrived at that translation.

As far as any one claiming to know what the ancient Egyptian language sounded like that is laughable. There is a sound we associate with the letters of the alphabet.. 26 characters. Do you suppose the Egyptians had a different sound for their hundreds of characters... Duh !

The only thing I disagree is the changing of sequence in translation from left to right. I think it would be easy to read right to left and would be good practice for any one who might attempt to read hieroglyphs.


I found a great example of how a hieroglyphic transcribe could show their work on a PBS web site. (except I kept the translation reading from right to left)


a) IF / When any one stated any particular hieroglyphic source stated any information, they would have to have seen an image of it or the original piece.

b) They could tell you where that original hieroglyph is now (if it was movable)

The hieroglyphic might have lots of information not relative to the point or assertion

c) The lines of the hieroglyphic would have to be numbered and extracted, line at a time to be translated.

d) They could show the line where that information is written:

On Line #5, reading right to left, the glyphs on this line

Below the full line of glyphs on that line, the word translation for each cluster

At the bottom the translation of the clusters combined (right to left)

... you never will I 


Now in the random sampling, write down the assertions or points being made that you are investigating.

*  The Hyksos settled in northern Egypt.

*  The Hyksos ruled northern Egypt.

(a) Show us an image of the original hieroglyph, (b) tell us where the original exists today, (c) number the lines, (d) show me the lines where this information is written.


When you see the original hieroglyphs and it's translation to your own language, then consider what the meaning is in your own language.

The act of an invasion or war, does not define who rules a land area. It only verifies there is a fight over that land.

Iraq invaded Kuwait, but the victorious invasion did not mean that Iraq ruled Kuwait.

The take over of any country is not established until AFTER the original government/population gives up and the outsiders take over and rule the population.

If / When invaders attack, and a war goes on for months, even years, if it is the invaders who are driven out, they were NEVER rulers of that country, they were only invaders.


In the stories of the 'Hyksos', we hear they ruled over a century. We do read of fights the Egyptians had with UNIDENTIFIED enemy, but no where do we read that those enemy ever ruled Egypt. This fairy tale comes from the assumption that fighting/invasions means the same thing as ruling.


The British migrated to South Africa and ruled the Africans for decades.


Germany waged attacks on Britain for multiple years. The fact that there was a war does NOT mean that Germany ruled Britain.

If the outsiders come by migration or by military invasion, in which a war proceeds, those outsiders are NOT rulers based on the fights that follow. If the outsiders are driven out of the land, there were NEVER rulers, only clowns who's attempt to seize power failed.


"If you throw enough shit on the ceiling, some of it will stick."

If you have been reading about 'Hyksos' for a while you have seen the multiple sources they site to spin their story. You may not be able to look at all of them, so make a random sample.

Pick one hieroglyphic source they site, find an image of the source and some one who claims to read hieroglyphics, then have them show you the exact line which makes this point.

The internet is full of people who talk about events that took place, but if they do NOT read hieroglyphs themselves, they don't know any thing more than you. If they do not read hieroglyphics, they are just puppeting hearsay information from others who are as ignorant about hieroglyphics.

(It is true because some 'expert' said... ) If any one states any events took place in ancient Egypt and there is no hieroglyphics to support that statement, it is nothing but the left overs of the shit that stuck to the ceiling. If that person is an expert, they can show you what hieroglyphic and exactly what line it is written.

Find one person who can show you the actual hieroglyph and the exact lines in that hieroglyph which:

*  Identify the people as Hyksos.

*  State that Hyksos ruled (not fought) the Egyptians.





Thursday, August 13, 2009



There appears to be two inscriptions of Kamose.

I will create them with 1 and 2 to separate them


a) Please show the line in the hieroglyphs that identify these enemy as Hyksos?

b) Please show the line in the hieroglyphic that uses the word Hyksos?

c) Please show the line in the hieroglyphic that states the enemy in the context ruled Egypt.


Inscription of Kamose - 2

His majesty spoke in his palace to the council of nobles who were in his retinue: 'Let me understand what this strength of mine is for! (One) prince is in Avaris, another is in Ethiopia, and (here) I sit associated with an Asiatic and a Negro! Each man has his slice of this Egypt, dividing up the land with me . . . . No man can settle down, when despoiled by the taxes of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may rip open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic!

I went north because I was strong (enough) to attack the Asiatics through the command of Ammon, the just of counsels. My valiant army was in front of me like a blast of fire. The troops of the Madjoi were on the upper part of our cabins, to seek out the Asiatics and to push back their positions. East and west had their fat, and the army foraged for things everywhere. I set out a strong troop of the Madjoi, while I was on the day's patrol . . . to him in . . . Teti, the son of Pepi, within Nefrusi. I would not let him escape while I held back the Asiatics who had withstood Egypt. He made Nefrusi the nest of the Asiatics. I spent the night in my boat, with my heart happy.

When day broke, I was on him as if it were a falcon. When the time of breakfast had come, I attacked him. I broke down his walls, I killed his people, and I made his wife come down to the riverbank. My soldiers were as lions are, with their spoil, having serfs, cattle, milk, fat and honey, dividing up their property, their hearts gay.







There appears to be two inscriptions of Kamose.

I will create them with 1 and 2 to separate them


a) Please show the line in the hieroglyphs that identify these enemy as Hyksos?

b) Please show the line in the hieroglyphic that uses the word Hyksos?

c) Please show the line in the hieroglyphic that states the enemy in the context ruled Egypt.



One of the stelae documenting the wars of Kamose to rid Egypt of the Hyksos yoke.

Stela (inscription) of Pharaoh Kamose from the Temple of karnak, Thebes, 17th Dynasty circa 1555BC

From Arizona University:


The following two inscriptions purport to be King Kamose's account of his struggle to reunify Egypt at the end of the Second Intermediate Period. Kamose's father, Seqenenre Tao, had been king of the area around Thebes, which became the headquarters for his fairly successful effort to regain control of the Nile valley from the foreign Hyksos monarchy, at that time represented by the aging Apophis (called Apopy in the inscription).

Kamose took up the reconquest from dad, eventually pushing the Hyksos king back toward his capital city of Avaris, in the Nile Delta. Apophis tried to expand the war to a second front, by calling on the ruler of Kush, at Egypt's southern border, to attack Kamose to the rear. As the inscription indicates, Apophis' plan did not succeed. Kamose's rule was fairly brief; his successor Ahmose was the one who finally managed to force the Hyksos out of Egypt and re-unify Egypt under an Egyptian monarchy.


why does Kamose attack the Asiatics? Is his motivation typical of all Egyptians at the time? on what basis do others disagree with his plans?

how does Kamose manage to succeed? how is victory represented in the inscriptions?


68. Kamose I (Helck, 1975a; 82ff., no. 119)

(1) "Regnal year 3 of Horus, he who has appeared on his throne; The-Two-Ladies, repeating monuments; Horus-of-Gold, who pacifies the Two Lands, King of Upper and Lower Egypt [Wadj]-Kheper-[re (1), son of Re] Kamose, given life, beloved of Amenre lord of the Thrones of the Two Lands, like Re forever and ever! (2) A mighty king native of Wese, Wadj-[kheper]-re, given life forever, even a good king! It is Re [that made] him king himself, and that authorized victory for him in very Truth!

His Majesty spoke in his palace to his council of magistrates who were in (3) his train: 'To what end do I know my (own) strength? One chief is in Avaris, another in Kush, and I sit (here) associated with an Asiatic and a Nubian! Each man has his slice in this Egypt and so the land is partitioned with me! (4) None can pass through it(2) as far as Memphis (although it is) Egyptian water! See he (even) has Hermopolis! No one can be at ease when they are milked by the taxes of the Asiatics. (5) I shall grapple with him that I might crush his belly, (for) my desire is to rescue Egypt which the Asiatics have destroyed.'

Then spake the magistrates of his council: 'See, as far as Kos(3) it is Asiatic water, and they have drawn out their tongues of one accord (4). We are doing all right with our (part of) Egypt: Elephantine is strong, (6) and the interior is with us as far as Kos. Their free land is cultivated for us, and our cattle graze in the Delta fens, while corn is sent for our pigs. Our cattle have not been seized, and [É] have not been tasted (7) He has the land of the Asiatics, we have Egypt. Only when comes one who [acts against us] should we act against him.'

But they troubled His Majesty's heart.

'As for your counsel (8) [É] [Éop]posite me. He who partitions the land with me will never respect me(5) [É] the Asiatics who (9) [É] with him. I will sail north to engage the Asiatics and success will come! If he intends to be at ease in [É] his eyes weeping and the entire land [É]!' (10)

The Mighty Ruler in Thebes, Kamose the Strong, protector of Egypt.

I sailed north in my might to repel the Asiatics through the command of Amun, exact-of-counsel, with my brave army (11) before me like a flame of fire and the Medjay (6)archers a-top our fighting-tops on the lookout for the Asiatics in order to destroy their places. East and West proffered their abundance, (12) and the army provisioned itself everywhere. I despatched the mighty battalions of Medjay, while I passed the day in [É] in order to invest

[É] (13) Tety the son of Pepy in the midst of Nefrusy(7) . I was not going to let him escape, once I had repelled the Asiatics who had defied Egypt, so that he could turn Nefrusy into a nest of Asiatics. I passed (14) the night in my ship, my heart happy; and when day dawned

I was upon him as if it were a hawk. When breakfast time came I overthrew him having destroyed his walls and slaughtered his people, and made his wife descend to the (15) river bank. My army acted like lions with their spoil - chattels, cattle, fat, honey - dividing their things, their hearts joyful. The district of Nefrusy (16) came down (in submission) : it did not take us long until its [É] was hemmed in [?] [unknown location] was deserted when I approached it. Their horses had fled inside, and the border patrol [É] those who had spent the night in the valley, their property É [remainder lost]

69. Kamose II (Habachi 1972)

(1) "'Bad news is in your town: you are driven back in the presence of your army, and your authority is restricted - inasmuch as you, in your capacity as suzerain, have made me a chief - so that (now) you must (even) beg (2) for the block where you shall fall. Look behind you! My troops are a threat behind you. The mistresses of Avaris shall not conceive, their hearts shall not budge (3) in the midst of their bodies, when the war-whoop of my troops is heard!'

I put in at Per-djedken(8) , my heart happy, so that I might let (4) Apopy experience a bad time, that Syrian prince with weak arms, who conceives brave things which never come about for him! I arrived at Yenyet-(5) of-the-southward-journey(9) , and I crossed over to them to greet them. I put the fleet (already) equipped in order, one behind the other, in order that I might take the lead, setting the course, with my (6) braves, flying over the river as does a falcon, my flag-ship of gold at their head, something like a divine being at their front.(7) I made the might transport boat beach at the edge of the cultivation, with the fleet behind it, as the sparrow-hawk uproots (plants) upon the flats of (8) Avaris!

I espied his women upon his roof, peering out of their windows towards the harbor. Their bellies stirred not as they (9) saw me, peeping from their loop-holes upon their walls like the young of inh-animals(10) in their holes, saying: he (10) is swift!'

Behold! I am come, a successful man! What remains is in my possession, and my venture prospers! As mighty Amun endures, I shall not leave you, I shall not allow you (11) to tread the fields even when I am not (here) with you! Does your heart fail, O you vile Asiatic? Look! I drink of the wine of your vineyards (12) which the Asiatics whom I captured pressed out for me. I have smashed up your resthouse, I have cut down your trees, I have forced your women into ships' holds (13), I have seized [your] horses; I haven't left a plank to the hundreds of ships of fresh cedar which were filled with gold, lapis, silver, turquoise, (14) bronze axes without number, over and above the moringa-oil, incense, fat, honey, willow, box-wood, sticks and all their (15) fine woods - all the fine products of Retenu(11) -

I have confiscated all of it! I haven't left a thing to Avaris to her (own) destitution: the Asiatic has perished! (16) Does your heart fail, O you vile Asiatic, you who used to say: 'I am lord without equal from Hermopolis to Pi-Hathor upon the Rekhty water. (17) (As for) Avaris on the Two Rivers, I laid it waste without inhabitants; I destroyed their towns and burned their homes to reddened ruin-heaps (18) forever, because of the destruction they had wrought in the midst of Egypt: they who had allowed themselves to hearken to the call of the Asiatics, had forsaken Egypt their mistress!

I captured (19) his messenger in the oasis upland, as he was going south to Kush with a written dispatch, and I found on it the following, in writing by the hand of the Ruler of Avaris: (20) '[É] son of Re, Apophis greets my son the ruler of Kush. Why have you arisen as ruler without letting me know? Do you (21) see what Egypt has done to me? The Ruler which is in her midst - Kamose-the-Mighty, given life! - is pushing me off my (own) land! I have not attacked him in any way comparable to (22) all that he has done to you; he has chopped up the Two Lands to their grief, my land and yours, and he has hacked them up. Come north! Do not hold back! (23) See, he is here with me: There is none who will stand up to you in Egypt. See, I will not give him a way out until you arrive! Then we (24) shall divide the towns of Egypt, and [Khent]-hen-nofer(12) shall be in joy.'


(25) 'I took possession of both deserts and the southland, and the rivers likewise, and no way was found for the É(?). I am never lax concerning my army - the concerned man (26) has not diverted attention - He feared me even when I was sailing north, before we had fought, before I reached him! When he saw my flame he beat a path as far as Kush (27) to seek his deliverer. (But) I seized it(13) en route and did not let it arrive. Then I had it taken back that it might be returned to him again, and released on the east side (28) at Atfih(14) .

My victory astounded him and his limbs were wracked, when his messenger related to him what I had done to the district of Cynopolis which had been his (29) possession. I despatched my strong battalion which was on the march to destroy Djesdjes (while I was in Sako), to prevent (any) enemy forces being (30) behind me. So I fared south confident and happy, destroying all the enemy who were in my way!'

What a happy home-trip for the (31) Ruler life! prosperity! happiness! with his army ahead of him! They had no casualties, nor did anyone blame his fellow, nor did their hearts weep! I moored on home soil during the season of (32) Inundation; everyone was bright-eyed, the land had abundant food, the river-bank was resplendent! Thebes was festive, women and men had come out to see (33) me; every woman hugged her neighbor, no one was tearful. [Amun's] incense (burned) in the sanctuary, at the place where it (34) is said: 'Receive good things!' as he grants the scimitar to the son of Amun life! prosperity! happiness!, the enduring king Wadj-kheper-re, son of Re, Kamose-the-mighty, given life, (35) who subdued the south and drove back the north, who seized the land by main force - given life, stability, dominion and happiness with his ku like Re forever and ever!

(36) His Majesty commanded the hereditary prince and count, master of privy matters of the kings-house, chief of the entire land, the seal-bearer of the king of Lower Egypt of (?) 'Star-of-the-Two-Lands', the dux, overseer of courtiers, (37) overseer of the seal, User-neshi: 'Have everything that My Majesty has done in war be put upon a stela, and have it set in Karnak in (38) Thebes forever and ever.' Then he replied to His Majesty: 'I will perform every assignment to the satisfaction of the king.'"

from D. Redford, "Textual Sources for the Hyksos Period," in E.D. Oren, (ed), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives (Philadelphia: 1997), pp.1-44.





I do not like to use links to other sites, because sooner or later those sites vanish.
Here is a great example of how hieroglyphic translations could be rendered

Kamose Stela
I could not copy it to this post / e-mail, but if you go to their page:
They have two lines of hieroglyphs, click on Extract 1 you will see that line and if you move your mouse over the line, right to left, the translation appears...
Great !!! Try it
Here is the active page




Wednesday, August 12, 2009




It would be absurd. Then again, no historian or linguist worth his or her salt has ever claimed the Egyptians used the words "Semite" or "Asiatic." Both are modern terms.

What we translate as "Asia" to the Egyptians was an amorphous region today called the Levant. In fact, use of the word "Asia" is outdated. More common modern terms are Levant, Palestine, or Syro-Palestine. This area was not a well-defined state in ancient times but a collection of city-states and semi-nomadic tribes, most of whom spoke some dialect of Western Semitic.

The Egyptians referred to people of the Levant by several names. The word Canaan, a generic descriptor, probably does derive from the ancient Egyptian word transliterated as "knanw." One word for part of modern Syria was "rTnw." To the Egyptians the word Asia was "sTt," and Asiatics were "sttyw." As you can see from my transliterations, these terms would make no sense to the average modern reader, so more modern place names are employed.


NO one on earth has the slightest clue of what any ancient Egyptian words sounded like.

The idea to make weird spellings to make weird sounds of the Egyptians, will not float.


Levant, region on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Its name derives from the Italian word levante, meaning "rising," implying the rising of the sun in the east. Historically, the Levant included all of the countries along the eastern Mediterranean shores, extending from Greece to Egypt.

People of Italian or French extraction born in the Levant were sometimes referred to as Levantines. The name Levant States was used to refer to the French mandate over Syria and Lebanon after World War I (1914-1918); today the term is still occasionally applied to those two countries.

© 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

I am not sure how these Egyptians are from Latin, Greek or any thing else. If it is a translation from ancient Egyptian to your language.. what it means in Chinese or Greek is a waste of breath.

Unless the title specifically identifies a specific tribe, then the words Semite, Levant, Asian are abstract identifications. Such words would only mean some one to our north who is not an Egyptian.

Levant includes Egyptians by this dictionary.


Then he continues

Yes, the ancient Hebrews were Semitic


I asked him to define Hebrews or Semitic people but he never responded.

Hebrew is a bible word and most Hebrews were NON Israelites, and if a Semite is one who spoke a middle east language, every one there was a Semite.

Note how these abstract words keep being sprinkled in to confuse or promote some kind of information that does not exist.






There are no records of how the Egyptians first encountered their neighbors. Speculation based on some known events, the encounters may have first been explorers on the Mediterranean sea or on the Egyptian water ways.

Explorers like bees return home and traders follow. Traders return to their home turf with stories of wealth, and rulers send their militaries to rob or enslave the population.

While we hear the stories of supposed Canaanites moving in on the Egyptians, some how the history of Egypt's invasions/expansions are lost.

The Canaanites were Egyptian neighbors by land. Phoenicians or Hittites who wanted to get to Egypt would either have to pass through Canaan or arrive by ship.


In ancient times, there were no stock markets. Populations were made up of royalty & their police/military to make the commoners obey.

The business of the population was farming/herding and businesses directly related to eating or survival.

Unless there were a famine, a tyrant ruler, or a reason to flee, no commoners would survive any better in Egypt than they would in Lebanon, Canaan or Turkey.

The idea of a mass migration to Egypt by the commoners is quite humorous. As for any royalty to migrate out of their own land, duh ?

Rulers thrive no matter if the commoners are living in poverty. If rulers want the wealth of other lands, they send their lemmings/military to invade and fetch the wealth.

Rulers in times past, did go with their military forces to fight (watch the fighting more likely), but rulers never gave up their own empire/strong holds, to migrate to another land to become farmers/herders themselves.

There is an extensive web of rivers that enter Egypt from the north. This web leads to the Nile River.

The Hittites and Phoenicians could have taken a long journey through Canaan to reach Egypt or they could have made their voyage by the sea.

This extensive web of rivers was also the door way to Egypt by the Greeks and Romans.

As the Nile river runs south, it enters Cush/Nubian/Sudan and would be the best way for the Egyptians and Cushites to trade.



Tuesday, August 11, 2009



The battles of the Egyptians may have been over decades or centuries, but with out any ancient text to identify who they were fighting, the 'experts' declare all enemies of the Egyptians to be 'Hyksos'
Evidence through imagination, I guess !

No where in the accounts of Ahmose, is Avaris ever identified as "the capital of the Hyksos" this hog wash, is more concoctions based on imagination, instead of hieroglyphs.

The conflicts at Avaris are not tied to any other conflicts through Egyptian hieroglyphics, nor are the enemy at Avaris ever identified as 'Hyksos'

The text in the accounts of Ahmose does indicate the naval battles. The rivers that come from the Mediterranean sea are the doors to the northern cities of Egypt.

Unless the hieroglyphs actually identify any one specifically, the wind of the 'experts' is the same if it comes from their mouth or the back of their pants. The information left by the Egyptians are in the hieroglyphs, and the fabrications of the 'experts' is but a fart in the wind.

Looks like Ahmose spent a lot of time fighting in naval battles. The entry point of these invaders was not through the Sinai, from Canaan, but it was on the river that flows from the sea.

Remember the whole story of 'Hyksos' were they were farmers/shepherds that came to settle in Egypt. To believe the battles at Avaris was with the 'Hyksos', you would have to believe a bunch of farmers/herders settled in Egypt, then formed a fleet of ships to battle the Egyptians.. Duh