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.