Tuesday, August 25, 2009

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 made....in 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?