Talk:Origins of the Hyksos

message: There is no justification for it. If the Hyksos were Canaanites they are also Hebrews-that is, they assimilated into the Jews, nobody argue about it, except to fringe sites and etc. The only question is whether the Canaanites are ancient Hebrews-and that what those who claim Hyksos to be Canaanites argue, or else, the Hyksos are Hebrews who later entered into Israel (then Canaan) and fully mingled with the local Canaanites (who converted to Judaism) later on.--Gilisa (talk) 10:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who lived in Canaan in the Hysksos period included no jews; There are no Jews till Judah. The people of Canaan at that time were the Amurru, the MARTU, the SAGAZ, the Amalek, the Emim, the Zuzim, some proto Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hittites, Hivites, Hagareans, Perezites, Sidonioans, Tyrians, a few Edomites and Midianite traders, even some Akkadians, Aramians, Syrians... but no jews.Rktect (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny since we all know today that the Biblical Canaanites were probably putted on text somewere between the 9th-7th Centuries BC, while Archaeology tells us that the Canaanite society was mostly Semites with respected minority of Transcauscausus Hurrians alongside few Indo-Europeans (Hittites). The Hebrews of the Bible (Later the Israelites) are proven to be direct descendants of these Canaanites, who simply arose from the revolting low-levels, bandits (Habiru) and pastoral-nomads (Shasu) of society during the Bronze Age Collapse. There's no doubt about the Hyksos' migration from Canaan to ancient egypt and their expllusion out of there played apart in the background/historical root of the tales of Joseph and The Exodus, respectivelly. So: I guess there were Jews in Canaan back then, before the Kingdom of Judah, and that they're related to the Hyksos. BTW "syrians" is an hellenistic name for "Assyrians".--192.114.91.211 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why there are two differente sections for "Hebrews" and "Asiatic Semities"???

message: RE:  However, this view still makes it difficult to explain how “wandering groups” could have gained control of Egypt, especially since the twelfth dynasty, prior to this period, is considered to have brought the country to a peak of power.
In Genesis, it is rather clearly recorded how the Hebrews gained power.  Joseph interpreted dreams, and was put into power to administer the saving of grain during 7 good years, for the 7 years of famine.  Then, during the famine years, Joseph's family moved in, peacefully.  That fits with what is claimed in the "Hyksos" article about these people:
In the last decades, however, the idea of a simple migration, with little or no violence involved, has gained some support.[9] Under this theory, the Egyptian rulers of 13th Dynasty were unable to stop these new migrants from travelling to Egypt from Asia because they were weak kings who were struggling to cope with various domestic problems including possibly famine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.53.88 (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is it "difficult to explain" when the Biblical account is so clear?

message: Does anyone have a clue what this IP editor is trying to say? One name is a personal name, the other that of a kingdom, is he putting them together to get 'Hyksos'? And I don't think he has read the source since he doesn't seem to know where the authors wrote what they wrote and I doubt also that he knows exactly what they wrote. I will continue to revert this.Doug Weller (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this IP editor needs to be reported for disruptive editing as he doesn't respond when problems with his edit are pointed out.Doug Weller (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: He repeatedly refers to this same source to support whatever pet theory he has just made up. The source does not even have "(aka Aryan)" in the title, but he's been calling it that for over a year. Paul B (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And he still hasn't found out where it comes from? Anyway, he won't be back here for a while hopefully.Doug Weller (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's from Scientific American, March 1990. Paul B (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: For some reason it seems to have been picked up by Armenian nationalists, who like to put it online and highlight passages about Armenian, as though it implies that the language has some unique significance . All these versions have an identical scanning error ('fumed out' for 'turned out'). Needless to say it never says anything whatever about the Hyksos. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it took me just a few seconds to locate the source. I worry that people do put in references they've never seen, often copying them from somewhere lese on Wikipedia. Deleting anything referenced without a page number is tempting at times.Doug Weller (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, we have an article Hayk. Nothing to do with this article. Dougweller (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  no, its obvious Hyksos is linked with Hayk and Hayasa of Armenians  ????? 

message: Some sources discuss the effects of the explosion of Thera on Santorini c 1621 BC as causing widespread migrations. The refugees from one land enter that of another displacing the ihabitants. As this is repeated over and over for centuries you eventually get sea peoples interacting with the land folk as raiders and traders all over the Mycenean meditteranean. 
At the same time you have horses and boats enhancing the ability of ancient civilizations to communicate and control ever larger empires. 
Some have discussed the loosely organized gene, oinkos and phratre as brotherhoods something like the modern mafia or alternatively as pirates or vikings. Families, crews, and organizations that could call upon one another to form armies large enough to take on cities began to take over the emporia or cities set aside for forign trade in many countries. In many cases they were hired both to act as mercenaries or to escort cargos on the high seas. In particular punic sites testify to the modus operandi of how the Hyksos might have taken over Egypts delta without a battle. Essentially its a case of whomever controls the water controlling the land. If cargos were shipped without the Hyksos getting a cut they simply turned pirate and attacked the trading vessels at sea.
Mixed in with the Hyksos were all the usual adventurers, skilled tradespeople, merchants, doctors, lawyers, scribes, agricultural workers, bandits, vagrants, farmers, warriors and criminal eneterprises necessary to sustain the emporia as markets.Rktect (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: origins of the Hyksos

message: The image identified as Ahmose is actually Ramesses II against the Hittites. It is taken from p. 293 of S. C. Heinz's Die
Feldzugdarstellungen des Neues Reiches. Monstrelet (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of header image 

message: The Egyptian root of the name Hyksos is given as heqa-khaset in the lead section, and heka khasewet in the next. The transliteration should be consistent within the article, but not having any knowledge of Ancient Egyptian-to-English transliteration, I don’t know which would be the better choice.—Quick and Dirty User Account (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration of etymological root