[ninurta]

From what I've read, the Hyksos were part Indo-European and part semitic. They were too early to be the Hebrews of the exodus. The latter most likely occurred under Ramses II roughly 1300 BCE or a little later. The Hyksos invaded and ruled Egypt several centuries earlier. Btw the term "Hyksos" wasn't their original name but, like so much else (including "Egypt") a name given them by the Greeks much later.

You are right, many of them where also of hittite and other anatolian ethnicities.

[starman2003]

Certainly they were part of the Indo-European "middle group" which included the Hittites. But the latter were around the time of Ramses c 1300 BCE. The Hyksos were centuries earlier, and probably somewhat different, as they were presumably in Palestine, not Anatolia, before overruning Egypt; they are said to have invaded with a semitic element.

[ninurta]

Certainly they were part of the Indo-European "middle group" which included the Hittites. But the latter were around the time of Ramses c 1300 BCE. The Hyksos were centuries earlier, and probably somewhat different, as they were presumably in Palestine, not Anatolia, before overruning Egypt; they are said to have invaded with a semitic element.

They were a confederacy, not a tribe. The hyksos were most likely called something else by themselves, as the word hyksos was to describe them. They were all from Palestine and Sinai, but the hittites actually occupied palestine until the egyptians took it from them. As for semitic, nearly the whole fertile cresent was semitic.

[starman2003]

I was under the impression that the Egyptians overran Palestine first but the Hittites threatened their rule due to their use of iron weapons, which outclassed Egyptian bronze.

[Potemkin]

I was under the impression that the Egyptians overran Palestine first but the Hittites threatened their rule due to their use of iron weapons, which outclassed Egyptian bronze.

The Egyptians and the Hittites fought each other to a standstill at the Battle of Kadesh, leaving the Egyptians in charge of Palestine: Battle of Kadesh. For once in human history, sense prevailed, and they agreed to a peace treaty which allowed their respective empires non-overlapping spheres of influence. They never militarily confronted each other again. After Kadesh, the Hittite Empire did not threaten Egypt's possession of Palestine.

[starman2003]

Now IIRC Kadesh was fought early in the reign of Ramses II c 1300 BCE. The Egyptians had held Palestine well before then. If the Hittites did not seriously threaten Egyptian rule there until c 1300 BCE, I doubt they were already a significant factor in Palestine when the Hyksos moved out of there to Egypt, several centuries earlier.

[Potemkin]

Now IIRC Kadesh was fought early in the reign of Ramses II c 1300 BCE. The Egyptians had held Palestine well before then. If the Hittites did not seriously threaten Egyptian rule there until c 1300 BCE, I doubt they were already a significant factor in Palestine when the Hyksos moved out of there to Egypt, several centuries earlier.

They weren't. Who claimed that they were?

[starman2003]

On the previous page, ninurta said the hittites "actually occupied palestine until the Egyptians took it from them."

[Potemkin]

On the previous page, ninurta said the hittites "actually occupied palestine until the Egyptians took it from them."

I believe he's wrong, though he may be thinking of Egypt's temporary loss of control of this region under Akhnaten.

[starman2003]

But was it the Hittites who took advantage of Akhnaten's weakness to oust the Egyptians for a time? Even if they did, that was, I believe, still well after the Hyksos.

[Potemkin]

But was it the Hittites who took advantage of Akhnaten's weakness to oust the Egyptians for a time? Even if they did, that was, I believe, still well after the Hyksos.

Yes, and yes. Though my understanding is that the Hittites only took Syria rather than Palestine from the Egyptians; that is, only the northern Levant. Kadesh was to the north, and it was the point where their two spheres of influence overlapped.

[starman2003]

Bottom line, since the Hittites settled in Anatolia, and appear absent from Palestine, the presumed jumping off place for the Hyksos invasion of Egypt much earlier, the two groups weren't the same.

[Potemkin]

The Hyksos were certainly not Hittites, no.

[starman2003]

I'd assume that the Indo-European element in the Hyksos was at least fairly closely related to the Hittites, since they were both presumably in the "middle Indo-European" group that penerated south of the Caucasus, whereas the eastern, Aryan group entered Iran and the Indian subcontinent, and the western group headed for Europe.

[ninurta]

Didn't the Hittites at one point rule canaan? I thought they did. I'm going to look into that.

I believe he's wrong, though he may be thinking of Egypt's temporary loss of control of this region under Akhnaten.

I may of confused that.

I'd assume that the Indo-European element in the Hyksos was at least fairly closely related to the Hittites, since they were both presumably in the "middle Indo-European" group that penerated south of the Caucasus, whereas the eastern, Aryan group entered Iran and the Indian subcontinent, and the western group headed for Europe.

What evidence is there of that though? The Hyksos all had semitic names, semitic burials, semitic beliefs, and really not a trace remains of anything that hints at a nonsemitic origin for them to my knowledge.

There weren't too many indo-europeans in that region at the time, there was the hittites and others in anatolia and persia, but that's the closest, and they'd have to go through mesopotamia or northern palestine.

[Kon]

Yeah no, see the passover thread (Happy Pesach!) for more info.

Most theorys on the Hyksos being Jews are considered to be a joke; they are usually in reference to the Jews leaving Egypt, but none of the dates or facts really match up with the theory.

[Xotica]

The connection is untrue because it doesnt match historiographically, simple as that. It can be theorized that with the Hyksos exodus, maybe some of the slaves left as well in the heat of the moment, and perhaps with that exodus, the ones who later became known as Jews, left as well. Not that the one is the other.

Many Biblical scholars are convinced that the Hebrew story of Exodus is actually two different exodus events telescoped into a single entity by a later Jewish redactor. This is why for example, two different exodus routes are described in the passages. Archeological digs at Avaris (the Hyksos capital city) reveal a distinct people living on the outskirts of the city. Their vases and cooking utensils etc match up well with contemporaneous examples in use among the Habiru tribes in Palestine at the time. These people fled Egypt along with the Hyksos, and it is postulated that this flight represents the second Israelite exodus event from Egypt.

[IamJoseph]

My understanding, though not absolutely certain, is the Hyksos were the people who invaded Egypt, which Genesis refers to, 'NOW A NEW KING AROSE IN EGYPT AND HE KNEW NOT JOSEPH'. This people are first recorded of in Genesis and were certainly not the Israelites, not being from Canaan and not subscribing to Abrahamic monotheism.

two different exodus routes are described in the passages.

Which passage lists two routes? The fast coastal route [King's highway] was avoided because of the Philistines, a new invader group who previously massacred the Benjamin tribe who made an escape before the exodus via Moses. Their bones were left to scare off the Israelites from returning to Canaan. Thus the inland, uncharted longer journey was taken, so not to discourage the exodus if their brotheren's bones were seen.

The other pasage taken was when the Moabites [in today's Jordan] refused the Israelites passage rights, which made a long journey the only choice. The Philistines marked the first invasion to Arabia by a European group. Later, the Greeks and Romans dubbed the name Palestine on Judea. One theory is the Hyksos' bondage fostered the Israelites to return to their land, which they had all but forgotten because of the good life in Egypt brought by Joseph, who became the second in command of Egypt. I wonder if Moses battled with a Hyksos Pharoah.

Post straigtened out. Please avoid double posts. - SD

[Loba]

As far as I know there is not any scholar certainty about who were Hyksos exactly.
An hypothesis is that they were Canaanite tribes that, having cooperated with others (Cretes etc.), got raid to Egypt. They remained in Egypt and, as winners invaders, they took the administration command and control of pharaoh (if not going pharaohs by themselves). The Jews were either tribal relatives with the Hyksos, or Jews' presence in Egypt was politically appropriate for the Hyksos. This explains that Pharaoh made Joseph the "Prime Minister". In coming years the Hyksos' power and their control of Egypt administration weakened. The oldest indigenous got back prevailing. This led to the expulsion of the Hyksos off Egypt. New Order in Egypt (In fact: Old Order resurgence) was making the Jews slaves and that led to their Exodus.

[Igor Antunov]

So where is their likely origin from geographically speaking? Mesopotamia, or further abroad?