The Exodus

Yes, it happened.

But was it the same as the Biblical Exodus?

I say, Yes.

Just the tale became a bit mixed up in the re-tellings.

What are the known facts?

Anyone?

Depends on what you mean by did it happen Orwell.
From memory there is no archeoligica evidence so far to the captivity or to a mass migration of people- but there is a steady trickle of migration over a signifcant period of time.

There was the Exodus when Ahmose expelled the Hyksos. Is this the episode the Bible story is based on? A mass migration in one go - but not 600,000 peope I'd think.

Yeah numbers are to low. And the Hyksos was a slow invasion, across a few generations and even after Ahmose 'expelled' them there were still Hyksos retained in important positions.
One f th einteesting things I find about the Hyksos is they didnt conquer and impose their own beliefs on the natives- they adopted the natives culture and religions lock, stock and barrel.

It may however have added some general numbers to the peoples who were migrating anyway throughout this entire period- as there was as the Bible rightly records, a period of increased drought as the climate changed.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah numbers are to low. And the Hyksos was a slow invasion, across a few generations...

Maybe this hints at the background to Joseph.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:...and even after Ahmose 'expelled' them there were still Hyksos retained in important positions.

Where is this in the record? (Don't doubt you, just like to know the evidence).

Pettytyrant101 wrote:One of th inteesting things I find about the Hyksos is they didnt conquer and impose their own beliefs on the natives- they adopted the natives culture and religions lock, stock and barrel.

There appears to have been a first migration of Asiatics (backstory, Biblically speaking, the migration of Joseph and other tribal migrations over a long period), who became Egyptianized, then followed by the Hycsos 'foreign kings', a military elite of unknown race (apparently), who imposed their rule over the Asiatic Egyptianized population in Avaris (Goshen?) and then the older Natives (and Dynasties) in Upper Egypt, and who may not have become quite so Egyptianized, this elite being the Hycsos Kings starting with Salitis and ending with Khamudi (the King Ahmose sent on his way) along with the whole population of Avaris. A proper Dynasty of just over a hundred years, perhaps linked by race or intermarriage with the Minoans and trading with them whle the XVIIth Dynasty of Egypt was land locked in Upper Egypt and indeed, under the Hykos thumb, and not actually totally Free, if you know what I mean! (A)mose - Moses? - freed the Egyptians from Hyksos rule, maybe. (???)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:It may however have added some general numbers to the peoples who were migrating anyway throughout this entire period- as there was as the Bible rightly records, a period of increased drought as the climate changed.

Too general for me. The Biblical Exodus is based on a real event. The Ahmose-Khamudi event seems to be most likely. It was a 'memorable' kind of event when a large population 'negotiated' to leave Egypt all at once. It is in the Egyptian record (steles etc) and Historians like Josephus (through Manetho) are aware of it, both through the Bible and through native records. It seems, like I said, a pivotal and 'remembered' event, even though the tale grew in the telling(s), both in Egypt and elsewhere (the Bible as one example). Indeed, maybe the Native Egyptians were the slaves, and Moses (Ahmoses) their Liberator, with God's help, of course (Amun, that is).

This-

Where is this in the record?

and this-

It is in the Egyptian record (steles etc) and Historians like Josephus (through Manetho) are aware of it

Now mean I will have to go into my dark and dangerous (its full of wild ideas) cupboard of books and root through piles of the damn things to find the relevant info. I hope your bloody happy now!

Indeedy!

I am trying to account for the Biblical Plagues too btw - so you're drawer checking may need to go deeper. I think that event occurred in Egypt too - but maybe it happened around the time the Hyksos Kings came to Egypt. There is that Josephus tale ( I think it was Josephus?) about a catastrophe that occurred which allowed the Foreigners, Salitis's bunch, to march right in without having to fight. (The Admonitions of Ipuwer might be a telling of the tale just as the Bible tale was).

The Bible may conflate two events separated by just over a hundred years - one in which a Native Pharoah of the Nile Delta was bested by God (or Nature in the form of the Theran catastrophe!) This Native 'Pharoah' (who is always nameless) may indeed be just another word for "the Egyptians", as there may have been a lot of local Egyptian Kings back then, or the Pharoah of the time not really amounting to much nor being particularly memorable (in the records that is) (Dudimose?) . Mmmmm....

NB Volcano eruptions can cause all of the Biblical Plague-like stuff to occur.

I'm off to work. I want a proper response on return, Petty.

I do recall watching a documentary connecting the plagues to the Theran, I seem to recall it being possible but only with a series of fairly rare events occuring as knock on effects of one another.
Although I see less of a problem if all that is required is a couple of bad plague things at once and the rest grows in the tellling.

I think Joseph was pre Hyksos invasion- I base this on a line in the Bible which comes quite late in his life that there was a new Pharoah 'unknown to him'.
There is no way someone could have got to be Pharoah during Josephs time in Court and him not know them.
So by defualt the only other kings in the time period in Egypt would be the Hyksos (This would also place Joseph in the south of the country that was taken over, hence a new unknown Pharoah, and not in the still Egyptian north).

My thought is any Jopesph kind of figure could have preceded Salitis by a long time - 100, 200, 300, 400 hundred years. Joseph's tribe could have been part of any Asiatic migration during the years mentioned.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:There is no way someone could have got to be Pharoah during Josephs time in Court and him not know them.
So by defualt the only other kings in the time period in Egypt would be the Hyksos (This would also place Joseph in the south of the country that was taken over, hence a new unknown Pharoah, and not in the still Egyptian north).

I think the implication is it was a Pharoah who came to power well after Joseph's time. One who knew nothing of Joseph nor what a good Asiatic-Egyptian Joseph had been. It was a messy Dynastic time in the Second Intermediate Period with many transitory Pharoahs both North and South until the time of Salitis first (?) Hyksos King (Avaris) and the 17th Dynasty (Thebes).

I think the implication is it was a Pharoah who came to power well after Joseph's time- Orwell

Possible, although I dont know of any reason not to assume the Biblical account of Joseph is in outline accurate- the movement of his family rather fits in well tracing it back through to Abram to Ur- covering a minimum timespan of about 4-5 generations between Ur and Egypt. That movement fits the history of the period following the collapse of the city-states of Sumer as the dominant powers.
The account of being driven into Egypt by drought also fits with the warming period of the time period.
My reckoning puts Joseph before the Hyksos, but overlapping them in his later years.

Joseph's arrival (according to the Bible) was peaceful. If Manetho was correct, the Asiatic (people's of obscure race?) invasion was more violent and occurred soon after a great tribulation of some sort (Theran Eruption?) when the Egyptians army/ies could not even put up resistance (possibly due to said tribulation).

Mind you, if as I think the Israelite storytellers stole Ahmose's Exodus and made the Egyptians the oppressor, not the Hyksos, then maybe we can even entertain the idea that Joseph's arrival may have been a violent predatory one, made easy by the Theran caused tribulation. There was a Hyksos King called Yakob - I think the second in a line of 6 known Hyksos Kings. Mmm.... Maybe Joseph was Salitis or Yakob's next in line? The thought had never crossed my mind before!

Perhaps the Israelites remebered their early Kings in Egypt - just got their perspectives wrong, making them heroes and pacifists and later slaves, while the Egyptians saw it totally opposite, they were the oppressed slaves later freed by (A)moses(?) and his God/s? (The Bible might therefore contain some creative national propagandist politics swinging in the breeze! )

Hypothesis: (1) The Theran Eruption caused (seeming super?) natural events like what is mentioned in the Bible and the Admonitions of Ipuwer and the Theogeny (plus other ancient sources)(circa 1628BCE to throw in a possible date). ("seeming super"? I mean, the plagues etc. Put in a good storytelling sequence by the Bible writers, of course).

Hypothesis: (2) The Biblical Exodus occurred in time of Ahmose except the Asiatics (including the Israelites?) were forced out by that Pharoah. I can find nothing matching the Plagues in any source for that period. (The Tempest Stela mentions a great storm with floods, which was not one of the Plagues).

Betwen Plagues and Exodus lay 100 or so years, perhaps. Instead the usual 1550BCE date, maybe Ahmose' dates should be around 1528BCE or 1518BCE (thereabouts)??? If the Conventional Chronology is right, then maybe the Huksos Dynasty lasted only 80 years. There is apparently more evidence for the New Testament Kings than the Second Intermediate Kings (including the Hyksos Kings which ran parrallel with the XVIIth Dynasty Kings who are not well attested either).

So the Biblical Exodus was a (propagandist?) conflation of two events locked in the mists of time relying on Oral History and the 'perspective' (creativity?) of the later writers?

In Manetho was correct, the Asiatic (people's of obscure race?) invasion
was more violent and occurred soon after a great tribulation of some
sort- Orwell

Whilst I think Manetho is probably right that there was a more violent incursion I stilll think there was a long slow migration towards the Nile valley long underway.
The path followed from Ur to Egypt is a perfectly sensible and possible one and there are pottery traces which show a migration of people.

I would say then that there had been a long term immigration in to Egypt as the former city-states colapsed or lost importance. And that it was eventually capped off with a violent arrival of many at once- possibly caused by Theran. Or possibly just drought.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Whilst I think Manetho is probably right that there was a more violent incursion I stilll think there was a long slow migration towards the Nile valley long underway.
The path followed from Ur to Egypt is a perfectly sensible and possible one and there are pottery traces which show a migration of people.

I agree. I think the idea of Joseph's and like tribes gradually migrating to the Delta over a long period of time and being under the rule of of local Egyptian Dynasts is more than feasible. Then comes Thera and the Hyksos (people of obscure race) invade. They contain a militarist elite and are less Shepherds than city dwelling type. Hurrians... Phoenicians...? Maybe folk more like the Egyptians (though not Egyptianized, a distinct culture), not so nomadic sheepherders as such (like the earlier Asiatics - Joseph and the like). So we have the Egyptianized Asiatic population in the Delta ruled by this foreign elite, and the native Egypian Dynasty (ies?) of the South paying tribute (probably the XVIIth Dynasty Kings until Ahmose). This might explain Ahmose having help from some of the Asiatics (as you mentioned) to throw out the Hyksos Oppressors.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I would say then that there had been a long term immigration in to Egypt as the former city-states colapsed or lost importance. And that it was eventually capped off with a violent arrival of many at once- possibly caused by Theran. Or possibly just drought.

I prefer Thera for the "capping" event. The drought may have been a cause of the Eruption. Thera would have had a major affect on the climate all around the world, especailly in the Mediteraen and the Middle East and Northern Egypt. The waters of the Nile would have kept flowing I'm thinking. Flooding and self-filtering (getting rid of that red algal bloom (blood-like) it had around the time peoples of obscure race invaded and raped what was left of Lower Egypt (the Delta areas mainly).

Tutimaios (Tutimaeus) (Timaus) (Dedumose1) was allegedly the Egyptian Dynast at the time of the violent invasion (and Theran Eruption?). The last of the XIIth Dynasty Kings. Sounds like the names use by the XVIIIth Dynasty Kings. Was the time between the fall of the XIIth Dynasty and rise of the XIIIth Dynasty only about a hundred years?

Petty said: "as the former city-states colapsed".

A sudden decline triggered by Thera? and droughts? and darkened skies? and crop killing ash-falls?

When do you date these collapses? Why did they collapse?

I always fancied the Hyksos to be Minoans, or at least their leaders on the mainland- they must have had adminstrators ect who dealt with trade and the like and with their central rule gone they might still have had the prestige and standing to get a scared poplauce behind them near the coasts and take Egypt as a second best option to their destroyed homeland.

FOr city date collapses it depneds which one really- but in broad terms 1700bc through to 500bc for the very last of it to fall into Babylonian control.

I'm thinking while I'm writing, Petty, so please don't laugh!

If Thera exploded in circa 1627-1628 (which is the most oftyen agreed guess-date), then it would have had a huge affect , especially on the Mediterranean, the Middle East and North Africa. Vast regions would have been devastated by firestorms, and ash clouds, and electrical storms, and massive tsunamis. The climate would have been affected, probably for two, three or more years. Thousands (milions) would have perished. (Add the Ten Plagues - and more - caused by the after effects of Thera).

The Nile Delta would have become suddenly very attractive. City State were collapsing as Summer's like winters, and droughts added hardship to injury. The better organized remnants might easily have decided to invade a weakened Egypt.

The well-organized miltarist Hyksos restored stability out of the chaos in Lower Egypt (Delta). But the Native Egyptians (and Egyptianized Aamu shepherds who'd been there for yonks) would have seen them as Pharoahs of Oppression.

The Hyksos Kings became prosperous as the Mycenaen civilization grew on the bones on the weaked Minoan civilization and exploited Egypt's natural resources. For between 80 and 110 years (the Hyksos Dynasty Period) resentment simmered. Then the last Kings of the XVIIth Dynasty tried to throw off the shackles. In the end, after much war, the Hyksos population was 'negotiated' out of Avaris. Ahmose 'let them go" after a siege. The Exodus.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I always fancied the Hyksos to be Minoans, or at least their leaders on the mainland- they must have had adminstrators ect who dealt with trade and the like and with their central rule gone they might still have had the prestige and standing to get a scared poplauce behind them near the coasts and take Egypt as a second best option to their destroyed homeland.

I think they were people who were part of the Minoan Trading World. Not as civilized to begin with. Maybe Myceanaens. The 'obscure race' is intriguing. The Minoans would not have been. Nor Hittites or Canaanites, I'm guessing. But a pack of Greeks (forgive the anachronistic terminology) were folk the Egyptians may have had no direct contact with. They may very well have seemed 'obscure' to them. With the Minoan Civilization brought to it's knees by Thera, the Myceaneans might have swooped in. They were militarist, but had been slightly civilized by the influence of the Minoans through their trading contacts. The Mycenaens seemed more warlike, the Minoans more peaceable.

If that were right then that would mean the ancestors of the Jewish people were not Sumerians at all. (although there is a big question mark over where the Sumerians came from in the first place too!)

After the Hyksos were thrown out, they fled to another of their cities, Sharuhen. As to the Isarealites led by Moses (Bible Moses), don't know who they were. Perhaps Ahmose threw out the Asiatics as well. Or to coin a phrase, 'Ahmose threw out the Myeanaens with the Asiatics'. Maybe it was 'Aaron' who led the people out of Egypt? Ahmose freed the native Egyptians, and sent Aaron on his way with the Asiatic part of the Egyptianized population? Ahmose may have allowed his hate of the Myceanaens extend to the Egyptianized (but still foreign) Asiatics too. Especially if they had been Egyptianized Asiatics who supported Khamudy (the last Hyksos-Myceanen King) in the war against Ahmose?

The Hyksos were Minoanized Myceanaens! Makes sense kind of.

Trouble I have with the Minoan-Mycenaean idea though is the names of the Hyksos Kings.

It makes sense that the egyptianised Asiatics would have switched allegiance to the Hyksos. After all maybe they were smater than us the Hyksos, look what happened when we invaded Iraq and thought it a good idea to take out all the infrastructure and civil service along with the dictator.
From the way the Hyksos outwardly adopted things Egyptian I would guess they largely kept the beurocracy as it was and just placed key people in it.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:If that were right then that would mean the ancestors of the Jewish people were not Sumerians at all. (although there is a big question mark over where the Sumerians came from in the first place too!)

There is one question after another, methinks! I think a lot of what was passed on orally crept into the Jewish National Myth. Like Bower Birds they were!

Well the OT was almost certainly written during the second captivity in Babylon- the most cosmopolitian city ever at the time- they certainly had no shortage of source material as every known religion had a place there.