Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Banyai AT t-online.de (Michael Banyai)]

Hallo Marianne Luban,

there is of course a great confusion between Tutimaeos / Dedumose and 
Tethmosis, the one pharaoh having to deal first with the Hyksos and the one 
falsely attributed by Manetho and al with their ousting. The bigger the name 
the more stories are attributed to one, even if one has nothing to do with. 
You must admit that the end of the Hyksos, and the term is clearly defined 
for Manetho by his Hyksos dynasty, came with Ahmose, and the rest is only 
projection onto Tuthmosis (similar name like Dedumose/Tutimaeos, etc).

Who the Hyksos have been is also quite clear in the mean-while: known from 
Assyro-Babylonian sources Meluhha, and from biblical one´s Amalek.

By chance I have got a notice completing my argumentation concerning the 
position of Meluhha from an astronomical diary published in JAOS(BCE 
(Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 2: 470 A 14-15, A = BM 41581) as rendered by Gera and 
Horowitz in JAOS 117.2 (1997)concerning the campaign of Antiochos IV into 
Egypt 169 BC, saying:

"That month I (the astronomer) heard as follows: King Antiochus marched 
victoriously through the cities of Meluhha and [...] the citizens, 
processions (pompe) and rituals akin to the style of the Greeks . [...]"

We know that Antiochos IV conquered that year but the Delta except 
Alexandria. He should have destroyed all Egyptian temples in his way (the 
later temple of Onias was constructed over the ruins of such a destroyed 
Egyptian temple)- this makes  jubilating Egyptian crowds rather improbable. 
This besides the rather improbable equation Meluhha=Lower Egypt (which 
contradicts most other sources) makes this reference apply to an Antiochos 
still underway to Egypt. The coastal towns of Amalek stretching till Sile 
would fit this description.

Just to quote a few other examples concerning Meluhha during the LBA and 
later:

the geography of Sargon of Akkade (a late neo-assyrian fake from the time of 
Sargon II of Assur) : From…] the bridge of Baza on the edge of the road to 
the land Meluhha to the mountain of cedar: the Hanean land, nine kings". Bazu 
is identified on the Stela of Sfire I as being a town on the Euphrates, 
probably Zeugma. The stretch of the land of Meluhha is of 120 Beru (since 
Asarhaddon walks along in the Negeb) thus north-south, through the desert 
from Zeugma till Negeb.

Assurbanipal counts Meluhha among the insurgent countries against his reign. 
In other inscriptions does take Arabia its place.

According to the bible does the territory controlled by the Amalekites 
stretch between Hawila and Sile. Hawila is demonstrably nothing else as 
Guzana (mentioned in the inscription of the early Hurrian king Atalšen 
roughly contemporary with the dynasty of Akkad. It mentions an offering to 
“Nergal, Lord of Hawilum” by Atalšen the good shepherd, king of Urkiš and 
Nawar. While Bar-Bahlul (10th century) mentioning the toponym HWYL´ (Hwila, 
Huwayla, and in one exemplar of his lexicon H/Kwila or H/Kuwayla); which he 
associates with the city of GWZN (vocalised Gawzan; Lexicon Syriacum ed. 
R.Duval [1888-1896] col. 426 and n .25). Thus does the territory attributed 
by the biblical sources to the Amalekites parallel the one of Meluhha in 
Assyrian ones.

This set against the name of the aloes in roman times, called "Ammos 
Hiksoitike", which was brought from Arabia. The name of the last king of the 
Amalekites according to the arabian lore is much the same as that of the last 
Hyksos after the fall of Awaris, in Sharuchen: H3mwdj, that was es-Someida. 
The syllabic writing H3mwdj renders H-m-d-, thus with three open syllables. 
Manetho usually renders „h“ as „s“. The Amalekites ought according to the 
same arabic tradition have once controlled Egypt.

Insofar there are not so many posibilities concerning neither the date of the 
Exodus nor the nature of the Hyksos.

Best regards,

Bányai Michael
Stuttgart