Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Assumption of Hyksos Superiority another factoid

Expand Messages
  • rb47x@AOL.com
    Hi David, Yes one sterling example comes to mind in answer to your excellent question: The idea that the Hyksos introduced the horse, chariot, composite bow,
    Message 1 of 1 , May 4 5:28 PM
      Hi David,

      Yes one sterling example comes to mind in answer to your excellent question:


      The idea that the Hyksos introduced the horse, chariot, composite bow, other
      advanced weapons, even the wheel itself (!) to the Egyptians, does not seem to
      be referenced to any actual ancient sources. Manetho does not mention it
      (correct me if I'm wrong, unless I missed some obscure passage somewhere).

      I have been able to trace it back as far as Gaston Maspero circa 1880 in his
      effort to explain how the Hyksos could have conquered Egypt, and he suggested
      it was because the Hyksos possessed superior weaponry. Possibly Maspero
      originated the idea, possibly it can be traced back further still. But it seems to
      be an assumption that has somehow turned into "fact" (maybe we should call
      these "factoids") and is found everywhere, without any substantive citations.

      Brad C. Sparks
      Orange County, CA

      >Re: Kenites
      Posted by: "David Lorton" davidlorton@... davidlorton
      Date: Sat May 3, 2008 10:16 pm ((PDT))

      >At the end of this dreary week, what a pleasure it was to read Yigal Levin's
      posting.

      >Does anyone know of any other examples of "assumptions" somehow becoming
      "facts"?

      >David Lorton
      Baltimore, MD

      >>-----Original Message-----
      >From: Yigal Levin <leviny1@...>
      >Sent: May 3, 2008 5:02 PM
      >To: ANE-2@yahoogroups.com
      >>Subject: Re: [ANE-2] Kenites
      >
      >Dear Gene,
      >
      >The source of this is Gen. 4:22, in which Tubal-Cain is reported to have
      been a worker of coper and iron. The Kenites, who are never actually described as
      such in the Bible, are assumed to have been "decsended" from this Tubal-Cain
      ("Cain" and "Kene" are spelled the same in Hebrew). I'm not sure who first
      came up with this theory, but it's a great example of how a totally unbaised
      assumption becomes "common knowledge" which is then cited as "fact".
      >
      >You might want to take a look at I. Kalimi, "Three Assumptions about the
      Kenites", ZAW 100,3 (1988) 386-393.

      <snip>





      **************
      Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
      favorites at AOL Food.

      (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.