Re: Piotr: Goliath and Uriah the Hittite as IE -

Piotr wrote:
Brent,
Does your "Indo-Aryan" (in the Hyksos context) mean Indo-European or
specifically Indo-Iranian? Technically, (Indo-)Aryan is an alternative
name for the latter, but that would exclude Hittite- or
Luwian-speakers. The Hurrian elites were even more specifically
(Proto-)Indic rather that Iranian, judging from the terminology cited
in Kikkuli's treatise on horses.
Piotr
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------

Piotr

If you made me answer this one way or the other, I would answer
Proto-Indic. But I have to confess, I don't know with absolute
certainty the answer to this, and I don't want to mislead you.

When I was reading this stuff, 6-7 years back I thought Indo-European,
Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iran were all pretty much the same thing so I
didn't pay any attention to the distinctions you are asking about. In
fact, I wasn't even that focused on Egypt, and was just trying to put
together a view of what was happening in the whole Upper Middle East
region at the time. I do remember my references all used Indo-Aryan in
talking about them. I seem to recall that many were specifically
proposing that the invaders either were, or were closely related to,
the Hurrians and that their rulers were related to the Proto-Indic.
But I wouldn't want to bet-the-farm on this specific memory. The key
would be finding the names of the rulers and the gods.

When I was looking into it, I was mostly using Berkley Universities
Library, so I don't have the references here, to look back on. The
references I do have, also state Indo-Aryan and specifically state an
uncertainty about the precise origin, beyond Indo-Aryan. (these
materials are even more dated, and not focused specifically on Egypt).
I have looked around to see if I could find some of the rulers names or
the names of the gods, but I can't find anything here that would help.
The pharaohs list I have are incomplete, and are based mostly on later
Egyptian sources and for the most part later Egyptians studiously
avoided writing the Hyksos names down. (part of this hate thing).

Also I meant to mention that Avaris is sometimes rendered Auaris. I
don't know if that changes things. And I am not certain about the
timing of when Avaris got its name, and when the Indo-Aryans are
thought to have been part of the invasion group(s). i.e. Avaris name is
clearly tied to the Hyksos, but the timing of when Avaris got its name
and the presents of the Indo-Aryan as part of the Hyksos, is what I am
not certain about. If Avaris had its name before the Indo-Aryans
arrived, that would throw a big hole in everything. Wish I could be of
more help. Maybe there is a real Egyptologist who is current on the
Second Intermediate Period, reading this who can.

By the way, Sabine, if your reading this. Some of the references I
looked through suggest three groups of peoples may have been involved:
the Sinai or Arabic desert nomads, Semitic peoples from the
Levant-specifically the Canaanites who made up the largest part of the
population, and the Indo-Aryans, whose role may have been limited to a
ruling group. They may have been involved in three successive waves, or
intermixed. The only clear thing here, is that the Canaanites made up
most of the 15th dynasty (which was also centered at Avaris), and which
I ironically do have pharaoh names for.

Regards
Brent