Electric                    Astral               Pre-historical
Universe              Catastrophism        Reconstruction


Articles & Products Supporting the Pre-historical Reconstruction and Plasma Cosmology
 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store       used books        contact

Site Section Links

Introduction Material
The Third Story

Cosmology, Origins
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Relativity Theory

Geophysical Material
Origin of Modern Geology
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions

Philosophy Material
Philosophy Links

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Modern Mythology Material
Language/Symbol Development
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Horus Journals TOC
Kronos Journals TOC
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article

Miscellaneous Material
Modern Mythology
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors


KRONOS Vol. I, Issue 2


A Symposium

On October 30, 1974, a scholarly symposium was held in Pittsburgh within the framework of the Duquesne History Forum.(1) It was organized to evaluate and debate the merit of Immanuel Velikovsky's reconstruction of ancient history. One of the invited panelists was Dr. Gerald E. Kadish, an associate professor of history at SUNY-Binghamton and editor of the Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. A student of the Egyptologists Wilson and Seele, Kadish was expected to be Velikovsky's most formidable opponent at what was the first serious public discussion devoted exclusively to Ages in Chaos since its initial publication more than twenty-two years before.

As it happened, the reality of the event turned out quite differently from what was anticipated. Kadish, who had been one of the privileged few to receive an unpublished manuscript copy of Velikovsky's The Peoples of the Sea (the final sequel volume to the Ages in Chaos series), was ill-prepared on several counts. He not only had failed to respond with requested criticism on the unpublished material, but produced no formal paper of challenging substance. In addition, he gave the distinct impression that, for him at least, the entire affair was an inconsequential "going-through-the-motions" routine.

In reporting on the Duquesne History Forum, the editor of Pensee wrote that "if there was any specific commentary on Velikovsky's work buried in Kadish's address, it could only have been the unspoken but apparent contention that Velikovsky had not adequately covered the sources in his chronological efforts." For Kadish, this was a crucial point. "Indeed, when later provoked by Velikovsky, Kadish offered objections to three or four of Velikovsky's claims (including his translation of Hyksos* as 'shepherd kings' and his linguistical linking of 'Hatshepsut' and 'Sheba'(2)), concluding: 'I tried to suggest a variety of ways one could go about corroborating what Velikovsky has said. My contention – and I had assumed it would be implicit in what I said – was that it had not been done'."(3)

[* The name given to the invaders of Egypt at the time of the collapse of the Middle Kingdom.]

Kadish's assertions, as the following testimony will clearly demonstrate, were not only blatant gibberish, but stand as embarrassing proof of his own obvious unfamiliarity with Velikovsky's published historical work and failure to practice the very methodology he preaches. Unfortunately, Pensee's uncritical review failed to strip away the facade of Kadish's empty criticism, thereby making the journal an unwitting accomplice to a baseless charge Let us examine the facts. |

In Ages in Chaos ( p. 56), one will clearly see that Velikovsky's so-called-translation of the term Hyksos is actually a quote from the antiquarian Josephus (Against Apion, I, 82) who had based his remarks upon_those of the Egyptian historian Manetho. Moreover, if one additionally checks reference #7 on the very same page, Velikovsky openly and freely admits that "at present the preferred etymology sees in the name Hyk-sos the Egyptian equivalent for 'the rulers of foreign countries'."(4)

At this juncture, any impartial judge would either throw Kadish's case out of court, declare a mistrial, or order the prosecutor into his closed chambers for an explanation and/or reprimand.

For our purposes, however, it is necessary to continue an examination of the linguistic evidence due to the far-reaching implications it has regarding Velikovsky's historical restructuring.

Evil Angels or King-Shepherds?

The real significance of the meaning of the Egyptian term Hyksos, so far as it pertains to Velikovsky's thesis, lies in its relationship to external data, specifically a certain Biblical passage found in the Psalms (78:49) (5) and also in the Haggadah. According to both sources, in the enumeration of the plagues in Egypt, we find reference to the Lord bringing down upon the Egyptians "His wrath, anger, indignation, and trouble by sending evil angels among them" or "a legation of evil angels (mishlakhat malakhei-roim)."

Velikovsky rightly questioned the validity of the phrase "evil angels" since "there is no expression like 'evil angels' to be found elsewhere in the Scriptures" and it "is not only unusual Hebrew, but it is also contrary to the grammatical structure of the language."(6)

Furthermore, Velikovsky demonstrated that the deletion of one silent letter, aleph, changes the reading to "invasion of king-shepherds" (mishlakhat malkhei-roim) which is more sensibly and grammatically correct;'7' and, in addition, the properly altered Hebrew becomes potentially far more meaningful in an historical sense. The Jewish account of the "plagues" which freed them from bondage in Egypt poses the distinct possibility that it actually contains a credible reference to the coincident invasion of that country by the Hyksos if indeed "King-Shepherds" was construed to be an acceptable appellative for the latter.

The present etymological preference for translating Hyksos as "rulers of foreign countries (lands)" or "foreign kings"(8) should, in no way, automatically preclude the definite prospect that the term Hyksos, through homonymic affinity or unequivocal intent, was once legitimately applied with the idea of "king-shepherds" or "shepherd-kings" in mind. Here then is the crux of the issue.

An Etymological Problem

The term "Hyksos" is fraught with etymological difficulty. Egyptologists have vacillated in their translation and interpretation of the word for almost a century and have yet to even agree on a uniform transliteration as the following tabulation will clearly reveal.

One of the more recent proponents opting for the translation "ruler of foreign lands" is John Van Seters who supports his contention by referring to three salient points: 1 ) The term is used in the Middle Kingdom Story of Sinuhe and "refers to the rulers of Syria-Palestine;"(9) 2) The term "clearly refers only to the rulers" during the Hyksos period "and it is not an ethnic designation for the foreigners;"(10) 3) ". . . during the Hyksos domination of the whole of Egypt only the principal rulers, Khyan and Apophis for example, bore the titles hk khswt [Hyksos] ."(11)

First of all, the rendering "rulers of foreign lands" appears strained and awkward in the Story of Sinuhe, a fact which even Wilson instinctively seemed to sense when he was involved with the translation of this literary piece.(12) Moreover, Van Seters exercised some assumptive liberties in his treatment of the term Hyksos. Since Sinuhe took refuge in the SyroPalestinian area, it is quite plausible that he actually alluded to an Egyptian incursion into that region.(12a) Second, Van Seters apparently contradicts himself when discussing the term Hyksos and ethnic designations.(13) Third, and perhaps most important, why would potentates such as Khyan and Apophis, fully in control of Egypt years after the Hyksos conquest, employ a regal epithet designating themselves as a "ruler of foreign lands," a title which could only serve to cast them in the role of political interlopers and usurpers? This last question is especially incisive in light of Van Seters' own suggestion that the Hyksos takeover of Egypt reflected nothing more than an internal coup d'etat resulting from the cooperation of disaffected Egyptian nobility "with a fifth-column Amurrite group already established in the Delta."(14)

Besides, what autocrat in history, regardless of how power was seized, has ever encouraged or allowed himself to be openly and officially proclaimed "foreigner" in the eyes of his subject peoples?!

The above question not withstanding, Wilson also subscribed to the theory that "the Egyptian words hikau khasut, 'rulers of foreign countries,' are the etymological source of the term Hyksos "(15)

According to Steindorff and Seele, the invaders "designated by Manetho as Hyksos,' which he interprets to mean 'king-shepherds' in the Egyptian language . . . was in fact not entirely correct. The Egyptian language does indeed possess a word hyk with the meaning 'prince' or 'ruler,' while another word, shos, means 'shepherd' in the later stages of thc language. Manetho's explanation is merely a late popular etymology, and the word 'Hyksos' really goes back to the Egyptian heku shoswet, later pronounced something like hyku shose, and means 'rulers of foreign lands.' It is thus an Egyptian title boastfully assumed by the Hyksos chiefs themselves and later perhaps transferred by the Egyptians to the entire race of invaders."(16)

Less than a page later, however, in the work from which the preceding remarks were quoted, Steindorff and Seele unknowingly discredit their own interpretation of the term "Hyksos." ". . . the excavation of tombs of the Hyksos period has revealed no significant changes in burial customs and no cultural break with the past. If the invaders established a cult of Seth at Avaris, they worshipped the native gods of Egypt as well. The rulers represented themselves to be the official successors of the pharaohs. They adopted the traditional royal protocol, assumed royal names compounded with the name of Re, and designated themselves, like the native rulers whom they had displaced, as 'Son of Re,' or as 'Horus'."(17)

Since there have been significant phonological changes of late in the treatment of Egyptian words,* one is here tempted to question the correctness of the transliterative pronunciation of the various renderings of the term Hyksos. The present pronunciation of the Egyptian may very well be misleading thereby engendering an erroneous translation.

[* See the article "A Note on the 'Land of Punt' " elsewhere in this issue.]

Gardiner, for example, as did Waddell before him, drew attention to the interesting fact that Josephus originally gave two different derivations for the term Hyksos. In addition to "king-shepherds," Hyksos was also translated as "captive-shepherds" because a word for captive in Egyptian was likewise hyk. "This etymology he [Josephus] prefers because he believed, as do many Egyptologists, that the Biblical story of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt and the subsequent Exodus had as its source the Hyksos occupation and later expulsion. In point of fact, although there are sound linguistic grounds for both etymologies, neither is the true one. The word Hyksos undoubtedly derives from the expression hik-khase 'chieftain of a foreign hill-country' which from the Middle Kingdom onwards was used to designate Bedouin sheikhs."(18)

The noted British Egyptologist, Cyril Aldred, when discussing Manetho's account of the Hyksos appearance in Egypt, wrote the following: "Manetho by a false etymology translated the word Hyksos as 'Shepherd Kings,' whereas 'Rulers of Uplands' would have been more accurate.... These Rulers of Uplands were no more than wandering Semites trading their products with Egypt, or going down there for sanctuary, or to buy corn, or water their flocks according to an age-old tradition."(19)

H. E. Winlock, in his book The Rise and Fall of the Middle Kingdom in Thebes, disparaged Manetho's etymological treatment of the term Hyksos. But, though he preferred a different "modern" etymological rendering, Winlock, nonetheless, concluded his remarks on an ambiguous note. "Manetho, very much intrigued by their [the Hyksos] name, drew up a rather far-fetched derivation for it which made it mean 'Shepherd Kings.' A modern etymology would seem to be closer to the real origin of the name in making it mean 'Rulers of the Uplands,' or 'of Countries.' Whatever it means, though, it is probable that these hordes from Asia were of a race largely Semitic in origin and, according to the natives of Egypt, barbarous and uncivilized in their manners and customs and in their strange sounding names."(20)

In a discussion of the Fifteenth Dynasty and its rulers, Albright remarked that "in later times the Egyptians applied the term Hyksos, literally 'princes of the shepherds,' to them, but this designation is probably a mistake for a phrase with nearly identical pronunciation, meaning 'foreign chiefs, chiefs of a foreign country,' applied to Palestinian and Syrian chiefs and princes in the literature of the Middle Empire."(21)

In translating Manetho for the Loeb Classical Library series, W. G. Waddell made the following comment about the term Hyksos. ". . . and sos in common speech is 'shepherd' or 'shepherds': . . . This is correct: for the Egyptian word ssw, 'Bedouins,' . . . in Coptic becomes shôs, 'a herdsman'."(22) The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature echoes Waddell. The term Hyksos was "correctly explained by Josephus as being compounded of the Egyptian hyk, 'king,' and sos, 'shepherd' or 'Arab,' i.e. nomad."(23)'

Writing in the Cambridge Ancient History in 1923, H. R. Hall stated that "the Hyksos were doubtless chiefly Semites of the northern or Syrian type, led by a royal sheikh. The name Hyksos is the Egyptian Hikukhasut (pronounced in later times something like hik-shos), 'princes of the deserts,' the usual appellation for bedouin chiefs.... Indeed, Khayan, or Khian, the greatest of the Hyksos kings, actually has the title hikkhasut. Manetho translates the phrase as 'prince of the shepherds,' by confusion with another word, shasu ('bedouins'), who might well be described as shepherds, since the chief occupation of those Arabs who lived on the borders of Egypt was the breeding and herding of immense flocks of sheep."(24)

At one time, some early scholars of Egyptology even defended "Shepherd Kings" as the correct rendering of the term Hyksos. "At the present moment, we emphatically affirm the complete agreement of the name of the Hyksos in the Manethonian tradition with the supposed Egyptian compound word Hak-Shaus, that is, 'king of the Arabs' or 'king of the shepherds'."(25) Thus the sentiments of Brugsch-Bey who also considered the term Hak-Shasu (Shaus) as a likely contemptuous nickname for the foreign invaders "who for centuries had regarded themselves as the legitimate kings of Egypt."(26)

Furthermore, Brugsch-Bey supported Manetho's etymological handling of the term Hyksos. ". . . the word Sos corresponds exactly to the old Egyptian Shasu, in which the sound sh, which did not exist in Greek, is, according to custom replaced by a simple s. Although Manetho, in his age renders it by the current meaning of 'shepherd,' he was only led to do so by a strange confusion, since, in order to explain the second part (sos) of the ancient name Hyksos, he resorts to the modern popular dialect of his own time, in which, by an accidental coincidence, sos (or shos, as the word is still pronounced in the Coptic tongue) had the sense of 'shepherds'." (27)

Finally, Brugsch-Bey felt that since "the Arab Bedouins, who inhabited the desert to the east of Egypt, . . . were called in Egyptian Shasu (also Shasa, Shaus, Shauas), . . . those who held the Arab origin of Hyksos must have drawn their information from a genuine Egyptian source." (28)

The general observations of Brugsch-Bey were supported by Baikie. "As to the name of the invaders, the first syllable is obviously the Egyptian Heq, 'ruler,' the second may conceivably be Shasu, which was the generic Egyptian title for the pastoral races of the Eastern deserts. Khyan names himself Heq Setu, 'chief of the deserts,' and perhaps the derivation may lie here. But, on the whole, Manetho's derivation seems to be not far astray . . . there is no reason to doubt the tradition that they were of Arabian, or at least of Semitic, origin."(29)

It would appear, from our etymological survey, that there has been a good deal of perplexity and difference of opinion among scholars, all of which is not necessarily Manetho's fault (or Josephus' for that matter), when it comes to a "proper" or "exact" definition of the term Hyksos. Manetho's etymological conception of Hyksos is seen as containing an element of correctness (Waddell, Kitto), justified (Brugsch-Bey, Baikie), incorrect but somewhat justified (Hall), incorrect but substitute uncertain (Winlock), probably incorrect (Albright), qualified incorrect (Gardiner, Van Seters, Steindorff, Seele), incorrect (Aldred, Wilson).

At this point in our discussion, it might prove expedient to consider how or why the idea of shepherd came to be linked with a royal title in the first place. The several references to Arabs are not without significance either.

The Good Shepherd

The renowned Egyptologist John Wilson has treated the subject of the king (pharaoh) as the good shepherd quite extensively in his book The Culture of Ancient Egypt.(30) The collapse of the Old Kingdom in Egypt followed by a supposed interregnum period evidently brought with it a new concept of kingship. Pharaoh was no longer viewed as a divine autocrat. The "Old Kingdom conception of a sublime being, all-wise and all powerful, far beyond the reach of ordinary man" gave way to "the idea of the king as watchful shepherd or as the lonely being whose conscience looked after the nation."(31) "The First Intermediate Period had insisted upon social justice for all men and had demanded of the ruler the quality of ma'at. The rulers responded by taking formal throne names which expressed their desire and obligation to render ma'at to men and gods. This was another formulation of the concept of the good shepherd."(32)

"In the reaction against the absolute centralization of the early Old Kingdom, there had come an emphasis upon the rights of the individual citizen. For a time rule ceased to be sheer right and became social responsibility, with pharaoh the good shepherd, who tended his flocks patiently and conscientiously."(33)

Likewise, portrait art mirrored Egyptian societal attitudes and the royal portraiture of Middle Kingdom Egypt depicted Pharaoh "as the world-weary 'Good Shepherd' of his people."(34) The preceding observation by Aldred supports a similar one made earlier by Wilson. "The dogma of sublimated divinity of the pharaoh was a characteristic of the Fourth Dynasty and therefore appeared in the representations of the kings of that age; under the Middle Kingdom, the idea of the king as a watchful shepherd or as the lonely being whose conscience looked after the nation was a characteristic, and this responsibility lined the faces of the pharaohs of that age."(35)

The Admonitions of the sage Ipuwer, incorrectly placed by Wilson at the beginning(36) of the Middle Kingdom instead of at its end,(37) also indicate that Pharaoh was expected to be "the herdsman of his people, keeping them alive and well." "Men shall say: 'He is the herdsman of all men. Evil is not in his heart. Though his herds may be small, still he has spent the day caring for them'."(38)

In the New Kingdom, even the god Amen is addressed as "valiant herdsman" which Wilson interprets to mean the good shepherd.(39)

"Shepherd-King" would thus have been a most suitable title for Middle and post-Middle Kingdom rulers.

The concept of the good shepherd is contained in numerous Scriptural accounts as well. The very characteristics of sheep – "affectionate, unaggressive, relatively defenseless, and in constant need of care and supervision" – gave rise to a "figurative-theological language" which movingly told of the relationship and responsibilities of the Divine Good Shepherd to His flock.(40)

In the Old Testament, for example, we read – "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want" (Ps. 23:1); "And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries to which I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds . . . And I will set up shepherds over them who shall feed them; and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the Lord" (Jeremiah 23:3-4); "For thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out. As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered, so I will seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day . . . and feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers . . . I will feed them with justice" (Ezekial 34:11-16).

In the New Testament, we read – ". . . our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep" (Hebrews 13:20); ". . . I am the door of the sheep . . . by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved . . . and find pasture" (John 10:7,9); "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for his flock . . . and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd" (John 10: 11 -16) .

The Biblical descriptions of Yahweh and Jesus find their counterpart in ancient Egyptian titles for Osiris who is called Heq – "ruler of rulers" – and Sa – "Shepherd."(41) Here then is only one more link, among many, between Egyptian paganism and Judeo-Christian thought – the epithet shepherd and king of kings applied to Godhead.

Of further significance is the fact that the Egyptian word Heq is hieroglyphically represented by a shepherd's crook(42) and the combined Osirian title Heq-Sa ("Shepherd-Ruler of Rulers" or "the Ruler-Shepherd") sounds remarkably like Hyk-sos. Interestingly, the name of the Egyptian city of Shad, which had a special cult of Osiris, appears linguistically close to the words Shaus, Shauas (Shasu) – all of which refer to the nomadic Semites east of Egypt and could be original root words for the term Hyksos.(43)

Cyrus the Great, founder and first king of kings of the Achaemenid Persian Empire, was also called shepherd. "[The Lord] saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure" (Isaiah 44:28).

The idea of King-Shepherd was not confined to the Near East alone. In the Iliad (II. 243 and II. 254), Agamemnon, the king of Mycenae and leader of the Greeks during the Trojan War, is explicitly called "shepherd of the hosts"; and though this is unquestionably the correct translation of the original Greek,(44) a "modern revisionist" of 1974 has taken the liberty of translating the original Greek as "Marshal"' and "Lord Marshal."(45) One is tempted here to question the correctness of "Egyptological revisionists" when it comes to their translation of the word Hyksos.


In the so-called inter-testamental period of history (ca. 200 B.C.-100 A.D.), we find the development of a belief in the notion that the various nations of the earth are presided over by guardian angels. Further, the actions of these heavenly lords will ultimately determine not only their fate but that of the earthly kingdoms for which they are responsible. "Indeed the judgments upon earth are involved in the judgments in heaven. Before a nation can be judged and punished, its angel ruler must first be dealt with. The key to terrestrial history is to be found in celestial event."(46)

"Wars and the like which take place among the nations upon earth have their parallel in wars fought out between the several guardian angels and their retinues . . . the two orders are related to each other in such a way that the events in heaven are believed actually to determine the events on earth."(47)

Various apocalyptic passages, treating the subject of guardian angels, may very well reflect an archetypal remembrance of the time when celestial disorder wreaked havoc upon the earth and was accompanied by mundane turmoil of a martial character. In the confusion of the mind, the terrestrial actors would then be merged with the apparent behavior of the cosmos and deemed to be its counterpart. Rix has strongly argued this last point with particular regard for the case of the Hyksos.(48)

With respect to the latter, it is especially noteworthy that one scholar has proven the interchangeability of the concept of angels and shepherds. (49) In the Dream Visions of I Enoch 89.55ff., "we are told that God gives his people, here symbolized by sheep, into the hands of seventy 'shepherds' who are to exercise discipline over them. God numbers his sheep and tells the shepherds how many may be destroyed and how many are to be spared."(50)

Angels, then, were not only conceived as guardians but shepherds as well. Moreover, these angels appear to be part of a ruling hierarchy. "For many generations God himself had been the Shepherd of Israel. But Israel had sinned against God and forfeited his care and protection" thereby leaving it "to the care of 'under-shepherds' in the form of guardian angels of the nations."(51)

The Archangel Michael is even described as "one of the chief princes"(52} of angelology whose origin Velikovsky traced back to planetary affiliations. The Archangel Michael was identified with Venus while the Archangel Gabriel was identified with Mars.(53) Allegro has also introduced material linking sheep and the color red to astral references,(54) with Rix underscoring the relationship of the latter two.(55)

The translation of Hyksos as "King-Shepherds" now assumes an even more credible interpretation in light of the conceptual blending of shepherds, angels, and rulership that occurred in the last centuries before the present era. The earlier reference in this article to "evil angels" showed that expression to be semantically incorrect in the original Hebrew. However, it may truly have been conceptually valid which would only serve to support the semantic argument without detracting from it. (56)

"The idea of guardian angels appointed over the nations may well have sprung from the account in Deut. 32.8f. and . . ., in particular, the seventy shepherds of I Enoch 89 and 90 and the seventy guardian angels of the Gentile nations [may] have a common lineage. If this Deuteronomic passage is the seed-bed of this idea, the conditions of the Greek period were especially favourable for its growth to full flower. for during this same period the belief was prevalent among the Greeks and others that God ruled the world by means of intermediary agencies who are sometimes described as the 'shepherds' of the nations."(57)


In Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky identified the Hyksos or Amu (Aamu) with the Amalekites of the Bible(58) and also discussed Arabian traditions about the Amalekite Pharaohs.(59) Gardiner flatly rejected the view "that the Hyksos were a particular race of invaders who after conquering Syria and Palestine ultimately forced their way into Egypt."(60) Furthermore, he considered it "doubtless impossible to suppress the erroneous usage of the word Hyksos as though it referred to a special race, but it should be borne in mind that the Egyptians themselves usually employed for those unwelcome intruders the term 'Aamu [Amu], which we translate with rough accuracy as 'Asiatics' and which had much earlier served to designate Palestinian captives or hirelings residing in Egypt as servants."(61)

Van Seters, on the other hand, found "the exact designation of the term [Aamu] . . . difficult to establish. It is not the generic adjective derived from the name of a territory, and therefore the rendering 'Asiatics' is misleading.... Nor is [Aamu] simply an occupational term; it is restricted to the population of the Levant and refers to both sedentary and nomadic peoples.... The conclusion can hardly be avoided that [Aamu] designates the Amurrite population of Syria-Palestine in the Middle Bronze Age."(62)

Long before Van Seters' conclusion, Velikovsky had already realized that the term Aamu was an ethnic designation. His identification of the Aamu differs markedly from that of Van Seters, however. It was at the end of his summary discussion of Hyksos and Amalekite parallels that Velikovsky wrote: "the conclusion is inescapable that the Amu of the Egyptian sources and the Amalekites of the Hebrew and Arab sources were not two different peoples, but one and the same nation. Even the name is the same: Amu, also Omaya, a frequent name among the Amalekites, was a synonym for Amalekite."(63)

It is to be noted that the first dynasty of the Islamic Arabs was named Omayyad; and in the new edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam, we read that some of ". . . the Pharaohs are alleged to be of their [Amalek's] race . . . They are listed among the first tribes speaking the Arabic tongue." (64)

Finally, let us turn to Budge's An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary. There we find (p. 111a) that the word Aamu is translated as "an Asiatic, a nomad of the Eastern Desert." But the very next word, also Aamu, spelled exactly alike in the singular and practically alike in the plural, means "shepherd, nomad, herdsman" or "Fellahin,"(65) the latter a present day term for "a peasant or agricultural laborer in Egypt, Syria, and other Arab countries."(66)

Since the word Aamu also meant shepherd, it is tantalizing to speculate on the linguistic outcome of its combination with the Semitic word for king – Melech. The compound name – Aamu-Melech – would undoubtedly undergo contraction for the sake of an easier pronunciation.(67) The etymological combinative product would then be the name Amalek meaning "Shepherd-King" or Hyksos.


A final item of interest and potential relevance to the present topic is the siege and capture of Hyksos strongholds. The major seat of Hyksos power was Avaris* though another citadel was the city of Sharuhen. The capture of the latter is described in the Ahmose inscription cited by Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos.(68)

[* See the article "A Note on the Location of Avaris" elsewhere in this issue.]

The Hyksos apparently retreated to Sharuhen after the fall of their capital Avaris. On the basis of certain scarabs and fortification typology, Sharuhen has been tentatively identified with Tell el-Fara.(69)

According to the revised chronology, King Saul played a decisive role in the Hyksos demise which Velikovsky evidentially supported through a juxtaposition of Egyptian and Scriptural source material.(70) The case might be strengthened still further, however, on nominal and geographical grounds.

In I Samuel 15:7-8, we read: "And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of his sword." This and other Biblical references (Genesis 16:7; 20:1; 25:18) "give us only the general direction of Shur – i.e., its location was somewhere in the proximate vicinity of Egypt and E[ast] of it . . . [though] some believe that in biblical times 'Shur' was a reference to a line of disconnected frontier fortresses which the Egyptians had erected to keep out the invaders from the E[ast]."(71) One author even entertained the notion that Shur "is probably a geographical hyperbole" though conceding the possibility that "the expanse of territory indicated [Havilah to Shur] may actually have been traversed by the Amalekites in their various wanderings."(72) If Sharuhen is, in fact, correctly identified as Tell el-Fara, then its proximity to el-Arish, which Velikovsky recognizes as Avaris, not only strengthens the identification of the latter for geo-political reasons but offers the intriguing possibility that Shur, now only a geographical vaguery in scholarly thought, may actually be, in shortened form, one and the same as Sharuhen.


1. See Pensee, X (Winter 1974-75h p. 44.
2. A forthcoming article by Dr. Eva Danelius, "The Identification of the Biblical 'Queen of Sheba' with Hatshepsut 'Queen of Egypt and Ethiopia'" in KRONOS, I, 3 (Fall-1975\ qualifies and supports this identification.
3. Pensee, loc. cit. (emphasis added).
4. I. Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (Doubleday: Garden City, 1952), p. 56 and n. 7 (emphasis
5. Possibly composed in the 10th-century B. C. – see article "Asaph" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, I (N. Y., 1962), pp. 244-245; article "Psalms, Book of" in Ibid., III, pp. 942-943.
6. A in C, pp. 69-70.
7. Ibid.
8. See J. Van Seters, The Hyksos (New Haven, 1966), pp. 122 and 187, n. 37.
9. Ibid., p. 188 and n. 39; note also the interpretation for Retjenu on the same page.
10. Ibid., p. 187; but see pp. 108 and 189, n. 50 where Van Seters appears to contradict himself
11. Ibid. p. 159- but see pp. 123-124. Van Seters rationalizes the term "Shepherds" employed by
classical authors and yet the word is clearly juxtaposed with the expression "foreign kings" implicitly indicating some differentiation.
12. See J. Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago, 1959), p. 135 and J. Wilson in The Ancient Near East: An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, ed. by J. B. Pritchard (Princeton, 1971), p. 8.
12a. Cf. Van Seters, p. 18.
13. See footnote #10.
14. Van Seters, pp. 190-195 (emphasis added).
15. Wilson, Culture . . ., op. cit., p. 135. Budge questioned the translation of Khasut in his monumental opus on the Egyptian language – see E. A. W. Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (London, 1920), p. 533b.
16. G. Steindorff and K. C. Seele, When Egypt Ruled the East (Phoenix Books: Chicago, 1963), p. 24 (emphasis added).
17. Ibid., p. 25 (emphasis added).
18. A. H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford, 1972), p. 156; also see W. G. Waddell, Manetho (Loeb Classical Library Series: Cambridge, Mass., 1940), p. 85, n. 5 where this is viewed as a purely Jewish explanation.
19. C. Aldred, The Egyptians (N. Y., 1961), p. 123.
20. H. E. Winlock (N. Y., 1947), p. 97 and n. 23 for Griffith, Breasted, and Meyer (emphasis added) .
21. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Doubleday Anchor Books: Garden City,
1957), pp. 202-203 (emphasis added).
22 Waddell p. 85 and n. 2.
23 The article "Hyksos" by Kitto in the CBTEL, ed. by the Rev. John M'clintock and James Strong, III-IV (N. Y., 1969), p. 429 (emphasis added).
24. H. R. Hall in the CAH, I (N. Y., 1928 ed.), p. 311 (emphasis added); Cp. Van Seters, op. cit.,
pp. 189-190.
25. H. Brugsch-Bey, A History of Egypt under the Pharaohs (translation by Philip Smith, 2nd ed. London, 1881), I, p. 265 (emphasis added); also see E. A. W. Budge, Boo}s on Chaldea and Egypt, XI, p. 138 as cited by D. Courville. The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, I (Crest Challenge Books: Loma Linda, Calif., 1971), p. 226.
26. Brugsch-Bey, Ibid., p. 266 (emphasis added).
27. Ibid., pp. 263-264 (emphasis in text).
28. Ibid., p. 263 (emphasis added).
29, J. Baikie, "Hyksos," Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, VI (N. Y., 1914), p. 890
(emphasis added).
30. Wilson, pp. 115, 120, and 125ff,
31. Ibid., p. 132.
32. Ibid., p. 133.
33. Ibid., p. 314,
34. Aldred, op. cit., p. 122.
35. Wilson, p. 132.
36. Ibid., p. 115.
37. See W. F. Albright, "From the Patriarchs to Moses," The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 36, no. I (Feb. 1973), p. 30.
38. Wilson, p. 120.
39, Ibid., pp. 211 and 229.
40. See B. D. Napier, "Sheep," The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, IV (N. Y., 1962), p. 316.
41 Budge, Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, op. cit., pp. 513a and 587a.
42 Ibid., pp. 513a and 512b; also see E. A, W. Budge, Egyptian Language (Dover Pub: N. Y., 1971), pp. 46, 49, 50, 138; E. A. W. Budge, The Book of the Kings, I (London, 1908), pp. 145-146.
43. Budge, Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Ibid., pp. 724b, 728a, 1038; Brugsch-Bey, op. cit., p. 263.
44. See Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (N. Y., 1958), bottom of p. 569a.
45. See R. Fitzgerald, The Iliad (Doubleday: Garden City, 1974), p. 43.
46. D. S. Russell, The Method & Message of Jewish Apocalyptic (Phila., 1964), p. 245 (emphasis
47. Ibid. (emphasis added). Also see the article "From Microcosm to Macrocosm" elsewhere in this issue.
48. See Z. Rix, "The Great Terror," KRONOS, I, I (Spring-1975), pp. 55-57: also Z. Rix "King-Shepherds or Moloch-Shepherds?", most likely forthcoming in KRONOS, I, 3 (Fall-1975)
49. R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch (1912), p. 200 as cited in Russell, op. cit., p. 247.
50. Russell, pp. 246-247.
51. Ibid., p, 247.
52. Ibid., p. 246.
53. I. Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision (Doubleday: Garden City, 1950), pp. 291-294.
54. J. M. Allegro, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (Bantam Books: N. Y., 1971), pp. 121, n. 17 and p. 276.
55. Rix, "The Great Terror," op. cit., p. 61.
56. Russell, pp. 249-251 and 260.
57. Ibid., p. 249 (emphasis added).
58. A in C, pp. 89-94.
59. Ibid., pp. 63-66.
60. Gardiner, op. cit., p. 156.
61. Ibid., p. 157 (emphasis added).
62. Van Seters, op. cit., pp. 188-189 and 194-195. At the Duquesne History Forum, Kadish belittled Velikovsky's historical and generic usage of the name Amu. However, Van Seters' commentary, coupled with the remaining textual remarks contained in this present article, should only serve to further discredit Kadish's "paper tiger" critique.
63. A in C, pp. 93-94 (emphasis added).
64. G. Vadja, "Amalik," Encyclopedia of Islam, I, new ed. (E. J. Brill: Leiden, 1960), p. 429 (emphasis added).
65. Budge, p. 111a (emphasis added); also see p. 647a where the words for star, shooting star and
the planet Venus as a morning star are given, p. 25b where the word for "roarer" and the name of Set or Typhon is given: p. 529a for the word su which means protector and shepherd: pp. 586b, 653a, and 754b.
66. Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, 1970), p. 307 (emphasis added).
67. See for example "Shuppim" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, IV (N. Y., 1962), p. 342.
66. A in C, pp. 77-78.
69. See the article "Israel" in the Encyclopedia of World Art, VIII IN. Y., 1963), p. 373 also see "Sharuhen" in The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, IV, P. 309.
70. A in C, pp. 79-80.
71. See "Shur, Wilderness of" in Interpreter's Dictionary, Ibid., p. 342.
72. G. M. Landes, "Amalek," Ibid., I, p. 102.


The author wishes to thank Mr. Israel M. Isaacson for drawing his attention to the many invaluable hieroglyphic references concerning the terms "ruler" and "shepherd" as well as for Mr. Isaacson's assistance with the Iliad data. Thanks are also due Professor Warner B. Sizemore for supplying the Biblical reference to Cyrus along with the referential material pertaining to Angel-Shepherds.

 home       features       science/philosophy       wholesale store        policies        contact
Mikamar Publishing, 16871 SE 80th Pl,  Portland  OR  97267       503-974-9665