I think our main source of miscommunication involves the level of understanding you have (or don't have) of my model. In my book I have thoroughly refuted the idea that Yuya was a foreigner/outsider in the Egyptian royal court, and have shown that he was in fact the "hereditary prince" that he claimed to be. He can only be considered Mitanni/Hurrian in the sense that the pharaohs of Egypt also were kings in Mitanni. I have also shown that the Ramesside line did not rise up through the ranks of the military, but were an important royal line within the 18th Dynasty.
This is a new theory/model, but what I am asking (actually requiring) of contributors to this forum is to make an honest effort to operate in this new model and see if it better explains history than the existing academic theory/model (and other fringe models such as the Afro-Centric). This web site is about considering something new, not rehashing existing ideas.
For example, my model explains why 18th Dynasty pharaohs would seek to appear more "white". In the middle of the 18th Dynasty, a subordinate pharaonic dynasty (referred to as the Libyan Dynasty) was established in Egypt. My model also shows that many princes who were first named as Libyan pharaohs later became pharaohs of the greater throne.
The story of Jacob's breeding of sheep is also discussed in my book. The royal family were of course expert breeders of animals, but were also breeding themselves (or so they thought) for perpetual kingship. I call them courtly camelions. It seems that within a couple of generations they could transform themselves from Nubians to Libyans and then back again if necessary! This practice brings into question the whole notion of blood purity and how the ancients perceived it. For example, was it the "purity" of the male line that mattered most in the dynastic period? Were females in fact more important in creating alliances and modifying racial appearance.
Certainly in that "Patriarchal Age" the concept of dynasty centered around male inheritance, and this is reflected in the Biblical narratives as well. For example, within the "House of Joseph" in the 18th Dynasty, priority went to children of Tiye, because she was the daughter of Joseph, and so much so that it appears that kingly succession revolved exclusively around her. But in actuality her status served as a means of ranking princes who were of Yuya's male line. (I am not trying to say that male dominance or male succession is best or right or anything like that. I am only trying to understand what the ancients were doing sexually and how they thought about kingship.)
I see evidence even in the first dynasties of the Old Kingdom of a sensitivity to race and also of inter-racial marriage. It is also a significant feature of mythology, which deals with the period prior to dynastic Egypt. The use of intermarriage as a means for one group to dominate another goes very far back. It is even present in the story of Adam and Eve. So, we certainly cannot say that the racial qualities of the ruling family in Egypt were static until the 18th Dynasty. Nor can we expect to derive any benefit by applying the "out of Africa" theory to events in Egypt only several thousand years ago. I have no reason to doubt this theory in which migrations from Africa began to occur 100,000 to 50,000 years ago (roughly), but the dynastic era seems to have more to do with some of those people actually coming back to Egypt.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.