Who were the Hyksos? 

For watching Youtube documentaries linked in this work simply choose Your language as a subtitle. A few times in this work Wikipedia is the referred source if no special source is mentioned when citing with quotation marks to make it easier for all readers to roughly check things; In the relating Wikipedia article, You then find the professional sources they refer on.

THE BIBLE SAYS 
A FOREIGN RULER AROSE IN ENMITY ABOVE EGYPT 
AND ENSLAVED ISRAEL

In this chapter, You find the deciding evidence revealing the first Canaanite Hyksos King of Egypt being the Pharaoh, who enslaved Israel and the last Canaanite self-called 'Hyksos' Pharaoh being the King of Egypt of the Exodus of Israel out of Egypt. It is the fundament for the integration of three controversial evidence-based perspectives - Finkelstein/Bietak (Canaanite Perspective Evidence), Rohl/Mahoney (Hebrew Perspective Evidence), and Dr. Liebi (Pure Biblical Perspective Evidence) - into one clarified lucid historical truth of the Second Intermediate Period of Egyptian History. 

But beforehand it is necessary to learn to know a forgotten key source of evidence - the Book of the Division of Times called the Book of Jubilees - the oldest evidenced fragments of 200 BC were found in Qumran:

THE SELF CALLED 'HYKSOS' OF THE BRUTAL INVASION IN 1729 BC

ARE NOT THE BY THE EGYPTIANS CALLED HEKACHASUT

OF THE PEACEFULL SEMITIC ENSETTLEMENT IN 1821 BC

The Strict Chronology of the Torah/ Old Testament upgraded by the Chronology of the Book of Jubilees reveals 1729 BC as the exact biblical and historical year of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion: 

"Pharaoh (Sobekhotep III) moved out to battle with
Memkeron (Makamaron) the King of Canaan ...
and the King of Canaan defeated the King of Egypt
and closed the Gate of Egypt (1750 BC)."

"After having defeated the Egyptian King (1729 BC),
the King of Canaan (Semquen/Salitis)
makes the plan to oppress the Israelites and executes his plan.
Built Cities of these are
Phytom (Lahun), RaAmezes (Avaris), and On (LeOntopolis).
Under the pressure, the Children of Israel,
who are an abdorrence to the Egyptians, multiply."

(compare Rönsch/Dillmann Book of Jubilees, page 237, 
Capital 46 and page 161, 14th Footnote)

Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian of the 3rd century BC, is cited by Josephus: 

"G'd was ungracious to Egyptian King Timaios (Pharaoh Dedumose) and smote Egypt .. the enemy (Canaanite King Samuquenu/ Salitis) came from the east, conquered the land easily, burnt down cities, destroyed temples and initiated massacres and ENSLAVEMENT ..." 

Toatimaos or Timaios is Greek spoken; Old Egyptian spoken it means Dedumose; He was Pharaoh at the end of the 13th Dynasty in the Second Intermediate Period, the by Egyptologists so-called "Dark" Period (see Chapter Chronology).

Queen Hatshepsut of the 18th Dynasty one century after the Hyksos Expulsion still clearly distinguishes between the "Hekashasut" Hebrew Semites who settled in Avaris before the beginning of the Second Intermediate Period and the Canaanite "Barbarians" who invaded brutally the land one century later: 

"I have restored that which was ruins,
I have raised up that which was unfinished since the HEKASHASUT
(misleading translation „the Asiatics“)
were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland,
AND the BARBARIANS were in the midst of them,
overthrowing that which was made, while they ruled in ignorance of Re"
(Breasted 1988, Vol. 2, 125)

Manfred Bietak has excavated more and more archeological evidence for the Semitic ensettlement and population growth in and around Avaris already from around c. 1820 BC on.
This is the strictly biblical confirmed time of Israel's arrival in Egypt.
He found archeological strong indications for a Semitic integration into the royal family (see table at the start of Chapter Joseph) and for Semitic rulership tendencies one century before the upcoming Canaanite self-announced 'Hyksos' 15th Dynasty; Without any disproving evidence, he strongly rejects all ancient sources confirming the time of Israel in Egypt in the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1800-1600); Bietak and following Egyptologists more and more even completely reject the historicity of Manetho's attested Hyksos Invasion and defame his work without disproving evidence as "corrupted". Nevertheless, leading Egyptologists like D.B. Redford and Kim Ryholt confirm the archeological arguments for the historicity of this violent invasion: For example, the sudden frequency of writing errors in the 'Hyksos' inscriptions after the invasion and their sudden new self-designation as Hekashasut (Hyksos) differs clearly from the partly evidenced Semitic Pharaohs before the invasion having used solely Egyptian titularies (Kim Ryholt 1997, page 303 & footnote 1057); This does clearly reveal the Canaanite invaders 1729 BC (acc. to Ryholt '1649 BC') not being the same Semites like the ones having lived already in Egypt for a century.

One reason for the false conclusions of Manfred Bietak is the amount of over 75 speculative non-evidenced and non-existing years in the timeline of the Second Intermediate Period (acc. to the Bible + Radiocarbon Evidence = 1798-1606 BC, acc. to conventional speculations = 1798-1531 BC); These non-evidenced and non-existing years are the fundament of misleading conclusions: In case of a Canaanite Hyksos Invasion the archeological evidence of Canaanite cults does make most sense AFTER 1750 BC, the strictly biblical year of the failed first Canaanite invasion attempt together with the resulting ensettlement of the Canaanite 14th Dynasty in the Nile Delta north of Avaris. But in case of an upcoming 15th Dynasty one century later around 1650 BC as conventionally assumed it suddenly  archeologically „proves“ that Canaanites had settled in Egypt already ONE CENTURY BEFORE the successful Hyksos Invasion! The year ‘1649’ BC for the start of the Canaanite 15th  Dynasty is even by egyptologists themselves called a "highly speculative" time estimation. And it’s the fundament for religious Canaanite archeological evidence allegedly in the century before the start of the Canaanite 15th Dynasty.

Instead of all this, the ancient scriptively (Book of Jubilees & the Bible) attested year 1729 BC is the true biblical and historical year of the successful Canaanite Hyksos Invasion and takeover of Egypt after the Hebrew Hekashasut „Shepherd Kings“ already had been living and ruling for nearly a century in Egypt as the textual evidence in the Book of Jubilees will show at the end of this Chapter.

The reader more and more realizes now that the huge chaos and helpless guesswork of the therefore so-called "Dark“ Period of Egyptian History is caused by the interpretative invention and integration of over c. 75 non-evidenced and non-existing years into the Chronology of Egyptian History. This is rooted in a subjective, dogma dependant, biased rejection of nearly all ancient - never disproven - relating and confirming sources including the Bible. It is also caused by the dogmatic rejection of the possibility and plausibility of a rotation system of over 50 Pharaohs under the lifelong rulership of a four-generation Vizierkingship in three Dynasties (13/16/17); This conclusion had been discussed by Egyptologists like Rice, Hayes, Helek, and Junker (see passage headlined 'Ephraim and the 13th Dynasty' in Chapter Joseph). This Pharaoh rotation system of Shepherd Kings will be confirmed by an overwhelming amount of archeological evidence in Chapter Joseph and Chapter Moses.

- HEKACHASUT OR HYKSOS -

- SHEPHERD KINGS OR RULERS OF FOREIGN LANDS -

According to Jewish beatified Anna Katharina Emmerich  (1821: Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german page 80 and The life of Holy Virgin Mary, in german page 385) Eastern "Foreign Kings of Shepherd Peoples" in a nutshell Shepherd Kings from the caucasian region north of Mesopotamia would have immigrated into Egypt and ruled over a part of Egypt around the strictly biblical year 2250 BC. Their later expulsion would have been initiated by an Egyptian King. The mistaken highly speculative time estimation for this Egyptian King would be far too early and based on contemporary priestly astrology and visions trying to prove the Egyptians being the oldest people of the world. Anna Katharina Emmerich provides an elucidating evaluation of the 19th century Egyptology and its by pre-ancient errors misguided chronologization attempts up until today (1821: Secrets of the Old and New Covenant, in german pages 71-72).

According to leading Egyptologists, the first Eastern Foreign Invaders of Egypt were expelled by Pharaoh Den in the First Dynasty of Egyptian History. According to the ancient priestly King lists, King Den's reign timeframe estimation is '2970-2928' BC. The expulsion of the Eastern Semites is confirmed archeologically by the MacGregor plaque "with the picture of first Pharaoh Den smiting a Western Semitic enemy" (Russmann, Edna R.; James Thomas Garnet Henry 2001 Eternal Egypt). The inscriptions call it "The first Occasion of smiting the East". 

Egyptians always disliked herding sheep, Shepherds usually immigrated from eastern foreign lands and the meaning of Heka Chasut transformed in the time of the Second Intermediate Periode from specifically Shepherd Kings into generally Foreign Lands Kings while foreign lands always remained to be meant as eastern foreign lands and the east was inhabited by Semites often being shepherds. The Canaanites from Assur instead weren't shepherds, they were warriors. 

Manetho (cited by Josephus) explains the meaning of Hyksos by saying "Their race as a whole was called Hyksos, that is King Shepherds" for (greek) "hyk" (Egyptian "heka") in sacred language means king and (greek) "sos" (Egyptian "shasut") in common speech means shepherd or shepherds, hence the compound word 'Hyksos'. Thus Manetho still remembered the original primary specific meaning of Heka Chasut in the time of the Old and Middle Kingdom. More enlightening evidence regarding the Heka Shasut meaning originally not only rulers of foreign lands but also clearly Shepherd Kings is revealed in Chapter Joseph (passage headlined "The 13th Dynasty - a complete Hebrew Dynasty").

Here the reader finally fully realizes that the controversy about the meaning of the name Hyksos or HekaShasut in Egyptian, translated as Rulers of Foreign Lands or Foreign Kings on the one hand and as Shepherd Kings on the other hand is dissolved as both being correct for different time periods, locations and peoples: On the one hand, it was standing originally for the rulership of eastern Shepherd Chieftains over Egypt before the Canaanite ‘Hyksos’ Invasion attested by Manetho. According to Genisis47:6 Amenemhet III made Joseph's brothers, the tribe leaders, the King's Shepherds over all his sheep and cattle. In Genisis47:16 all flocks of sheep and cattle of Egypt were sold by the Egyptians for grain to JOSEPH as King of Egypt and so went into the control of Isreal's tribefathers; This supported the transformation of the title King's Shepherds to Shepherd Kings for JOSEPH's brothers and their sons, but even more reasonable evidence will be shown in Chapter Joseph ...

At the end of the famine, all Egyptians had sold their entire properties, land, and even their freedom to JOSEPH, who gave it all to Pharaoh. The Pharaoh owned now the entire land and the entire people of Egypt. From then (1816 BC) on in Egyptian History Pharaoh received 20% of every yearly harvest. This sudden tremendous concentration of power and wealth in the hands of Pharaoh and the sudden decline of power and wealth of the nomarchs is historically confirmed by Egyptologists. But they are not able to find a reasonable evidence-based explanation for this sudden phenomenon. On the other hand first, after Father JACOB in POTIPHAR's Khnumhotep's II Beni Hasan tomb was the first inscriptively evidenced HekaShasut as we will see in Chapter Joseph. His son JOSEPH became in this time Israel's and Egypt's highest Shepherd King HekaShasut ever and as the first Semitic Ruler of Foreign Lands, he also became the first Foreign King HekaShasut of Egypt. The Canaanites from Assur as one century later following Foreign Rulers and self-called ‘Hyksos’ were no eastern Shepherds anymore but soldiers and mercenaries (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5) and usurped the glorious title 'Hekashasut' for themselves. Heka "The High" used as Highlands or in sacred language as King and Shasut used as Shepherds decreased to the general meaning of Foreign Kings for all Semitic Kings in Egypt, no matter if Hebrew or Canaanite at the latest since 1666 BC but this will be deeper and comprehensively examined and explained in Chapter Moses.

The duration of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Rulership would be 108 years according to the Turin King List and 149 years according to Ryholt (Kim Ryholt 2018). The Bible and the Book of Jubilees reveal that it was as a matter of fact 123 years; The 'Hyksos' Invasion and Israel's Enslavement in 1729 BC, twenty-one biblical years after JOSEPH's death, are additionally revealed by Manetho and by the archeologically evidenced time of the famous Hebrew slaves list in the Brooklyn Papyrus. The 'Hyksos' Expulsion in the time of the Ten Plagues in the biblical year 1606 BC is confirmed by Radiocarbon results of the contemporary Santorini Eruption related Environmental Desaster in Egypt, the confirming Ypuwer Papyrus and the Storm Stela of Ahmose I. The Exodus of Israel at the time of the Expulsion of the Canaanite 'Hyksos' is inscriptively evidenced in nearly all relating ancient scriptures and by even more archeological evidence which will be all explained in Chapter Moses. 

Let's finally summarize what Egyptologists think to know about the HekaShasut or 'Hyksos' and their time in Egypt which was in the past mainly based on historian Manetho's accounts before Egyptologists began to dismiss them for inventing new antibiblical theories exclusively based on highly speculative excavation results interpretation against all relating ancient scriptural sources:

Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote about the history of Egypt in the Greek language in the third century BC. His writings are mainly preserved by quotations in the writings of Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius. As noted earlier Josephus quotes Manetho to reveal the ancient evidence for the antiquity of the people of Israel. According to Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.14, §§ 73‑92): "He wrote in Greek the history of his nation, translated, as he himself tells us, from sacred tablets; In the second book of his History of Egypt, this writer Manetho speaks of us as follows. I shall quote his own words, just as if I had brought forward the man himself as a witness". Manetho identified  the Hyksos of the 16th/17th Dynasty as Hebrew Shepherd Kings allegedly seemingly mixing them up with the "Arabian" 'Hyksos' of the 15th Dynasty from "Phoenecia"; He describes the Hyksos one time (cited by Africanus and Eusebius) as Hebrew Shepherds of the Southern 16th and 17th Dynasty and the other time (Josephus) as foreign Northern rulers over Egypt of the 15th Dynasty from Arabia or Phoenecia who were expelled from Egypt by Pharao Ahmose I. It is during the Hyksos rule of the 15th Dynasty that JOSEPH is said to have ruled in Egypt according to Eusebius' quote of Manetho (Manetho 1940, 97) which is a centuries later evidence for the mixing up and confusion of the Canaanites with the Israelites. This confusion was additionally mirrored in Manetho cited as calling the people of Israel "oppressors" of Egypt who call themselves "captives" in Egypt. Josephus writes "As for the additions which Manetho has made, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself admitted, from anonymous legendary tales". These by Manetho added oral legendary tales caused essential confusion Josephus tried to dissolve. This confusion is used by Leading Egyptologists today to dismiss Josephus' complete citations of Manetho as alleged ‚textual corruptions‘ in order to make their new exclusively excavation-based highly speculative hypotheses work: These hypotheses dogmatically reject any historicity of the Bible.  

Manetho's claim - when translating the title Hyksos - that sôs in the common speech was 'shepherd' or 'shepherds' is confirmed by the today's Egyptian word śʾsw for "Bedouins," which in Coptic became shós for "a herdsman," (Erman-Grapow, Wörterbuch, IV p412, 10). But as a strong indicator for Israel in Egypt it was then rejected by the doubtful neutral objective Leading Egyptologists; They built up a strong contra rhetorical argumentation. It is based on an artificial dualistic paradigm that sells the development of generalization tendencies in the meaning of the word 'sos' (from hill lands shepherds to hill lands foreigners) as an impossible and to be rejected option. Instead, as a matter of fact, this translational development is the most plausible consequence of the getting lost differentiation between the "Early" (Hebrew) by Egyptians called Hekashasut and the "later" (Canaanite) self-appointed Hekashasut as this work will prove by evidence at the end of Chapter Moses. Now let's take a look at the different instances of the HekaShasut in the different Dynasties:

The first known instance of the name HekaShasut is found in the Beni Hasan tomb of the 19th century. The only statue of a HekaShasut was found in Avaris and is dated into the end of the 19th century. The name and the statue are archeological evidence of the striking Semitic influence on the royal rulership already at the end of the 12th Dynasty as we will examine deeper in Chapter Joseph. Manfred Bietak confirms many contemporary Semites serving as soldiers, household or temple serfs, and various other jobs for this time.

The second known instance of HekaShasut now clearly as Semitic Foreign Rulers are Semitic Pharaoh names in the 13th Dynasty ruling over complete Egypt. We will examine them deeper in Chapter Joseph.

The third known instance of HekaShasut now as a clear King's title is attested by Scarabs of the Nile Delta 14th Dynasty. Historian Manetho identifies the 14th Dynasty as a 'Hyksos' Dynasty confirmed by Leading Egyptology.

The fourth known instances are scarabs and inscriptions confirming HekaShasut as Northern Pharaoh title of the 15th Dynasty. Manetho (according to Africanus) confirms "the 15th Dynasty consisted of ‚Hyksos‘ from Phoenicia." Cited by Josephus Manetho tells about the brutal invasion of these 'Hyksos' and that their New King who arose in enmity over Egypt was called Salitis and "had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt" which claims the 16th Dynasty to have been a tributary Dynasty. He adds with uncertainty "Some say they were Arabs." "Phoenicia" and "Arabia" are both countries further away from Egypt than Canaan; Thus it was obviously not exactly remembered or known by the Egyptians in Manetho’s time that they came from Assur.  

The fifth known instance of HekaShasut or Hyksos is attested by scarabs of the 16th Dynasty and is also confirmed by Sextus Julius Africanus's epitome of Manetho for the rulers of the Southern 16th Dynasty where they are identified as Hebrew Shepherd Kings. According to Eusebius Manetho identified them as Kings of Thebes which lead to Kim Ryholts List of 16th Dynasty Kings in this work (see tablet at the start of Chapter Moses). 

The sixth known indication of HekaShasut or Hyksos is found in the Southern 17th Dynasty of Thebes. In several versions of Manetho, the 17th Dynasty is clearly identified as Hyksos Dynasty, a fact which is attributed by Bietak to textual corruption without any disproving evidence. According to Africanus Manetho identifies them as Hebrew Shepherd Kings. Egyptologists confirm that the Theban rulers are known to have „imitated“ the Semitic 'HekaShasut' both in their architecture and in their regnal names. They also confirm the evidence of “friendly relations” between the Canaanite 15th Dynasty 'Hyksos' and the 17th Dynasty of Thebes in its second half even including possibly a “marriage alliance”. You will find the resolution of these riddles in Chapter Moses. 

The by leading Egyptologists confirmed fact that evidenced Semitic Pharaohs before Manetho‘s ‚Hyksos‘ Invasion have used solely Egyptian titularies for already a complete century (Kim Ryholt 1997, page 303 & footnote 1057) in contrast to the Canaanite self proclaimed ‚Hyksos‘ of the 14th & 15th Dynasty clearly reveals that the solely Egyptian titularies of the Pharaohs of the 16th & 17th Dynasty are by no means proving evidence for them having to be Egyptians and no Semites …

Thus the historian Manetho talks about brutally invading ‚Hyksos‘ of the 14th and 15th Dynasty from Phonecia or Arabia on the one hand and on the other hand he talks of Hebrew King Shepherds of the 16th and 17th Dynasty without distinguishing them expressively as two different peoples; Thus he finally mixes and confuses the Canaanite Hyksos Expulsion with the Hebrew Exodus out of Egypt. The historical root course of this confusion is fully revealed at the end of Chapter Moses.

The 'Hyksos' are confirmed by Ryholt and Redford as foreign people from the near east. Manfred Bietak is strongly rejecting any difference between the „Early Hyksos“ of the 12th/13th Dynasty and the „Later Hyksos“ of the 15th Dynasty. Due to the strong supporting archeological evidence for historian Manetho’s documented Hyksos Invasion confirmed by Ryholt and Redford and due to female Pharaoh Hatshepsut's differentiation between the (Hebrew) „Hekashasut“ and the (Canaanite) „Foreign Barbarians" one century after Ahmose I (James P. Allen, 2002, pp.1-17),
Manfred Bietak had to invent a totally new not evidenced third group of NON-Hyksos invaders to make all evidence fit with hypotheses: He calls theses (Canaanite) foreign barbarians "roving mercenaries" who allegedly had overrun Egypt in the time of the allegedly never happened Canaanite Hyksos Invasion. This way he tries to uphold his never-proven attribution of Manetho‘s facts to textual corruption (compare Manfred Bietak 2012, p.5). In order to understand his motivational background, the reader has to remember that the Egyptian government naturally has no political interest at all in any excavation project archeologically proving any past rulership of Israel in or even over Egypt.
(Bietak under the constant watch of Egyptian Authorities who have made Avaris off-limits to the public under armed supervision can be watched during the visit of Simcha Jacobovici at Bietak's excavation site in his documentary: https://youtu.be/DqLsYonjvRY).
Avaris is the most famous archeological excavation project in Egypt. It has been led by Manfred Bietak for over half a century now and is his life‘s work not allowing any risking of an excavation permission. This is also the most plausible explaination for his past change from calling the Early Hyksos Proto „Israelites“ to calling them „for convenience sake“ Canaanites.

Remarkably the archeologically evidenced strongly growing number of Semites and their influence in the Royal House in the 12th and 13th Dynasty is not at all mentioned by the oldest "sacred tablets" of the old Egyptian priests the historian Manetho referred to: The 13th Dynasty gets only one single sentence which is mentioning solely the number of rulers. The reason for this Egyptian historical silence around the 13th Dynasty will be completely unveiled at the end of this work in Chapter Moses.

The reader has to examine all evidence of this complete work until he will fully understand the history of and all painful reasons for the 3600 years old confused Hyksos Controversy up until today regarding the question "Who were the Hyksos?" But it will be worth it. The Veil on the Egyptian History of the Second Intermediate Period will be fully removed at the end of this work.

EVIDENCE FUNDAMENTS OF LEADING EGYPTOLOGY
FOR THE EARLY HYKSOS OF THE 12TH AND 13TH DYNASTY
BEING "FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE" CANAANITES

“The one who states his case first seems right,
 until the other comes and examines him.”
Proverbs 18:17 

Fundament A 

Manfred Bietak's implemented modern Dogma in Leading Egyptology, that the peaceful settlement of Semites in Egypt 1821 BC and their career in the Royal House is proven as to be Canaanite is standing on the same fundament as another implemented modern dogma of Leading "Biblical" Archeologist Israel Finkelstein, namely that the complete Bible allegedly is disproved by the archeological evidence of Jericho: The by Leading Archeology self disproved ("There is no evidence.") Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm (see Chapter Chronology), which is moving by Bible falsification the Exodus of Israel and the Conquest of Canaan three centuries away from the time the Bible states it really happened; The Bible claims since 3600 years that Jericho was conquered in the middle of the 16th century BC which is archeologically confirmed and Israel Finkelstein confirms Jericho's destruction in the same time in his book The Bible unearthed. But with the self disproved Bible Forgers' Ramesses Time Paradigm Finkelstein successfully mislead millions of Christians into the false conviction that the Bible would be a compendium of religious-political lies being 1000 years younger than it claims to be. This Ramesses Time Paradigm leads on the other hand additionally to Manfred Bietak's claim "Chronology does not permit" any Israelites in Egypt in the time 1821-1606 BC which the Bible declares as the time of Israel in Egypt.

Fundament B

A second fundamental "proof" for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are the "Early HekaShasut" is the biblically stated and archeologically proved tremendous growth of these Semitic people in Avaris and the Nile Delta. Manfred Bietak without any disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for the Canaanites against nearly all ancient relating scriptures redefines this growth as "Asiatic" immigration from Canaan and forbids any Hebrew connections. Egyptologists avoid the word Semites because it includes the possibility of Israelites so they strongly force and establish the misleading word Asiatics for all Semites from Semitic regions because it's allegedly more "neutral".

Fundament C

A third fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis that the Canaanites would be the "Early HekaShasut" is the biblically stated and archeologically proved idolatry of Israel in Egyptian towards Baal and also Egyptian idols. Manfred Bietak without any disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for Canaanites simply presents Baal and Egyptian idols as proof against Israelites and for the Canaanites to be the 'Early Hekashasut' of Egypt.

Fundament D 

A fourth fundamental proof for Bietak's hypothesis the Canaanites are allegedly the "Early HekaShasut" is the biblically explained and archeologically proved building style of the first and oldest Center House found in Avaris. It is a mirror of Jacob's, Isaac's, and Abraham's building style from the regions they lived in. Manfred Bietak without any disproving evidence against the Israelites or proving evidence for exclusively the Canaanites simply uses it as evidence for exclusively Canaanites being the 'Early Semites' of Egypt.

We can go on with this for quite a time but the reader will already have realized that no proving evidence at all exists against the Israelites and for the Canaanites being the 'Early Hekashasut' of 1821-1729 BC before the Invasion of the Canaanites (who appointed themselves as 'Hyksos'), historically confirmed by Manetho, the Book of Jubilees, and the Bible itself. And the Canaanite Hyksos Invasion is archeologically evidenced and confirmed by Kim Ryholt and other leading Egyptologists.

It is noticeable that whenever Manfred Bietak leads Exodus proponents with "pro-biblical" hints into a certain direction, he always leads the view as far away as possible from his excavation site of 15th Dynasty Avaris (watch eg. his lecture on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ck4ZJFXYzaM or his discussion with Simcha Jacobovici in https://youtu.be/DqLsYonjvRY or his interview with Timothy Mahoney in his documentary "The Sea Miracle Part I" on www.patternsofevidence.com)

…

THE FIRST HEKACHASUT
WAS HEBREW AND A UNIQUE
GLORIOUS RULER OF FOREIGN LANDS

SIDENOTE

- THE 14TH DYNASTY -

A SECOND UPCOMING GAP OF AROUND 75 MISSING YEARS
IN THE SECOND INTERMEDIATE PERIOD OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY

It can not be just a coincidence that the Bible reveals around 75 Radiocarbon results proved non-existing years in the Second Intermediate Period (Chapter Chronology Timetable) and at the same time, two different scientific duration estimations of the 14th Dynasty also reveal a duration difference of 75 years. This huge speculative variety of the duration of the 14th Dynasty is discussed in science between Ryholt, Bietak and other egyptologists. 

The town Xios in the Nile Delta is the eldest evidence-based candidate (Manetho) for the capital of this Dynasty with strong interconnections to the land of Canaan. The beginning of the 14th Dynasty is indicated in the Book of Jubilees (Jub46:6-12 readable at the end of Chapter Joseph headlined "The Real Dark Period") in the biblical time of around 1750 BC shortly before Joseph's death at the end of the first war between the 13th Dynasty and the Canaanite Hyksos. The most plausible end of the 14th Dynasty is around 1666 BC - the reunification of Egypt under Canaanite northern 'Hyksos' Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son-in-law southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV as archeologically evidenced explained in Chapter Moses.

The plausibility of the assumption that in 1750 BC after they failed in conquering Avaris the Canaanites did not return to Assur but settled in the Nile Delta and partly settled in later called Canaan in this time is confirmed by contemporary archeological evidence (Ryholt 1997, pp. 251/291 & Baker 2008, p. 503). After the Canaanite 'Hyksos' Invasion of 1729 BC - evidenced in Manetho's History of Egypt - the 14th Dynasty most likely proceeded as a Canaanite Vassall Kingdom under the 15th Dynasty until the time of the reunification of Egypt 1666-1658 BC under Canaanite 'Hyksos' Pharaoh Khayan and his Hebrew son in law ULAM the Southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV. The most striking archeological evidence for this biblical confirmed timeframe is the discovery of the seals (27) of a Nile Delta ruler; he was called YaqubHar/Y akubher: Kim Ryholt points to one scarab seal excavated in Canaan which was estimated into 1750-1650 BC.

Radiocarbon Experts (see Chapter Chronology) disproved the official timeframe of the Second Intermediate Period including about 75 non-existing years based on wrong scientific guesswork regarding incorrect orderings, reign times, and the inclusion of unidentified fictitious kings in the Turin List (compare Kim Ryholt 1997, p.12-17). This has led to chaos and confusion regarding this period. Kim Ryholt estimates the 14th Dynasty into the timeframe between Pharaoh Nofrusobek and the Hyksos Invasion at the end of the 13th Dynasty which would be the biblical and archeologically evidenced time 1789-1729 BC. Still being biased by the one century old outdated and self disproved ("There is no evidence for Israel in Egypt") Ramesses Time Paradigm - already explained in Chapter Chronology - Egyptologists put the biblical and archeologically confirmed timeframe of 1789-1729 BC into an extremely stretched timeframe conception of 1805-1650 BC ignoring the complete amount of biblical and relating ancient writings time data and inventing at least 75 additional non-existing years into Egyptian History.

On the other hand already before 1955, Egyptologist James Henry Breasted concluded Jacobher/ Yacubher being a possible first Israelite tribe leader in the Nile Delta (w. Keller, 1955, p.) refreshed by Simcha Jacobovici's interpretation of a signet ring excavated by Manfred Bietak in Avaris with the inscription Yakov similar to the Hebrew Ya'aqov meaning Jacob. This would fit into Ryholt's timeframe theory meaning 1798 BC after Amenemhet's III death JOSEPH's father JACOB's sons would have ruled the northern Nile Delta from Avaris while JOSEPH ruled together with his son over the rest of Egypt. But this is refuted by Emmerich and Josephus who reveal that after father JACOB's death - in the biblical year 1804 BC - the tribe-fathers changed their hometown from Avaris to more southern Heliopolis/ On (see Chapter Joseph) while JOSEPH and his sons stayed in Avaris. It also seems to be falsified by the already mentioned archeologically confirmed scientifically estimated timeframe of around 1750-1650 BC for the 14th Dynasty. 

The most plausible conclusion is the 14th Dynasty started after the first war between the Canaanites and the 13th Dynasty shortly before the biblically evidenced year 1750 BC in the Nile Delta. The Canaanites did not leave Egypt but stayed in the Northern Nile Delta while the strongly fortified gates to the rest of Egypt closed them out as the Book of Jubilees will reveal in the next passage. The 14th Dynasty ended most plausibly a century later with the short-term reunification of the Egyptian Kingdom under Canaanite northern Pharaoh Khayan and Hebrew southern Pharaoh Sobekhotep IV at about 1766 BC, explained in Chapter Moses. This leads to the conclusion that the first Canaanite King of the 14th Dynasty from 1750 BC onwards would have been Makamaron/ Magron from Assur in Jubilees46:6 and SepherHajaschar1923p.1238. His Egyptian name was most plaus Yab’ammu Nubwoserre or Qareh Khawoserre. And the first Canaanite King of the 15th Dynasty from strictly biblically 1729 BC onwards would have been most likely a son of Makamaron. He was named in Egyptian Semquen and in Greek Salitis. Ryholt (p.127) estimates a rulership start in the time after the rulership of Amenemhet’s daughter Nofrusobek and sowith in the time of the Hebrew Shepherd Kings. However Bietak argues that the start should have been around 1720 BC. The Strict Bible Chronology unveals it was 1729 BC. He was most plausibly motivated by his father to conquer Egypt and did let his father go on ruling over the Northern Nile Delta beyond Avaris after he had conquered the rest of Egypt.