The “Takkara” Recorded in Egypt Were the “Takkara” of Central Asia!! -1
The
Esteemed Researchers of CA Everywhere,
Over the “TAkkArA” People Debated-Issue: at Last, some Fresh,
Juicy & Big News! ...
With a possible concause from the surrounding frenzy hyper-aggressive
atmosphere of France´s Postchristian-Regime Colonialism ‒ started by that
doomsmen´s ultragothic coup d´etat in the Summer of 1789 A.D.
which itself led later virtually to a European-onset colonizing
aggression on Egypt in the Summer of 1798 A.D. ‒ the avant
coureur egyptologist/ Jean-François Champollion was seemingly struck during
the early 19th century A.D. with a misleading illusion that Modern Kingdom
Egypt had been Militarily Confronted by some European-onset Mediterranean
seamen. Likewise and even worse, a little later during the same 19th century
A.D. there emerged another two Frenchmen, the demi-avant coureurs egyptologists/
Olivier-Emmanuel de_Rougé & François Joseph Chabas, who turned the
Med-seamen misleading mirage-notion of their countryman Jean-François into a
seamen-dominated misexplanation and a disastrously-fake historization on the
subject of: Who had Militarily Confronted Modern Kingdom Egypt but were Much
Defeated by King/ Rāԑmessu_III? ‒ Instead of criticizingly revising and
cognoscing the three´s quicky groundless "Peuples de la Mer" suggestion,
through a series of independent heedful examinations and researchs, other
'sleepwalking' cogged egyptologists just followed them unwisely to the
cliff-edge of enlisting in a disordered coffle campaign, aimed at looking-out
for the 3 dissighting confrères some hazy naught-proving marks
and remarks, in hopes that the Champollionian-Rougéan-Chabasian illusive
hypothesis of Invasive Mediterranean Sea Peoples just
keeps floating around dallyingly and distractingly among the Ancient World
concerned minds. During the last decade, the ongoing bulk-series of debates
over the most-debated issue of Who Did Attack 20th Dynasty
Egypt? awakingly got more calmless and fussy and unsolvable, for
the alerted partaking researchers on Ancient Near East in general, because of
the accumulating adverse disproving clues and confusive contrasetting signs,
that are all undermining the Champollion-Rougé-Chabas-affected conky
misexplanation of Encroaching Mediterranean Sea Cliques,
right to the deepest of its very root-idea.
Since the Spring of 2009 A.D., I have been gathering Asian marks and remarks
on All of the Five Nations Mentioned in the Habu Chronicles on the 8th
Regnal Year War of the Valiant Ramsīs_3, who was the
2nd monarch of the 20th Dynasty. Thereby and
accordingly, I have been dealing with the miscooked or unrealistic
Champollion-Rougé-Chabas-induced hypothesis of the Med Sea Peoples
Attacked 20th Dynasty Egypt possible title, like it merely had
been a hyper-blunderful misvision and an unmeant crude forgery. During those
last seven years, I have devised and maintained an entirely alternated
explanation hypothesis, that is definitely gaining cogency and acquiring
constancy with the progress of its extended supportive examination and
research, and I honestly claim that it already deploys itself like an
unbeatable clarification theory that at last responds successfully to numerous
chief and sub-chief inquiries within the mentioned Who Did Attack
20th Dynasty Egypt? super-debate issue. The fresh improvised
righteous answers that I am presenting to those olden congested debate´s
blurred queries depend greatly on plenty of marks and remarks that are All
Defining Clear Mainland-Asian Characteristics for the invading
coalition-axis ethnic groups who took parts in a specified one of the recorded
wars, which is the one that historically occurred during the regnal year eight
of the Egyptian King/ Rāԑmessu_III reign. Hence and therefore, we can designate
here that new or substitute hypothesis with the Asia Continent
Peoples Attacked 20th Dynasty Egypt possible title.
At a link with that launched falseness-fighting cause, during two weeks in July
2016 I re-gazed a number of times at the pronounceable composure of the Ancient
Egyptian name-word for the ethnic group that the Modern Kingdom Egyptians
called “TAkkArA”, which until very recently ‘was’ supposed to
identify one distinct ethnarchy of the sum of such, that were suggested for the
conventionally so-termed Sea Peoples or Sea
Cliques with respect to 20th Dynasty Egypt. I combined the
‘re-gazing’ at the Egyptian name-word composure with a wide-range examination
of the many extra-Egyptian comparative name-words for the same ethnicity,
and they are all not colliding with my years-old previous
special definition for the “TAkkArA” people. I
search-navigated lately with an attempted sufficed thoroughness, at and through
the late accounts dealing with the: Chinese; Indian; Sindian; Persian; Greek;
Roman; and Arabic early sources, that are of important scopes upon what look
together as their own versions of mentioning the same Asian nation, of the
quite-known “Takkarians”, with their same identified race and
geography and period that were meant specifically by the inscriptors and
depictors of King/ Rāԑmessu_III. And pleasantly enough for my"Asian
Axis Coalition" alternative hypothesis, they all asserted the
same deduced of-stock and at-place and in-time existance of an
ethnic group that held in every early language about just the same name, that
would correspond fittingly to the Egyptian name: “TAkArA” or “TAkkArA”.
The mentioned multiculture sources also almost all asserted that they, as some
kind of people, were emigrative and semi-non-settlers, and materialistic
searchers of wealth, and formative of a war-capable ‘invasive tribe’, and at
some of the cases were even styled with a military overambition or
a military plus-greed trait. ‒ And all that is in sheer
homologousness with what they were presented-with in text and depiction on the
walls of South Egypt´s Madinet-Habu.
In order to express vividly more discovery-proofs, first on the semi-homophonic
naming level alone, I say I naturally could not specify the “TAkArA/TAkkArA” people
name in the Egyptian culture by replacing it with anythings else
othered-and-variated than the strongly sound choices of its obvious homonymous
equivalents and matches in a score of cultures : in the Chinese culture there
is the “Da'yüeh'chih” people name; in the Sanskrīti culture
there is the “Tukhāra” people name; in the Hindu-and-Bengali
Indian cultures there is the “Takhar” and “Taggār” territories
names and the “Thakkār/Thokkār” and the “Thakūr/Ťaghūr” peoples
names; in the Sindic culture there is the “Thakkār” territory
name and the “Thakkār” and “Tushāra” peoples
names; in the Pashtōni culture there is the“Takhār” territory name;
in the Persian culture there is the “Takharestān” territory
name; in the Greek culture there is the “Tókarioi/Tókharioi” people
name; in the Roman-Latin culture there is the “Tochari” people
name; in the Arabic culture there is the “Ťakar/Ťakhar” territory
name and the “Ťakareyyōn/Ťakhareyyōn” people name; and in the English
culture there is the and in the English culture there is the “Takkār” and “Tochār” territories
names and the “Takkārians” and “Tochārians” peoples
names. ‒ And as it is well known, these namings are all pertaining to an
independent Mid-Eurasian Culture that later was partly re-situated in
more-southern Asian regions. The above assertive list of the homonymous names
can easily become longer, and that´s one why, of numerous whys, I can relaxedly
dare the Sea-Cliques´ Champollionists-Rougéists-Chabasists to pick out a more
credible and better suited choice for the “TAkkArA” name in
the Egyptian language that would be geographically based inside the
European-Mediterranean sphere, instead of the Asian-Central sphere, as I have
discovered back in 2009.
To be continued …
Thanks Any Way
Wāel grandson_of Zaky