The “TAkkArA” Were Not Some Med-Sea-People At All1

The “TAkkArA” Were Not Some Med-Sea-People, At All -1

The Esteemed Researchers of ANE 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 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 

" Les Égyptiens, même à l'époque de leurs conquêtes les plus étendues, n'ont eu de rapports qu'avec (...) peuples de l'Europe. Sous le règne de Ramsès III, (...) deux nations « des îles et des côtes dé la mer du Nord », c'est-à-dire dé la Méditerranée, les Fakkaro, qui paraissent être des Thraces, et lés Philistins (...), venus de la Crète, tentèrent une invasion par mér sur les cotes de la Palestine. ". 

 This translates from French into English to be approximately :

 " The Egyptians, even at the time of their most extensive conquests, have had reports with (...) peoples of Europe. Under the reign of Ramses III, (...) two nations « of the islands and coasts of North Sea », that is to say, the Mediterranean, the Fakkaro which appear to be Thracians and strips' Philistines (...), came from Crete, attempted an invasion by sea on shores of Palestine. ".

After the coggingly flashy and high reigns of Champollion and then De-Rouge and Chabas, the coggingly flashy and high reign of their ardent pupil Gaston Maspero came-on in the enchanting world of Universal Egyptology. He not only insisted on the passing-along of their egyptological myth of “There were Sea Cliques who Invaded the 20^th Dynasty Mesru”, but also helped to make it more chaotic, and popularize its lunacy. Some of those 4 Frenchmen´s unexplainable gross selves-contradicting mistakes are brought about to you in this post. – Under the title of "THE PHILISTINES AND THE “SEA PEOPLES” NOT THE SAME ENTITY", we read :

" Champollion, was the first to claim the name P.R.S.T. to be a transcription of the P.L.S.T.–Philistines (¡¿×). He maintained that the Egyptian script incorporates an interchange of the letters R and L (¡¿×), and he was followed in this by Osburn, Hincks, Brugsch, Lenormant and others. ..... 16 Breasted, Records, Vol. IV, p. 75. § 129. 17 Breasted, Records, Vol. IV, p. 201. § 403. 18 See: Champollion, Dictionnaire Hieroglyphique, Grammaire, pp. 151; 180. Hall, The Peoples of The Sea, Recueil Champollion, 1922, p. 297 19 Maspero, The Struggle of The Nations, Egypt, Syria and Assyria, 1910, p. 463, note 1. MacAlister, The Philistines etc., p. 24 111 identification of Caphtor with Keftiu and the island of Crete on the one hand, and the mention of the names P.R.S.T., S.R.D.N etc., (some of which were depicted as "from the isles of the sea", "in their isles", "of the sea") on the other hand, the tendency of scholars was to link them with one another and to regard this linking as proof of the Cretan origin of the Philistines, even though the name P.R.S.T. is not once mentioned in connection with the word "sea" and the like (!!). Today it is generally accepted (in accordance with the theory of Maspero) that we are dealing here with different nations which migrated from the region of Crete or Asia Minor, and tried to infiltrate into Egypt. Repulsed by the Egyptians, the Philistines (P.R.S.T.) settled in the coastal area of Canaan, while the Tyrsenes, Sardanes, and others migrated to Italy, Sardinia and other places. In 1747 Fourmont tried to prove that the name "Philistine" was an erroneous form of the Greek "Pelasgi" (¡¿×). His theory was accepted by Chabas21, Hitzig and others who enlarged upon it (¡¿×). Maspero stated in this context: "The name 'Plishti' by itself sugests a foreign origin or long migrations and recalls that of the Pelasgi" (¡¿×). The equation Plishti–Pelasgi is based solely on a supposedly phonetic similarity (!!). The name T. K. R was also identified on the basis of the interchange of the letters R and L, i. e. T.K.L. (¡¿×). However, since the T here is a weak form of the letter, and can be pronounced as S (¡¿×), the name finally emerged as S.K.L., pronounced, Sakala and Zakala. By changing its pronunciation scholars have found a similarity with the Philistine city of Ziklag (¡¿×). Lauth, Chabas and Lenormant identified the T.K.R–Zakala with the Teucrians (¡¿×), while Unger and Brugsch identified them with the Zigrita in Lybia (¡¿×). ..... In the same manner as the P.R.S.T. were identified as P.L.S.T., namely by the interchanging of R and L, so De Rougé identified the R. K (Ruku, Reka, Ruka, etc) as Luku (Leka, Luka) and equated them with the Lycians28 (¡¿×). The W. S. S. were identified by Chabas as Opici–Obsci = Oscanes (of ancient Roman History)29(¡¿). Brugsch believed them to be Caucasians, but later on revised his opinon and saw them as settlers from Asia Minor. According to Maspero they were inhabitants of Caria or Lycia31 (¡¿). The D. N. N. (Danyun, Denyen, Danauna, etc.) were identified by De Rougé with the Danaans (of Greek history) (¡¿×), by Chabas with the Deunians in Italy (¡¿×), and by Brugsch with the Libyans (¡¿×). The T.R.S. were identified by De Rougé and Champollion with the Etruscans (¡¿). The M.S. (or Masa) were linked with the Mycenaeans (¡¿), etc. ".

In the same source, les quatre mousquetaires ( of over-galloping and mis-guiding ) Jean-François Champollion & Olivier-Emmanuel de_Rougé & François Joseph Chabas & Gaston Maspero, are reported to cause even more retardement et démolition, to the universal process of sensible knowledge-gaining upon the same subject of ‘Who in Reality Attacked the Modern Kingdom Egypt by Land and Sea’. – Under the same title of "THE PHILISTINES AND THE “SEA PEOPLES” NOT THE SAME ENTITY", we read :

" De Rougé recognises an affinity with the Greek mythological hero Danaos (¡¿××), and this leads him to identify them with the Danaeans. But according to Greek mythology Danaos came from Egypt to Greece and not vice versa; so this name could not have been foreign to the region of Egypt (!!). ..... This however contradicts the inference, based upon the Egyptian inscriptions, which equates them (the D.N.N.) with the Danaeans. Hall tries to overcome this contradiction by stating that the D. N. N. who are mentioned in the el Amarna tablets are Danaeans who settled in Canaan (¡¿) during the el Amarna period, whereas the Danaeans mentioned in the Egyptian inscriptions represent a new wave of Daneans98 (¡¿). However he discounts the fact that about 300 years separate the el Amarna period from that of Raamses III99. H. – The name "Iy" (understood as isle), linked to the D. N. N., should be seen as referring to their places in Canaan and not Greece ; hence the D. N. N. cannot be Daneans (!!) ...... – The R. K (Ruku, or Reka etc.) were identified as Luku (Luka Leka etc.) and equated with Lycians. However, the Ruku are also mentioned in the el Amarna tablets101, (circa three hundred years prior to the Raamses III period). According to Herodotus102, the Lycians were called Termili, only in later years came to be known as Lycians (!!). J. – The Ekwesh (this name also is vocalised by different scholars in different ways – Akawasha, Akayusha, Akayaousha etc.) were identified by De Rougé as Achaeans (¡¿×). Yet the surprising fact is that in the Egyptian inscriptions they are depicted as circumcised people, a custom that was not practiced by the Greek peoples (!!). Barnette103 notes this circumstance, and expresse his incomprehension (!!). . ..... ".

Reading with alertness through massively-more of such important
“demi-avant”  quotations and such “sur-demi-avant” comments,
like those above and in my previous posts, may expectedly urgingly
cause to edify and then magnify a solid negative impression ‒ and
especially in an English-cultured mind like yours Mr./ Arthur ‒ that
there were numerous 19th century French egyptology “pioneers”
who were characterized with a trait of "over-jumpiness into hasty,
little-checked, unprovable, and groundlessly formulated conclusions".
You shall likely grasp fast that despite all what they were hampered
with at that time, of the lack of sufficient historical records and
archaeological material on their largely recondite civilizational-
matters, they nevertheless just went forward with their dense
scrips-producing on a lot of unasserted "peuples anciens quelque
chose" !! ‒ It goes without much saying that if we were in their
shoes at that Early Data-Gathering Expeditions Age, we definitely
should have used, for our readers´ guidance and perplexity-
prevention, more of our usual cautious expressions like: Almost; 
Nearly; Maybe; Possibly; Probably; Likely; Approximately; etc…,
quite more often than what Champollion, Rougé, Chabas, and
Maspero, actually did allover long decades !! ‒ At all cases, despite
the undeniably good and helpful points in the wonderful
achievements of them in other egyptological aspects away from
their "peuples de la mer" blunderful myth, the formidable et 
travailleur gang of notable members of the post-1789 French
Egyptology School seemed to suffer from an inter-widespread type
of "unscientific virus" of a symptomatic "not to abide to scientific
methodology", especially for and with respect to the texts and
depictions at Madīnet Habu and the other linked sources that all
spoke about the multi-Ethnic Groups who actually attacked Mesru
by land and sea during the time of the 20th Dynasty. And like the
1789 doomsmen´s ultragothic coup d´etat itself, they also showed
at that crucial research-subject d´autres eminent dislikable
symptoms. Which unfortunately included their inter-widespread
précipité et fourbe et arrogant et tyrannique types of "other 
unscientific virii" !!! ‒ But, I would rather prefer to say criticizingly
all that and yet not forget to attach my thanks to every respectable
ancient-world french researcher who tried to redd and reform a 
little-bit that sad long and wide chapter of French Egyptology, 
allover the last century or a little less. 

To be continued …

 Wāel grandson_of Zaky

iii.  You said : “ " … from the ends of the world/earth ", ......, " the isles and mainland of the outer circle of water " / " the great water circle [sin-wur ] " ”.

I so say : All those quotations of inscriptions assert vividly my previous last-decade identification of the Madīnet-Habu-mentioned “Dâynyu” people-name to be the same as the East-Asia-mentioned “Dainyō” people-name!! The ancient holders of that specific tribal name had lived at the [Eastern Direction] Ends of the World, and on the Isles and Mainland of the Outer Circle of Water [at the Western side of the Pacific Ocean]. ‒ In addition to pointing to you at the obvious 'Chinese Complexions and Headcaps' that were depicted specially for the “Dâynyu” invading people on the walls of the Habu City, I invite you Respectable Comrade/ Arthur-Robin to examine a good-resolution precise population-map for the region comprising: the Chinese Eastern Territory; the Korean Peninsula; and the Japanese Archipelago, and to then get astonished as you count how many inhabited places that read “Dainyō”/ “Dâyniō”/etc., that are still scattered over there!! 

iv.  You said : “ " ... the sailed ships of the Peleset were overwhelmed by the slave-oared Egyptian river craft ...." ”.

I so say : On what even-minute-basis on earth was the replacement of the general-rule R-letter with the exceptional-rule L-letter, by the 'tyrant' Champollionists, for the Egyptian-name-for-foreigners “Pórasaħ”/“Pórasat”?! It is possible that a replacement like that could be credible for a case where there is a silent/semi-silent double-L in the pronounced word [ like the 'll' in the word 'Champollion' as example! ], but this not called for at all for the 'P-R-S-T' name of a foreign people. ‒ Who´s misleading-fault is this? It is chiefly of the '4 Mosketeers', and in the MEDINET HABU: OXCARTS, SHIPS, AND MIGRATION THEORIES, of

ROBERT DREWS, there is some light on the bad role of the last 1 of those unsuccessful 4: " As Gaston Maspero formulated

the thesis, between the reigns of Merneptah and Ramesses III four or five nations-the Tur-

sha, the Sherden, the Shekelesh (together with their kindred, the Zakkala), and the Pe-

leset-were driven out of Asia Minor and temporarily had to become "peuples de la mer,"

or "Sea Nations." All of these nations first attacked Egypt, with hopes of settling there, but

soon the Sherden and Tursha carved out a home for themselves in Sardinia and Tyrsenia

(Italy) respectively, to which they gave their names. The other "Sea Nations," however,

were still trying to take over the Egyptian Delta in the eighth year of Ramesses III. After

being defeated by Ramesses, the Peleset settled next door and named the land "Philistia"

after themselves, while the Shekelesh and Zakkala sailed away to an island in the west,

which they jointly named "Sicily" after themselves. For the last hundred years a "migra-

tion of the Sea Peoples" has appeared regularly in histories of Ramesside times.'

As I have argued elsewhere, Maspero's "migration of the Sea Nations" was from the

beginning sheer fantasy.2 For most historians today, even nations living on land are an

anachronism in the Bronze Age, and folk migrations are seen as typically late construc-

tions, required for answering questions about national origins.3 Finally, archaeologists

have now learned enough about Bronze Age Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia to render Maspero's

speculation untenable if not ludicrous. For places such as Cyprus and the southern Levant,

a distinction needs to be made between the immigration of small groups, which is real, and

folk migrations, which are not. Although we may be quite sure that by the middle of the

twelfth century B.C. several thousand immigrants from Crete and other civilized places

in the Aegean had fled to the southern Levant, and participated in the building of Ash-

kelon, Ashdod, Ekron, Gath, and a few smaller cities in the coastal plain, we must also

observe that these Greek-speaking immigrants would have been a minority in a population

in which the majority spoke a Northwest Semitic language and was descended from the

Bronze Age inhabitants of the area ".

v.  You said : “  " As mighty fire was prepared before them. "  " They had before them a sea of flame. " ”.

I so say : It might surprise you Arthur-Robin to know that it was not at any time during the past seven years of awreness on the attackers´ Asian identity, but only in the very last month of July 2016, that I got aware of the fact that the 'fire/flames' sign was a should-be mark inside one of the general huge invaders-sending regions, from which had come a big some of the Mainland Asian tribes that had attacked 20^th Dynasty Egypt!! The 'fire/flames' sign, which I confess I have discovered its conjunction so-late as only the last month, actually proved fast to be very assertive of my "Asian Coalition-Axis" hypothesis, and that is because it is a no-small clue-sign that really 'characterizes' even-more a big group of the encroaching peoples who partaked in the general massive assault on the Late Bronze-Age Near East. To be more sure Arthur that the newer "Asian Coalition-Axis" hypothesis is practically now 'wiping-out' the older "Mediterranean Confederation-Allies" hypothesis, I invite you to consider and answer the following querry: Where do you find anciently a much more condensation of 'Magoos' clan-members who had the fire/flames as a sacred or worshipped idol ‒ in the region stretched between the two hight-lands of the Tibet and the Zagros, or in the region stretched between the two brief-seas of the Aegean and the Tyhrrenean?!?!

I shall be pleased to meet more sea-peoples-myth-free examiners and researchers shortly, on the pages of the intended “The “TAkkArA” Were Not Some Med-Sea-People, At All -2”, which may bring to your consideration even more proving surprises on the 'Asian Coalition-Axis' reality that I have had for it some start-formulations back in the 2009 Spring.

Thanks Any way

Wāel grandson_of Zaky