Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Egypt´s “Takkara” Were Central-Asia´s “Takkara”!-1

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
grandson_of Zaky View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2016
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7
  Quote grandson_of Zaky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Egypt´s “Takkara” Were Central-Asia´s “Takkara”!-1
    Posted: 04-Aug-2016 at 10:36

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
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.168 seconds.