The question arises: if “Indians” – for the lack of a better term – were the first settlers in Egypt, why didn’t they take the horse with them?
The horse was introduced much later, into Egypt.
The only plausible answer is that the first few waves of immigrants didn’t travel on horseback.
This immigration took place thousands of years before the Pyramids were built.
To the objection that they came from the south of Egypt, it can be said that they went by sea — to Africa — and landed somewhere in present-day Ethiopia, and made their way north.
It’s not absolutely necessary they went by land, like the imaginary “Aryan” hordes cooked up in the 19th century.
Indeed, if they came from Indonesia, it is possible they came directly by sea, and never came to India at all.
Apart from whatever archaeologists & paleontologists might have discovered, I see no reason to think that the Egyptians who developed their own high civilization came from Inner Africa.
They’re dark reddish-brown folk.
Indeed, their coming by sea seems to be rather a good theory, because the boat – and not the chariot – is their most important symbol of transportation.
We find neither the horse – nor the elephant – nor the tiger – nor the rooster – nor the peacock – nor the rhinoceros – nor the swan – playing any significant role in Egyptian culture or mythos.
This significantly weakens any influence from Europe, or the Middle East.
And while it maybe said Indian influence appears to be as unimportant as that of Mesopotamia, we may say it displays insignificant influence from Inner Africa too.
These are people who’ve left their original homeland a long time back, and have definitely adapted to their new environment.
They’ve taken up the animals from their immediate environs with great ingenuity – the bull, cow, deer, lion, cat, ibis, baboon, ram, hippopotamus, jackal/dog, scarab, rabbit, vulture, ostrich, serpent, sparrow-hawk, goose, crocodile, etc.
Influences on & from the Middle-East or Mesopotamia, over the 3rd and 2nd Millennium BCE, are known to all, if not clearly measurable.
The Indian connection has to be worked out, or inferred, and is not necessarily evident.
So, for instance, take the strange symbol of the Ankh – the key-like “cross & circle” object held by almost all Egyptian gods.
Isn’t the Ankh very similar to the loop or loop-knot held by Indian gods – which is undoubtedly related to – and sometimes the same as – the noose, or the pāśa?
The Ankh isn’t as much a cross as it is a knotted loop.
The ankh appears to serve a similar function as the Indian pāśa, the crook held by Osiris, or the was-sceptre, being akin to the Indian aṅkuśa.
{May the Egyptian was be connected to the Sanskrit vaś?
The “was” sceptre seems to be a variation of the staff, the sceptre, the crosier, the shepherd’s crook – also the rule or the “daṇḍa” – its shape is reminiscent of the Indian aṅkuśa.
I must add that the was-sceptre has some similarities with the plough, or “hala”, held by Balarāma too – but I wouldn’t push that idea.
I think it’s safe to say that they all denote the beast-herder, or beast-controller, or beast-tamer.}
The Ankh represents binding i.e. to bind, knotting i.e. to tie in a knot or to tie a knot, holding together, tying, clasping, & attaching.
Crossing & circling also have the same, or similar, significance – but the Ankh’s primal root seems to be the loop or circle – hence, to form a loop, or to encircle.
I detect etymological connections with Sanskrit, but will come to those sometime later.
We can see both the elephant-goad and the loop in the arms of this stunningly beautiful Sarasvatī from the Hoysaleshvara Temple at Halebid {image taken from Wikipedia}:
Here the fundamental structure of the objects is overlaid with intricate ornamentation.
But reduced to their basic forms, I do see striking similarities between the elephant-goad of the Indian deities, and the crook held by some Egyptian figures, especially Osiris.
The pāśa can be the noose or the loop.
The noose is not identical with the loop – but they’re similar & related objects.
Varuṇa, for instance, holds the noose – but many deities hold the loop, which is sometimes a triple-loop.
...
BTW, a few days back I read in Aeschylus’s play The Suppliants, that Egypt was also called “Aeria”.
Aeschylus was one of the greatest dramatists of Greek culture, and was born in the 6th century BCE.
Why is Egypt called “Aeria” in this play?
Is there any connection with the word “Ārya” or “Arya”, or is it the diminished form or permutation of some other word?
Aeria seems to be the name of many places in the Ancient World.
...
The connection between India & Meso-American cultures has been noticed and commented upon, by many intellectuals who’re not a part of the mainstream.
The official intellectual elite seems to be completely silent on it.
I think I get part of the reason: the truth may be highly discomfiting because of the utter brutality of the Meso-American civilizations & their cruel rites – which cast a disturbing shadow on the Ancient civilizations of Asia & Africa.
If the Mayans were so cruel, were the Cambodians equally pitiless?
This is a much more serious issue than we can comprehend.
Is it possible to be so intellectually advanced, and yet have such blood-curdlingly brutal rites, like those practised by the Aztecs & Mayans?
But the relatedness of the cultures – especially with the Hindu-Buddhist South-East Asian cultures is indubitable – and – mind-boggling.
This is a whole universe of fascinating intellectual exploration in itself.
The primordial world-civilizers – from Indonesia or from India – might have reached the American continents either through Polynesia, or via China, or both.
I do not intend to delve into that territory, as of now.
But I do recognize the civilizations are intimately associated with the Indian and SE Asian, and it’s a matter of time that the “truth will out”.
