posted 03 January 2004 10:23 PM            

For the most part,however,the early Christains rejected the pagan buildings and many were destoyed by austerefigures such as Shenute ,a 5th century monk whose fortress-like monastery in Middle Egypt was built from the stone nearby temples

page 29

The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt
by Richard H. Wilkinson

posted 05 January 2004 07:01 PM            

To enforce what I have said the following from the Aswan Nubian Museum.

“The middle kingdom
The Middle Kingdom in Nubia is represented by early c-group culture, which marked the climax of the Egyptian domination in Nubia. the Egyptain kings of this period built fortresses of mud-brick to protect the roads, which were a means of imposing political sovereignty on Nubians. This led to a growing influence of Egyptian customs and traditions on Nubian culture. However the weakening of the Theban dynasty of the 13 Th. dynasty forced them to withdraw from Nubian.

The New Kingdom
After the Pharaohs of the 18 Th. Dynasty expelled the Hyksos from the Delta, they set to restore their presence in Nubia. The local "Kerma" culture declined before it completely vanished.
Egyptian domination spread along the Nile to the fourth cataract in the south .the Egyptian kings to appoint loyal Nubian governors as deputies these areas.”

I dare say that there were for some time small pockets in Nubia itself who maintained the true traditions of Nubian culture till the very end as well.

posted 05 January 2004 08:30 PM            

I too am surprised that much has survived, Maybe we owe much to those first people who caught the Egyptology bug, for much that has been preserved, dispite their reasons for doing so.

posted 06 January 2004 01:30 AM            

Only Egypt defended its properties and state boarders at that time. Nubia has been ALWAYS an Egyptian province since the time of AE Noah!! The AE state boarders ended at the famous AE town "Tawkar" which lies nearly on latitude 19. Tawkar is now a town in north Sudan. Tawkar is mentioned many times in Egyptian etymology and couldn't be mistaken.

The reason why Ausar posted this message because he is an Egyptian man and he knows well that the truth about AE history has been obscured and concealed away from most of modern Egyptians for certain immoral reasons.

I think that this forum discusses the AE history with all its sides for the sake of showing up the Truth.

posted 06 January 2004 03:05 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
The Ancient Egyptians NEVER destroyed monuments of other civilizations or cultures. This didn't happen at 'any' moment of the very long Egyptian history.

Only Egypt defended its properties and state boarders at that time. Nubia has been ALWAYS an Egyptian province since the time of AE Noah!! The AE state boarders ended at the famous AE town "Tawkar" which lies nearly on latitude 19. Tawkar is now a town in north Sudan. Tawkar is mentioned many times in Egyptian etymology and couldn't be mistaken.

The reason why Ausar posted this message because he is an Egyptian man and he knows well that the truth about AE history has been obscured and concealed away from most of modern Egyptians for certain immoral reasons.

I think that this forum discusses the AE history with all its sides for the sake of showing up the Truth.

---

While I'm open to the possiblity that Kemites never destroyed monuments of other civilizations or cultures, I'd have a hard time believing it. Kemites frequently bragged about their military achievements. I'm sure everyone here has heard the famous phrase on Mereneptah's steala, "Isreal has been laid waste. His seed is no longer." Perhaps Kemites didn't destroy any monuments, but it sure sounds like they destroyed the people.

And let's not forget Snefru's invasion of what is now know as Nubia. I believe it was Ausar that mentioned the reason for this invasion was that simply Snefru felt that the people in that region had grown too strong.

posted 06 January 2004 04:41 AM            

>>I'm sure everyone here has heard the famous phrase on Mereneptah's steala, "Isreal has been laid waste. His seed is no longer."<<

This is NOT true. I explained many times last few years that the AE hieroglyphic texts were very badly transliterated and wrongly translated. This statement is wrong and has no scientific lingual bases. I discussed it few years ago on other forum with some professional Egyptologists and they became convinced that it is wrong.

The 'claimed' word of 'Israel' on the MerenpetaH's Stella is depicted in Hieroglyphs as follows:

[M17-M17-O34:Z4A:D21-M17-G1-D21:Z1-T14-A1*B1:Z2]

Which reads according to traditional reading rules of Egyptology as:

= { y(ii) - s-si - r - i - a - r - qm - si - st -u }

= { yssiriarqm - sistu } !!!!

Where is 'Israel' here?!!!! There is NO phoneme (L) at all-!

The true meaning of this 'Sentence' is:

'make my mission easy for me to let those people understand me'!!

They created fibs about Ancient Egypt and forced peoples to believe them!!

The True word for 'Israel' is [Q2:D4] and it was reported hundreds of times and even in the Pyramid Texts but they NEVER saw it!

How do we trust translations of people who are NOT able to read simple 'abc' phonemes of Egyptian Hieroglyphs?!!

Many parts of modern Israel and Palestine were in fact Ancient Egyptian land. Egypt defended its land as much as its capabilities permitted then finally they dropped the most northern parts under the severe invasions of Asiatic tribes.

Then you kindly said:

>>I won't pretend to know what the reasons behind the conflicts were, but I also won't believe that Kemites were just trying to defend their borders. There are no such things as good guys and bad guys in real life.<<

Sinai is much farer to Egypt than Nubia which is directly joined to the AE cult centre without any natural or geographic obstacles. Both are Egyptian districts from very ancient times. Egypt could never stand any further uprooting of her national lands! It is not a matter of good guys or bad guys but it is a matter of national self defense against aggression. If someone tries to occupy your house by force you surely will fight for it, then you are not an aggressor in this case!

posted 06 January 2004 07:32 AM            

From the Nubian thread as posted by ausar,

"A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were NOT living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they "subservient" to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions!"

Again I think if were are to approach these subjects we need to see it in perspective.

posted 06 January 2004 10:32 AM            

The main 'core belief' of the Ancient Egyptian creed is 'Peace' represented by one very important glyph which is [S34] known wrongly in Egyptology as '3nkh' or 'ankh', wrongly translated to 'life'!

[S29-S34] = salam = **peace**

The goodbye and welcome words of the Egyptians is **peace**. You might notice that nearly all AE religious characters (gods) were keen to depict themselves holding the "peace" sign [S34] (3nkh) in their hands. If we proceed one step further in AE creed we read:

**aggress NOT peoples because God don't love the aggressors**

Written in Hieroglyphs as follows:

[S12:S12-Z9-A24]

Budge EHD p.354a, first entry, translated to: 'nubnub = to defend, to protect"!

You might notice that this very ancient Egyptian expression was put on top of some Obelisks due to its vital importance to the Egyptians.

Then you say:

>>As Kem has pointed out it is also likely that the unification was the result of an invasion from the South to the North.<<

This is not true and this statement is built on pure guessing and wrong reading of Ancient Egyptian texts and history. The Ancient Egyptians themselves say:

**Egyptian Peoples were ONE STATE**

[D53:Z1-A1-Y1v]

There are a lot of Hieroglyphic expressions that confirm this statement. What seem to be "unification" wars were in fact "liberation" wars to regain the original occupied Egyptian territories.

Then you say:

>>we need to see it in perspective<<

I totally agree!!

Alsaadawi 4

posted 06 January 2004 12:08 PM            

I just want to make sure I understand your points. First, are you saying the sign we know phonetically as ankh, which means life, is really salam phonetically, which means peace? I thought salam was Arabic for peace.

Regarding the unification, I'm confused as to what you are saying. Archaeological evidence has shown that the populations in pre-dynastic Upper and Lower Egypt were culturally distinct people, with the people from the south later influencing the people from the north. How do you come to the conclusion that these two groups were ever one people before unification?

posted 06 January 2004 01:45 PM            

>>I thought salam was Arabic for peace.<<

'salam' is a Pure AE word. The proof is very simple. The word of 'peace' in Hebrew is 'shalom' taken from the AE language 'salam' thousands of years before it was conducted into Coptic then into Arabic. You know that the Egyptian 's' was transliterated to 'sh' in Hebrew in many words. Also the AE word 'salam' was also taken from another AE Hieroglyph which is [F36] or (sm / sam) sign. This ultra important sign [F36] is in fact the mother key word for all Sametic or Semitic languages including Hebrew, Arabic, Amharic and Aramaic.

>>Are you saying that Lower Egypt was conquered for foreigners, then liberated by Upper Egypt during the events that we now refer to as unification?<<

Yes, this is exactly what the case is.

>>If so, this seems to contradict the Narmer palette which seems to show two lions that would be fighting if they were not restrained. This appears to symbolize unification, not liberation<<

There are also many other predynastic Palettes that show nearly the same image. Meantime this depiction is repeated also along the whole extended history of AE during many epochs.

This is NOT unification notion. It is a religious lingual statement. I explained before what the lions mean having a phonetic value (rb / br). This depiction reads as follows:

**It is not the piety that you turn your faces towards the east or the west but it is the piety that you believe in God**

Some times you find the faces of the lions are looking outwards. Does this mean that this a 'separation' of Upper Egypt from Lower Egypt? Of course not, but it has the very same meaning!

The God in this particular depiction is represented by the nearly perfect circle [N5] formed by the hypothetical long necks of the lions which clearly refers to "ra3"! There are NO real lions with such long necks!!

Egyptologists need only to reread all these Palettes on new scientific lingual bases not just looking to the pictures and guess what it may be!!!!

>>How do you come to the conclusion that these two groups were ever one people before unification?<<

I know this by reading Hieroglyphs correctly. Some very important texts like:

[V4-W11:N25] and [G43-W11-N35A]

Upper Egyptians and Lower Egyptians were ONE NATION since the time of the AE prophet Noah, known in traditional Egyptology as 'god' Thoth'!!!!

Alsaadawi 4

posted 06 January 2004 04:35 PM            

We all know that People see their actions from their own point of view. “One mans Invasion is another mans liberation”. As has been seen in ancient times, and indeed in recent times.

I understand that your translations show that the religion was on of peace, not war. But I am sure many would agree that most if not all religions of the world, some of which may have originated from the AE religion, have been based on similar sentiments. Unfortunatley even religion is no barior to human nature.

Unless Ancient Egyptians were beyond all human emotion then I can not see that their was not ambition, greed, and any number of other human traits which lead to expansion and war.

As it is not possible for the extremities of the Egyptian borders to have existed through all time, and research is finding distinct cultures along the nile, the founding of Egypt had to have an origin and expand (Hence invade or unite). To support the idea of "Liberation" then there needs to be a United Egypt which extended to its extremities from well before 3000bc, this unfortunately is not supported by current Archeology. The liberation of the Delta is also not supported in that there is no indication of an invasion. The indication is that contact was being made with Upper Egypt and pottery shows influence and then domination, no othr influences to support an invasion or the existence of a prior people to be liberated from is evident.

I would like your opinion however on the meaning of the two crowns. I am of the opinion that for the two crown to exist it supports the notion that two kingdoms existed. If unification had already been obtained and our first view of the two crowns together dipicts Liberation not Unification or indeed Invasion, why would there be two crowns. I am assuming you may have an explanation (Translation) for the meaning of the two crowns.

Regards

Ozzy

posted 06 January 2004 04:59 PM            

Often people empathize the bitter relations with the Nubian people,but ignore texts like the Famine Stela. This stela illustrates the close relationship that the Egyptians and Nubians often had with each other.In this stela Egyptians reward Nubians with a tract of land that is intrusted to them. In the same stela it calls Ta-seti,the first Upper Egyptian nome,the first of the first;meaning that Ta-seti was the very origin of Egyptian civlization itself.

After the 8th dyanasty,there was much war between part of Middle Egypt and Waset[Thebes] that came as a result of the collapse or possibly from a drought that is referenced by Antifiti,who was the govenor of the nome of Edufu. So little conflicts with Nubians does not demonstrate that Nubians and Egyptians are foreginers or culturally different. According to ''Sudan: Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile'' by Dietrich Wildung''
The traditional boundry is the first cataract,near Aswan and
fortified island of Elephantine[where ivory was probally bartered in
primitive times. But the first nome of Upper Egypt,traditionally
called the nome of Nubia
streched from the ancient kingdom of the Nile all the way to Gebel
Siliileh,where the river narrows at the northern limit of the vast
area of Nubian sandstone.

Page 73''

posted 06 January 2004 07:20 PM            

The answer according to evidence is yes, this is exhibited in there agriculture development, burials, religious beliefs, art, etc. If not it would be indistinguishable from AE culture.

Was this culture influenced, changed, or sent in to decline by another culture?
The answer again by the evidence is yes, Egypt.

I’m sorry but the archeological evidence just does not support Nubia and their prehistoric cultures as always being a part of Egypt since the A-group culture.

Even if we look at it from the point of view were Egypt may have considered the area as part of its own territory or weather they considered their presence there liberating, or weather they considered the Nubian people one and the same as they, the debate is whether or not Egypt invaded (Occupied) other peoples and lands. And in doing so, caused the demise of a culture, by simple occupation or war.

I think the evidence says yes they did.

A- Group’, as archaeologist George Reisner named the different phases of Nubian culture, emerged between 3500-3000 B.C.
The A-Group Nubian culture reached its climax during the Egyptian First Dynasty and ended at the beginning of the third millenium B.C. Practically no archaeological evidence of a succeeding culture has been found and it is thought that over the next few centuries the area was inhabited by a few "thinly scattered groups of indigenous people" (Taylor 1991: 13). This occurrence is thought to be a result of "deterioration of climate" and effects of Egyptian exploitation in trade (Taylor 1991: 13
At the time of the absence of significant Nubian occupation, the Egyptians established settlements further south in Nubia in order to extract resources from Nubian land more effectively. It would not be until the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt, between 2345 and 2181 B.C. that a new phase of Nubian culture would settle into the Nile valley and sedentary development in Nubia would continue (Taylor 1991: 13).

During the rule of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, the A-Group was exploited for the luxuries of their land more and more as they developed as a culture. Egypt had become unified under a single ruler and they had grown strong in power. They began to turn to "aggression in order to obtain what had formerly been acquired through trade" (Taylor 1991: 12). Egyptian record shows that, in order to secure trade routes further south, raids were carried out in Nubia. One in particular was reported to have resulted in the capture of 7,000 people and 200,000 domesticated animals.

With some caution the chronological conclusions derived from Qustul and Adindan could be extrapolated to other areas of Lower Nubia. The mixture of cultures in C-Group III culminated in the early N.K. in a variable combination of Nubian and Egyptian culture. In some cases, burials can only be identified as C-group, Pan Grave or Kerma; in other cases, burials can only be identified as Nubian, rather than Egyptian. However, most N.K. burials contain only N.K. Egyptian objects and evidence of Egyptian practices, even when they continue a Nubian cemetery. At Qustul and Adindan the cemeteries contained mostly Egyptian-type tombs. Most N.K. tombs in Lower Nubia cannot be assigned to C-Group, Medjay-Pan Grave, or Egyptian tradition from available evidence or even distinguished as Nubian. It is likely that many burials belonged to Nubians who had become egyptianized. The egyptianization of burials may be related to a religious change that accompanied the Egyptian ascendancy

Nubia was independent during the Second Intermediate period (1674-1553 BC) when three cultures lived side by side in addition to the late C-Group: the Kerma culture ruled by a Nubian king seated at Kerma in the Dongola reach; the Pangrave culture which may be identified with the Medjayu people; a local entity called the Transitional group, forming a continuation into the New Kingdom period.

I dont think we need to get into the origins of the Nubians.

posted 06 January 2004 07:50 PM            

I have yet to see a scholar that defines what Egyptian influces flowed into Nubia. Even the so-called pyramids built in Meroe and Napta had underground chapels that were different;however in A-group both Egyptians and Nubians had the same type pit tombs in Upper Egypt.

Scholars debate if the C-group and A-group are simply a continuation of the next. The Pan-Grave are completely seperate people. Also the Kerma Nubians are different from the others.

posted 06 January 2004 08:59 PM            

From a previous post:

A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions! http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubian.html

posted 06 January 2004 11:59 PM            

>>Egyptian record shows that, in order to secure trade routes further south, raids were carried out in Nubia. One in particular was reported to have resulted in the capture of 7,000 people and 200,000 domesticated animals.<<

Please, could you supply me with those "Egyptian" hieroglyphic 'records' that 'show' this 'report'?!!!!!!!

Or may be you read it from the translations of people who are NOT able yet to read the Correct name of Egypt in AE times!!

Please, it is very important for me to show me these hieroglyphic records to start inspecting it together, and if it is true I'll believe and confirm your case!

Even the aggressors do not leave records that they are aggressors!

posted 07 January 2004 01:12 AM            

Do you know how the Upper Egyptians used to build their own family houses during the predynastic and early Old Kingdom eras?

If you really answer this question then you'll know for sure the real relation between Upper Egypt and Nubia at that immemorial time.

I leave the answer of this question as a research work to do it yourself and supply us with the results.

Saying that the Egyptians invaded Nubia is like saying that Nubian President El-Sadat invaded Alexandria and captured one million Alexandrian peoples including myself!

This reminds me of an Egyptian joke during 1967 war when I was a young cadet. The joke tells the following story:

"the Israeli military leader Moshe Dayyan ordered a series of air force raids over Cairo and all other Egyptian districts Except Alexandria. President Nasser became very annoyed and upset and asked: why Moshe didn't raid Alexandria, because I don't love them? Then he decided to raid Alexandria by few Egyptian jet fighters and then cites that Moshe who did it. But Moshe knew about his plan and sent some Israeli interceptor fighters to defend Alexandria and prevented Nasser's raids over it. When the Egyptian peoples knew this story they asked: why Moshe did that? The Alexandrians told them: because the mother of Moshe is still living and dwell in Alrassafa Street of Alexandria (just close to my family house). The Egyptians laughed much and considered it as a joke"

Of course it is a joke and Nasser defended Alexandria by a great military force. But when President El-Sadat visited Israel later on and met with Moshe he told him this Egyptian Joke. The surprise came when Moshe said to him:

"but yes, my mother was still living in Alrassafa street of Alexandria at that time"!!!!

"The Ancient Egyptians invaded Nubia"!!

I'll report this in my database as a real historical Joke!!

May be you don't know how much the Lower Egyptians love the Nubians and how much the Nubians love the Lower Egyptians. Only you wouldn't feel it unless you are Egyptian, speak Egyptian and live in Egypt.

Alsaadawi 4

posted 07 January 2004 02:03 PM            

“A possible explanation for this is that A-Group society was so similar to that in predynastic Upper Egypt that there was a kind of equilibrium between them. These Nubian people were not living in the shade of the predynastic Egyptians, nor were they subservient to them in a colonial way. They had no need to leave their home in order to find food or employment in the big city. Given the growing desire for exotic goods like the obsidian from the temple, A-Group Nubians likely came to Egypt for transactions!” http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/hierakonpolis/nubian.html

I read this as these Nubian (for want of another word to call them) people were distinct in that they were not living in the shade of predynastic Egyptians, nor subservient to them. Hence a distinct society of people independent of greater Egypt. This supports a claim of being an independent separate society. Being similar is not the same as being one and the same. Though they most likely, as we have discussed before, developed from the same of people.

“Scholars debate if the C-group and A-group are simply a continuation of the next. The Pan-Grave are completely separate people. Also the Kerma Nubians are different from the others”

Good point ausar, it was first thought there may have been an intermediate b-group which was discarded as incorrect hence us having only A-group and C-group. It is now support by most, that A-group and C-group are not a progression from one to the other, however it is still possible they come from the same stock. A-group declined and disappeared as has been mentioned, Egypt’s influence has been put forward as a possible reason.

Also the quote was clear that Pan-grave and Kerma were different. It was pointing out that by C-group III in the early N.K were a variable combination of Egyptian and Nubian culture, were A-group was clearly not. Indicating that even then although Egyptian influence was high there were still distinguishable groups.

It followed on with.

“In some cases, burials can only be identified as “C-group, Pan Grave or Kerma” ;( Distinguishing as different from each other and from Egypt.) In other cases, burials can only be identified as Nubian, rather than Egyptian” (Still possible to distinguish from Egyptian but not the different Nubian groups.)

“However, most N.K. burials contain only N.K. Egyptian objects and evidence of Egyptian practices, even when they continue a Nubian cemetery.” (Although still distinguishable clear evidence of Egyptian practices, re culture change influence from Egypt.)

“At Qustul and Adindan the cemeteries contained mostly Egyptian-type tombs. Most N.K. tombs in Lower Nubia cannot be assigned to C-Group, Medjay-Pan Grave, or Egyptian tradition from available evidence or even distinguished as Nubian. It is likely that many burials belonged to Nubians who had become egyptianized. The egyptianization of burials may be related to a religious change that accompanied the Egyptian ascendancy” (In other words, Closer to Egypt, re lower Nubia! They become almost indistinguishable, the result of egypianization and religion change, influence undoubtedly from Egypt! Burials are important as they often represent religious beliefs. A change in this enforces the possibility of another religion over powering another.)

Ausar Quote “Often people empathize the bitter relations with the Nubian people, but ignore texts like the Famine Stella. This stela illustrates the close relationship that the Egyptians and Nubians often had with each other.In this stela Egyptians reward Nubians with a tract of land that is intrusted to them. In the same stela it calls Ta-seti,the first Upper Egyptian nome,the first of the first;meaning that Ta-seti was the very origin of Egyptian civlization itself.”

Egyptians reward their own people by intrusting land to them? Entrusting land indicates a belief they were considered something more than part of the whole. You do not entrust part of your home to your family it is simply your home, you may entrust part of your home to extended family however. I would like to know if this gesture was extended to Lower Egypt at any time.

I have never claimed that (Nubian) cultures were of foreign origin or not somehow related to the Egyptian people, but I will continue to maintain they did have their own culture. Similar parallels can be seen around the world, such as Albania and Greece, two peoples of the same stock who developed different but closely related cultures. One at various times being part of the other. The average Greek considers Albania as not a separate entity but as a separatist state and a part of their whole. I have been involved in Greek Forums on the subject. The Albanians however consider themselves as different. Regardless of the history, the two see different perspectives, and what Greeks called liberation in Ancient history was and still is seen as an Invasion by the Albanians. However a close relationship Due to proximity has existed from the beginning.

To strengthen my point the following.

“Please, could you supply me with those "Egyptian" hieroglyphic 'records' that 'show' this 'report'?!!!!!!!
Or may be you read it from the translations of people who are NOT able yet to read the correct name of Egypt in AE times!!”

It’s true I could find no other reference to this claim, although I will continue to search for it. And I think it would be clear that the translation was done by traditional methods because as you know I can not do it myself.

But the main reason for posting, attracted the very response it I was after. Thank you for pointing out that

“Even the aggressors do not leave records that they are aggressors”!!!!

As this is one of my main points above.

One of your main points supporting your argument of non aggression by the AE is your translations of text, which you say does not record invasion only defence and peace. In your own words again

“Even the aggressors do not leave records that they are aggressors”.

I think your own statment

In regards to the joke, i'm not sure what to make of that, I respect yours and ausar’s opinion and I feel I present mine well enough for my knowledge. But if you feel what I have to say is a joke and not debatable, then I feel it maybe time to close this open discussion.

Regads

Ozzy

posted 07 January 2004 03:58 PM            

I mean by that:

"Nubia has been always so dear to Egypt and Egyptians exactly like Cairo, Alexandria or any other Egyptian district".

Just one look to the Egyptian map and we realize at once how Nubia is so close to the Thebe centre of Egyptian cults. Meanwhile Archaeological evidence proves that the Nubians shared, being a main member of the Egyptian Army, the defense of Egypt on the whole Egyptian lands.

I don't mean any disregard to your opinions because we all respect all points of view.

>>It’s true I could find no other reference to this claim, although I will continue to search for it<<

This wrong claim of "the capture of 7,000 Nubian peoples and 200,000 domesticated animals and 100 big ships" came from a wrong translation of cell 2 line 6 of Palermo Stone. Again some Egyptologists caused bad harm and severe damage to the Ancient Egyptian history by that ignorant baby translation.

The real story of this text in brief without going thru detailed boring Hieroglyphs is:

The Egyptians sent an urgent and quick rescue mission to their Sudanese brothers, 4000 thousand needy peoples and 3000 nobles have been rescued. 60 supplying trips then additional 40 supplying trips were fulfilled.

The real translation for the term "200,000 domesticated cattle" is:

**They should neither fear nor grieve**

There is no mention of the number 200'000 at all-!

Egyptologists reversed the situation and pictured the poor Ancient Egyptians as aggressors while they hurried to rescue their Sudanese brothers.

If you wish to know the hieroglyphic details I can quote it and leave the judgment to Neb.

Thank you.

posted 07 January 2004 04:56 PM            

Regards

posted 07 January 2004 06:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
If you wish to know the hieroglyphic details I can quote it and leave the judgment to Neb.

---

and I would be happy to make an attempt to translate...just be patient with me! Ha!

posted 08 January 2004 03:06 AM            

Very good. Let's start inspecting the Hieroglyphs in Palermo Stone Line-4 Cell-2:

Egyptologists said that:

[A13:M12*M12*M12*M12*M12*M12:M12] = 7000 Nubian captives-!!

Notice that they pictured [M12] as if it is repeated (7) times under the (enemy) or (captive) sign [A13]. This is a dishonest transliteration.

**please inspect it by yourself**

It is written in the original PS as follows:

[A7:M12*M12*M12*M12] - [A52:M12*M12*M12]

There is a great difference between the original and the transliterated versions of the word.

The first one may read as {7000 'enemies' or 'captives'} while the original one reads as {4000 'needy' peoples and 3000 'nobles'}.

There is NO mention for Nubia, while the word for 'Sudan' is written in FULL as follows:

[M23-D46:O39].

Please, check this part first then we can proceed.

Kem-Au,

>>Do you dispute that Snefru invaded Nubia, or do you think there was a benevolent reason, if there could ever be a benevolent reason for war?<<

Snfru NEVER invaded Nubia! Why he did that if Nubia is an AE district and many Nubian Kings ruled Egypt?

It is very important to read what they said about that and not to follow the imaginations of some modern peoples!

posted 08 January 2004 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
Ozzy and Neb,

Very good. Let's start inspecting the Hieroglyphs in Palermo Stone Line-4 Cell-2:

Egyptologists said that:

[A13:M12*M12*M12*M12*M12*M12:M12] = 7000 Nubian captives-!!

Notice that they pictured [M12] as if it is repeated (7) times under the (enemy) or (captive) sign [A13]. This is a dishonest transliteration.

**please inspect it by yourself**

It is written in the original PS as follows:

[A7:M12*M12*M12*M12] - [A52:M12*M12*M12]

There is a great difference between the original and the transliterated versions of the word.

The first one may read as {7000 'enemies' or 'captives'} while the original one reads as {4000 'needy' peoples and 3000 'nobles'}.

There is NO mention for Nubia, while the word for 'Sudan' is written in FULL as follows:

[M23-D46:O39].

Please, check this part first then we can proceed.

Kem-Au,

>>Do you dispute that Snefru invaded Nubia, or do you think there was a benevolent reason, if there could ever be a benevolent reason for war?<<

Snfru NEVER invaded Nubia! Why he did that if Nubia is an AE district and many Nubian Kings ruled Egypt?

It is very important to read what they said about that and not to follow the imaginations of some modern peoples!

Alsaadawi 4

---

Can you why Egyptians often depict "Nubians" as capives or showed them being smited? Or why King Tut had images of Nubians (along with Asians) under his sandals to signify that he was walking on them? Or Why Egyptians often referred to Cush as vile or retched?

posted 09 January 2004 12:18 AM            

For reference here is a link to a picture of the Palermo Stone. The image can be enlarged by clicking on it. The glyphs that preceed Sneferu's (Snazaru ??)cartouche on the very bottom row (line 6)are what is in question. http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/palermo.jpg

First I would like to start by saying that Dr.Alsadaawi you are correct about the misinterpretation of the [A7] sign. It can easily be seen that the sign is a 'kneeling man with his hands lowered to his sides [A7] and not the 'captive enemy' sign [A13]of man with his hands bound behind his back.

In Budge's E.H.D his sign [sec.I #94] matches Gardiner's [A7]. Budge does not give a phonetic value for this sign but gives an ideographical or determinitive meaning of "inactivity,inertness,rest". Upon searching for these terms I found a number of entries that included [A7]:

p 207b 'bag'= weak,tired,feeble,helpless, inactive,wretched,needy,empty of strength.

p 225b 'beka' = weak,feeble
'beg' = exhausted,weak feeble destitute of strength, helpless,helpless one,tired,weary
'begg' = to be helpless, to do nothing, to be inert
'begi' = the weak, the helpless, the inert

p 377a 'nen' = to be weary, to be tired, to be helpless, to be inactive, to be inert, to be lazy, to do nothing, to rest, to be sluggish, indolence
'neni' = lazy or helpless man, sluggard, idler
'Neniu' = "The Helpless", i.e.,the damned
'Nenut' = the helpless, inert, wicked

p706a 's-genn' = to make weak or helpless
's-genniu' = the inert, the helpless ones

p771b 'qemtiu(?)' = inert, helpless, weak or feeble men

All of these terms include [A7] and all have a very similar meaning, however I also found a very interesting term that included [A7]:

p385a 'nehem' = to rescue

The meaning of [A7] with [M12] repeated 4 times most likely depends on the context of the preceding glyphs, however based on the meanings of the terms above there is a re-occuring theme of either'people in need of help' or 'people unable to help themselves.'

[M12] is the equivelant of Budge's [sec.XII #72].
pg 526a 'kha' = one thousand.

This sign is repeated four times underneath [A7] signifying the number 4000.

I did some searching through Budge's E.H.D for the 'noble' sign [A52] before I saw the picture of the Palermo Stone. I found Budge's equivalent to [A52] to be [sec.I #114] this line also included [sec.I #115, #116] in which he gave no phonetic value and a ideographical or determinitive meaning of 'the blessed or holy dead' and not 'noble'. I found this to be strange because I thought the flail or whip when combined with a man meant 'noble'. In searching for these terms I found:

p 591a 'sah' = noble, free, a name given to a mummy.
'Sah' = the divine mummy of Osirus

p 646a 'sah' = the form of a man that exists in heaven, the sprit body, perfect spirit bodies.

So perhaps [A52] alone means 'noble' but when included in the above terms it seems to mean the state of a 'noble' after death???

Very interestingly, I also found a term with a similar phonetic value that did not include [A52] and does mean 'nobeleman':

p 643a 'sah' = nobleman

Now, after I found the picture of the Palermo Stone I noticed that the sign in question is not exactly [A52] 'a kneeling man holding the flail(whip) in one hand and extending his other hand' but instead better resembles Budge's [sec.I #115 or #116] of the 'outline of a man kneeling and his hands are not visible'. In searching the ideographical meaning that Budge gives for the three signs again [sec.I #114,#115,#116] I was unable to find [#115,#116]in any terms anywhere.

So to conclude, from what I have gathered through Budge's E.H.D. (and I do understand he is not always the best source) and not yet understanding the glyphs that preceed, I would say that Dr.Alsadaawi is correct in his judgement of:

[A12:M12,M12,M12,M12] = 4000 people in need of help, or 4000 helpless people

[A52:M12,M12,M12] = 3000 Nobles, or perhaps this means that 3000 Nobles have died and exist in spirit form in heaven?

Dr. Alsadaawi, what do you think of the possibility of combining the signs to read like this:

[A7,A52:M12,M12,M12,M12,M12,M12,M12] = 7000 Nobles in need of help or rescue??

------------------
Nesu.t-bi.t neb-taui Neb-Maa't-Re sa-Re Amen-hotep

[This message has been edited by Neb-Ma'at-Re (edited 09 January 2004).]

posted 09 January 2004 02:31 AM            

>>Was Nubia always at fault in these conflicts?<<

Those people are NOT Nubians. Nubians ARE Egyptians and Egyptians DO NOT kill or capture other Egyptians from other Egyptian districts. Sudan was subjected to many far southern invasions and sometimes those invasions reached Upper Egypt, exactly like what is happening now in South and West Sudan. Do the Sudanese now capture Nubians?! Of course NOT!!!!!

>>Can you explain why Egyptians often depict "Nubians" as captives or showed them being smitten?<<

This question proves definitely that you are not able to 'read' those AE texts properly. Because you should have noticed also that King Tut was in FULL guard of two 'Nubian' guards or better to say two Nubian 'gods'. How come he chose Nubian guards then kill or capture their brothers and families?

>>under his sandals to signify that he was walking on them?<<

The AE sandals were made not to walk on peoples. The sandals [S33] have very important religious indication to the AE's. The man (or woman), either rich or poor, who wears the sandals is the man who attended the Hajj rituals according to the belief of the AE creed.

You may notice also that the Nubian guardians of King Tut are wearing sandals! Does this mean that they are 'walking' on the body of King Tut? Of course not!

You may notice also that the AE's depicted and pictured one very important Nubian Egyptian god, crowned by the White Crown and wearing the sandal, is walking on top of a great Lion, while he is wearing also the sandals. This picture of the Egyptian Nubian 'god' has a great meaning and I'll reveal it on a proper time.

Ozzy and Kem-Au, I do believe that you are fair men. Therefore you can't defend a wrong or a losing case. Ancient Egyptians NEVER invaded Nubia because Nuba was a central Nome or Ancient Egyptian Province and Nubians always shared national defense of Egypt.

Now, what if I introduce to you a crucial proof that Nubia was a very important Ancient Egyptian Province, would you admit and confirm that:

**the Ancient Egyptians NEVER invaded Nubia**

Alsaadawi 4

posted 09 January 2004 03:07 AM            

Thank you again for this wonderful research work and good reference. You are doing a great job for the sake of corrected Egyptology.

>>Dr. Alsaadawi, what do you think of the possibility of combining the signs to read like this?<<

You kindly explained the sign [A7] in a very good way.

>>So perhaps [A52] alone means 'noble' but when included in the above terms it seems to mean the state of a 'noble' after death???<<

In fact, the sign depicted on the original PS is [A52D]. It belongs to the [A52] family and I wrote it as [A52] because I know that you may haven't the Gardiner extended list. So I wished not to confuse you.

The seated man in this sign is not a 'dead' man by he is in 'thank-giving' praying position. It is a very popular AE depiction for prayers. Therefore, the final meaning is 'thanking nobles'. If the writer wanted to say that they were 'dead' nobles then he should had used [A54] or [A55] instead, which means 'dead noble'.

Consequently, as you clearly explained: we have here 'rescued' needy people term and then we have now 'thanking' nobles term then the whole story could be correctly known for sure!

Alsaadawi 4

posted 09 January 2004 03:30 PM            

From my reading of the inscriptions of Harkhuf,I notice that Harkhu allies himself with the people of Yam that would later be known as Irem. The other people are indeitifed as less freindly groups of tribes that lived around the second cataract of Egypt. Harkhuf rspected the people of Yam so much that he offered to smite the Tjemeh,which he idenitifed as Southern Libyans as opposed to the Tamahou.

In my previous post,I pointed out that Ta-Seti was the first Upper Egyptian nome. This is the same nome where Amenemhet's mother came from,and of course his father was an Aswani Egypt that founded one of the most productive and industrious dyansty in Egyptian history,the 12th dyansty. How many times do I have to identify that according to the Egyptian text Prophecies of Neferti the 12th dyansty was of half-Nubian and Upper Egyptian in origin.

See the following from Prophecies of Neferti

quote:

---

Then a king will come from the South,
Ameny, the just)fied, by name,
Son of a woman of Ta-Seti, child of Upper Egypt.
He will take the white crown,
He will wear the red crown;
He will join the Two Mighty Ones,
He will please the Two Lords with what they wish,
With field-circler in his fist, oar in his grasp.
Rejoice, O people of his time,
The son of man will make his name for all eternity!
The evil-minded, the treason-plotters,
They suppress their speech in fear of him;
Asiatics will fall to his sword,
Libyans will fall to his flame,
Rebels to his wrath, traitors to his might,
As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him.
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler,
To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt;

---

Notice that Ta-Seti,the real name for Nubia, was mentioned in a well estemed context compared to Libyans,Asiatics,and other people. Why exactly would Kemetians attack Ta-Seti when they held it up in such esteem to proclaim that a person from this land would liberate Kemetians?

posted 09 January 2004 04:21 PM            

"The AE sandals were made not to walk on peoples. The sandals [S33] have very important religious indication to the AE's. The man (or woman), either rich or poor, who wears the sandals is the man who attended the Hajj rituals according to the belief of the AE creed."

I don't believe the images on the sandals were meant to be taken literally but were symbolic of power of one people over another, similar to the scene of a pharaoh smiting his enemies. Honestly how many skulls do you think a pharoah crushed with his own mace.

Also please forgive me for my ignorance, as I am not very familiar with Islam and Islamic rituals but can you please explain to me why Ancient Egyptians before and up to the time of TutAnkhamun would attend the Hajj ritual. Why would any ancient Egyptian from this era make a pilgrimage to Ka'ba in Mecca to give praise to Allah or any 'non-Egyptian God' (I know you will dispute that)outside of his homeland of Egypt. Please explain because I am a bit confused about your claim. Thank you.

posted 09 January 2004 06:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
Ozzy and Kem-Au, I do believe that you are fair men. Therefore you can't defend a wrong or a losing case. Ancient Egyptians NEVER invaded Nubia because Nuba was a central Nome or Ancient Egyptian Province and Nubians always shared national defense of Egypt.

Now, what if I introduce to you a crucial proof that Nubia was a very important Ancient Egyptian Province, would you admit and confirm that:

**the Ancient Egyptians NEVER invaded Nubia**

Alsaadawi 4

---

Dr Alsaadawi, I have been following the translations and trying where I can to do it myself, and am very impressed with the results. I have no doubt you will change the face of Egyptology and indeed Egyptian history. I am, although it may not seem so, as excited at the results as Neb is. I also feel this will be a subject that becomes an integral part of this forum from now on, and hopefully many of us can become competent in translating under your direction.

However regarding the current debate.

I understand your argument that these mistranslations have given in certain situations the wrong impression and the entirely wrong story in others. These facts will of cause, contribute to a misinterpretation of the relationship between two peoples and even could make the difference in ones decision as to weather they are friend or foe.

The fact remains however that the debate is not solely based on the incorrectly translated value of recorded Egyptian history regarding war and peace, but has also put forward important Archeological, cultural, and religious historical questions which have not been addressed by your position.

As I have tried to present in not so many words and has been the basis of my argument, an invasion is not always in the form of physical presents or force like war or small conflict and has to be considered in relation to changes in religion, art, social structure, (the total Culture). It can even be found in its most passive form were one culture simply overshadows or imposes itself on the other solely by its presents.

Without the support of Archeological evidence to support a mirror culture or even a willing adaptation, (and in fact the opposite is shown) the reliance on this sole evidence makes the argument hard to support. Weakening it further is your agreement “Even the aggressors do not leave records that they are aggressors”. There is hardly going to be much record of resistance to political, religious change be it aggressive or passive.

So unless further translations you may be able to present address the cultural aspects of the debate, I think it may be a good time to concentrate on the interest generated by your translation. As I am keen to learn.

Regards

posted 09 January 2004 08:46 PM            

But an image need not be translated. And the images on Tut's sandals shows captives being stepped on as far as I'm concerned:
http://www.geocities.com/jerod_motley/index.html

This image is taken from the book Tutankhamen by T.G.H. James. Now the book only mentions that the captives were enemies of Egypt, but I'm assuming the African people on these sandals are Kushites. And ancient Kush was situated in the land we now call Nubia, therefore a Kushite is today called a Nubian. The book mentions that Kushites were often referred to as vile by Kemites.

Now I've found fault with many of the things James mentioned in his book, so I wouldn't be surprised if he mistranslated some things. But what is clear is that Tut is stepping on two Africans, and two other people I presume are Asians. I can only see this as a sign of disrespect toward his enemies. Now who specifically these enemies were, or how they pissed Tut off I can't say. But the numerous battle scenes I see Kemites engaged in, along with the disrespect I've see them show to foreigners makes it tough to believe that they never invaded another country.

posted 09 January 2004 09:49 PM            

The sandals,cane,and image of enemies being smitted are more symbolic than realistic. These were part of the exacration ritual where enemies were bound up to take away their power. This occured either as making a clay object of the enemy;inscribing the name of the enemy in a piece of papyrus and burning it;or making and image in a sandal,cane or on a throne.

posted 09 January 2004 10:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
The sandals,cane,and image of enemies being smitted are more symbolic than realistic. These were part of the exacration ritual where enemies were bound up to take away their power. This occured either as making a clay object of the enemy;inscribing the name of the enemy in a piece of papyrus and burning it;or making and image in a sandal,cane or on a throne.

---

posted 10 January 2004 03:12 AM            

>>but can you please explain to me why Ancient Egyptians before and up to the time of TutAnkhamun would attend the Hajj ritual. Why would any ancient Egyptian from this era make a pilgrimage to Ka'ba in Mecca to give praise to Allah or any 'non-Egyptian God' … Please explain because I am a bit confused about your claim<<

Who said that the Ancient Egyptians made pilgrimage to Ka3ba in Mecca?!! Did I say that?!! I explained before many times that the Ancient Egyptians followed the peaceful 'Hanif' creed of Abraham, which included all modern religious divine creeds. That's why they called themselves the 'Hanifs'. And I explained also that the AE 'god' 'ptaH' is in fact the TRUE AE Prophet Abraham and he is NOT the claimed modern Asiatic Abraham who was taken in imitation by the Hyksos who destroyed most of the great temples of the AE Abraham (ptaH) allover Egypt. The Ancient Egyptians, in light of creed of the AE Abraham, used to make Hajj rituals (traveling by Hajj boats) at Thebe (Luxor). Many of the AE religious symbols like the ram [C4] or [E10], the falcon [G5], Amon [C12], sam [F36], r3 [N5] and many others are basic elements of this AE Hanif creed. Only we need to 'read' them correctly.

Thank you

posted 10 January 2004 03:14 AM            

>>As I have tried to present in not so many words and has been the basis of my argument, an invasion is not always in the form of physical presents or force like war or small conflict and has to be considered in relation to changes in religion, art, social structure, (the total Culture). It can even be found in its most passive form were one culture simply overshadows or imposes itself on the other solely by its presents<<

Your words reflect deep understanding of the issue. You mean here that there was a **cultural** struggle between many ancient sects, which is really true. But 'invasion' is not cultural struggle, exactly like what is happening on this board. Everyone struggles by his thoughts and cultural accomplishments to convince the others for his assumed correct data. From this point of view I agree with you that the AE culture had tremendous effect on the European, African and Asiatic folks and peoples. Just a simple look to the modern written languages and the basis of modern sciences we get at once that nearly all modern cultures were born from the womb of the AE culture, and wonderfully they admit that. We the rural Egyptians feel that Egypt is the 'mother' of the world, and the Egyptians keep saying 'MaSr umm-el donya' [B4]. This belief is very ancient and deeply rooted in Egypt as you see from the corresponding hieroglyph, then how come the 'mother' invades her 'children'?

I'm not saying the AE's were angels, and the Egyptians themselves admit that there have been always Egyptian tyrant rulers as in modern epochs. But I'm talking about the 'spirit' of the Egyptian culture and the peaceful belief of the majority of the ancient and modern Egyptians. From this point of view, Egypt has been always the 'victim' to many wild invasions like the Asiatic-Hyksos (several times), the Persian, the Roman, the West-African, the European (many times) and the Arabian invasions. Nearly all the wars in which Egypt was engaged were for self defense. Then some Egyptologists come now and say that Ancient Egypt invaded her own great Province of Nuba!!! What an extremely odd and wrong misinterpretation!!!!

Thank you

posted 10 January 2004 03:16 AM            

You kindly say:

>>And I said many times that I do not believe in the word Nubian as it refers to neither a place nor a people<<

Here, you are absolutely wrong in both. The modern Egyptians pronounce and utter the Egyptian word for Nubia which is **ennuba** exactly like the Ancient Egyptians pronounced and uttered it, as follows:

[M22-W24-D58-O49] and [M22-D58-X1:O49] = ennuba

Budge EHD p.1007a-b, translated to: 'Capital of the third Nome of Upper Egypt'- Wonderful!

We might notice that they used [M22] for writing the (n) phoneme because it reads as (nn) to match the real uttered word.

The 't' in 'ennuba-t' is silent exactly as it is written in modern Arabic Egyptian.

The AE word **Ennuba** for Nubia means:

**the believing people who did good**

Regards

posted 10 January 2004 06:51 AM            

This I feel, is were we differ. Cultural strugle is indead "invasion".

Some on this board have spoken of the cultural "invasion" of Egypt in recent times by Arabinisation, in more ancient times by Christianity and by others in more ancient times. All these involved a cultural strugle, and all have been called invasion. Even you yourself have called it invasion.

There has without doubt been war involved with some of these invasions, but many olso have not. The delta could be an example.

Much has even been expressed on this board regarding the cultural invasion that still persists,today in Egypt which is void of war, but the cultural strugle still persists. Is this just a strugle or is this invasion?

I can see there will be debate against this as well, because these invasions were by forien nabours and as we agree, Nubia was not a forien nabour, but the basis of cultural invasion remains the same regardless of geographics. RE: Albania and Greece.

If Cultural strugle is not invasion then the same term can not be used for current situations which exist even to this day.

Romen history is full of military invasion, but passive invasion although not as well know existed as well. All historians consider the Cultural strugle of these nations as an invasion.

Having said that I do believe that the Basis of Egyptian Culture was centred on their religion of peace, however even religion is no deturent to peace and in many cases is the cause of the cutural strugle.

I will always maintain that any peoples who have lost a self identitiy through cultural change have been indeed invaded, be it void of war or not. I am afraid my views on this will be extreemly difficult to change.

I have enjoyed the debate however.

Regards

Ozzy

posted 10 January 2004 08:59 AM            

If you really believe that cultural struggles means 'invasion' then I admit here that Egypt has invaded most of the modern world, including her ancient invaders.

Thank you for this interesting and exciting debate. I learned much.

Regards

posted 10 January 2004 09:57 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
Neb,

>>but can you please explain to me why Ancient Egyptians before and up to the time of TutAnkhamun would attend the Hajj ritual. Why would any ancient Egyptian from this era make a pilgrimage to Ka'ba in Mecca to give praise to Allah or any 'non-Egyptian God' … Please explain because I am a bit confused about your claim<<

Who said that the Ancient Egyptians made pilgrimage to Ka3ba in Mecca?!! Did I say that?!! I explained before many times that the Ancient Egyptians followed the peaceful 'Hanif' creed of Abraham, which included all modern religious divine creeds. That's why they called themselves the 'Hanifs'. And I explained also that the AE 'god' 'ptaH' is in fact the TRUE AE Prophet Abraham and he is NOT the claimed modern Asiatic Abraham who was taken in imitation by the Hyksos who destroyed most of the great temples of the AE Abraham (ptaH) allover Egypt. The Ancient Egyptians, in light of creed of the AE Abraham, used to make Hajj rituals (traveling by Hajj boats) at Thebe (Luxor). Many of the AE religious symbols like the ram [C4] or [E10], the falcon [G5], Amon [C12], sam [F36], r3 [N5] and many others are basic elements of this AE Hanif creed. Only we need to 'read' them correctly.

Thank you

Alsaadawi 4

---

Dr Alsadaawi,

No 'you' did not say they made a pilgrimage to Ka'ba in Mecca, you said they performed 'Hajj' ritual.From what I know, that is the definiton of 'Hajj'. Please forgive me if this is wrong but as I mentioned I am not very knowlegable in this area. Since I am curious to learn more about this,I have a few questions for you. Can you give examples of written heiroglyphs supporting your claim that AE's called called themselves 'Hanifs' please. I know that the discussion of AE's 'not' being polytheistic has been discussed here before but I don't know if am ready to belive that.

Also, if you belive that Ptah was actually the 'true' prophet Abraham, and not the claimed modern Asiatic Abraham, do you believe that the migration of the Asiatic Abraham to Mecca is a fallacy? Or do you belive that there were two Abrahams that lived in ancient times, both generating followings of people to belief in a 'Hanif' creed? In either case, how does this affect your religious beliefs as a muslim , if in fact you are a muslim?

Please understand, these questions are not so much to challange your claims, but simply to gain a better knwoledge of them.

Thank you

posted 10 January 2004 12:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alsaadawi-4:
Kem-Au,

You kindly say:

>>And I said many times that I do not believe in the word Nubian as it refers to neither a place nor a people<<

Here, you are absolutely wrong in both. The modern Egyptians pronounce and utter the Egyptian word for Nubia which is **ennuba** exactly like the Ancient Egyptians pronounced and uttered it, as follows:

[M22-W24-D58-O49] and [M22-D58-X1:O49] = ennuba

Budge EHD p.1007a-b, translated to: 'Capital of the third Nome of Upper Egypt'- Wonderful!

We might notice that they used [M22] for writing the (n) phoneme because it reads as (nn) to match the real uttered word.

The 't' in 'ennuba-t' is silent exactly as it is written in modern Arabic Egyptian.

The AE word **Ennuba** for Nubia means:

**the believing people who did good**

Regards

Alsaadawi 4

---

It seems everything I know about AE is turning out to be wrong. So you're saying the word Nubian does not mean "gold miner", but the believing people who did good?

In Budges text, he does not list the word you mention, ennuba-t. I can't read the glyphs, but the word he wrote down on pg 1007 was Nekheb-t as you mention meaning "Capital of the third Nome of Upper Egypt".