posted 11 December 2004 05:29 AM            

quote:

---

Hence [KMT] logically means Black
nation not black piece of land.

---

Why nation? Surely a nation is a large area of land- not crossroads. Gardiner's Grammar, if you read the description, states that 049 can also represent an "inhabited area", and then gives the example Kemet. I see your point, but in my eyes your point is drifting dangerously close to the volatile subject of racial colouring. Regardless of whether you are trying to push this topic in that direction, I would say that the "black" in Kemet obviously refers to the colour of the "inhabited area" and not the people who inhabited it.

The fact that almost all scholars translate Kemet as "the black land" is clear proof of the fact that 049 can be translated as land as well as nation or villiage etc.

posted 11 December 2004 06:27 AM            

quote:

---

Hence [KMT] logically means Black
nation not black piece of land.

---

quote:

---

Why nation? Surely a nation is a large area of land

---

Land is a geographical construct. A city, a community, a nation, is a social construct.
Kemet was a nation. You do understand that Kemet was a nation?

Seriously:
IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAND AND NATION, which is, after all, why you are desperately trying to change mdw ntr in the first place. Correct?

quote:

---

I see your point, but in my eyes your point is drifting dangerously close to the volatile subject of racial colouring.

---

TRANSLATION: You consider the mdw ntr as violatile (frightening) to YOUR RACIAL SENSIBILITIES. We see your point: The ancient texts frighten you, so you have, in your mind, the "right" to change it.

quote:

---

Regardless of whether you are trying to push this topic in that direction, I would say that the "black" in Kemet obviously refers to the colour of the "inhabited area"

---

This is also semantical nonsense because it relies on the [nwt] determinative signifying Black nation wherin, the nation is Black...but...not the people.

But as shown earlier, that argument collapses when km.t is written with the determinative for people, and 'not' Nation.
In which case it MUST refer to the Black People, even in terms of your own rhetoric.
You continue to mistranslate terms and offer no lingustic evidence. All that is new to the above post is that you have offered us your ideological reasons for doing so.

This is relevant to your next bad argument below:

quote:

---

The fact that almost all scholars translate Kemet as "the black land" is clear proof

---

Not being able to justify your mistranslation, you hide behind the mistranslations of others.

Formally this is known as an 'appeal to tradition' logical fallacy, and it is appropriate that you rest your discredited and intellectually bankrupt argument on such a rotten foundation.

As for 'begging the question' of why the term is traditionally mistranslated, you just admitted and revealed the ideology that drives this falsification of the ancient texts yourself.

posted 11 December 2004 09:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Correct.

---

posted 11 December 2004 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

I would say that the "black" in Kemet obviously refers to the colour of the "inhabited area" and not the people who inhabited it.

The fact that almost all scholars translate Kemet as "the black land" is clear proof of the fact that 049 can be translated as land as well as nation or villiage etc.

---

Obviously? Clear proof?

Psusennes, you don't seem like a dumb guy, so I'm sure even you see the flaws in the arguments above. Why not give us something to think about? Statements like the above insult our intelligence more than anything else...

---

Whatever the truth may be, Rasol & Wally are giving us plenty to chew on. I keep an open mind, but the "black land" camp doesn't seem to offer much evidence to consider...

posted 11 December 2004 02:22 PM            

quote:

---

I would say that the "black" in Kemet obviously refers to the colour of the "inhabited area" and not the people who inhabited it.

The fact that almost all scholars translate Kemet as "the black land" is clear proof of the fact that 049 can be translated as land as well as nation or villiage etc.

---

quote:

---

Obviously? Clear proof?

Psusennes, you don't seem like a dumb guy, so I'm sure even you see the flaws in the arguments above. Why not give us something to think about? Statements like the above insult our intelligence more than anything else...

---

Whatever the truth may be, Rasol & Wally are giving us plenty to chew on. I keep an open mind, but the "black land" camp doesn't seem to offer much evidence to consider...

A question though: How old is the term "kemet"? Does it reach back to unification? And what would be the historical context of calling oneself the "black nation"?

---

Specific references to Kem (black) as it pertains to skin color go back to the old kingdom and are probably older than the term Kemet[niwt], as applied to the nation.

I know of two specific examples of cultures that made specific and sanctified references to dark skin.

* Nile Valley. (Kem)

and....

* Indus Valley. (Kali)

Ask yourself what do these civilisations have in common, (besides Black peoples).

Ausar: If you can combine the two linguistic threads I will be happy to restrict responses to the preferred thread.

posted 11 December 2004 03:42 PM            

quote:

---

Neo wrote (in another thread):

And why can't we live and let die? If people choose to accept a different interpetation, so be it.

---

Actually, I think that this is a good topic, because unlike the "race" debates, focused on an amorphous concept open to "interpretation", the meaning of "kemet" can be based on concrete and clear concepts. It's "quantifiable" so to speak.

quote:

---

Neo wrote:
It's not as if there isn't scholarly evidence for both sides of the debate.

---

I would be interested to hear evidence for the "black soil" interpretation. Only thing I've read so far is "kemet" means black soil because "deseret" means red soil. But rasol and wally cited evidence (in other threads) that weakens the "kemet/deseret" explanation, such as (off the top of my head) AE references to some outside groups by skin color ("tamhou", ie red people), plus some references to asiatics as "deseretu" with the *absence* of references to nubians who inhabited barren lands as "desertu" (??). This is in addition to the linguistics evidence set forth in this thread.

...So -- is "kemet, as opposed to desert" all there is to the "black land" argument, or not??

---

quote:

---

Rasol wrote:

I know of two specific examples of cultures that made specific and sanctified references to dark skin.

* Nile Valley. (Kem)

and....

* Indus Valley. (Kali)

Ask yourself what do these civilisations have in common, (besides Black peoples).

---

I'm not sure. What?

I'm tempted to say both civilizations historically found themselves under pressure from "white" asiatic neighbors...

??

posted 16 December 2004 02:19 PM            

This entire forum is twisted, and I do not plan to hide that. The lexicographers of the O.E.D understand the word ‘nation’- but clearly you do not. 049 is described as a determinative for not just nation- but Egypt as a whole. I change nothing- but your collaborators are insistent on vainly trying to find correlations between modern racial ideas and a civilization that borders on the Mediterranean. You still have not replied to my argument around the idea of “kem” meaning soil coloured either- I suppose I was naïve to assume that you’d be able to concoct some vain counter-argument.

Egypt Search can't fool me. I've met incomprehensible twaddlers before, so I know that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Egypt Search's subterfuge. I'm thoroughly stunned. I don't mean to scare you, but someone once said to me, "The blatant ignorance and social maladjustment of Egypt Search's ideas will twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks one of these days." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. I must blow my whistle on Egypt Search's tactics of deception and distortion, by which I mean that Egypt Search has the brains of a houseplant. But the problems with Egypt Search's disquisitions don't end there. I suggest that you rethink your position.

Egypt Search is inherently irrational, unrealistic, and ultra-crapulous. I don’t care what race the Egyptians were. I only want to learn more about their fantastic civilisation. I am just sorry to hear that most members of Egypt Search only care about the layer of melatonin that surrounded the muscles and minds that built such a wondrous kingdom. Many the things I've talked about in this post are obvious. We all know they're true. But still it's necessary for us to say them, because Egypt Search and its co-conspirators have abandoned ethics altogether.

posted 16 December 2004 03:15 PM            

It seems that your main argument is that of the inclusion of the niwt determinative. You see this as clear proof that a “black community” must be black. Completely understandable. But you have left it at that. Let us examine the facts. ‘Kmt’ is only ever used to describe the narrow strip of fertile land which borders the Nile. There must be a special reason for this. I shall use evidence to try to support my counter arguments.

Point One. The adjective ‘kem’ does not specifically mean dark black. In the Book of Imyduat the Great Lake of Kam-Ur (great ‘black’) is shown as being a dark brown with flames- not ebony black. Many other lakes- which are a dark blue are called “Kam-ur”. Furthermore, sycamore trees are called “kem” in Egyptian, and these are dark brown. Not black. On top of that, a native name of the crocodile God Rerek is “Kem-her” (‘black’ face). A quick search under Egyptian crocodile shows that their faces are a sort of dark brown- not black (what a coincidence!). Additionally, the brown-red diorite rock used to make many statues in Egypt was called in Egyptian, “Kem-t”. As the final ‘nail-in-the-coffin’, the word for soil in Egyptian is “kmt”- and Egyptian soil is a dark reddish-brown.

Point two. The Egyptians were very fond of puns in their literature, as I am sure you are aware. The dream book of Heperkhepshef uses puns, as do many popular texts and even religious scriptures. The word for soil is “Kemet”, the word for dark-brown (as it would now seem) is “Kem”, the word for garden is “Kemet”, and the word for “prosperous, or to prosper” is “Kem”. All of these combined sum up the Nile Valley. It is a prosperous garden of lush soil and prosperity.

Point Three. The Egyptians are precise in their use of determinatives. I have yet to find one example where a determinative for a place can relate to a person. If the word “Kemet” had anything to do with the people, rather than the actual ‘district’ then surely the determinative for person/people would have been used rather than a determinative that specifically relates to a ‘district’? Why would the word be used to refer to an area of Egypt used solely for farming? Most inhabited towns and cities were not in the luscious green Kemet, but on the sand desert borders. Kemet is also most commonly written with a God determinative after the niwt glyph. Let us consider this. Osiris is frequently shown as being dark black- as a sign of the fertility that he bestowed upon Egypt with the gift of farming. It is far more likely that the Egyptians connected Kemet to their Gods then a childish racial notion. Egypt is often called "the land of Osiris", and yet you have completely ignored the connection between "the land black soil belonging to Osiris" (as a possible translation) and the inlusion of other determinatives.

Answer my questions now- or leave.

posted 16 December 2004 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

Answer my questions now- or leave.

---

you wrote:

quote:

---

The word is "Km-t". The word for soil in Egyptian is "Km".

---

my reply

quote:

---

Wrong. Please tell us where you are getting this misinformation?

---

We are still waiting for answer to this.

So, on your own terms: please answer this question....or leave

posted 16 December 2004 04:16 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psusennes I:
Very well.

It seems that your main argument is that of the inclusion of the niwt determinative. You see this as clear proof that a “black community” must be black. Completely understandable. But you have left it at that. Let us examine the facts. ‘Kmt’ is only ever used to describe the narrow strip of fertile land which borders the Nile. There must be a special reason for this. I shall use evidence to try to support my counter arguments.

Point One. The adjective ‘kem’ does not specifically mean dark black. In the Book of Imyduat the Great Lake of Kam-Ur (great ‘black’) is shown as being a dark brown with flames- not ebony black. Many other lakes- which are a dark blue are called “Kam-ur”. Furthermore, sycamore trees are called “kem” in Egyptian, and these are dark brown. Not black. On top of that, a native name of the crocodile God Rerek is “Kem-her” (‘black’ face). A quick search under Egyptian crocodile shows that their faces are a sort of dark brown- not black (what a coincidence!). Additionally, the brown-red diorite rock used to make many statues in Egypt was called in Egyptian, “Kem-t”. As the final ‘nail-in-the-coffin’, the word for soil in Egyptian is “kmt”- and Egyptian soil is a dark reddish-brown.

Point two. The Egyptians were very fond of puns in their literature, as I am sure you are aware. The dream book of Heperkhepshef uses puns, as do many popular texts and even religious scriptures. The word for soil is “Kemet”, the word for dark-brown (as it would now seem) is “Kem”, the word for garden is “Kemet”, and the word for “prosperous, or to prosper” is “Kem”. All of these combined sum up the Nile Valley. It is a prosperous garden of lush soil and prosperity.

Point Three. The Egyptians are precise in their use of determinatives. I have yet to find one example where a determinative for a place can relate to a person. If the word “Kemet” had anything to do with the people, rather than the actual ‘district’ then surely the determinative for person/people would have been used rather than a determinative that specifically relates to a ‘district’? Why would the word be used to refer to an area of Egypt used solely for farming? Most inhabited towns and cities were not in the luscious green Kemet, but on the sand desert borders. Kemet is also most commonly written with a God determinative after the niwt glyph. Let us consider this. Osiris is frequently shown as being dark black- as a sign of the fertility that he bestowed upon Egypt with the gift of farming. It is far more likely that the Egyptians connected Kemet to their Gods then a childish racial notion. Egypt is often called "the land of Osiris", and yet you have completely ignored the connection between "the land black soil belonging to Osiris" (as a possible translation) and the inlusion of other determinatives.

Answer my questions now- or leave.

[This message has been edited by Psusennes I (edited 16 December 2004).]

---

Nwt is not the only determinative used with KM or KM.t. Why are you making pretend there
are no words with people determinatives suffixed
to KM or KM.t when such words have been shown
from a source as definitive as the Woerterbuch? You have given some accurate
and valid meanings for KM. Do you have
dictionary entries to support some of the
more questionable and remote meanings you
attach to KM?

The notion that black people have to be
literally jet black in colour is ludicrous.
All over inner Africa peoples that everyone
calls "the blacks" have skin colours of every
shade you mention, plus more. Some are even
brassy yellow and a few are nearly wheat complexioned.
Most are of tones you can find in a stash of
copper pennies.

As far as your politics, our children have
already suffered horrendously from decades
of baseless Eurocentric dribble permeating
their geography, history, and social studies
textbooks which still remain 10 to 20 years
behind current findings. The pseudo science
therein is long overdue for dismissal and I
hope we all on occasion read along with and
correct our childrens textbooks for them.

I admit sometimes the posts get tedious with
the black sociology which is never as bad as
the white racist commentary found here, to
which you seem to have no problem or complaint,
but there plenty enough threads without it
and nothings stopping you from starting new
threads.

posted 16 December 2004 04:51 PM            

quote:

---

It seems that your main argument is that of the inclusion of the niwt determinative.

---

quote:

---

You see this as clear proof that a “black community” must be black.

---

quote:

---

Completely understandable.

---

quote:

---

Point One. The adjective ‘kem’ does not specifically mean dark black.

---

quote:

---

In the Book of Imyduat the Great Lake of Kam-Ur (great ‘black’) is shown as being a dark brown with flames- not ebony black.

---

quote:

---

Point two. The Egyptians were very fond of puns in their literature, as I am sure you are aware. The dream book of Heperkhepshef uses puns, as do many popular texts and even religious scriptures. The word for soil is “Kemet”, the word for dark-brown (as it would now seem) is “Kem”, the word for garden is “Kemet”, and the word for “prosperous, or to prosper” is “Kem”. All of these combined sum up the Nile Valley. It is a prosperous garden of lush soil and prosperity.

---

quote:

---

Point Three. The Egyptians are precise in their use of determinatives. I have yet to find one example where a determinative for a place can relate to a person.

---

quote:

---

If the word “Kemet” had anything to do with the people, rather than the actual ‘district’ then surely the determinative for person/people would have been used rather than a determinative that specifically relates to a ‘district’?

---

quote:

---

Why would the word be used to refer to an area of Egypt used solely for farming?

---

quote:

---

Most inhabited towns and cities were not in the luscious green Kemet, but on the sand desert borders.

---

quote:

---

Kemet is also most commonly written with a God determinative after the niwt glyph. Let us consider this. Osiris is frequently shown as being dark black- as a sign of the fertility that he bestowed upon Egypt with the gift of farming.

---

quote:

---

It is far more likely that the Egyptians connected Kemet to their Gods then a childish racial notion.

---

quote:

---

Egypt is often called "the land of Osiris", and yet you have completely ignored the connection between "the land black soil belonging to Osiris" (as a possible translation) and the inlusion of other determinatives.

---

posted 16 December 2004 04:52 PM            

quote:

---

Psusennes I, the views of posters her on Egypt Search ancient Egypt and Egyptology forum does not necessary represent my thoughts as the moderator.

---

posted 16 December 2004 05:06 PM            

quote:

---

Nwt is not the only determinative used with KM or KM.t. Why are you making pretend there
are no words with people determinatives suffixed
to KM or KM.t when such words have been shown
from a source as definitive as the Woerterbuch?

---

posted 16 December 2004 09:24 PM            

quote:

---

Psusennes wrote:
Egypt Search can't fool me. I've met incomprehensible twaddlers before, so I know that I cannot believe how many actual, physical, breathing, thinking people have fallen for Egypt Search's subterfuge. ...I must blow my whistle on Egypt Search's tactics of deception and distortion, by which I mean that Egypt Search has the brains of a houseplant. But the problems with Egypt Search's disquisitions don't end there. I suggest that you rethink your position...

This entire forum is twisted, and I do not plan to hide that.

---

...By indicting Egyptsearch, he's making an underhanded appeal to the people who run Egyptsearch to shut down the forum or censor the ideas here.

quote:

---

Many the things I've talked about in this post are obvious. We all know they're true.

---

That's becoming a mantra among these guys. Psusennes, are you trying to convince *us* or *yourself*? The things you argue are far from self-evident. (That "dark-brown, not black" thing is really funny in fact... lol)

Anyway, you believe one thing, Rasol another. Most of the posters (and lurkers) aren't threatened by *any* ideas and are looking to learn -- provided you have something substantive to present us with.

Instead of calling us idiots (while you make posts that insult our intelligence lol), why not present information that shows your opinion to be based on *substance* rather than emotion and dogma?

"Idiots" troll, insult, dance around the point, etc., etc., especially when they're out of ammo in an intellectual argument. Psusennes, don't be an idiot.

quote:

---

"The blatant ignorance and social maladjustment of Egypt Search's ideas will twist the history, sociology, and anthropology disseminated by our mass media and in our children's textbooks one of these days."

---

The history has ALREADY been grotesquely twisted. Surely you agree with that. And it's in the mass media and our children's textbooks.

I think the info here does a good job of "untwisting" the history, into something more accurate, more interesting, and more complex than eurocentrics (like yourself?) would have us swallow.

quote:

---

I don’t care what race the Egyptians were.

---

Easy to say, hard to live. Otherwise you wouldn't be pompously condemning the whole forum for the facts it sheds light on.

posted 17 December 2004 02:46 AM            

Once he was shown that km.t was indeed used with the people determinitive, his question was answered, and honest argument was over. (that was within the 1st few posts, lol)

posted 20 December 2004 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

Answer my questions now- or leave.

---

rasol wrote Your questions aren't very challenging and always have been answered.
But 1st let us reprise our original encounter from the top of this thread:

you wrote:

quote:

---

The word is "Km-t". The word for soil in Egyptian is "Km".

---

my reply

quote:

---

Wrong. Please tell us where you are getting this misinformation?

---

We are still waiting for answer to this.

So, on your own terms: please answer this question....or leave

quote:

---

I will reply to the rest of your post presently.

---

Going on two weeks so we have little choice but to conclude that Psusennes I has no answer. We've certainly been patient enough.

Moving on: The next question is, why is it impossible for some, like Psusennes, to accept the evidence and admit the truth?

One theory is that in addition to par for the course kemophobic bias, the fact that the AE held 'black' to be sacred, and the blackness that they held sacred was found of course within them and not something externalised, is intrinsically threatening to some.

In terms of their own subliminal western values this puts a barrier between themselves and the AE. That is why they must insist on a km.t that exists only in 'the soil', so that 'their' ancient egypt (that never was) can still exist, in their minds.