Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
This is what Diop and Obenga offered at the UNESCO symposium, that none of the Egyptologist/etc., could dispute, leaving the naysayers flabbergasted. It remains indisputable to this day, has always been such, will always be so.
[presented with thanks to Bonotchi Montgomery and Raymond Davis] Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Al Takruri,
Why do bring religion into discussion?
Better advise them to buy a map of Africa--that should be enough convincing.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Arwa,
Can you say something about the papyrus? Can you say something about AEL grammar? Can you say something about KM or k-m? Can you say something about t? Can you say something about nwt? Can you say something about rmt? Can you say something about st?
No? OK, then let's chit-chat.
My reference to religion is to juxtapose fact against faith.
We who show primary textual documents present facts.
Those who do otherwise present only belief.
Religion is based on belief and faith.
Thus, champions of KM.t never applying to people are only being religious in outlook, not factually objective.
Capice?
Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :
I manually added the "2" in replacement of "3" in one of the pdf links to access the second page since both original links by alTakruri point to the same exact pdf. The correct link for page 2 of the PDF would be: http://www.case.edu/univlib/preserve/Etana/papyri_kahun_gurob_plates/plate2.pdf Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
This is what Diop and Obenga offered at the UNESCO symposium, that none of the Egyptologist/etc., could dispute, leaving the naysayers flabbergasted. It remains indisputable to this day, has always been such, will always be so.
[presented with thanks to Bonotchi Montgomery and Raymond Davis]
However, just showing fragments of demotic texts without the EXACT phrases highlighted and translated does not help those who dont read heiroglyphics. What PASSAGE in those pages are you referring to and how is it translated?
Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: ...My reference to religion is to juxtapose fact against faith.
We who show primary textual documents present facts.
Those who do otherwise present only belief.
Religion is based on belief and faith.
Thus, champions of KM.t never applying to people are only being religious in outlook, not factually objective.
Capice?
Religion is mostly based on an idea/phenomena called “belief”. Faith is a simpler issue since the phenomena of faith can be fully independent of belief. Faith is usually based on the idea hope which itself is a process of thought triggered by an actual event(s), mental or otherwise; thus “faith” is far more superior sense of spirituality and less chaotic than to the idea of belief.
The phenomena of "belief" on the other hand is fully independent of phenomena of “truth and lies” and “belief” can be based on one or the other but is usually based on a mixture of both, making the idea of belief an extremely complex and dangerous phenomena for describing any spiritual insight. The chaotic mixture that forms the backbone of “belief” is the root causes of many of the issues we have today. For example, specialists and non-specialists who mix/graft the idea of belief with factual information.
It is also important to note, that by using “truth”, in its purest form, as benchmark for measuring the value of “fact and fictions”, it becomes crystal clear that “fiction”, even when based on some truth is a lie. At best, fiction, in some ways, should remain as a form of entertainments/amusement and nothing more (Fictional examples: “X-Men” vs. “Moses parting the sea” vs. “Jews being slaves in Ancient Kemet”).
alTakruri, in response to some of your statements above, I view religion toady as mostly based on the phenomena of belief than faith. Therefore, juxtaposing “fact against faith” makes no sense. It should be, juxtaposing fact and faith or bringing them together for some kind of comparison.
As for “primary textual documents”, unfortunately the Eurocentric and deeply racist intellectual atmosphere we find ourselves today, especially when related to recorded history is highly questionable, right down to the age of the physical materials of the documents themselves. Thus, the curiosity of the possible of certain “primary textual documents” being based on belief or idea becomes an almost irresistible question to answer.
Posted by Kemson (Member # 12850) on :
Doug M, excellent questions!
Posted by Arwa (Member # 11172) on :
Al Takruri,
Let's quit the chit chat.
You wrote:
quote: Religion is based on belief and faith.
What is religion without reason? To have faith and belief, you need first reason, and without reason, there is no religion, and it's reason that makes us humans.
The first word in Qur'an, Allah (swt) tells us Read.
You wrote:
quote: We who show primary textual documents present facts.
And Islam is based on textual documents---The Qur'an and The Ahadith.
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
What did I do?
Posted by Nay-Sayer (Member # 10566) on :
quote:Originally posted by Arwa: Al Takruri,
Let's quit the chit chat.
You wrote:
quote: Religion is based on belief and faith.
What is religion without reason? To have faith and belief, you need first reason, and without reason, there is no religion, and it's reason that makes us humans.
That doesn't make an ounce of sense. Reason demands objectivity. There is nothing objective about faith or religion. Nada...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Excellent opening post AlTakruri.
Please stay on topic everyone.
people rmT
black kmT
nation nwT
[ 05. April 2007, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Excellent opening post AlTakruri.
Please stay on topic everyone.
people rmT
black kmT
nation nwT
LOL!!! Rasol what does the bird mean in the km.t glyph and is that a burnt stick of wood before it?
[ 05. April 2007, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
The coal is a biliteral that symbolizes the color black, the bird is a monoliteral for the letter m.
"Historians tell us that our current M started out as the Egyptian hieroglyph for “owl.” Over thousands of years, this simple line drawing was further distilled into the hieratic symbol for the ‘em’ sound. Eventually, the great-grandparent of our M looked a bit like a handwritten ‘m’ balanced on the tip of one stroke." Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri:
Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
This is what Diop and Obenga offered at the UNESCO symposium, that none of the Egyptologist/etc., could dispute, leaving the naysayers flabbergasted. It remains indisputable to this day, has always been such, will always be so.
[presented with thanks to Bonotchi Montgomery and Raymond Davis] [/QB]
Nice tracking down the Kahun piece, as noted by Diop in his French reconstructions of the term, and the same goes for clearly designating the lines in question and pieces of the papyri in question.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Ah!
A forum member with a sense of humor!!
How refreshing!!!
quote:Originally posted by Nay-Sayer:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
What did I do?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Isn't it obvious?
They know jumpin jack flash about the topic apparently can't comprehend enough to see that I explicitly cited the lines KM.t is written on and haven't followed the more than week long discussion and debate closely enough to at long last be able to recognize the glyphs for KM, t, yw, nwt, and rmt.
I do hope distractors open a "defense of faith" thread because I'm pleading for moderation to delete all off topic threads. I'm about something serious here. It's a major find and I don't want it trivialized or cluttered with sh it-shat.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: Excellent opening post AlTakruri.
Please stay on topic everyone.
people rmT
black kmT
nation nwT
[ 05. April 2007, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Horus_Den_1 ]
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Thanks for jogging my memory with the papyrus' name leading me back to a discussion/debate involving it on another forum from years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: Nice tracking down the Kahun piece, as noted by Diop in his French reconstructions of the term, and the same goes for clearly designating the lines in question and pieces of the papyri in question.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Also, note that the OWL M is only a phonetic complement. It's unpronounced and only asserts that the CHARCOAL KM is really a biliteral whose ending sound is M.
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The coal is a biliteral that symbolizes the color black, the bird is a monoliteral for the letter m.
"Historians tell us that our current M started out as the Egyptian hieroglyph for “owl.” Over thousands of years, this simple line drawing was further distilled into the hieratic symbol for the ‘em’ sound. Eventually, the great-grandparent of our M looked a bit like a handwritten ‘m’ balanced on the tip of one stroke."
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
I want this thread to stay on topic and I ain't playin.
I've requested the moderator to delete every off topic post.
I expect one of the moderators to comply with my request to rescue this important find (of some 30 years or more ago) from obfuscation by those who can't contribute anything meaningful or relevant.
No one doing research on this matter wants to wade through wads of cow pods sifting for the grains of scholarship herein.
Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
Takruri help me out on this plate III
We came to it(land) for it was for us the taking line 1
it is the land of shem'a(saeed:arabic) line 1
We united------------------ line 1
We united it(land) two lands line 2
we joined this south(sedge plant-sma) with line 2 the north(bee)
These blacks have ruled beside line3 the red foriegners........................
Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
I think i messed up on line 3 ra' nf deshret(bird)(khast) could it mean borders of the desert meaning that if one goes up the nile there will be the desert wasteland on ones peripheals haq nef kmt.(rome)tyw ra' nef deshret m'ab.f I think m'abf is literally as its horn or in its horn maybe they conquered until they reached the top of the delta where it starts to spread out or branch out like a horn
if the first part is anywhere in the ball park then it sounds like they came from a more southern location iin-n-f n-n it.tf ta-shemau surely we came or returned for ther was for us the taking of upper egypt
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
Abdul, you do realize that this is a medical papyrus, right?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by abdulkarem3: I think i messed up on line 3 ra' nf deshret(bird)(khast) could it mean borders of the desert meaning that if one goes up the nile there will be the desert wasteland on ones peripheals haq nef kmt.(rome)tyw ra' nef deshret m'ab.f .
Diop in french: A ce terme s’oppose celui de: “als Wesen die Thoth vernichtet" les rouges; les etres (malefiques) que Thoth a aneantis, c’est un nisbe forme a partir de dsret: le rouge, comme le premier est forme a partir de kmt: la noire; or, il serait de le traduire par les habitants du desert.
Tranlsation courtesy Calypso: This term is opposed to that of: "als Wesen die Thot vernichtet", (German language phrase), the reds: the (evil) beings that Thoth had destroyed, this (desretyw) is a nisbe (a grammatical device) formed from dsret: the red, as the first (kmtyw) is formed from kmt: the black; now, it would be ridiculous to translate this (desretyw) as inhabitants of the desert. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The Hymn to Senwosret is a literary work of poetry.
Transliterating it and assigning the Egyptic words literal English equivalents is much easier than an attempt at translation. Thus translations will vary per the skill of the translator. Even a strict transposing of the transliteration will slightly vary pending the overall knowledge of Egyptic and English vocabularies of the linguist doing the work.
Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
quote:Also, note that the OWL M is only a phonetic complement. It's unpronounced and only asserts that the CHARCOAL KM is really a biliteral whose ending sound is M.
Alktruri I am a little confused and don't understand this post.
Why is the owl(M) used in KM.T and not RM.T..can I get some help?
Posted by Supercar (Member # 6477) on :
^Bear in mind that owl is not always necessarily placed beside the sign that looks sort of like a half semi-circle, i.e. , or the 'charcoal' sign. This sign in itself denotes 'black'.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
As Supes has intimated, Pharoanic Egyptic words can have multiple spellings pending a scribes whim, literary skill, artistic talent, guide book instructions, etc.
A pictogram (picture of an object) may represent:
the word precisely meaning the very same depicted object;
the sound of the pictured word but not its meaning, i.e., a syllable of a multi-syllabic word -- a multi-literal phonogram;
the sound of the initial letter of the depicted object, i.e., a single alphabetic character phongram;
an abstract class concept, i.e., an unpronounced determinative;
a silent unpronounced phonetic complement emphasizing the initial or terminal letter of the adjacent multi-literal phonogram
any combination of the above
In our case, the OWL-M under question is explanation e.
Posted by Technical Anomaly (What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
I [think] I know how to pronounce kem.t now!!
Pending that explanation e. has to do with pronunciation.
So that half semi-circle lookin symbol, the charcoal one sounds like "Khem". That's imaginable{ to sound like charcoal hitting together], especially if the 'H' is not silent.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ up
Posted by yazid904 (Member # 7708) on :
I was listening to a recent report on Islam and the radical elements in Egypt and it was reported that the people who killed Sadat said "The Pharoah is now gone" or words to that effect! Just curious as to why that phrase would be used in that context to 'deify' Sadat with the word Pharoah!
Posted by abdulkarem3 (Member # 12885) on :
because pharoah in the islamic definition means tyrant. pharoah in the arabic language can mean crocodile but anyway yes this is from the battle of moses(as) and the existing king at the time. their is also a story of an egyptian queen names asiya who worshipped god alone without intermediaries or assigning partners or family members to god or anthropomorphising god and giving god characteristics that god or any authorized prophet gave to god. So she was tortured by her husband(pharoah) and was patient and became one of the woman of the earth to reach the status pf perfect. however the main #1 reason is because the pharoah at the time of moses(as) was the first human to deny the very existance of a creator for he told moses and bani israeel and the believing egyptians that he was their LORD THE MOST HIGH. and that he did not give permission for anybody to beleive like moses so therefore the name great house became a household name for tyrant just like if someone says that sadam is hitler.
Posted by Doug M (Member # 7650) on :
I was also listening to a Christian preacher talk of pharoah and Egypt as symbolic of slavery and oppression. How funny this is coming from a white preacher in a culture that is built on oppression, genocide and slavery. Religion is propaganda and is designed to promote the interests of those who control it. It is in the interest of these people to cast Egyptians as vile and evil in order to further denigrate the history of Africans and their high culture.
All of which we know already.
Let's keep this on the level of linguistics and how the Egyptians wrote km.t....
If you want to start a thread on how Islam and Christianity has demonizes ancient, that would be interesting....
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This starting go into off topic chat. Please stary a new thread for that and move the last couple of messages there because I'm hereby requesting moderation to delete far off topic or irrelevant posts from this thread.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
This is what Diop and Obenga offered at the UNESCO symposium, that none of the Egyptologist/etc., could dispute, leaving the naysayers flabbergasted. It remains indisputable to this day, has always been such, will always be so.
[presented with thanks to Bonotchi Montgomery and Raymond Davis]
UP, up, up.....and 'in your face'.
For all the silent-frightened-phonies who can't deal with native Kemetic reference to Black People, who pretend not to see, who hope it will just go away.
Step out and step up....
What are you waiting for? Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ Let's discus Khast vs. Niwt.
One translation of Niwty is as -> local.
I submit that Khast can be properly conceived of as 'foreign'.
This might be evidenced by references to TA-Seti as both Ta-Seti Niwt and Ta-Seti Khast - meaning which part of the taSeti is controled by KM.t and which part is controled by Nsh.y which would also vary over time.
This is sensible.
Now consider:
Diop in french: A ce terme s’oppose celui de: “als Wesen die Thoth vernichtet" les rouges; les etres (malefiques) que Thoth a aneantis, c’est un nisbe forme a partir de dsret: le rouge, comme le premier est forme a partir de kmt: la noire; or, il serait de le traduire par les habitants du desert.
Tranlsation courtesy Calypso: This term is opposed to that of: "als Wesen die Thot vernichtet", (German language phrase), the reds: the (evil) beings that Thoth had destroyed, this (desretyw) is a nisbe (a grammatical device) formed from dsret: the red, as the first (kmtyw) is formed from kmt: the black; now, it would be ridiculous to translate this (desretyw) as inhabitants of the desert.
^ Diop is correct.
This term desetwy - literally RedOnes, is foreigners, Asiatics.
I don't -always- concur with Diop on anthropology because so much that is new has been learned pertaining genetics. [most of which reinforces Diops underlying points, whereas superficial recitation of Diop ver-batem fails to do his intellect justice].
However his mdw ntr seems flawless to me.
He shames inferiors such as Yurco and Vermille who flounder about from contradiction to contridiction trying to reconcile mdw ntr to ws.t slobber.
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
The Egyptians, called these kings -> Heka-Khast, or "Rulers of the Foreign Lands." The Greeks later altered this word to “Hyksos
The only strange thing about Heka-Khast to me is..doesn't "heka" mean magic? Wasn't that the name of the God of magic?
Posted by vidadavida (Member # 12945) on :
Do you think it means "foreign magic" because the AAMW were doing the wrong things by invoking "moon" dieties instead of sun dieties?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
Or magicians from foreign lands?
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
^ up
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
One thing I forgot to ask is exactly what were the reactions from the other experts when Diop and Obenga presented this??
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
The whole thing was published by UNESCO. Part of it is in their 1st unabridged volume on THE HISTORY OF AFRICA wherein can be found where to find the complete symposium seesions.
Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Egyptians, called these kings -> Heka-Khast, or "Rulers of the Foreign Lands." The Greeks later altered this word to “Hyksos
Minor correction rasol; The term is properly written "Heq Khasu.t" and means "Foreign kings" and was only applied to the non-Black (colonial) rulers but NEVER to the kings from beyond the southern border - ie, Ekushi, Ethaoshi, who were the original founders of the Nile Valley Civilization complex... Posted by Wally (Member # 2936) on :
quote:Originally posted by vidadavida: The only strange thing about Heka-Khast to me is..doesn't "heka" mean magic? Wasn't that the name of the God of magic?
You are confused because you seem to want to simplify the Mdu Ntr, here's how it really is:
Hek = Magic (Khik and Khako in Coptic) Hek = Ruler Khast/Khasu.t = Foreigner/Foreigners
It would help you if you simply studied the vocabulary of the language...
Posted by rasol (Member # 4592) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Egyptians, called these kings -> Heka-Khast, or "Rulers of the Foreign Lands." The Greeks later altered this word to “Hyksos
Minor correction rasol; The term is properly written "Heq Khasu.t" and means "Foreign kings" and was only applied to the non-Black (colonial) rulers but NEVER to the kings from beyond the southern border - ie, Ekushi, Ethaoshi, who were the original founders of the Nile Valley Civilization complex...
thx.
Posted by Alive-(What Box) (Member # 10819) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wally:
quote:Originally posted by rasol: The Egyptians, called these kings -> Heka-Khast, or "Rulers of the Foreign Lands." The Greeks later altered this word to “Hyksos
Minor correction rasol; The term is properly written "Heq Khasu.t" and means "Foreign kings" and was only applied to the non-Black (colonial) rulers but NEVER to the kings from beyond the southern border - ie, Ekushi, Ethaoshi, who were the original founders of the Nile Valley Civilization complex...
indeed.
Posted by Hori (Member # 11484) on :
up
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
^^Seconded.. I wonder why those who so vehemently dispute the African origin of AE not simply refer back to what the AE have to say about this.
Noteworthy as well is how (as Eurocentric deniers usually try to obscure, ignore, or are ignorant of) is that according to Timmothy Kendall, during the 25th dynasty Km't referred to both upper Egypt AND Kush, while excluding northern Egypt which at the time was under foreign domination. Now if Km't had always referred to the same geography (and not the people who inhabited it), then why the shift?
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ Yes, more racist obfuscation of the truth. Linguists have long noted that the word KM means 'black' so it takes no stretch to figure out what the Egyptians own title means by having that root word in there. In the meantime they translate 'Nhsw' (nubians) to mean 'black'! LOL Posted by T. Rex (Member # 3735) on :
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
This is what Diop and Obenga offered at the UNESCO symposium, that none of the Egyptologist/etc., could dispute, leaving the naysayers flabbergasted. It remains indisputable to this day, has always been such, will always be so.
[presented with thanks to Bonotchi Montgomery and Raymond Davis]
I clicked on those links, but they take me to the main website, not the pdf files. What do those papyri say?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Sorry I don't have the time to spoon feed the relevant text.
It soon come, maybe.
quote:Originally posted by T. Rex:
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Of course doesn't matter what one shows the stubborn naysayer whose view is more akin to religious belief than objective factual observation, but anyway ...
This is what Diop and Obenga offered at the UNESCO symposium, that none of the Egyptologist/etc., could dispute, leaving the naysayers flabbergasted. It remains indisputable to this day, has always been such, will always be so.
[presented with thanks to Bonotchi Montgomery and Raymond Davis]
I clicked on those links, but they take me to the main website, not the pdf files. What do those papyri say?
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
More obfuscation: translating NHHSW as Nubians.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Yes, more racist obfuscation of the truth. Linguists have long noted that the word KM means 'black' so it takes no stretch to figure out what the Egyptians own title means by having that root word in there. In the meantime they translate 'Nhsw' (nubians) to mean 'black'! LOL
Posted by Brada-Anansi (Member # 16371) on :
Sorry Guys, the pdf is not layman friendly it's all Mdu-Ntr,no accompanying transilation. Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
That's the whole idea. To dispute what I say is there where I say it is, one has to have the skill to beyond third hand information and deal directly with the source.
It probably got deleted, but at one time there was discussion of the hymn in the old AE&E forum.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
Hey Brada-Anansi. The best that you can do for now I assume is to reference Rasol's post on the former page and follow the citations Al Takuri gave that correspond with the what is in the PDF, which I believe are pages eight and ten.
With all due respect to alTakuri I don't believe anyone is looking to "dispute" what you say more than they are trying to understand it. I certainly do but I wouldn't have been able to from the parent post (even though one would indeed have to scroll down and read some of the discussion).
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
These guys do not have anything except hot air. Top scholars have spoken and the issue has long been settled. They have proven their ignorance and lack of education by posting wild and unsubstantiated posts on ancient Greece, this is just iceing on the cake.
Posted by Sundjata (Member # 13096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: I don't believe anyone is looking to "dispute" what you say alTakuri
Correction.. With some exception but my point being that some elaboration (maybe some rehashing) wouldn't hurt lay persons who understand better when things are laid out in more explicit terms. Just my opinion and where I see the problem deriving from (hence, T-Rex' inquiry and now Brada-Anansi's)..
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: These guys do not have anything except hot air. Top scholars have spoken and the issue has long been settled. They have proven their ignorance and lack of education by posting wild and unsubstantiated posts on ancient Greece, this is just iceing on the cake.
Top scholars have not 'said' anything. They have only gave THEIR Interpretation or OPINION of what they think the words represent.
Looking at the glyphs themselves tells you what IS simple IS. I am unable to read mdw ntr, I can still follow the post and understand the concept. Why cant you? What exactly are you disagreeing with? Every time you type something its just "blah blah blah" but never any real evidence or reason as to why you are holding the opinion that you hold.
In any case This Egyptologist Dr Ossama Abdel Maguid - The director of the Nubian Museum, Aswan, Egypt, a specialist in the archaeology of Egypt, Nubia and Sudan:
States that the "KEMET" or "Black Land" represents both "Egypt AND Nubia" [0:22] and it is also a description of the "PEOPLE THEMSELVES" [0:53]. This is the first thing he clarifies in this lecture. He sets the record straight in the first 60 seconds of a lecture over 100 minutes.
How long have you been on this site? "Hot Air" is being supplied to the intellectual balloon you are wishing to float. Why haven't your LEARNED ANYTHING?
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
top scholars have apoken on the issue. they do give their opinion, as you say, but their opinion is the one that counts.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
Again guys what do the experts say....that is where you start. They clearly say it is "black land." Now, if you can find some Journal articles from other Egyptologists that either support or oppose that view then post them. That is the way you make academic points. You do not do it based on Wally or Djehuti's hunch.
Posted by astenb (Member # 14524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Again guys what do the experts say....that is where you start. They clearly say it is "black land." Now, if you can find some Journal articles from other Egyptologists that either support or oppose that view then post them. That is the way you make academic points. You do not do it based on Wally or Djehuti's hunch.
You still are showing NO EVIDENCE. Read the glyphs out loud and tell me what they Say.
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
astenb, I am not a language expert and neither are you. Unless you can show me a PHD in ancient languages I could care less what you say. I want you to prove your point with reviews and Journal articles from noted Egyptian scholars. When you do the research go into it with an open mind. I have shown that the mainstream view of Egyptologists and language experts is that KEMET means black land.
Posted by KING (Member # 9422) on :
TheAmericanPatriot
This is where you are wrong, There is NO word for Land in Kemet. If it was land it would read TA Keme or Ta Seti etc. Since most people who are not bias know that there is "NO" word for land, we must be honest and say what Kemet really means.
Peace
Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
It is not "me" King, I am not making the claim. Egyptologists and language acholars say it means black land. Thus, it means black land regardless of what is said here. Our top scholars ill decide those issues and what they say is always, as it should be, the accepted truth.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ You talk as if there is a consensus among Egyptologists (who mostly study material remains) and linguists on this issue, let alone that they speak with one voice.
Takruri and others were quite clear with the language translation and transliteration. The word for land is 'Ta' or 'xAst' which are designated by a certain symbols. Such words and corresponding symbols are absent in the word KMT. Again, why don't you ask your so-called 'friends' in Memphis Egypt?? Posted by TheAmericanPatriot (Member # 15824) on :
They are not clear at all Djehuti, in fact they are wrong. I have already researched the issue posting data from both a top egyptologist and an ancint linguistic expert as well from Yale. By the way, it is Memphis Tennessee and they say black land as well. Across the board that is the view. Takruri makes far too many careless maistakes for us to just take him at his word.
They pretty much speak with one voice on this issue.
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
@alTakruri: I see it now on plates II and III of the Kahun papyrus. Without a doubt it says "Black people". Absolutely fantastic!!! Congratulations on your extremely important contribution to the cause.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Thank you. You are welcome. The real props go to Diop who pointed out the seated man seated woman determinative entry for KM.t in Erman and Grapow. Their Woerterbuch, besides its dictionary of terms, list primary textual sources where the terms can be traced to verify their actual use in practical application. That's how I found out it was in the so-called Kahun Papyrus. And now you have a methodology to lay the grounds for your own work. Methodologies such as this is what professionals worth their salt induce and implement. No whining, no shooting the bull.
These plates once were available from two or three different sites on the 'net. Now they're either totally removed from those sites or not allowed access. This happened after it was plain and clearly pointed out precisely where to look to see what the AEL actually has versus what obfuscating translators fear to write.
And welcome back, you've been missed.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
This thread really belongs in the Egyptology forum.
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Thank you. You are welcome. The real props go to Diop who pointed out the seated man seated woman determinative entry for KM.t in Erman and Grapow. Their Woerterbuch, besides its dictionary of terms, list primary textual sources where the terms can be traced to verify their actual use in practical application. That's how I found out it was in the so-called Kahun Papyrus. And now you have a methodology to lay the grounds for your own work. Methodologies such as this is what professionals worth their salt induce and implement. No whining, no shooting the bull.
These plates once were available from two or three different sites on the 'net. Now they're either totally removed from those sites or not allowed access. This happened after it was plain and clearly pointed out precisely where to look to see what the AEL actually has versus what obfuscating translators fear to write.
And welcome back, you've been missed.
Thanks for pointing out the source. Yet by publicizing this information you're making a very important contribution. Too bad these plates are being removed from various websites, however, at the Case.edu site the pdf is still available as a free download. Hopefully everyone will take advantage of that opportunity.
Thanks for the welcome back. I've been busy with Gardiner's Egyptian Grammar. Its more difficult than I expected but still very rewarding.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Well I used your link, typed Kahun in the search, and up popped Griffith. Much better result then the search results I got when following the old broken link.
Thanks.
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Kahun Papyri - Literary Texts - Plate 2 Fragments of a Hymn to Usertesen III see outlined red rectangle at stanza 2 line 4
Posted by alTakruri (Member # 10195) on :
Kahun Papyri - Literary Texts - Plate 3 Fragments of a Hymn to Usertesen III stanza 4 lines 3 & 5
Posted by Apocalypse (Member # 8587) on :
alTakruri wrote:
quote:Well I used your link, typed Kahun in the search, and up popped Griffith. Much better result then the search results I got when following the old broken link.
Thanks.
You're welcome sir.
Regarding km.t+niwt It is commonly rendered on this forum as Black Nation, Black Community, and Black Polity. These are all viable interpretations, in my opinion.
"Nation" is the most readily understood interpretation capturing the modern relationship between the individual and the state.
I especially like "Polity" because etymologically it is related to the word "polis" the Greek word for city. Recall that niwt also means city, town, etc.,
Another word that is related etymologically to the word city is the Latin word Civis. From civis we get the the word civilization. As such I think a valid rendering of Km.t+Niwt is Black Civilization. I haven't seen this possibility mentioned here. One advantage of this interpretation is that it captures the sense of order versus disorder: Kmt vs Dsrt, the abode of Osiris vs the abode of Set. It also captures the sense of Kmt being a place apart, superior to the rest.
Posted by Djehuti (Member # 6698) on :
^ And the meaning still stands unless one can refute the above linguistics.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The mainstream getting in line?:
Wednesday, February 17, 2010 Egypt and Nubia--More Influences According to Necia Desiree Harkless, the author of Nubian Pharaohs and Meroitic Kings, ancient Egypt was known as Kemet, but the "formal name seems to have been Tawy (The Two Lands) that means the black lands along the banks of the Nile River. The people called themselves the Kemites (The Black Ones). (p. 5)"
Egyptologists are now beginning to realize with the new evidence that "...the ancient Egyptiasn civilization is rooted in Africa... (p.8)"
When a friend asked me to assist her with an art project on the Nubians, we went to the local library and found--nothing. Two shelves on Egypt. Ten books on Ethiopia and Sudan. Nubia? Nothing. So, of course, if you know me at all, I decided to discover everything I could on the Nubian--or is it the Kushites (one book in the children's library)--culture.
Posted by typeZeiss (Member # 18859) on :
Bro. alTakruri
As Truthcentric pointed out the original PDFs in the first post is no longer available via the links. Do you happen to have updated links or can you send me the two PDFs if you don't mind?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
The only one available is on this page. Don't have personal copies, lost them when my old ext stg died.
It is interesting in one of Budge's books, he speaks about the types of people which Ra addresses. He said the Nehsu of the south were created from the ejaculation of Ra, if I remember right. Which is how the neteru are supposedly created as well. Where as the other types of people are created from the tears of Ra.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
.
The ancient Egyptians classified people by skin color.
The word Kemet refers to the skin, in particular the skin color BLACK
The Egyptians called themselves Kemet, meaning of Black skin, in order to distinguish themselves from the non-blacks in the region
.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
^ nonsense
Anyone new to the thread please review it from the top.
Posted by Mike111 (Member # 9361) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: .
The ancient Egyptians classified people by skin color.
The word Kemet refers to the skin, in particular the skin color BLACK
The Egyptians called themselves Kemet, meaning of Black skin, in order to distinguish themselves from the non-blacks in the region
That is a corollary of the Kemet meaning Black Skin, and the Sumerians calling themselves the "Black Head Ones" in relation to skin color, that those of superficial thinking do not appreciate.
Since there was NO Albinos of the modern type to differentiate themselves from: (the Central Asian Albinos didn't reached Egypt until about about 800 B.C.), those names obviously meant something else.
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
KM.t does not mean black skin.
KM.t means black and it means complete.
It takes a determinative to ascertain what is black or what is complete.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
so your thread title says
KM.t = Black[people]
but you say "Black[people]" here does not pertain to the skin color.
Then what does the color black here pertain to ?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Yes my title says
KM.t[rmt.st] = Black[people] i.e., Word + [determinative]
It does not say what your Lyin'Ass tried to twist it into.
KM.t does not = black people
KM.t:rmt.st = black people
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
acrobatic moves:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
KM.t:rmt.st = black people
black in what sense?
do you mean black in skin color or black in some symbolic way?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Sidewinding snake. Retract you deliberate distortion. Revisit my (altakruri/tukuler) threads on * KM.t:nwt * Book of Gates, Gate of Teka Ha, vignette/scene 30
Nothing mysterious about what black people means. Black people means black people, obvious to all except melanophobes like you.
As KM can mean complete, the AEL word+determinative could mean the ultimate people when applied to AEs alone.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Sidewinding snake. Retract you deliberate distortion.
what is there to retract? I have a quote form you up and I'm asking a question about it
here again:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler:
KM.t:rmt.st = black people
when you say "black people" here do you mean that KM.t:rmt.st is referring to dark skin?
dont run,deal with it
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
sound of crickets
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: sound of crickets
What is the attribute for "people"?
Posted by Tukuler (Member # 19944) on :
Why argue with somebody who cannot read hieroglyphics and cannot present a case?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why argue with somebody who cannot read hieroglyphics and cannot present a case?
I'm not trying to make a case for something
I asked you a simple question
you had said
KM.t:rmt.st = black people
I asked you if that means black skinned people
But you seem to be uncertain about it or simply don't want anybody asking what "black people" might mean to the ancient Egyptians.
Excuse me, I ask fundamental questions
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Why argue with somebody who cannot read hieroglyphics and cannot present a case?
I'm not trying to make a case for something
I asked you a simple question
you had said
KM.t:rmt.st = black people
I asked you if that means black skinned people
But you seem to be uncertain about it or simply don't want anybody asking what "black people" might mean to the ancient Egyptians.
Excuse me, I ask fundamental questions
My question was and is even simpler.
What is the attribute for "people"?
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
What is the attribute for "people"? [/QB]
rmt
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: ^^
Thank you,
It is interesting in one of Budge's books, he speaks about the types of people which Ra addresses. He said the Nehsu of the south were created from the ejaculation of Ra, if I remember right. Which is how the neteru are supposedly created as well. Where as the other types of people are created from the tears of Ra.
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
What is the attribute for "people"?
rmt
Well then, there you have it.
End of the discussion.
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
What is the attribute for "people"?
rmt
Well then, there you have it.
End of the discussion.
Have what?
then KMt (kemet) = black
rmt = people
that means KM.t[rmt.st] = Black people
But this does not mean the word for black in this context is refering to skin color
-even though Americans are obsessed with words such as "white" and "blacks" meaning different ethnic groups of people
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
What is the attribute for "people"?
rmt
Well then, there you have it.
End of the discussion.
Have what?
then KMt (kemet) = black
rmt = people
that means KM.t[rmt.st] = Black people
But this does not mean the word for black in this context is refering to skin color
-even though Americans are obsessed with words such as "white" and "blacks" meaning different ethnic groups of people
You can let your delusional interpretations run wild.
But fact of the matter is:
"that means KM.t[rmt.st] = Black people."
Posted by the lioness, (Member # 17353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
You can let your delusional interpretations run wild.
But fact of the matter is:
"that means KM.t[rmt.st] = Black people."
why are the Egyptians referred to as "black people" what is black about them ?
do you think KMT in this context is referring to skin color or some other physical trait of Egyptian people?
please clarify what fact is being stated
because "black people" in this ancient Egyptian context, rather than modern American context is meaningless unless what is black about them is pointed out
but maybe you dont know
-sorry for not taking things at face value and calling it a wrap when one hears something that sounds good to the ear
Posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor (Member # 18264) on :
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,:
quote:Originally posted by Trollkillah # Ish Gebor:
You can let your delusional interpretations run wild.
But fact of the matter is:
"that means KM.t[rmt.st] = Black people."
why are the Egyptians referred to as "black people" what is black about them ?
do you think KMT in this context is referring to skin color or some other physical trait of Egyptian people?
please clarify what fact is being stated
because "black people" in this ancient Egyptian context, rather than modern American context is meaningless unless what is black about them is pointed out
but maybe you dont know
-sorry for not taking things at face value and calling it a wrap when one hears something that sounds good to the ear
You are doing exactly as predicted. Letting your delusional interpretations run wild.
The fact being stated is:
"that means KM.t[rmt.st] = Black people."
You first argued this, until there was no way out.
And, oh yeah we know for a fact that ancient Egyptians were black people, no doubt about that.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
, or the 'charcoal' sign. This sign in itself denotes 'black'.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
