quote:But we do have the mummy of Pharaoh Ramesses II (5), who reigned from 1279 to 1212 B.C.E. He is a typical northern Egyptian; he came from the northeasternmost nome (governate) of Egypt. He had fine, wavy hair, a prominent hooked nose and moderately thin lips.
posted
I share the views of Frank Yurco. I think the pre-dynastic Upper Egyptians were ethnically Nubian and the pre-dynastic Lower Egyptians were a mix of Libyans and Palestinians.
Posts: 887 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pseudo-historical nonsense from Frank Yurco:
"Was Nefertiti "black" or "white"? The ancient Egyptians did not think in these terms. The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian society."
Yurco is certainly talking to people who don't know any better: [img]http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/image004.jpg [/img] Egyptian Semite African European
What is the above Ancient Egyptian 'Mural of the Races,' casual Egyptian etchings?? These Ancient Egyptian 'Murals of the Races' are the oldest complete ethnological documents available. Their isn't anything ambiguous about them and isn't influenced by a supposedly "American" cultural baggage. This type of nonsense must be constantly and consistently challenged. The Ancient Egyptians, not Frank Yurco, are the primary source on who they were as a people, and they have told us all we need to know on the subject.
posted
Pseudo-historical nonsense from Frank Yurco: "Was Nefertiti "black" or "white"? The ancient Egyptians did not think in these terms. The whole matter of black or white Egyptians is a chimera, cultural baggage from our own society that can only be imposed artificially on ancient Egyptian society."
Yurco is certainly talking to people who don't know any better: [IMG]http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/image004.jpg [/IMG] Egyptian Semite African European
What is the above Ancient Egyptian 'Mural of the Races,' casual Egyptian etchings?? These Ancient Egyptian 'Murals of the Races' are the oldest complete ethnological documents available. Their isn't anything ambiguous about them and isn't influenced by a supposedly "American" cultural baggage. This type of nonsense must be constantly and consistently challenged. The Ancient Egyptians, not Frank Yurco, are the primary source on who they were as a people, and they have told us all we need to know on the subject.
The pic u are posting is said to be false and not what actually appears in the tomb. The above pic is from the tomb of Seti I and more accepted as a true representation of an acient KMTian.
[This message has been edited by Obenga (edited 04 February 2004).]
posted
The debate about the Lepsius drawing is still up for debate. Obenga,you might want to check out the yahoo group Ta-seti for more information. Manu Ampim claims to have take a photo of the tomb pictures that verify the Lepsisus drawings. Either way the Egyptians clearly depicted themselves closer to the African type despite the Nubian being darker. Notice that the Egyptians distinguish themselves from Syrians,Libyans,and other groups of people. In the tomb of Rameses II there is a picture depicting the Nubians as Reddish brown and Egyptians as black as the Nubians. Are you aware of this picture,Obenga?
Understand also that sometimes Kemetian artwork had a stylistic and magical qualities like the various pictures on the Per En Heru books[Books of the Dead] are shown dead white which symbolized death. This is why they probally called their dead ancestors ankhu which meant the shinning ones.
I sure wish this message board took jpg so I could post the scene from Rameses II tomb.
Also Egyptians did not start presenting subjects reliastically untill about the 18th dyansty.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
The pic u are posting is said to be false and not what actually appears in the tomb. The above pic is from the tomb of Seti I and more accepted as a true representation of an acient KMTian.
[This message has been edited by Obenga (edited 04 February 2004).]
Accepted by whom? And you mean to tell me that you don't see two Blacks and two non-Blacks on the mural you posted? I mean, really??
posted
Obenga, You might also want to check out mine at: http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo/coco_hues.html I illustrate how Blacks portray themselves. You should be aware that many Black cultures use the same pallette as did the Egyptians. And did it not occur to you that the image you presented looks more like a cartoon than it does Egyptian iconography???
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, here's the link i've been looking for. i didn't want to say anything until i found some evidence against the claims that the images were incorrect, but it seems we will just never stop seeing people misrepresent history to prove their points. these pictures are taken from inside ramses iii tomb. the rtm (Egyptians) heiroglyph is clearly visible next to the black figure, who is barely distinguishable from other africans.
i'll give that ae's might have recognized a nationalistic difference from other africans, but their ideas of race clearly placed them with other africans. http://www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm
posted
btw, these egyptians are diliberately misrepresented on the theban mapping project site. kent weeks is the director of this project. so at least someone today is more interested in his or her own political agenda than telling the truth. look at this site and click the image of the "nubian": http://www.thebanmappingproject.com/sites/browse_tombimages_825_20.html
it says the nubian is erroneously labeled as an egyptian. the correct image from ramses iii tomb show's clearly that the figure is an egyptian (rmt) and he looks no different from the nubian.
posted
Thanx for the links guys, real interesting stuff.
I guess the Lepsis drawing is still up for debate. Everything I read said they were falsely picturing a Nubian as a an Egyptian.
If they really are as Lepsis said then I find that somewhat disappointing. Yurco would have some explaining to do as he stated he has been in the tomb and seen for himself while continuing to hold the position that the Lepsis drawings are of 2 Nubians not an egyptian and a nubian. I believed what Yurco said 100%, now I am not so sure one way or another.
We may never know who is correct, I doubt there is free access to these tombs today or else there would be many pictures around.
Here are some photos of a people from Bahariyya, Farafra and the Nile valley. Likely,they are relatively "pure" descendants of the ancient Egyptians.They have various features, some are light-skinned and some dark-skinned.Some have smooth hair, some have wave or kinky hair.But what is the main problem? The main problem is your ignorancy and racism.In any case, they ARE Egyptians and you ARE NOT.
posted
Yes,the people in the pictures you posted are most likley ''pure desendants'' of the ancient Egyptians,but many probally also have some admixture from Amazigh[Berber] peoples. There are others in the Daklha and Kharga oasis that look drastically different. I said this before and I will say it again that Egyptians are not one uniform race. You have black people in Upper Egypt and more Medditerean people in the Delta to parts of Middle Egypt.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are the images for those who have not seen. It clearly shows the figure labled RMT, which means Egyptian people. You can even look this up on the web. If you'd like to argue the ethnicity of AE's, you have to argue with them:
The writing to the right side of each figure, is that the RMT label?
How do u know? what does the Nubian label look like in comparison?
Just trying to figure this one out, for many years I thought the Lepsis image was an afrocentric fabrication, however the photo evidence is quite strong. I'd rather not question Yurco without a solid understanding of what I am seeing
If someone could explain the labeling a little more clearly, appreciative.
posted
no problem obenga. the glyph next to the figure is the open mouth, which is the r sound. the glyph under it, which looks like a U turned on its side is the bilateral that stands for mt. this makes rmt, which means people, all people, or all egyptians. the other groups are labeled accordingly. this is the same label used in the drawing wally posted.
it's interesting that that people would say that the figure is not rmt (egyptians), but nhsy (other africans) when the image clearly shows this figure labeled rmt. i've never been to the tomb, but unless these guys are very good at photoshop, someone has alot of explaining to do.
as usual, don't take my word for it. you can find more just by searching for heiroglyph dictionaries on the web, or check budge's text.
i'm going to visit egypt soon, so hopefully they will let me take pics. i'll post them if they do, that is if they even let people into the tomb anymore.
posted
I think there is some serious denial of the black formation and contributions of black Africans to Kemet and the world.Of course the population looks different in 2004 because its 3,500 years later...lol..In the next 3,500 years the world a lot of countries will change.
Posts: 74 | From: atlanta,ga | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that the ancient Egyptian population has change in the course of 3,500 years,because genetic studies show a continuity of the Egyptian population. Anthropologist have never denied in Upper Egypt there was a heavy influce of black African people. The change in Egypt's population slowly occured around the Delta since the 12th dyansty.
Ancient Egyptian civlization and culture came from Africa,but Egypt itself was a mixture of Badarian Egyptians in the south and Merimede Egyptians from the Delta. There never was one uniform population of Egyptians.
However,records show that the population of Aswan and Luxor were the most heavily populated area in the south. You can bet that these populations were as dark brown as they are today.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Here are some photos of a people from Bahariyya, Farafra and the Nile valley. Likely,they are relatively "pure" descendants of the ancient Egyptians.They have various features, some are light-skinned and some dark-skinned.Some have smooth hair, some have wave or kinky hair.But what is the main problem? The main problem is your ignorancy and racism.In any case, they ARE Egyptians and you ARE NOT.
why in the one pic they state, "Book of Gates, fourth division (P)/fifth hour (H) lower register, scene 30: Nubian, one of the "four races of mankind," erroneously labeled as an Egyptian." I don't understand how or what proof that this image was wrongly labeled? Another thing I've always noticed. In many documentaries about AE they always ignore the "negro elements". You will see a mummy with kinky hair and a fro, but when there is a hint of "other/non-black" elements the pronounce it LOUDLY? "His alquine nose" ect...Another this is the racial distinctions the make concerning nubians and AE. The Pronounce with emphasis- THE BLACK pharohs, when nubian would have been just fine since "race does not matter". Doesn't anyone think this is extremely bias if they truly believed that the AEs were a heterogenous society. Doesn't this seem that they have an agenda to push the AE society as a completely non-black civilization. It seems there is no scientific integrity when it comes to AE and race and ethnicity. Hopefully one day soon there will be a strong and bold group of egyptologist who will not play these games with words and politically correctness.
[This message has been edited by Keino (edited 05 February 2004).]
Guess I need to get Budges text. I really thought it was a fabrication for YEARS I thought that.
Someone should use a vid camera if they allow it.
I wonder if Yurco may have been confused about something or perhaps for the sake of winning an arguement said he has seen it with his own eyes and that it was false when he really had not seen it at all.
Now Kem, or anyone, can u give a similar explanation of the Nhsy symbol. The other two figures have symbols next to them also what do those symbolise?? as they are different from the RMT symbol next to the first figure
Guess I need to get Budges text. I really thought it was a fabrication for YEARS I thought that.
Someone should use a vid camera if they allow it.
I wonder if Yurco may have been confused about something or perhaps for the sake of winning an arguement said he has seen it with his own eyes and that it was false when he really had not seen it at all.
Now Kem, or anyone, can u give a similar explanation of the Nhsy symbol. The other two figures have symbols next to them also what do those symbolise?? as they are different from the RMT symbol next to the first figure
Thanx
I translated the Egyptian words on my website http:/www.geocities.com/wally_mo and am reproducing them here: "(Egyptian) Ret (page 435a,b) = Men: We also have 'ret na romé' or "We men above mankind." This ideology allows us to understand that there are actually only three races represented here; Black, White, and Semitic since the Egyptians considered themselves in a class of their own, while still showing that they belonged to the Black racial group.
(Semite) Namu (page 373b) =Travelers or wanderers: We also have 'Namu Sho' or "People who travel the sands": Nomads or Bedu.
(Other Africans) Nahasu (pages 344a/386b) = Strangers or barbarians: In Wolof (Senegal), a language as close to the Ancient Egyptian language as modern Egyptian, "nahas" means "good for nothing; worthless."
(European) Tamhu (page 855a) = Red people: Tamh = hematite; reddish iron ore; ochre or pale yellow to red."
The alternate Egyptian usage of Rmt (Rome)is Man (ie, mankind; people. But the ideological 'Ret na Rome' pretty much sums up the attitude of Egypt's national chauvanism. The words Desretu (Red people), Tamhu, and Setu (Red fiends) were derogatory terms used to describe non-Black peoples. "Egyptologists" rarely deal with the ideology both implicit and explicit in Ancient Egyptian.
posted
Here is complete documentation of French Egyptologist Champollion's reaction upon discovering an Ancient Egyptian 'Mural of the Races': Right in the valley of Biban-el-Moluk, we admired, like all previous visitors, the astonishing freshness of the paintings and the fine sculptures on several tombs. I had a copy made of the peoples represented on the bas-reliefs. At fiirst I had thought, from copies of these bas-reliefs published in England, that these peoples of different races led by the god Horus holding his shepherd's staff, were indeed nations subject to the ruife of the Pharaohs. A study of the legends informed me that this tableau has a more general meaning. It portrays the third hour of the day, when the sun is beginning to turn on its burning rays, warming all the inhabited countries of our hemisphere. According to the legend itself, they wished to represent the inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus we have before our eyes the image of the various races of man known to the Egyptians and we learn at the same time the great geographical or ethnographical divisions established during that early epoch. Men led by Horus, the shepherd of the peoples, belong to four distinct families. The first, the one closest to the god, has a dark red color, a well-proportioned body,, kind face, nose slightly aquiline, long braided hair, and is dressed in white. The legends designate this species as Rot-en-ne-Rome,, the race of men par excellence, i.e., the Egyptians. There can be no uncertainty about the racial identity of the man who comes next: he belongs to the Black race, designated under the general term Nahasi. The third presents a very different aspect; his skin color borders on yellow or tan; he has a strongly aquiline nose, thick, black pointed beared, and wears a short garment of varied colors; these are called Namou. Finally, the last one is what we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate shade, a nose; straight or slightly arched, blue eyes, blond or reddish beard, tall! stature and very slender, clad in a Modern Falsification of History 47 hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage tattooed on various parts of his body; he is called Tamhou. I hastened to seek the tableau corresponding to this one in the other royal tombs and, as a matter of fact, I found it in several. The variations I observed fully convinced me that they had tried to represent here the inhabitants of the four corners of the earth, according to the Egyptian system, namely: 1. the inhabitants of Egypt which, by itself, formed one part of the world . . . ; 2. the inhabitants of Africa proper: Blacks; 3. Asians; 4. finally (and I am ashamed to say so, since our race is the last and the most savage in the series), Europeans who, in those remote epochs, frankly did not cut too fine a figure in the world. In this category we must include all blonds and white-skinned people living not only in Europe, but Asia as well, their starting point. This manner of viewing the tableau is all the more accurate because, on the other tombs, the same generic names reappear, always in the same order. We find there Egyptians and Africans represented in the same way*, which could not be otherwise; but the Namou (the Asians) and the Tamhou (Europeans) present significant and curious variants. Instead of the Arab or the Jew, dressed simply and represented on one tomb, Asia's representatives on other tombs (those of Ramses II, etc.) are three individuals, tanned complexion, aquiline nose, black eyes, and thick beard, but clad in rare splendor. In one, they are evidently Assyrians; their costume, down to the smallest detail, is identical with that of personages engraved on Assyrian cylinders. In the other, are Medes or early inhabitants of some part of Persia. Their physiognomy and dress resemble, feature for feature, those found on monuments called Persepolitan. Thus, Asia was represented indiscriminately by any one of the peoples who inhabited it. The same is true of our good old ancestors, the Tamhou. Their attire is sometimes different; their heads are more or less hairy and adorned with various ornaments; their savage dress varies somewhat in form, but their white complexion, their eyes and beard all preserve the character of a race apart. I had this strange ethnographical series copied and colored. I certainly did not expect, on arriving at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve as vignettes for the history of the primitive Europeans, if ever one has the courage to attempt it."
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wally: Accepted by whom? And you mean to tell me that you don't see two Blacks and two non-Blacks on the mural you posted? I mean, really??
Again that says it all, you see two blacks and two non blacks. What a life you must lead seeing just black and white.
Obenga their are some pics on the net I will see if i can find them before the weekend, Imsure the subject will still be open by then. Their is a significant difference in the actuals and the copy, also they are in groups of fours not ones. The names given them are spelt out between each image, not all at once on the side.
Some of the best pics I have seen have been on some Africanist sites.
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: ok, here's the link i've been looking for. i didn't want to say anything until i found some evidence against the claims that the images were incorrect, but it seems we will just never stop seeing people misrepresent history to prove their points. these pictures are taken from inside ramses iii tomb. the rtm (Egyptians) heiroglyph is clearly visible next to the black figure, who is barely distinguishable from other africans.
i'll give that ae's might have recognized a nationalistic difference from other africans, but their ideas of race clearly placed them with other africans. http://www.manuampim.com/ramesesIII.htm
The link you posted is not a picture from the tomb! Its a reproduction. As you can see by the photoes you posted as well as the picture on weeks site they are not exactly alike, have you seen a picture of the other three groups of four?
[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 05 February 2004).]
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ozzy: The link you posted is not a picture from the tomb! Its a reproduction. As you can see by the photoes you posted as well as the picture on weeks site they are not exactly alike, have you seen a picture of the other three groups of four?
[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 05 February 2004).]
i think you're confused. the link i posted contains both the images from the actual tomb, and the reproduction. check it again. the tomb images are clear. you can see the breaks in the rock wall and everything. the tomb images are the same ones i posted on this site.
the image on weeks site is not the image from the tomb. it is the reproduction.
[This message has been edited by Ozzy (edited 05 February 2004).]
i'm getting confused here. sorry about that. i looked at the image on weeks site does appear to be from the tomb, however it is not of the egyptian. it is the nubian. the image i posted is of the egyptian, as you can see from the rmt, and it is from the tomb of ramses iii.
weeks site is deceiving because he is making it seem as people took the nubian and labeled him as an egyptian, which is not the case. the egyptian looks so simliar to the nubian that they're easily confused, but the author of the images made no mistake that the figure he drew was an egyptian, not a nubian.
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: i think you're confused. the link i posted contains both the images from the actual tomb, and the reproduction. check it again. the tomb images are clear. you can see the breaks in the rock wall and everything. the tomb images are the same ones i posted on this site.
(i'm removing the part about weeks site. right place, wrong person. please disregard)
posted
IF u have Info on this I'd appreciate that Ozzy, I'd like to get to the bottom of this.
I want to be sure of whats what here. I have been seeing the lepsis representation for years and always saw it as false.
I know I have openly stated egyptologys bias beginings on this site many times but I would be real surprised at this level of deception at this point in Egyptology.
quote:Originally posted by Obenga: IF u have Info on this I'd appreciate that Ozzy, I'd like to get to the bottom of this.
I want to be sure of whats what here. I have been seeing the lepsis representation for years and always saw it as false.
I know I have openly stated egyptologys bias beginings on this site many times but I would be real surprised at this level of deception at this point in Egyptology.
posted
Obenga, I too have trouble believing that Egyptologists would go to such lengths to deceive us. But the image is clearly labeled RMT in the tomb.
And Ozzy, it seems you're right. I took a good look at Weeks' image, and the figure in his image is the same figure in the link I posted. You can see this by checking the glyphs around him. Weeks has just hidden the part with the RMT next to the guy. His site said that the figure was a Nubian, so I assumed it was. But after looking at it closely, it's the same guy in the picture I posted, just a better quality shot.
I don't understand why this statement was made, but it seems as though Weeks' site has deliberately mislead us by hiding the RMT label and calling the figure a Nubian.
[This message has been edited by Kem-Au (edited 05 February 2004).]
posted
Right now I would say I agree with what Kem has said. It looks like something not right has occured, and that would be a shame in this day and age.
To be honest it is explosive to say the least IF there has been any deliberate deception here based on race on the part of some top class modern era egyptologists. I don't agree with all they say egyptologically speaking yet still have much respect for them and value the work they have done.
If this were to be true they would be playing into the hands of the extreme conspiracy theory afrocentrists whose material I don't waste my time on. Yet IF there is any truth to this, I need to keep saying that, If there is any truth to this, then they just validate so much of what Afrocentrists have been saying for years.
Just throwing this out there, but is it possible some western Egyptologists cannot always be completely truthful about things of this nature for fear of being restricted or Banned by Hawass from working in Egypt like what has happened to Dr Fletcher??
We know the positon of Hawass on anything African in AE and I would not be surprised in the slightest that he would coverup something like this.
However I just don't get the feeling Weeks or Yurco (he is married to a black women for chrissakes!) would care enough about something like this to go to such lengths, unless pressure was applied directly or indirectly from someone with power in Egypt.
Kem or any who know,
As I said before I have no knowledge of the meaning of the symbols so please bear with me.
Can I assume that the symbols always refer to the figure that is left of it?
Secondly the bird to the right of this figure what does it mean and is it describing a figure to the left of it also?
[This message has been edited by Obenga (edited 05 February 2004).]
posted
Obenga, I feel you completely. I honestly have a hard time believing that Weeks or Yurco would deliberately distort the truth and I hope it isn't true. In Weeks case, the image is on a website. He's a very busy man and I doubt he has the time to maintain a website. I doubt he actually posted the image, and may not even be aware that it's up.
And I understand that Hawass has an opposite view of AE's than I do. But I honestly don't hold it against him because where he's from, there's a negative association with blackness, at least from what I'm told. Aside from these views, I still have a great deal of respect for Hawass and would hope that he wouldn't impose on Egyptologists in such a way.
I don't know what to say about Yurco. Perhaps we're just missing something. But to answer your question about the location of the glyph, it doesn't matter because it is in between two people that look pretty much the same.
As I said before, the bottom line is that the reproduction of the image was not misrepresentative of AE's as Yurco said it was. It was also not erroneously labeled as Weeks site said it was. I really hope we find out more on this and don't end up just having to speculate forever.
What are the other symbols saying next to the other two figures in the pic?
Ok, 1-The Egyptian is labled 'Ret' or sometimes 'Rome(t)' - Ret = Men and Rome(t) = Man or people. Rome is derived from Rime(tears) or the god's tears which gave birth to humanity. 2- The Semite is labled 'Namu' or travellers or wanderers. The Egyptians also called them Namu Sho (sand) or people who travel the sands; Bedouin 3- The Other Africans were labled 'Nahasu' or strangers (ie, foreign Blacks as opposed to Kmem.u - the Black Egyptians nationality) 4- The European is labled 'Tamhu' or Red peoples - It is what the Egyptians called the White races of Europe, as you have seen that Champollion discovered this on the Egyptian ethnographic murals. This is the Ancient Egyptian writing their own history in their own words.
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I translated the Egyptian words on my website http:/www.geocities.com/wally_mo and am reproducing them here: "(Egyptian) Ret (page 435a,b) = Men: We also have 'ret na rom�' or "We men above mankind." This ideology allows us to understand that there are actually only three races represented here; Black, White, and Semitic since the Egyptians considered themselves in a class of their own, while still showing that they belonged to the Black racial group.
(Semite) Namu (page 373b) =Travelers or wanderers: We also have 'Namu Sho' or "People who travel the sands": Nomads or Bedu.
(Other Africans) Nahasu (pages 344a/386b) = Strangers or barbarians: In Wolof (Senegal), a language as close to the Ancient Egyptian language as modern Egyptian, "nahas" means "good for nothing; worthless."
(European) Tamhu (page 855a) = Red people: Tamh = hematite; reddish iron ore; ochre or pale yellow to red."
The alternate Egyptian usage of Rmt (Rome)is Man (ie, mankind; people. But the ideological 'Ret na Rome' pretty much sums up the attitude of Egypt's national chauvanism. The words Desretu (Red people), Tamhu, and Setu (Red fiends) were derogatory terms used to describe non-Black peoples. "Egyptologists" rarely deal with the ideology both implicit and explicit in Ancient Egyptian.
Yes, you have already listed the translations and have been saying this for a while now. The key to showing the image on the actual wall was to combat the notion that the reproduction was innacurate, when it was not.
posted
Everybody always mentioned Hawass but nobody mentions Gaballa Ali Gaballa. People often don't relize Gaballa Ali Gaballa has a more diverse view than Hawass. Infact,Gaballa Ali Gaball sees ancient Kemetian civlization as a product of Africans.
Posts: 8675 | From: Tukuler al~Takruri as Ardo since OCT2014 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Everybody always mentioned Hawass but nobody mentions Gaballa Ali Gaballa. People often don't relize Gaballa Ali Gaballa has a more diverse view than Hawass. Infact,Gaballa Ali Gaball sees ancient Kemetian civlization as a product of Africans.
i'm not familiar with his work. i'll have to look into it.
quote:Originally posted by ausar: Everybody always mentioned Hawass but nobody mentions Gaballa Ali Gaballa. People often don't relize Gaballa Ali Gaballa has a more diverse view than Hawass. Infact,Gaballa Ali Gaball sees ancient Kemetian civlization as a product of Africans.
Wasn't he the head of the SCA before Hawass? I believe he is a northerner like Hawass?
mildly surprising, but Intersting Ausar, got any relevant comments from him that u can post?
quote:Originally posted by Kem-Au: Yes, you have already listed the translations and have been saying this for a while now. The key to showing the image on the actual wall was to combat the notion that the reproduction was innacurate, when it was not.
I don't think these translations can be stressed enough! I agree with you on correcting the disinformation of "Egyptologists", but another key is in knowing that the glyph "Kmtu" or "Rmt" meant "Egyptians" only. Then we wouldn't be bothered by such nonsense as the mural being mislabled because some individual, due to preconceptions or wishful thinking, cannot accept reality. Hotep-
quote:Originally posted by Wally: I don't think these translations can be stressed enough! I agree with you on correcting the disinformation of "Egyptologists", but another key is in knowing that the glyph "Kmtu" or "Rmt" meant "Egyptians" only. Then we wouldn't be bothered by such nonsense as the mural being mislabled because some individual, due to preconceptions or wishful thinking, cannot accept reality. Hotep-
This is true. But the reality is that some can not accept the truth, and will seek to change it, obvious by reading some of the posts on this forum. I'm fairly certain the next step for some will be to prove that the inscription does not mean Egyptians. As we know this is complete silliness because the Egyptian is said to be represented slightly differently in every tomb, though the inscription is the same. If the figure had the reddish brown color (still a black person), no one would argue that the inscription meant Egyptians.
This is the world that we live in. But I can no longer concern myself with trying to change it. If someone is still trying to separate AE's from "black" Africans after seeing that they placed themselves into that category, then what more can you say to them.
However I'm still interested in finding out why select people have sought to create confusion around this mural.
"The beauty of the Egyptian language lies in the manner in which it, when referenced, literally thumbs its nose at those "Egyptologists" who would fiendishly misrepresent them to posterity. And especially at those who would try to convince the uninitiated that they came from Europe or Asia, peoples and places that the Egyptians, according to the ideology of their language, held in contempt.
To the Egyptians, the duality, or the concept of opposites was expressed as Kemet(Black) eshret(Red); of Good vs Evil; fertile vs barren. It was both a geographical as well as a sociological differentiation.
The benevolent gods were called KemHor (Black/good Horus) or KemIsi (Black/good Isis), whereas the evil gods were prefaced with Deshret (Red). Here is the Deshret/Red construct: (EHD p889b,890a) Desher = to be read, to terrify Deshreti = horrible, terrible Deshret = red thing; blood; gore (Deret in Wolof) Deshrut = Red devils Deshru = red ones - the wicked gods who were associated with Set ----- Set = the God of Evil (627b) ---------------- Hompt Set = Red (Asiatic) copper (486a) ---------------- Hompt Kemet = Black (Egyptian) copper ---------------- Tamhu = Red (White) people; Europeans
Playing even with the language: In Budge's book "Egyptian Language, p172" he translates the Egyptian sentence, "Ti-nef heki Kemet Deshret em esu iry" to "He hath granted me to rule Egypt and the desert in reward therefor." Aside from the obvious fact that no Egyptian king would boast of ruling the desert, the literal translation would be "He hath granted me to rule Black (and) Red in reward therefor." In other words, to rule the Black nation and the Red nations, or to rule the world. Where Budge went wrong was in his attempt to bend facts to fit his ideology.
As for themselves, the Egyptians paid themselves the ultimate compliment, by reserving for themselves the anointment of being Kmem.u or Black people par excellence.
Note: Budge's Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary is available at most public libraries in the Reference Dept. It contains a wealth of information http://www.geocities.com/wally_mo
Cool now we have the evil Europeans.
Posts: 448 | From: Australian living in Spain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
eshret(Red); of Good vs Evil; fertile vs 
Printer-friendly view of this topic