A) The first word is at the very top, inside the ideograph of the palace, and contains the name Narmer:
Nar(catfish) mer (chisel). And NO, it does not mean that he was a chiseling catfish! You can get Jan Assman's interpretation of the name in his book...
B) The figure to the right of the conquering king-wearing the white crown of Upper Egypt-,the one where Horus is astride and doing exactly what Diop suggests, as Assman points out, represents the conquest of the Delta or Lower Egypt.
C) The king's servant is identified as "Sashat-the goddess of writing, and I presume, the one who is chronicling all of this. (No, the sandle-bearer wasn't a servant god but merely a scribe.)
The people being subdued as well as the ones shown fleeing the land have "Nubian" hairstyles, and many Egyptologists suggest that they represent the original "Nubian" Anu ethnic rulers of the Two Lands.
D) the two figures below the "border" of Egypt represent the determinative "Kher" which means "fall, defeat, slaughter" and is preceded by another glyph which means "Uhan" or "overthrown, throwdown" (Coptic: Ouwdjn/Ouwgan)(also Sdjen). The hair of these defeated people is Asiatic, as portrayed throughout the long history of Egyptian iconography; it's an ethnic distinguisher.
The Back Side:
A) The first important word on this side is the word Tht;or Tjt; or Tet which means "to assemble" and is obviously referring to the assembled group of four figures bearing "Nubian" totems, as Diop points out.
B) Above the slain enemies- I imagine those who opposed political unification - are the images of
1) a boat with its sails down, which means a journey down river
and
2) of Horus in front of an emblem which Assman interprets as meaning 'gate' - These conquerors would later be identified as the "Shemsu Hor" or the followers of Horus, the Mesnitu ('blacksmiths') and who later claimed that they were from the land of Punt (evidence of the existance of at least two ruling African ethnic groups; Anu and later, the Mesnitu)...
C) The next word, a very large version at that, of two creatures with the twisting long necks is "Kaes" or "Kasu" which means 'to bind or fetter,' Qes/Kes - restrain, bind
which I think indicates the obvious, that the union of the two lands was carried out through armed struggle.
(It has been suggested that the 'formal' union was firmly establish by another warrior king, Aha. )
D) the last image is the one that confirms Diops assessment...
1) The bull breaking down the walled city's fortified wall and stomping the Asiatic represents the king. The word inside the wall "Abominable" (IE, "city of the abominables") is a term the Kememu used to describe the Asian or White peoples, especially.
It seems obvious that the Kemetians did not regard these peoples as a legitimate part of their ethnic population. It's Kememu ideology...
quote: ref: --The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs by Jan Assmann, Andrew Jenkins (Translator)
.... The people being subdued as well as the ones shown fleeing the land have "Nubian" hairstyles, and many Egyptologists suggest that they represent the original "Nubian" Anu ethnic rulers of the Two Lands.
...
A) The first important word on this side is the word Tht;or Tjt; or Tet which means "to assemble" and is obviously referring to the assembled group of four figures bearing "Nubian" totems, as Diop points out. ....
Why, why, why are we using "Nubian" as some AUTHORITIVE or DEFINITIVE reference in terms of populations on the Nile? "Nubian" has NOTHING to do with ethnicity, race or culture on the ancient Nile valley. Why cant they just be the original AFRICANS of the Nile Valley just like Narmer was an AFRICAN of the Nile Valley? The distinction you make is misleading and unnecessary since they were ALL "Nubians", being indigenous people of the Nile Valley, especially the UPPER Nile. Remember, there WAS no "Nubia" in this point of Nile Valley history.... use the terms originally used by the Egyptians and that is enough, IMO. Otherwise, you seem to be making a ETHNIC distinction between Narmer and the "Nubians", which not only CONTRADICTS your attempts to provide a more accurate translation of the pallette (since "Nubian" is not ON it), it also CONTRADICTS the point that they were ALL black Africans, because "Nubian" could be seen by many as meaning STRICTLY black Africans as opposed to something else for Narmer....... Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Wally agrees with you and his quotes around Nubian are meant to illustrate with irony the point you are stressing.
1) the hairstyles worn by the Km.t in the Narmer palette are the very ones identified by western scholars as "Nubian" - which really is a euphemism for undeniably African. Yet these are the peoples who founded Km.t. How many people understand this?
2) The reference to "Nubian" totems is from Diops - African origin of civilisation. Diop is making the point that the so called Nubians are the founders [Khenti] of Km.t
The point is - the so called "Nubians" are the "Egyptians." More accurately this can be stated as - the Khentu are the original Km.t
This is the same thing as saying - there were no "Nubians" at this time. There was no such thing as a "nubian" as distinct from and "egyptian".
By the way, this is the same context of irony needed when the anthropologist Larry Angel is quoted discussing 'negroid' features likely from 'nubia' in Macedonian 1st farmers.
The point is not to get caught up in debating the worth of the outdated racial construct of negroe, or the ultimate fallacy of nubia...but rather to understand that western anthropologist have long known that Africans migrated out of the Nile Valley and into Eurasia in the Neolithic.
Once we understand this - we can further contextualise the reality that it is the Levantine, and not the Lower Nile Valley that is the principal zone of 'mixture' from antiquity.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
What name was specifically used for those so-called "Nubians" on the Namer Pallette or what "specific" region are they claimed to have come from?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the persons walking ahead of the Pharaoh and belonging to his victorious army are Nubians, wearing Nubian insignia, such as the symbol of the Jackal and that of the Sparrow-hawk, which we would call Nubian totems.Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that the persons walking ahead of the Pharaoh and belonging to his victorious army are Nubians, wearing Nubian insignia, such as the symbol of the Jackal and that of the Sparrow-hawk, which we would call Nubian totems.
Interesting Rasol; when referring to those insignia, do you by chance know what specific "Nubian" polity or socio-ethnic identity Diop is referring to?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also note that in the procession of banners right in front of the pharaoh is a girl or young woman.
In many African societies during a procession of banners especially after a conquest a royal girl leads or takes an important part in the procession.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What date has been determined for the Narmer Pallette? Does it not go back to an era older than that which "Moses" [a rather ambiguous name considering many Egyptians had the name with "moses" attached to it, e.g. Thutmoses] is supposedly placed? There is quite a vast amount of temporal space between the old kingdom and the era in which common legends of "Moses" place his adventures [i.e. New Kingdom].
Moreover, the person which ray2006's link purports to be "Moses" on the pallette, is wearing a Pharaoh's crown, while the one purported to be the "Pharaoh" is just wearing a wig. Did "Moses" grab the Pharaoh's crown and place his wig on the head of the "Pharaoh" before clubbing him? LOL. I seriously doubt Pharaohs wore the crown over a "wig". I mean, how does one make sense of this?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also note that in the procession of banners right in front of the pharaoh is a girl or young woman.
In many African societies during a procession of banners especially after a conquest a royal girl leads or takes an important part in the procession.
Do you have any links or references? I do know that the standards are quite similar to those found in many African societies to this day as totems, etc.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: What date has been determined for the Narmer Pallette? Does it not go back to an era older than that which "Moses" [a rather ambiguous name considering many Egyptians had the name with "moses" attached to it, e.g. Thutmoses] is supposedly placed? There is quite a vast amount of temporal space between the old kingdom and the era in which common legends of "Moses" place his adventures [i.e. New Kingdom].
Moreover, the person which ray2006's link purports to be "Moses" on the pallette, is wearing a Pharaoh's crown, while the one purported to be the "Pharaoh" is just wearing a wig. Did "Moses" grab the Pharaoh's crown and place his wig on the head of the "Pharaoh" before clubbing him? LOL. I seriously doubt Pharaohs wore the crown over a "wig". I mean, how does one make sense of this?
I would think that "Moses" is just a stand in for a heroic symbolic figure from Mesopotamia or thereabouts. Either way, I think it dating is impoortant because I think that these Egyptian glyphs, while similar to those found in Sumer and Mesopotamia, probably predate them.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The name of Narmer, as we have said above, has been found in many sites of the Upper and Lower Egypt Nile valley, as well as in the Delta, in the western and eastern deserts and in Palestine (Arad, Tell Erani): here we have almost uniquely serekhs on vessels or on vessels' fragments. A bone statuette of a ruler with Upper Egypt crown (Petrie Abydos II p.24 tav. 2,13; Glanville J.E.A. 17 p. 65) has been often ascribed to Narmer; certainly of his is baboon statue (in the Berlin Museum) inscribed with the name of Narmer and that of 'Khnwmhotep' (cfr. MDAIK 50 and R.d.E. 21). It has been also proposed to date to his reign the three colossi found by Petrie at Koptos (Williams in JARCE 25); this has been done on epigraphic and stylistic grounds: part of an inscription on one of the colossi (almost totally effaced) might be the tail of an hawk above that of the 'Nar' fish. However it seems clear that an eventual inscription of Narmer (which is indeed by no means certain) would have been carved only after a long sequence of superimposed graffiti (which Dreyer interprets as early Dynasty 0 royal names) of early Naqada III date, thus many decades older than Narmer's time. The tomb of Narmer is the double grave B 17-18 at ABYDOS (Umm el Qaab cemetery B), excavated by Petrie in 1900 and more recently recleared by the German archaeologists' team of DAIK (Kaiser - Dreyer, in: MDAIK 38, 1982 and following reports by Dreyer et al.).
It was once uncertain whether to consider Narmer a king of Thinite or rather of Hierakonpolite origins; the contemporary attestations highly favour the former hypothesis; his tomb was built at Abydos although the most important specimens from his reign come from Nekhen -Hierakonpolis- (where they were re-buried centuries after his death). Hierakonpolis was a center of ancient leaders, one of the strongest predynastic regional states. The circumstances from which the final unification arose can't be known: they might have been ferocious warfares or pacific relations cemented by marriages; but the relevant fact is that several years after these events had happened,the early kings of Egypt still held memory of the ancestral importance of centers as Nwbt (Naqada) and Nekhen (Hierakonpolis) so that they made the temples built therein object of worship and commemoration. By the same way Abydos, the royal cemetery of the thinite early state, was retained as royal necropolis through all the first dynasty just because of its ancestral importance as birthplace of the archaic ('Dynasty 0') rulers buried in the cemeteries U and B; the nearby Umm el Qaab necropolis was contemporary with the North Saqqara earliest elite mastabas; probabily the own kings resided already in Memphis by that time, but they were buried at Abydos for the outstanding religious value that this center was credited with along the whole first dynasty age, a factor of highest importance for the legitimation of the thinite ruling family. It can't be known, as we have told, if Scorpion, Ka and Narmer actually fought against the Delta rulers. The scenes on the mentioned artifacts of Narmer could be typical repetitions of apothropaic actions highlighting the king's power in winning the evil forces, with no relation with real foes or events. Furthermore, although it appears very likely that the 'conquest' of the Delta by the Upper Egypt chiefs had begun generations before Narmer, no evident sign of war-like activities can be inferred by the attestation of Ka and Scorpion in Lower Egypt. We are inclined to think that the first foundator of Memphis must have been Narmer; but this king was probabily more involved in keeping the trade relations with distant near eastern colonies and in the military control of the boundaries; in turn Aha, less attested abroad, must have devoted his major efforts in the construction/organization of the young northern capital, taking more time in these actions as well as the building and visiting of cult shrines, than in punitive expeditions; this suggests that Narmer's actions against the probable 'rebels' must have been very efficient. 'Menes' could therefore have been a New Kingdom/Greek- culture fusion of two distinct individuals. Someone has also hypothized two different unifications: the first one by Narmer should have lasted only few years and then it was reattempted with success by Aha; nothing proves this theory and as we've stated, Aha seems to have been a more pacific sovereign (albeit his name meaning 'The Fighter') than Narmer. Aha certainly benefitted of the Narmer's economic developments: the increased size of mastabas built during his reign is a clear evidence of a higher prosperity. Few generations after the foundation of the Northern capital Memphis, in the decentralized south began a process of marked provincialization that lasted up to the Middle Kingdom age if not beyond. B. Kemp' s model of the provincial temples (1989) has been criticized by D. O'Connor (in 'Followers of Horus' 1992): for the latter scholar the examples which Kemp has considered 'pre-formal' architecture do not represent, in the provincial centers considered (Abydos,Elephantine,Medamud) the principal temple but only secondary and less important shrines. Hence the supposed 'provincialization' of that period had to be less radical than how it appears nowadays by the lack of visible architectural examples apt to deny it. It seems that, though under the 'wide wing' of the statal control, many centers once flourishing and of central importance began to lose their political authority (Abydos, Hierakonpolis) in the Second and expecially in the Third Dynasty when the baricenter of the state was definitively and more heavily established in Memphis. Much more alive did remain their religious value as ancient holy places and birthplaces of ancestral rulers. The most famous artifact of the Unification period is NARMER Palette which evidences the characters of the warrior god-king. Victorious over Delta peoles he wears the Red Crown of Lower Egypt; many discussions have been made about two main arguments concerning Narmer Palette's actual meaning: a sort of chronicle of Egypt Unification, or of a mere retaliation and rebels punishment; the symbolic representation of the king power; the origin of the defeated enemies: Libyans, western Delta inhabitants, eastern Delta rebels, Sinai bedawins, Asiatics. (A year-label found few years ago in the cemetery B at Abydos depicts a similar event with Narmer's serekh defeating a people symbolized by the papyrus plant. Beheaded corpses on the palette may perhaps represent the ritual execution of the battle prisoners; see below). On the palette of narmer a boat is carved, which leads Horus in progress to Buto (?). Behind Narmer the sandal bearer (who also figures on the other side) and before the king the "vizier" (?) (not the royal wife) is indicated by the title Tjet(y) (surely attested in the full form, Tajty Zab Tjaty, only since the mid or late Second Dynasty -Menka-, written in ink on various inscriptions on stone vessels found in Netjerykhet/Djoser complex, galleries VI-VII). Below there are two fantastic animals with long necks (the crossing necks form the circular shape for the kohl) probabily representing the two lands of Egypt, kept by cords; and in the lower register a bull (the king) smashes a fortress by his horns. On the opposite side the king wears the Upper Egypt crown and he is in the standard pose with a mace that's going to hit the prisoners' heads which he takes by the hair with his other hand. The victim is on his knees and is surmounted by an icon of the Delta region which a falcon takes by a leash. Above, two Hathor (or Bat) heads with the serekh and the name between them. "
quote:ray writes: Strange how interpretations vary: "The crowned figure is Moses and the one at his mercy(kneeling) is pharaoh"
No substitute for the common sense it takes to know which intepretations to take seriously, and which are complete nonsense and sheer distraction.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
and look up the Namer Palette very good explanations BUT no firm agreements and various interpretations too..
If you read it they make many assumptions to arrive at a "coherent explanation".
The main problem is that egyptologists tend to forget their basics..they use glyphs as phonetical values to confirm their previous guesses btu quickly dismiss their phonetical values to come up with an explanation within the one accepted by their peers..
Sorry to say this but no earthly language functions that way..
As Dr alsaadawi did not explain precisely how he came to that conclusion and the fact that a last 90% of his discoveries have not been made public..
If I remeber correctly he once told me that he had translated over 20,000 words made of different glyphs, etc..
And he has not put out a consise grammar of his method etc..;did discover that indeed thr AE were most of the time using a coding system when writing hieroglyphs;he had cracked their code;the AE wanted to keept the real meanings of their writings secret and he was unsure why..
yours,ryb..
Notes:
1-Also, Moussa=Moses I believe this is what he is called in the Qu'ran..
2-Budge-I think I know why he is so despised,the more so today;looking a this books,grammars etc..he did not divide the AE into 3 nifty sections like the modern scholars are doing(Old,Middle and Late Egyptian);yet he did acknowledge that many glyphs changed over time.
Also was honest to put many ??? question marks to words,expresissins he was nsure of.. which is heresy today as a scholar must never admit that they do not know..it all !
DOVER has reprinted his Grammar in 2003
-First Step in Egyptian Hieroglyphs, a book for beginners by EA Wallis Budge ,Dover 2003(reprint of 1895 ed),320 pages[gramamr,75p.;texts-76-275p.;UNTRANSLATED TEXTS-p275-289p;glossary-p.290-320 p.-Soem are from the Apyrus of Ani-but others like Papyrus if Nebseni etc..did they ever got translated into English ?!
posted
Oops - a typo so message was sent without me being able to correct them.. forgot to mention ,also by Budge An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Reading Book for beginners,Dover 1993(reprint of 1896 ed)
It has 600 pages, an extended vocabulary-over 250p. So it can serve as a small dictionary Remember ,the ENGLISH translation- is given at the BEGINNING,in the Introduction
The hieroglyphic texts are given with transliteration (system used by Budge).
So you can compare the more modern deciphered versions with that of Budge and decide by how much Budge was wrong as compared to the original hieroglyphic texts..
Posts: 305 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If one goes to.... and look up the Namer Palette very good explanations BUT no firm agreements and various interpretations too..
If you read it they make many assumptions to arrive at a "coherent explanation".
The main problem is that egyptologists tend to forget their basics..they use glyphs as phonetical values to confirm their previous guesses but quickly dismiss their phonetical values to come up with an explanation within the one accepted by their peers..
In which case they are not 'very good explanations' at all.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Supercar: What date has been determined for the Narmer Pallette? Does it not go back to an era older than that which "Moses" [a rather ambiguous name considering many Egyptians had the name with "moses" attached to it, e.g. Thutmoses] is supposedly placed? There is quite a vast amount of temporal space between the old kingdom and the era in which common legends of "Moses" place his adventures [i.e. New Kingdom].
Moreover, the person which ray2006's link purports to be "Moses" on the pallette, is wearing a Pharaoh's crown, while the one purported to be the "Pharaoh" is just wearing a wig. Did "Moses" grab the Pharaoh's crown and place his wig on the head of the "Pharaoh" before clubbing him? LOL. I seriously doubt Pharaohs wore the crown over a "wig". I mean, how does one make sense of this? [/qb]
I would think that "Moses" is just a stand in for a heroic symbolic figure from Mesopotamia or thereabouts. Either way, I think it dating is impoortant because I think that these Egyptian glyphs, while similar to those found in Sumer and Mesopotamia, probably predate them.
I am not sure what Egyptian "glyphs" you are referring to...on the Narmer Pallette?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The style of the animals, with entertwined necks is one of the motifs often seen in Mesopotamia and not found in Egypt often after the early dynastic period. There are also similarities between the figures of humans and animal motifs (bulls, lions, etc) and those seen in Mesopotamia and Sumer. Either way, what I am getting at is that Moses is a HEROIC archetype from the Babylonian/Mesopotamian tradition of mythical herioes. However, the TRUE heroic archetype of Moses and many other mythical herioc figures lay in the distant past of Africa itself.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The style of the animals, with entertwined necks is one of the motifs often seen in Mesopotamia and not found in Egypt often after the early dynastic period. There are also similarities between the figures of humans and animal motifs (bulls, lions, etc) and those seen in Mesopotamia and Sumer.
Do you have the pictorial substantiation for the above? Included in this request of course, is the notion that the artistic styles found on the Narmer pallette are not found after the early dynastic period.
Ps - what tells us that "Moses" is even represented on the Narmer Pallette?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: Also note that in the procession of banners right in front of the pharaoh is a girl or young woman.
In many African societies during a procession of banners especially after a conquest a royal girl leads or takes an important part in the procession.
Do you have any links or references? I do know that the standards are quite similar to those found in many African societies to this day as totems, etc.
My references were in a couple of books I read about histories of African kingdoms years ago. In them were accounts of royal girls who served as banner girl or lead processioner of her clan or kingdom.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
The style of the animals, with entertwined necks is one of the motifs often seen in Mesopotamia and not found in Egypt often after the early dynastic period. There are also similarities between the figures of humans and animal motifs (bulls, lions, etc) and those seen in Mesopotamia and Sumer.
Do you have the pictorial substantiation for the above? Included in this request of course, is the notion that the artistic styles found on the Narmer pallette are not found after the early dynastic period.
Ps - what tells us that "Moses" is even represented on the Narmer Pallette?
I can dig up some photos. However, what I am getting at is the fact that many Egyptologists have LONG used such predynastic and early dynastic signs as being symbols for the "archetype" of what was to become the standard symbolism for all pharoahs. The "heroic" nature of the struggle to unify upper and lower Egypt and restore Maat was always an important symbolic aspect of Egyptian kingship. Moses is a SYMBOLIC figure, once again a heroic archetype for the peoples of the levant. All I was getting at is how some INTERPERET the pallete, where Moses represents some sort of Near Eastern symbolic figure that represents the introduction of Near Eastern culture into the Nile Valley. Of course I dont agree with Egyptian culture originating in the Levant, but the point I was making is that some people use iconography to JUSTIFY interpereting certain features of Egyptian culture originating in Mesopotamia, when it is likely the other way around.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
The style of the animals, with entertwined necks is one of the motifs often seen in Mesopotamia and not found in Egypt often after the early dynastic period. There are also similarities between the figures of humans and animal motifs (bulls, lions, etc) and those seen in Mesopotamia and Sumer.
Do you have the pictorial substantiation for the above? Included in this request of course, is the notion that the artistic styles found on the Narmer pallette are not found after the early dynastic period.
Ps - what tells us that "Moses" is even represented on the Narmer Pallette? [/qb]
I can dig up some photos. However, what I am getting at is the fact that many Egyptologists have LONG used such predynastic and early dynastic signs as being symbols for the "archetype" of what was to become the standard symbolism for all pharoahs. The "heroic" nature of the struggle to unify upper and lower Egypt and restore Maat was always an important symbolic aspect of Egyptian kingship. Moses is a SYMBOLIC figure, once again a heroic archetype for the peoples of the levant. All I was getting at is how some INTERPERET the pallete, where Moses represents some sort of Near Eastern symbolic figure that represents the introduction of Near Eastern culture into the Nile Valley. Of course I dont agree with Egyptian culture originating in the Levant, but the point I was making is that some people use iconography to JUSTIFY interpereting certain features of Egyptian culture originating in Mesopotamia, when it is likely the other way around.
Doug, what I find particularly interesting about your last post, was the idea that the iconography style, not the story-telling of the iconography, on the Narmer Pallette has not been seen again in Kemet. What has led you to that conclusion?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mainly referring to the entertwined necks of the animals, which is seen so prominently on the front. At least this palette and a few other old kingdom items are the only places where you see such motifs, whereas it seemed to be quite commonplace in Mesopotamia.
Posts: 8889 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Mainly referring to the entertwined necks of the animals, which is seen so prominently on the front. At least this palette and a few other old kingdom items are the only places where you see such motifs, whereas it seemed to be quite commonplace in Mesopotamia.
The intertwining of the long-neck creatures according to interpretations out there, is to symbolize unification of predynastic Lower Nile Valley and predynastic Upper Nile Valley polities. There is no reason that it should therefore constantly appear after the old Kingdom.
As for the motifs, you still haven't made good on the request to show them.
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Mainly referring to the entertwined necks of the animals, which is seen so prominently on the front. At least this palette and a few other old kingdom items are the only places where you see such motifs, whereas it seemed to be quite commonplace in Mesopotamia.
The motif has been found in some Neolithic Saharan artwork.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And of course the front side of the palette shows Narmer not just smiting his foe but performing a ritual human sacrifice.
As explained by Diop in his book Origin', the African king gives his sandals to his servant (shown in the background) going barefoot since the site of the sacrifice is sacred ground. The mace as long noted by Egyptologists as the sacrificial weapon. The African king's servant also holds a kettle of water used for libations to purify the king after the act. above the smiting/sacrifice seen are totems. The hawk representing Narmer and his people as it stands on top of a segment of land with reeds and a man's head representing the Delta.
Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: Mainly referring to the entertwined necks of the animals, which is seen so prominently on the front. At least this palette and a few other old kingdom items are the only places where you see such motifs, whereas it seemed to be quite commonplace in Mesopotamia.
The symbol of the two men mounted atop these long necked lions is not a "motif" (Motif: A dominant theme, idea, or pattern in a work of art. Motifs are often repeated.) >The Motif of Narmer's palette is the political unification of ancient Kemet! >The significance of this tablet is that it contains the earliest form of writing. If you understand what is written on it, it becomes obvious.
> This document is a directly historical and political one. And yet, here on this forum (certainly not such nonsense on the new Nile Valley forum) we start talking about "Moses" and other nonsense...
> Nile Valley Civilization is, despite the rumor, infinitely more older than those of the Tigris-Euphrates valley (aka Mesopotamia); and this word surely predates the later cultures in Asia...
> Notions about pyramids in Europe, the occurrences of symbols that resemble those of Kemet are childishly simplistic:
Ancient populations, except for rare isolated folks, had social intercourse with one another. People today take it for granted that there are skyscrapers in Manhattan but also in Singapore and the Ivory Coast; cars too; TVs...
And we know where these items originated - the West/Europe/America.
So, we also know where these earliest ancient items of civilization came from - the Nile Valley...
Posts: 3344 | From: Berkeley | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
, I posted this one simultaneously on both forums...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic