The Meaning of Km.t

    
    To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
    From: Kwesi Otabil [sotabil@fvs3.fvsc.peachnet.edu]
    Subject: Black Soil
    Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 10:49:27 -0700
    KEMET
    
         In concluding my posting on the state-of-the-question, I vowed not to
    countenance the `hermeneutic inanity'(sic) of Km.t as `Black Soil'. Well, I am
    breaking my vow here, for Bernard Ortiz has done it! He has come putting his
    foot r.....ight in it, like a bull in glass shop. I am thrilled, anyway, at having caught
    Ortiz now, because I previously dared him on the famous Aristotle quote on
    Kemites and Ethiopians--to no avail, shamefully.
         Paul (5/31/96) was generous with his technical explication (courtesy Diop),
    in direct response to Vdismas. And Diriye attempted something similar, althoug
    less elaborate. But let us remember that Ortiz doubts almost everything about
    Diop's scholarship. And the pontiff from Chicago has likewise questioned Diop's
    proficiency in Egyptology, aside from his fulminating aspersions on his (Diop's)
    linguistic competency. So Paul's input could well be summarily dismissed precisely
    because it is borrowed from Diop. (By the way, the curious, honest-minded could
    check out the Diop treatment of the subject in *ANCIENT EGYPT
    REVISITED* (Journal of African Civilizations) ed. Van Sertima, 1989.
         Fully aware, then, of the usual tricks and philosophistry, I am offering below
    a a demonstration in logic and commonsense, aimed to show how Western
    Egyptology, like `classics',  can be susceptible to astounding stupidity, ostensibly
    at the behest of Truth-Loot.
         Ortiz (5/31/96), following R.A. Faulkner's scholŠ, wrote: "Kemet: Black land
    watered by the Nile flood and therefore inhabitable and fertile, and Desheret is
    the contrasting red sand of the desert." Now if this be sensible, then 
    
         1a: we have to assume that the surface area of Km.t (as Black Soil)
         consisted solely of the floodable (washable) parts; but, since these
         parts are designated /Km.t/, the name of the country, the assumption
         further implies 
    
         1b: that the ENTIRE country is subject to flooding, for it is after all
         the residual deposit (Black silt) that allegedly forms the referent (and
         content) of /Km.t/.
    
         Yet, on the basis of 1b, the Red sand/Black Soil distinction should dissolve
    altogether, since the co-presence of barren land and fertile soil is what would have
    warranted the geographic distinction (i.e. `fertile' vs `barren'); not only that, but
    also 1b forcefully implies that
    
         2. (with Km.t qua Black Soil being the inhabitable part[s]), the
         natives would live submerged or soaked during high NILE (or for as
         long as the river was overflowed); 
    
         Now, I am hard put to imagining a people's living soaked or submerged for
    an entire season; that defies physical plausibility and commonsense. Which leaves
    the relatively sound alternative that they would, in high Nile, either
    
         3a. migrate en masse to dry land; or
    
         3b: undertake an exodus (or mass emigration) to another country.
    
    Yet iff 3a, then
    
         4. we have to assume an internal colonial refuge, which other than
         the Black Soil, must be the Red soil; 
    
         But "Red Soil" has been characterized as uninhabitable because barren. Yet
    even if the hypothesis were absurdly granted, it would contradict 1b, to wit, that
    the country's surface area was floodable. Should `internal colony' be jettisoned as
    a costly fallacy, then one has to ponder 3b. But to which country would (or did)
    they emigrate to, temporarily? Not only that; but, on the fabulous assumption,
    they did migrate or emigrate, what would they call themselves? "People of the Red
    Soil"? "(Exiled) people of country X (the host)"? Or still "people of the Black Soil"
    (i.e. Kemites)? This is no vain question at all, I stress, inasmuch as flooding was
    a seasonal, cyclical event, and hence that migration or emigration would been a
    secular way of life for as long as Hapi (Nile) was a live part of Km.t. If neither 3a
    nor 3b is admissible as a matter of logic or  commonsense, then perhaps the last
    resort, on the Black Soil interpretation, would be to:
    
         5. consider the Nile itself as a temporary abode. 
         
         In other words, rather migrate to an impossible internal colony of dry yet
    uninhabitable land, or emigrate to a different country (inconceivable for a proud
    nation), the natives would betake themselves to the Nile....in HIGH FLOOD!
    They would set up make-shift lodgings in boats and other containers, only to be
    washed down by the furious river all the way down into the sea. Who knows?
    Maybe, this wash-down process is what turned the Kemites into the
    `mediterranean' or `dark-red' (rouge-sombres) type so dear to (Western)
    Egyptology and classcism. Lo! "dark-red" could indeed form a dialectical synthesis
    of the black and red in `Black Land/Soil' and "Red Sand/Soil" respectively. Except,
    alas, that the enduring indigenous designation of "Km.t" semantically and logically
    foils the synthesis of "Kemet.Desheret".
         Well, how about putting our hands together for standard Egyptology, *A
    Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian*, and Ortiz' faculty of discernment, hm!
    Makes me wanna...
         There is even worse. See, Kenyatta's posting, which drew the Ortiz `expert'
    riposte, highlighted two key pieces of evidence: (i) the authentic, indigenous sel-
    designation (Km.t), and (ii) the explicit self-identification with other Africans, (a
    fact honestly but painfully averred by Champollion the Younger). (By the way,
    Kenyatta, the engraving is in the tomb of Rameses III). The two pieces of
    evidence are mutually reinforcing: Wonder why they named themselves "Kemites"?
    Witness the portrayal. Wonder how such representation (of racial identification)
    came to be? Behold their self-designation, a designation which could not but have
    pre-dated Rameses III, or his tomb. 
         Were it to be upheld against logic and commonsense, Ortiz' `Black Soil'
    nonsense would unfailingly serve to impugn the credibility or authenticity of the
    engraving, and unbraid the double evidence. For, if it is dogmatized that /Km.t/
    has nothing to do with phenotype or racial identity, then one has logically no other
    choice but to question the genuineness or accuracy of the engraving. But this
    questioning can only be a stretch of philosophistry. Maybe the engraver was a
    remote Herodotus forebear smitten with congenital mendacity, a flaw Herodotus
    would have inherited and nurtured into anti-Greekness or `Egyptomania'. Or
    maybe the engraver was a "West African type", who managed to pull a fast one on
    `caucasoid' Kemites (his patrons) while they were not looking. Or maybe the
    engraving was fairly recently sneaked in and planted in the tomb by a latter-day
    Kemeticist, on some Friday, while the Arab/Saracen interlopers had their vigilant
    pieties and senses unisonally turned Near/Middle East...toward Mecca.
    Maybe...What if...?
         I doubt if Ortiz will respond to my challenge; he failed to deliver on
    Aristotle, remember. So I call on his sympathizers to come to his rescue. Not on
    Dan Kaufmann, though, because he seems intellectual mature, nor on Dave
    Meadows because he is too incontinent. Besides, either will likely pretend
    incomprehension of my prose/discourse. But since I have mentioned them both,
    I might well as engage them, before I put paid to the Oritiz rubbish; after all they
    all come in a pack.
         Meadows, reacting to my query about his probable incontinence, swore to
    a full control of his bladder. But while he may have such bodily control, he has
    given paltry proof of control of his MENTAL bladder. For he has been been
    PISSING all over this list; pissing sophistry and insolence. He struck me as a
    noticeable poster, when I first joined as a lurker; not with his substance (which is
    unenviably shadowy), but with his posturing (which is dramatically plush). So I do
    not expect him to rescue Ortiz from the mire of conundrums and fallacies, except
    perhaps to rush and piss voluptuously into them, thereby aggravating their acidity.
         Dan Kaufmann, on the other hand, is a mega fop. He harbors a fetish: an
    obsession with `identify fetishism'. Worse, he cuddles his own identity fetish,
    which he labors unsuccessfully to conceal. He has a specific agenda, which does
    not fit easily into Athena concerns: his take on the `culture wars', and by
    implication on multiculturalism. This explains why he is always on the alert, ever
    ready to line up the `Master's pieces' like PRUSSIAN SOLDIERS in defense of
    a beleagured canon. Where he does not single-file them, he merely strings them
    into beads of a Humanities (or Core Curriculum) ROSARY which he fondles in
    prayerful appeal to the disinherited of the Master's pieces. (Has he not repeatedly
    professed his commitment to the enlightenment of rich and poor alike, of majority
    and minorities, and of the classed and underclass?). The `rosary' metaphor is not
    inappropriate: he rates Christendom so high, investing it with extraordinary
    humanist values. However, it is same individual who professes atheism, works at
    the Jewish Theological Seminary, and adjunct-professes philosophy.
         Make no mistake, Kaufmann must be a monster, a doctored variety
    perhaps, one who uses bad, textbook philosophy to broker intercourse between
    Gentilism and Judaism. What manner of discourse does he hold at the Seminary?
    How seriously I am I to take him, when he simultaneously extolls Christianity and
    claims atheism?
         He chides me for my `continental' prose, allegedly unaesthetic and/or
    unintelligible. Well, here is a simple question: since he is fetishistically given to
    lining up his Prussian soldiers of canon, and these soldiers are mostly continental,
    does not his stated incomprehension simply betray his tenuous grasp of that
    tradition? Or is continental incommensurate with American or Anglo-Saxon? If
    they are, then what makes for the continuity or integrity of the canon or the
    `Western tradition'?
    I sincerely hope he will henceforth desist from bashing id-fetishism, because it will
    come back to haunt and scourge his self-worth; self-worth molded grotesquely
    from Gentilism, forced marches, Christianity, single filings, Judaism, atheism, and
    textbook rigmarole. He ought to be chastened with the reminder, too, that his
    Prussian line up can lead as much to democratic renewal as to the gas-chamber,
    to human dignity as much as dehumanization; in brief to both civilization AND
    barbarism. We have seen it horrendously at work in the bosom of the West as well
    as within the living spaces of the Rest-of-Us. Lastly, rather than point me to
    Quine and Russell, among others, he would do far better by showing sound
    apprenticeship to the analytical rigors of those models. So far, he has proven the
    contrary. So I can only here vouch my profound contempt for his poor
    apprenticeship as much as for his cameleon ethics.
         Back to Ortiz. He, too, has an axe to grind, albeit one of a different make.
    As a self-conscious Chicano, he has probably never forgiven Van Sertima for his
    research on the African presence in the Early Americas, notably in its supposed
    influence of Olmec civilization. (Note: I am no enthusiast of the African presence
    stuff.] I say this because I have observed him attempt to intrude the subject into
    BA/NOA, where it does not belong. He also has targeted Van Sertima for
    vilification, along with Diop and Obenga. And all that because these figures' works
    have been embraced by conventional Afrocentrists. Of course, if the three are
    intellectual kin, then a vicious attack on the one takes care of the remainder. So
    with the Van Sertima contraband ineffectual, he can only have Diop's ghost to
    badger. Not to discount his highly offensive, shoddy ethnography that has him
    referring to `Pygmies', and to Xhosas as `Mandela's people'. His effort consists
    mostly in piling up quotes from `authorities', precisely those with impregnable
    oversight over Truth-Loot. Ortiz is, in short, a stacker-yeoman. Yet this nuisance
    has escaped the censure of those who have been decrying the `cut-and-paste'.
    Personally, I wish he could forward to his so-called authorities (like Yurco) my
    exposition on the `Black Soil' rubbish. For I reckon that he lacks the wherewithal
    to address it on his pathetic own.
         
         One final word on the subject. Kemet is a troubling designation, troubling
    to Egyptology. For long it has been suppressed, in favor of alien mythological
    derivatives, like the Hellenist `Aigyptos' or the Hebrew `Ham'. Scott, the
    anthropologist who has retired from the list into the `African Bush', once
    cautioned against the `hamiticization' of African cultural history or historiography.
    Well, Kemeticism is NOT about hamiticization. KAMITIC (a variant) is no
    equipollent of HAMITIC, any more than Kemitic is affinal with Semitic except for
    Orientalism. Kamitic and Hamitic are starkly INVERSE to each other. And I
    hope some idiot is not going to provoke me on the subject, because I might in the
    event be presenting arguments that could unsettle and distemper. That is not my
    intent on this list. I shall, however, not scruple away from is the stock,
    disingenuous trip on /Km.t/, of which the Ortiz posting is a crude symptom. Where
    logic and commonsense fail the counter-evidence, they (Egyptologists) resort to
    archaeology and physical anthropology. They go and deliberately disinter remains
    of Asiatic invaders and other counterfeits, measure their thin lips and acquiline
    noses, and declare either a mixed-race essence or or tropical mix-in. But does the
    strategy compromise the rebellious authenticity of Kemet? Far from it. It only
    adds to the organized buffonery. 
         Detractors, then, will for long CONSTIPATE on Kemeticism and its
    restorative potential. That should as well be. Indeed, I would be immensely
    gratified to see a David Meadows constipate, because, the next we may know, he
    might start defecating all over this site, as if the piss were not bad enough.
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Kwesi Otabil
    
    The Neo-Maat Institute.
    
    
    ----------------
    
    To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
    From: Kwesi Otabil 
    Subject: re:black soil
    Date: Thu, 06 Jun 1996 16:34:54 -0700
    I had planned a follow-up on my Black Soil posting of late this 
    afternoon, but found out to my dismay that the list will be shutting down 
    at 6.00 pm, today. The follow up was to address Yurco's piece, which 
    found highly inconsistent. Since I am pressed for time, I will point out 
    the main flaws:
    
    1. /Km/ signifies EBONY BLACK in the name /Kemsit/; yet
    
    2. The same /Km/ means DARK BROWN in Ny-ankh-Pepy km;
    
    3. Skin color was insignificant to the Kemites, yet 
    
    4. They gave overtly color-coded, `Egyptian' names to naturalized Souther 
       neighbors.
    
    5. "No way can this [kmtyw] be equated with the Egyptians being described   
       as black, at least not through Egyptian grammar. Diop knew Egyptian   
       grammar, so he was foisting a fraud by pushing this notion."
    
       Fallacy: the conclusion (about fraud) doesn't follow from the 
       admission of Diop's grammatical competency. Only ignoramuses would    
       make the association, but Diop is apparently not one. There is a tacit 
       attribution of malice which detracts from competency.
    
    6. "I do with agree with Diop that it [km] represented a charred piece of 
        wood". How could such signified conform to the "dark brown"  of Pepy 
        km?
    
    It is unfortunate I can't get into details. But let me emphasize that the 
    "dark brown/ebony black" inconsistency harks to the "excessively black vs 
     black" problem I expounded in my state-of-the question posting.
    
    I thank all the participants for their contributions. This has been an 
    exhilarating experience, take it from me. And please remember that 
    WHATEVER HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT MAAT DOES NOT REFLECT THE HORIZON OF OUR 
    INSTITUTE. San is no member. WE ARE NOT ABOUT SPIRITUALITY, OR A CULTIC 
    REVIVAL. We privilege the MIND, not the soul. The crux thus lies in 
    "NEO"; i.e, an appropriation of an ancient organum for MODERN 
    exigencies; no more. I hope that disabuses those (particularly Goddfrey 
    White] who may have concluded from San's postulations to an exclusive, 
    race-based club. No! No!
    
    Stay well, and would we meet again some day.
    
    Kwesi
    [who departs with a heavy heart]
    The NEO-MAAT Institute
    
    
    ---------------
    
    PKM writes:
    
    Frank Yurco wrote:
    
    Egypt is *always* referred to in the plural because it is *two lands*
    joined. (Even now, modern Egyptians refer to their area as the *two
    lands*).
    
    *****
    The term km.t, though was usually used as a description of nationality.
    That is why it appeared with the determinative for "men" and "women"
    i.e., "people."   Thus, it was the Egyptians rather than Egypt that
    was referred to.  On pg. 66 of Diop's _Civilization or Barbarism_
    (also Lepsius, R. _Denkamler aus Aegyptien und Aethiopien_, fig.
    48)  is a painting from the tomb of Ramses III that shows four
    different nationalities.  On the far left, is a black African
    designated as the "Egyptian."
    ****
    
    
    >"...word rmt kmt = 'people of the black country'"
    
    "People of the black land" is also suggested, meaning the thin strip of
    land on either side of the Nile....
    
    >Thus, the ideogram of men and women when used with the word 'kmt' means
    >simply "Black men and women." Also, the word dsrt = 'red' can also be
    >applied to humans, or at times to demons, and not just the land. When it
    >applies to people or demons it has the appropriate determinative (
    >samewhen used to apply to land).
    
    >The Egyptians often portrayed people in two shades, black and reddish
    >brown. In fact, many beneficient gods in Egypt were classified with km as
    >a qualificative(Osiris, Hathor, Apsis, Min, Thoth, Isis, Horus, etc.),
    >while demons were dsrt. For example,' Set Kmt' is ' Isis'. Certainly this
    >had nothing to do with the color of the land. Usually, km was appended to
    >the names of males gods, while kmt was used with female gods."
    
    See comment above: the gods were considered to have been *made out of*
    **tcham**, or a golden color, and only Osiris is seen in other colors on a
    regular basis (such as green or black, indicating a vegetative state).
    
    *****
    This is not correct.  All gods designated under the km class were
    depicted as black (in that form), while those classed as dsrt
    were depicted as red in that form.
    *****
    
    I also have permission to forward a message from an Egyptologist, Frank
    Yurco-- who *does know* Middle Egyptian.
    
    *****
    Diop and Obenga also knew ancient Egyptian.  And Frank Yurco is a
    Eurocentric scholar, what more can we say?
    ****
    
    
    We are dealing with the usual sleight of hand practiced by the
    Afrocentrists. km, vocalized kem, is the adjective "black" in Egyptian. I
    do agree with Diop that it represented a charred piece of wood. To get the
    term to refer to the Egyptian people, in Egyptian Grammar, you have to
    transform the adjective into a noun through the nisbe process Gardiner,
    Grammar, sections 79-81. That is the normal way Egyptian transformed
    adjectives into nouns and there's a plethora of examples citable. Now that
    yields, again following Gardiner, "those of the black land" since actually
    the nisbe is derived, from kmt, a noun, "The Black Land". 
    
    
    
    ******
    As with his mummy evidence, Yurco is again engaging in deception.
    There is absolutely nothing in the morphemes of km.t which indicates
    "land," or "soil."  It simply means "blacks."(plural noun)
    *****
    
    
    Still the Nisbe
    process was used even when extending the meaning of nouns. The form would
    be kmtyw nisbe plural, and it could be tranformed thereby into another
    noun, so "those of the black land", or "black landers" at most. No way can
    this be equated with the Egyptians being described as black, at least not
    through Egyptian grammar. Diop knew Egyptian grammar, so he was foisting a
    fraud by pushing this notion.
    
    
    *****
    No, it is Yurco who is pulling our leg again. Kmtyw simply means 
    "the black men," or properly "those of the black  man," as the 
    determinative (man, singular) indicates.  There is no ideogram 
    specifying country, land, earth, etc. used in this expression.
    *****
    
    
    The Nisbe process also exists in Arabic, as Gardiner pointed out, so it is
    well established in the Afro-Asiatic languages. There's absolutely nothing
    Eurocentric about this solution and response. It is based upon
    Egypto-Coptic and Arabic rules of greammar. So, again, the charge by the
    Afrocentrists is ill-informed and spurious.
    
    *****
    The Nisbe process does exist in Egyptian, but it in no way implies
    that km.t means "black lands."  It only indicates the process of
    changing an adjective into a noun.  Thus km = "black" (adj.) >
    km.t = "blacks," (noun, fem. pl.). That is it, period.   
    *****
    
    For Gardiner, the full citation is Sir Alan Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar,
    3rd. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957). John Callender did a
    linguistic grammar of Middle Egyptian, but his conclusions about the nisbe
    construction are no different.
    
    Indeed, we have solid proof that when the Egyptians wanted to call someone
    black, they used adjective plus noun as the construction. This is found in
    the Montuhotep II complex, where a group of priestesses and possibly wives
    of the pharaoh were buried. One of them is named Kmst, Kemsit vocalized,
    and her name translates, "the lady is black". Now depictions of Kemsit in
    her tomb chapel depict her as ebony black, darker than the males and
    females serving on her, and in the reliefs from the Upper Chapel, she is
    depicted also ebony black, and with tightly curled hair. Naville, who
    excavated this site in the late 1890s, declares that he found a mummy in
    Kemsit's tomb, whom he described as "negroid". Supposedly he sent it to the
    British Museum, but they have managed to lose it! Such are the dangers of
    museums, to quote Maspero. Still, the accumulation of evidence regarding
    Kemsit is that she was a really ebony black Kushite, such as are found
    still on the Upper Nile, among the Shilluk, Dinka, and Nuer. So were
    several of the other ladies whose tombs lay in that complex. Winlock put is
    succinctly, Montuhotep had a predilection for the ebony black Upper Nilotic
    women. From their names, it is clear they were given Egyptian names, when
    they were brought to Egypt. In the chapel reliefs, Montuhotep was depicted
    embracing these women, in very fond fashion. However, Kemsit's name shows,
    that when the Egyptians wanted to call someone black, that was the mode.
    There's another case, from the Old Kingdom. A nomarch from Meir, in Middle
    Egypt, in Dynasty VI was named Ny-ankh-Pepy km, that is Ny-ankh Pepy the
    black. A statue of his in the Cairo Museum, depicts him as dark brown
    complexion, with what could be tightly curly hair, and his costume features
    a double sash hanging down the front, similar to the double sash worn by
    Nehsy-Nubians recruited into Egypt in the Late Old and Middle Kingdoms. So,
    he was perhaps of Nubian ancestry, and was really much darker than the
    average population in his nome in Middle Egypt. So here's another way
    Egyptian could call someone "black".
    
    
    *****
    Its interesting that Yurco kow admits that km can be used to refer
    to skin color.  The problem is that kmst as described above
    is used as he says as an *adjective*  No one is arguing that km.t
    is not a plural noun, but that it means only "Blacks," combined
    with the determinative for "people,"  and thus, "Black people."
    There is nothing lexically or grammatically that indicates "land,"
    "soil," etc.  Neither is there any texts, that I know of, that
    describe Egypt literally as a land of black soil. Again, see the 
    depictions of Ramses III's tomb in Diop or Lepsius's works. Note
    that the third figure from the right depicting those further
    south in Africa is almost identical in physical type and costume
    as the Egyptian.   
    
    Quotes from Eurocentric scholars is not going to do much to convince
    Afrocentrists, Kemeticists or other multiculturalists who know that
    Western scholarship is skewed.  Let's hear from Yurco instead 
    the answers to the following questions:
    
    1. Which morphemes or grammatical rules give the meaning of "soil,"
    "land," etc., in the word |km.t|?
    
    2. Why is the determinative for "people" used with km.t, when
    the latter appears alone rather than the determinative for soil?
    
    
    Non-eurocentrically yours,
    
    
    Paul Kekai Manansala
    
    --------------
    
    Return-Path: 
    Received: from cortez.nis.newscorp.com (daemon@cortez-s3.nis.newscorp.com [206.15.105.99]) by ixmail3.ix.netcom.com (8.7.5/SMI-4.1/Netcom)
        id OAA18651; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 14:03:13 -0700 (PDT)
    Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by cortez.nis.newscorp.com (8.7.5/Delphi SMTP GW 1.0) with SMTP id RAA11509; Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:01:54 -0400 (EDT)
    Received: by cortez.nis.newscorp.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Tue, 4 Jun 1996 17:01:52 -0400
    Message-ID: <31B4A3EF.13A780AC@erols.com>
    Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 17:00:31 -0400
    From: "S. Thomas" [sthomas@erols.com]
    
    S. Thomas wrote:
    
    Bernard R Ortiz-de-Montellano wrote:
     
    > I also have permission to forward a message from an Egyptologist, Frank
    > Yurco-- who *does know* Middle Egyptian.
    > 
    > Date: Mon, 3 Jun 96 12:53:58 CDT
    > From: Frank Joseph Yurco [fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu] To:
    > bortiz@cms.cc.wayne.edu (Bernard R Ortiz-de-Montellano) Subject: Re: kemet
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > We are dealing with the usual sleight of hand practiced by the
    > Afrocentrists. km, vocalized kem, is the adjective "black" in Egyptian. I
    > do agree with Diop that it represented a charred piece of wood. To get the
    > term to refer to the Egyptian people, in Egyptian Grammar, you have to
    > transform the adjective into a noun through the nisbe process Gardiner,
     
    Here, Yurco goes on to conclude that km, the adjective "black", cannot
    be transformed into the noun necessary in the attempted translation
    of kmt as being "land of the blacks".  But later...
    
    
    > A nomarch from Meir, in Middle
    > Egypt, in Dynasty VI was named Ny-ankh-Pepy km, that is Ny-ankh Pepy the
    > black. 
    
    Yurco achieves the remarkable metamorphosis from adjective to noun
    in a single stroke, with none of the intervening contortions claimed
    earlier to be necessary to achieve this.  Am I missing something?
    
    *****
    Possibly Yurco is missing something.  This use of km after
    a proper name is found among many Egyptian gods including
    Osiris, Isis et al., who are often depicted as black.  With
    female gods, the form kmt is used showing that the word might
    also be used as an feminine adjective.  Also, even before
    Lefkowitz or Don Bernard, there was Yurco battling against
    the Afrocentrists.  
    *****
    
    Today has been a busy day for me as I catch up with long-neglected
    duties, so I have to be brief here.  But I cannot help but remark that
    What Mr. Yurco offers as argument has the feel about it of successive
    non-sequiturs strung together to *suggest* a desired conclusion,
    rather than the solid feel of demonstration.  I may return to
    *demonstrate* this conclusion of mine, but for now I'll simply say
    that I'm not impressed, however much of an expert he is touted to
    be.  My bullshit detector went on high alert as I read his piece,
    forgive me.
    
    
    *****
    It seems the crux of the argument is based on the use of
    "km.tyw," which the literally translated means "those from
    Km.t".   The suffix -yw (or, -iu), conveys a meaning of "those 
    from"and is found in words like Keft-iu = "those from Keft 
    (Crete)" and Mesn-iu = "those from msn (the blacksmith)," 
    meaning those who have taken up the blacksmith trade. 
    
    However, km.t alone when used with the determinative of
    a seated man and woman, and with the plural marking
    of three vertical strokes, is equivalent to km.tyw. 
    Or rather, it is a inclusive term, while km.tyw
    is exclusive. The only instance, I am aware of were km.t 
    takes the determinative for "country" is when it occurs 
    in with rmt, in rmt km.t = "people of the black country."  
    Here, km.t is followed by a two-dimensional encircled
    |x|.  Rmt, in this case, takes the determinative of
    a graph of a man and a woman.  
    
    Thus, km.tyw = "those from Km.t" can mean either "those
    from the black people (i.e., Egyptians) or "those
    from the black country."   While km.t, when used in rmt
    km.t *could* refer to the soil, when used alone with
    the "people" determinative it can be translated only 
    as "black people."
    
    
    Paul Kekai Manansala
    
    ----------------
    
    
    To: athena-discuss@info.harpercollins.com
    From: diriyeam@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Diriye Abdullahi Mohame)
    Subject: Re: kemet
    Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 18:15:41 -0400 (EDT)
    > 
    >  
    > Here, Yurco goes on to conclude that km, the adjective "black", cannot
    > be transformed into the noun necessary in the attempted translation
    > of kmt as being "land of the blacks".  But later...
    >
    
    Among the so-called Egyptologists there are two regretful 
    mistakes: a) studying Ancient Egypt in isolation from
    from the cultures, histories and languages of the rest of
    Africa; b)incestuous borrowing and quoting of each other with
    no substance added.
    
    The above built-in faults lead sometimes to ludicrous
    and inexcusable mistakes; let me give an example on the
    that culturally very African object known as the head-rest.
    
    This is Egyptologist wrote recently and I qoute and
    translate from French:  "It is difficult to determine ... the
    use the headrest in real life.  However, its use in the funeral
    context is well know." (Franco, Isabelle, Rites et croyances de
    l'eternite, 1993. p.197).
    
    God and to think that I had several of them in real life as
    had the living thousands of Africans from Zaire to Somalia.  Basically,
    this cultural object is used when one develops an elaborate coiffure
    or hair-style (a kind of Afro only more elaborate in some cases).
    The headrest keeps the bundle of coiffure from crumpling at rest
    and is placed below the neck just slightly towards the head. The
    owner when not at rest carries it by slipping his hand into the
    hollow of the stem.  It is evident the above writer studied
    the object only in the isolation of books and musuems. She
    even boasts of having participated in diggings in Egypt.
    (The art and the use of the headrest has disappeared in Egypt.)
    
    Now to come to the original subject of kmt; as I have explained
    this is composed of two words ka + mt or Ka + mataw (one, ones 
    + black).  How do I know this?  This is consistent with all
    those languages nearest to Ancient Egyptian in syntax and in
    semantics, namely the so-called Cushitic languages. It is also
    consistent with the morphology of most African languages. Allright,
    Egyptian has been placed in a place of its own, a lone language
    in the so-called Afro-asiatic languages.  In that case,
    continue in your beliefs.
     
    Daniels, who said he does not trust me to consult me
    on my own native tongue - I wonder if he trusts any of
    my kind!- would argue that I am wrong and quote me the
    works of x and y. 
    
    To conclude, a study of Ancient Egypt is only meaningful
    when studied in the African context. My own people live far away
    from Egypt and they still pay homage to Ay Situ (mother
    Situ - Isis to the West) and to Aw Zaar (father Zaar -
    Osiris to the West).  Typically, every pregnant woman
    must pay homage to Ay Situ by offerings so that She
    might facilite her term.  The culture and the rites
    of Zaar are well known across Africa, so I need not
    go into there. 
    
    We have also 
    Ancient Egyptian         Somali
    ------------------------------
    Ba   essence of life     Essence of life, energy
    Ka   essence of life     Essence of life, radiation
    Bes  God-cat             Bisad - cat
    Aya  Moon-deity          Daya - Moon (the worship aspect has been
                         forgotten)        
    Rah                      Qor-Rah (The neck of the Sun, the Sun)
    Arshin                   Barshin   (head-rest)
    Wad                      Wadad (priest) (Lest I forgot, our
                         Wadads are the keepers of science and
                         knowedge, parted only to those who
                         their apprenticeship - this is a common
                         feature across Africa)  
                         
    I think that would suffice.  And other similarities with
    other living African cultures had already pointed out by
    Diop or Obenga (A charlattan to Daniels).  Now add me
    in your book of charlattans, Mr. Daniels, but please come
    up with an explanation for the cultural and linguistic
    affinities between Ancient Egyptians and other Africans;
    why is there the same corresponding divisions of society -
    into warriors, blacksmiths, hunters, priests, with the
    blacksmiths occupying a low caste position; why the
    funeral and other rites that ressemble each other such as
    the sprinkling of water on graves and on mourners;
    the spraying of libation or blood of sacrifice (a goat
    or a chicken's) on new houses - the latter as I found
    goes on today in Egypt, female circumcision; the ram
    as a symbol of divinity; on this B. Davidson wrote:
    "In many parts of West Africa people ... held the ram to be
    a symbol of divinity, just as the Egyptians did. And until
    modern times men and women of the Congo, thousands of miles
    from the Nile, rested their heads on wooden pillows of a
    style and shape remarkably like those of Egypt." (African
    Kingdoms, p.36).
    
    
    Diriye 
    
    >From the land of AySitu and AwZaar, Ba and Ka
    
    ----------------
    
    

Report any problems to Paul Kekai Manansala at

Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com