Like i said, i see a bird, not "Kemet" written in latin alphabet.
You're entitled to your opinion, but i think its mindless drivel.
Forgive me for being quite blunt, LRW, but I've been reading a number of your posts lately, and the more you post, the more scattered you seem. The above is a very good example. Please share with us the training you've undergone to transliterate and translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and to comprehend the ancient language.
Well, allow me to answer that: you have no training, and therefore your understanding of this topic is demonstrably weak.
The monument you found happens to be one of the best ones I've seen in some time for the spelling of one of the ancient names of Egypt. You see a bird, indeed, but do you know how it functions? I thought not. It is a monoliteral representing the "m" sound, in this instance. The hillock in front of it represents a "k" sound. The small bread loaf behind the owl represents a "t" sound. So, put them together in the proper order: k + m + t = kmt, an ancient name for the country of Egypt. The circle glyph behind the owl is a semantic determinative representing a physical place, land, or location, which reinforces the meaning behind kmt.
That is how one properly interprets this particular grouping of glyphs. I honestly don't understand what you're hoping to achieve with your fit over calling the pharaonic Egyptians "ancient Egyptians." Why do you think this term is used, considering "Egypt" is in fact not one of the names for the ancient country? How many laypeople are going to understand terms like Kemet, or Tawy, or Ta-mery, or rekhyt, or other terms the ancients themselves used to describe their nation and themselves? There's a reason a certain lexicon is employed. No reason, really, to throw a fit over it.
I come across as terse because I've grown weary of your presumptions that your opinions can match the level of knowledge represented by legitimate scientific and historical research. Your opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor does mine. What matters are the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research. You go on and on with opinions and try to paint some ludicrous conspiracy theory lurking behind the world of academia, which really only shows you have very little understanding of how the world of academia functions.
I can see why you post the way you do. You clearly don't understand the methodology of research, so you toss aspersions at the academic community and hope they'll stick. They do no stick. They fall flat and reflect very poorly on you.