# The turning tide: another view  
After reconstructing the historiographical reflection of European apprehension towards the black African, presented only as a marginal figure in the historical records of the last quarter of the nineteenth century, in the last 20 years we have arrived at the developmental stage. In this stage, the reinterpretation of sites, iconography, and material and ideological conditions influencing the times is being brought to bear to distinguish reality from ideological invention. Thus Dietrich Raue (2008, pp. 2-4) asks a question that is far from rhetorical, under the subheading 'How Nubian can a Naqada culture be to be still called Naqada culture?'. He challenges the need to make arbitrary distinctions between what is Kmtan and what is Nubian at the first cataract at Elephantine. He also insists that the 'full publication of old excavation finds from Shellal and Qubaniya is urgently needed, since the description of the finds of the region as "A Group" or "Naqada" remains unsatisfying'. 'Naqada' and 'A Group' are archaeo-anthropological markers used to define an unknown quantity, to intentionally dissociate black African Nubians from the genesis of the cultures resident in their territory. Thankfully, the work of Dagnell, Gatto, Hendrickx and others has dispelled this long-held delusion.  
The narcissism of some Europeans with regard to ethnic identification should not obscure the fact that they identified key facts about and stages in the development and growth of the Kmtan State: its date of origin and chronology, scientific achievements, scholastic precedents, judicial system, gender equity, and so on. In the continuing development of enlightened consciousness regarding