# Conclusion: epistemological lessons  
The dominant view is that where colours were used in iconography and the representation of the name of Kmt , black did not refer to people as a phenomenon, but to an abstract principle related to the fertility of the black alluvial soil. However, as scientists and technicians, the Kemites would have known, through their contact with other African and Asian societies, that red earth also produced abundant agricultural harvests, so this notion can theoretically be abandoned. If we are to use the dominant mode of theorizing, then we can legitimately ask: since the colour red was specifically assigned to real people, why should it be different for the colour black? The answer perhaps lies in the political hegemony slowly gained by the red and white peoples of the earth after the colonization of Kmt by the Greeks in the fourth century BCE and in the history of colonialism which has marked Kmt's subsequent evolution into a vassal State as Egypt from the seventh century CE.  
Without pursuing this notion to its most logical conclusion, it is comparatively easy to state that the Kmtu would have portrayed the aboriginal peoples of South Africa collectively known as the Khoisan as reddish-brown in colour. If we look, for example, at the picture of Nebamun hunting birds in the marshes (British Museum number 37977), it is obvious that the artist painted what he saw: a man of a reddish-brown complexion accompanied perhaps by his wife and child, painted in dark brown. The important mediating factor, however, is that facially, and thus ethnically, they all appear to be of the same stock. This is like assigning a single colour to Arabs or Muslims today, even though the persons in either group have skin which is, variously, white, black, brown, light brown, red-brown, and so on. These kinds of artificial dichotomies serve no purpose other than to perpetuate the notion that the origin of Kmt's civilization lies in a mythic or, at best, dubious 'race'.