Ini-Herit 2019
“Two working hypotheses have dominated the Egyptological literature. Hypothesis 1 argues that km.t means ‘the black land,’ 43 to the color of the alluvial deposits left after the flood waters of the Nile River has receded. This hypothesis has been with us since the beginning of the discipline of Egyptology. Hypothesis 2 argues that km.t means ‘black people’ and refers to the skin color of the ancient Egyptians. This hypothesis originates with the late Cheikh Anta Diop who argued this point at the famous Cairo Symposium held in 1974 in Cairo Egypt. Both hypotheses assume that the word km.t derives from a root km (adj.) ‘black’.” The Shemsu Hrw Research Team 2019:1.
The Discussion
Almost two years ago March 2017 (The Seshew Maa Ny Medew Netcher), during a Divine Words Wednesday YouTube show re-introduced the discussion to its viewers. The topic addressed specifically the meaning of Km.t while introducing to the community their conclusion on this topic. The show spoke to the great ancestor Diop hypothesis people to the word Toponym (place name) and to no avail it was clear so we assumed after that show that this conversation wouldn’t warrant further discussion.
“During the 11th Dynasty, the Remetch (ancient Egyptians) started to refer to their place of residence, their home, their kingdom, by the name /km.t/ Kemet. Kemet, therefore, is a place name – a Toponym. Toponyms refer to or describe places and never people. Even Eponymic Toponyms which are place names named after a person or people, still refer to places and never people (ex: Philippines named after Philip II of Spain). Anyone attempting to argue that the name for the ancient kingdom of the Nile Valley we know as “Kemet” means “black people” is either ignorant of toponymy or purposely misinforming the public. Kemet is so named for its topographical and ecological situation within the Nile Valley that being a Riparian Zone inhabited by one of the world’s most advance civilizations of African people. Let it be known.” Iry-Maat 2018
Fast forward to late 2018 Asar Imhotep who previously has researched this topic specifically over the past 20 years has asked two specific question that has yet to be answered. “1). Has the arguer avoided the obligation to provide the independent support for a claim by restarting it in similar terms? 2). Has an arguer avoided the obligation to provide independent support by assuming somewhere in the premise the very thing that has to be shown?” Imhotep 2018 (que jeopardy music). In 2002 Imhotep argued that Km.t meant blacksmiths and even was in agreement with Diop that Km.t derived from a root word km. It was later in research and work that he withdrew from that conclusion and started to advance his work. He has publicly stated his prior positions in his discovery to solve the true meaning of Km.t.
However, during a YouTube discussion with a brother on YouTube who argued Asar is wrong Diop is right failed to answer the questions asked by Imhotep. He specifically began referring to an abundance of cognates and linguistic terms that had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. What turned into a teaching moment for Imhotep turned into a “Asar Imhotep” this, that, and the third for the opposition. We learned more about Asar than we did regarding the topic of discussion from the opposition who deemed himself an authority on the subject with absolutely no credible work available. He taught those of us who have been following the discussion what not to do and how important it is to stay on topic rather than committing straw man arguments and appealing to authority.
To take this discussion further Brother Reggie Mabry felt the need to defend the previous gentleman by throwing his hat in the ring and providing his own argument regarding to the topic. People tuned in to hear Mr. Mabry as expected he spent 30 minutes of his presentation naming Ancestors and accomplishments he’s made over the years. Once his introduction was over and he presented his original argument he like many others left us with more questions regarding why he was unable to stay on topic and address the questions originally asked by Imhotep at the beginning of his original discussion with the previous gentleman. Reggie appealed to authority and didn’t demonstrate the scientific method at all which means he started with a hypothesis and ended with the same hypothesis being his conclusion. “Diop” said it!
The return of “Toponym” would take center stage during brother Reggie’s questions and answer period it was in this moment that we learned that Reggie was unaware of what a Toponym was. This ended the discussion as Wudjau saw fit to use Reggie’s ignorance as a teaching opportunity to educate the viewers. Reggie took offense would later bow out the conversation and a few days later start a “Asar Imhotep is Wrong” campaign. After doing multiple shows on different platforms Reggie would take his argument one step further by calling on Ascac to address Asar Imhotep and the Shemsu Heru Research Team. Between time before the conference Mr. Mabry and his linguistic layman changed their arguments several times over trying to address their own topic. This adds to the confusion even more during a time the Shemsu relentlessly attempted to educate those interested in the conversation. Every new livestream that appeared neither of them addressed the questions asked by Asar Imhotep so they needed more help this time center stage at the 2019 Ascac conference enters the under study of the great Theophile Obenga Dr. Mario Beatty.
Ascac 2019 featured three presentations on the topic of Km.t, and the first of three presenters was none other than brother Reggie. He as expected changed his argument once more this time arguing from a text of King Khety’s instructions to his heir (pyramid text). He argued that the rmT (Egyptians) referred to themselves as the sacred black cattle. Reggie argues that his source destroys the argument of km.t meaning riparian land. He also took the opportunity to mention Asars linguistic comparative method which Reggie has not studied or is even familiar with. Again we do not get the original questions answered from Reggie just a new argue in front of a fresh audience. Following Reggie was Asar his presentation was simply about methodology and the missed opportunities used by Reggie and others, however Asar overly prepared and handicapped by time constraints came equipped with some published work from the Shemsu Heru Research Team.
A Contribution to the Debate on the Meaning of the Place-Name Km.t https://www.amazon.com/dp/1094749923/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_87W3Cb84PRF9K
Dr. Mario Beatty decided to start his presentation with his conclusion and use the rest of his time to address Asar and categorize him and the Shemsu as Eurocentric Africans pushing racist narratives. His conclusion flopped appealing to Obenga as the authority on the historical comparative method saying his ‘Obenga’ method is the correct and only way. After his long sequence of words and finger pointing at Asar while possessing his preacher like bravado he never addressed the initial questions either.
So, here is where the confusion lies……… We have two working hypothesis one from our dear elder Cheikh Anta Diop that was presented at the 1974 Cairo Symposium. The other asserted by James P Allen in his translation to what some argue ‘simply based on paronymy.’ But something more important in Diops argument we need to consider: In his heated conversation with other members at the Symposium Diop deferred to someone else on the topic. Yes, Diop referred to someone else during the exchange but why hasn’t anyone on the side of Diop mentioned this? We know of this account due to Mr. Obenga telling people what took place during the exchange. Did Dr. Beatty omit this intentionally or was he unaware of his teacher telling his perspective at the conference? Here lies a missing link in the entire discussion and why wasn’t this exchanged more publicized by African scholars?
The community is confused because all of the evidence has not been spread out on the table analyzed and critiqued. We have multiple working hypotheses but absolutely nothing beyond that. The argument is not rather the people in ancient Km.t was black the argument is and has always been about the place name Km.t and it’s meaning. Which takes us back to Asars questions that still haven’t been answered. A hypothesis can not and I repeat can not be your conclusion at all it’s no way around it.
“In the Diops article ‘Origins of the Ancient Egyptians,’ he states the following: The Egyptians had only one term to designate themselves km.t = the negros (literally). In the Egyptian language, a word of assembly is formed from an adjective or a noun by putting it in the feminine singular. ‘Kit’ from the adjective km = black; it therefore means strictly negroes or at the very least black men. The term is a collective noun which thus described the whole people of Pharaonic Egypt as a black people. (Ivan Van Sertima, 1986: 46-48).” Shemsu Heru 2019. Not to dismiss hypothesis 1 by P Allen, but Diops words traveled furthest among scholars as a entire community backed his words based on his legacy. Diops conclusion is a guess it’s not scrutinized like the majority of his other works.
Scientifically speaking we must slow the conversation down, learn more about the topic so that we can add to the discussion instead of witnessing social media meltdowns, and allowing the confusion to continue to prolong our growth as a community. Km.t is a toponym a place name and it refers to a location not a people. We travel to place names we do not travel to a people. The table of nations in the tomb of Seti I provides adequate evidence on how the rmT saw themselves. In closing I like to leave you with some wise words from our dear elder Cheikh Anta Diop: “It bothers me when someone takes me on my word without developing a means of verifying what I say … We must form a scientific spirit capable of seeing even the weaknesses of our own proofs, of seeing the unfinished side of our work and committing ourselves to completing it. You understand? Therefore we should then have a work which could honestly stand criticism, because what we’ve done would have been placed on a scientific plane.”
Sources
A Contribution To The Debate on The Meaning of the Place-Name Km.t 2019 Shemsu Heru Research Team.
Mabry P.T. reference/2019 Ascac
Iry-Maat 2018
The General History of Africa vol. 6 African ethnonyms and toponyms 1978
