this what i know, or atleast i don't know of anything that refutes this.

Kemetic history is much older than the unification (sma tawi) under Mn. There were unifications prior to that and kings claiming rulership of what would be considered the two lands. There is alot of political interest in the periodization of Kemet, 3200 B.C. is an arbitrary date, ASCAC (www.ascac.org) uses the date of 4194 in accordance with Spdt and the begininng of hnty year. Astrological records are more dependable than someone claiming some kind of reign in those times, which were short lived. The date of 3200 B.C. is based off of a history by a Kemetic historian named Manetho, constructed for Greek purpose, Which makes it questionable for that and other reasons, especially documents that suggest otherwise.

As far as the unification under Mn, you aleady had a flourishing civilization (a systematic way of life where people are able to develop in ways that surpass survival, i.e. concentration on the arts and leisure etc.)The unification under Mn may have only been symbolic of the establishment of a central government and the checking of some people. We know the Kemites claimed descendancy from the south, anything saying otherwise is garbage, the text speak for themselves. the people of the south or the Nhsi (as the kemites called them, Nbw/Nubians mean gold)were the architects of Kemetic civilizations suggesting suggesting much older civilization, information is limited on this because Mereotic script is barely intelligible at this point due to translation difficulties. And if Diop is correct then the people of Meroe come from a people that migrated from even further south.

As far as a link between Mesopotamia and Kemet, how could there not be a link if we can say it is a given that the Kemites were not a stagnant people traveling for atleast well over a millenium before the 18th dynasty, when they became imperialistic. They traveled North, West, South, and East... i.e the Davidians in southern India.
What exactly is the link between the Hapi (Nile) and the Tigris Euphrates is *shrug*. I think scholarship of the 19th centrury had a motive of saying the latter was older thus influenced Kemet, which simply doesn't hold up. The opposite is more plausible and the people could have been of the same stock and have been wiped out by Asiatic and Euro nomads over time, changing the face of the land the same way Kemet has been changed.

However, I'd be very skeptical of what I will say is of Kemetic origin in Mesopotamia history and Greek history. I think if you look at the Kemetic and Meso creation stories you see fundamental commonalities such as the existence of the universe prior to the creation of the heavens and earths, also the male and female pairings throughout creation, then you start seeing some shit in Meso cosmogony that is totally outside the ethos of Kemetic cosmogony. Outside of the fundamentals I would say Hesiod's Theogony is more similar to Meso than Kemet. Fighting Gods, fundamental alienation, the wickedness of speech is shared in the former two cosmogonies and absent in Kemetic cosmogony.

George G.M. James, and Cheikh Anta Diop in my opinion were correct when they talked about the influence of Kemet on "tri continental" antiquity, however they may have over stepped their claims. Like the Kemites never talked about any laws of opposites, they would have seen things as being complementary, nor did they deduce things down to four basic elements, fire, water, earth, air, the Sp Tpy (creation) is way more complicated and I doubt they would try any reductionism like that.



*****
Some of the most dangerous Blacks in
the world are many of those brothers
and sisters who finished graduate
school "with honors" and yet operate
against the interest of Blacks because
of their Eurocentric orientation.
Dr. Bobby E. Wright
*****