YES!!!! Nubia-Kemet (aka Egypt) Is Where We ("Niger-Congo"-Bantus) Came From..Own It

[Asante]

Kemet didn't exist until about 5,000 BCE​

This like everything else relevant to this discussion has gone over your head. The argument that Dr. Schoch critics saw as their crux for denying the early age of the Sphinx, and subsequent existence of an advanced state prior to the "Neolithic" was their ASSUMPTION that pre-Neolithic populations were not "advanced".

The major fact disputing Dr. Schoch's conclusion, Dr. Lehner said, is the absence of any evidence that a civilization advanced enough to carve the Great Sphinx existed in Egypt from 7000 to 5000 B.C. "If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization?" he said. "Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn't build cities."

-your source​

Gobekli Tepe dating back to 9,000 BC DEBUNKS the crux of their argument that early populations had the knowledge to build advanced monuments. His argument is debunked, because we have proof that populations prior to the 4th millennium BC created advanced monuments.
​

so there's at least a 7,000 year gap between the migrations and the settlement of the area that was to become Kemet. Calling me names doesn't prove your assertion. Next.....​

​

No No No....The date of Kemet's existence is pushed back into at least 12,000 BC when the Sphinx was created. These populations that left the river Nile, went into Turkey via the Levant, where they also built Gobekli Tepe;
​

“..one can identify Negroid traits of nose and prognathism appearing in Natufian latest hunters (McCown, 1939) and in Anatolian and Macedonian first farmers, probably from Nubia via the unknown predecesors of the Badarians and Tasians....". (Angel 1972. Biological Relations of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean Populations.. JrnHumEvo 1:1, p307
​

Not to mention that Affad 23, which goes back to a dating range of 15,000-75,000 years ago in Sudan (Nubia) is more proof of the early settlement of Nubia.

"
Affad 23 is an African archaeological site located in alluvial deposits formed by an ancient channel of the Nile in the Affad District of Southern Dongola in northern Sudan.

In 2013,[1] archaeologists from the 'Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences' in Poznań, unearthed the remains of a settlement with numerous postholes, pits and hearths estimated to be 15,000 years old. Previously it was believed that permanent structures were associated with the exodus from Africa and the consequent occupation of regions in Europe and Asia. The position of the site, lithic artefacts collected in 2003[2] and 2012-2014,[3] freshness, refittings and dispersion of the artefacts all suggest that it was a late Middle Stone Age workshop used intermittently and for short periods."​

Neither Nubia or Kemet existed so they couldn't have come from there. That's like someone in 1300's France telling a neighbor they came from New York City​

August Matthusen's Rebuttal​

​

 

[Cobalt Sire]

All the red morons in here saying the Egyptians weren't black. Strong credibility lol. The e-m2 haplogroup is the smoking gun. The debate is over white people. You have morons in here saying Africans were Asian lol. Then you have other morons saying Black Americans are from West Africa like our history starts 500 years ago lol. Finally, you have a moron arguing that ancient egyptians didn't have the e m2 haplogrouop, but only only 2 Egyptian Royals were conclusively tested for Haplogroups, and they were e-m2. Of course you have "What the hell happened then?" arguement in reference to why Egypt fell and Africa lost it's place for top tier societies. That's a fairly complex question, but as has been pointed out, Egypt fell, and many (not all) of it's practices and culture were lost for a long time. Africa was actually fine for a long time and on par with Europe and Asia, until the practice of selling each other into slavery came to be.

 

[Cobalt Sire]

This is a great way to show that you don't know the fukk you're talking about. As per usual.
Your link about sickle cell among the Maya was suggestive, not proof. The rest of your dumb shyt about Mesoamerican civilisations being founded by Egyptians isn't worth debunking anymore.

Yet again, it's clear you don't know anything about sickle cell. One scientific paper doesn't negate the years of amassed evidence... Indian Tribal groups (unrelated to Africans) also have a high prevalence of Sickle Cell.
Btw I've read the paper and once again you don't know that you fukked up yet again.
The Green Sahara is before the time frame of Ancient Egypt. Not to mention the Green Sahara encompasses a massive area, so it could literally be anywhere within the Sahara. Yet you say that Africans spread it sickle cell during Ancient Egyptian times. Doesn't seem to be the case. But there's more.

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(18)30048-X


The dumb hotep keeps going on about the Niger-Congo people left Ancient Egypt and populated the rest of Africa and uses sickle cell haplotypes for proof yet he posts a study that contradicts his assertions.
Nearly all the bolded parts of the 'Discussion' of the study debunks his bullshyt.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

The last bolded part of the 'discussion' I already posted a study about Indian Tribals having sickle cell.

Get a job.

You said that Ancient Egyptians had a different version of E-m2 than West Africans and/or Bantu people. Where's your proof of that?

 

[Asante]

You're a proven clown. You're dismissed for life, and the proof is below.

Many scientists have done extensive studies and tests on this. If your hypothesis is true, it would fundamentally change how we view blood disorders around the world. Why don't you show hypothesis to science and get it peer reviewed?

You don't know what the fukk you're talking about.

"Hemoglobin C, S-C, and E diseases are inherited conditions characterized by gene mutations that affect the hemoglobin (the protein that carries oxygen) in red blood cells, causing the cells to shape themselves abnormally and clump together. These red blood cells are destroyed more quickly than others, resulting in chronic anemia."

Hemoglobin C, S-C, and E Diseases - Blood Disorders - MSD Manual Consumer Version.​

But look at what your dumb ass stated;

M-hoe-fool stated - "2. Sickle cell gene mutations arose spontaneously in different geographic areas, as suggested by restriction endonuclease analysis. In other words, populations in the Gulf Penninsular and Indian Sub-Continent that have sickle cell didn't get from Africans."

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/38422218/​

 

[Asante]

You said that Ancient Egyptians had a different version of E-m2 than West Africans and/or Bantu people. Where's your proof of that?

Bra that mf is a bat shyt crazy Cac agent. His entire MO throughout this entire thread is defending the status quo.

 

[ReturnOfJudah]

One minute you guys want to be Israelites next minute Ancient Egyptians. Make your fukking mind up. You can't be both.

We Israelites

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

This like everything else relevant to this discussion has gone over your head. The argument that Dr. Schoch critics saw as their crux for denying the early age of the Sphinx, and subsequent existence of an advanced state prior to the "Neolithic" was their ASSUMPTION that pre-Neolithic populations were not "advanced".​

Wrong. The reason the early date is rejected is because there is no evidence of a pre-Neolithic population that built cities or monuments in the area. Just hunter-gatherers that left evidence behind......unlike the population you imagine existed there that left none.

A lone hunter/gatherer settlement (not city) doesn't prove monument-builders in Egypt.

Also, you keep getting the argument wrong. The Sphinx wasn't created 12,000 years ago and Gobekli Tepe doesn't 'debunk' anything but a strawman.

Joe Rogan episodes don't prove anything so posting them is a waste of time.​

 

[Asante]

Wrong. The reason the early date is rejected is because there is no evidence of a pre-Neolithic population that built cities or monuments in the area.​

​

Yet they have no answer to Gobekli Tepe, which was built by so called "primitive" populations of the 10 millennium BC.

A lone hunter/gatherer settlement (not city) doesn't prove monument-builders in Egypt.

​

The oldest permanent structure was found in Nubia (Affad 23) not Kemet, and the Nubian permanent structure predates Mesopotamia by almost 10,000 years;

Affad 23 is an African archaeological site located in alluvial deposits formed by an ancient channel of the Nile in the Affad District of Southern Dongola in northern Sudan.

In 2013,[1] archaeologists from the 'Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences' in Poznań, unearthed the remains of a settlement with numerous postholes, pits and hearths estimated to be 15,000 years old. Previously it was believed that permanent structures were associated with the exodus from Africa and the consequent occupation of regions in Europe and Asia. The position of the site, lithic artefacts collected in 2003[2] and 2012-2014,[3] freshness, refittings and dispersion of the artefacts all suggest that it was a late Middle Stone Age workshop used intermittently and for short periods."
​

Therefore your ultimate goal of proving that Mesopotamia came before African Hapi Valley civilization has been debunked (on numerous occasions may I add).

The Sphinx wasn't created 12,000 years ago and Gobekli Tepe doesn't 'debunk' anything but a strawman.

The Sphinx is over 10,000 years old. It's been proven conclusively, but like the black Kemet theory the West is reluctant to recognize this.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Why Sequence is Important « Ancient Egypt Research Associates​

When was the Sphinx built? The archaeological evidence points with a high degree of probability to the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, rather than to much earlier dates proposed in recent popular theories. Archaeological sequencing at the Sphinx supports the Khafre date. Sequencing in archaeology looks at when one event happened in relation to another.

Egyptian architects created funerary monuments in somewhat standard sets. During the period of pyramid building, the set generally consisted of a pyramid, pyramid temple, causeway, and valley temple. Some pyramid complexes included queens’ pyramids.

Khafre’s building program differed from standard Old Kingdom pyramid complexes in that it included his pyramid, the Sphinx, Sphinx Temple, causeway, and Valley Temple, but did not include pyramids for the pharaoh’s queens.

Two temples occupy a low terrace in front of the Sphinx: Khafre’s Valley Temple at the end of his pyramid causeway and the Sphinx Temple.

Khafre built enclosure walls north and south of his Valley Temple. Parts of the south wall still exist, but the ancient builders removed most of the north wall.

You can still see the foundation track for the northern enclosure wall stones in front of the southeast corner of the Sphinx Temple. Part of the wall was incorporated into the southern wall of the Sphinx Temple.

The western end of the southern Valley Temple enclosure wall turns a corner and attaches to the southern side of the Temple. The last block still fits over and “respects” the small granite block of a low bench, which ran along the south, east, and north sides of the Valley Temple.

In archaeology we say that one element respects another when the evidence reveals that builders worked around an earlier structure when building a later structure.

For example, if you had a fence that stopped at the wall of your house, we’d say that the fence respects the house wall.

If we found that the foundation cut across the line of holes dug for the fence posts, we would say the house foundation post-dates the fence line. We can then sequence the fence and the house foundation in the order of time that they were built. In the latter example the fence line was built first.

Since Khafre’s Valley Temple enclosure wall respects the granite casing on Khafre’s Temple, the wall was built after the casing was in place. This is important when we then try to sequence the adjacent Sphinx Temple.

When Khafre’s architects built the Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple, they removed the northern Valley Temple enclosure wall leaving a portion of it in place, incorporating that leftover part into the new Sphinx Temple southern wall.

So we can say:

1. The Valley Temple enclosure wall respects the Valley Temple casing stones.
2. The Valley Temple therefore predates its now-missing northern enclosure wall.
3. Part of the Valley Temple enclosure wall was later incorporated into the Sphinx Temple southern wall.
4. The Sphinx Temple was therefore built later than the Valley Temple.

This becomes even more important when you look at clear evidence indicating that the stones for the Sphinx Temple came from the lowest layers of the Sphinx quarry. We can sequence three of Khafre’s monuments in the following way:

• The Sphinx is carved from the same quarry as the core blocks in the two lower Khafre temples.
• The Sphinx Temple was built using blocks from the Member II layer of the Sphinx quarry.
• The core blocks of the Sphinx Temple are matched geologically and archaeologically to the lower layers of Member II of the Sphinx quarry, indicating that the Sphinx lower body and Sphinx Temple were part of the same quarry-construction sequence.

There is no current evidence (that stands up to the scrutiny of science) pointing to any other date for the Khafre monuments. The best statement science can make is that with a high degree of probability the Sphinx and the Sphinx Temple were constructed late in the sequence of the Khafre building program during the reign of that king.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yet they have no answer to Gobekli Tepe,​

​

Gobekli Tepe isn't a question.​

​

​

The oldest permanent structure was found in Nubia (Affad 23) not Kemet, and the Nubian permanent structure predates Mesopotamia by almost 10,000 years

In 2013,[1] archaeologists from the 'Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Polish Academy of Sciences' in Poznań, unearthed the remains of a settlement with​

Bolded to emphasize why that doesn't prove your argument or Schoch's in-regards to the Sphinx, located in Egypt, or Mesopotamian cities. That settlement is only 6,000 years older and supported about 30 people.
​

The Sphinx is over 10,000 years old. It's been proven conclusively

LOL, if that were the case you wouldn't be arguing and that would be taught in standard archaeology courses.

You are because it isn't.

The preponderance of evidence shows it was constructed during or right after the reign of Pharaoh Khafre (2520-2494)......about 4,500 years ago.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Geology of the Sphinx « Ancient Egypt Research Associates​

The Sphinx is carved from the natural limestone of the Giza Plateau known as the Mokkatam Formation. An Eocene-period sea retreated 50 million years ago, leaving an embankment that became the north-northwest part of the Giza Plateau.

As the sea receded, a shallow lagoon formed above a shoal and coral reef in what is now the south-southeast part of the Plateau. Over millions of years, carbonate mud petrified to become the layers from which the pyramid builders quarried limestone blocks and from which they carved the Sphinx.

The Sphinx is cut from the lowest layers of the Mokkatam Formation, those layers lying directly on the harder petrified reef. We label the Sphinx geological layers Member I, Member II, and Member III after the work of geologist K. Lal Gauri (K.L. Gauri, Geoarchaeology, 1995).

The lowest stratum of the statue is the hard, brittle rock of the ancient reef, Member I. This layer rises to a height of 12 feet at the Sphinx’s rump and only two to three feet at the paws.

Most of the Sphinx body is cut into Member II, seven layers that alternate softer and harder as they rise in elevation.

Member III, from which the neck and head are carved, is softer at the neck and harder at the head. This is good building stone, which is why most of it was quarried away. Member III’s durability explains the remarkable preservation of the Sphinx’s face while the statue’s body has been ravaged by weathering.

One popular theory about an older age for the Sphinx states that an Old Kingdom tomb cut from the “exact same layers as the Sphinx” shows a pattern of weathering that is different than that of the Sphinx quarry walls. The theory posits that the Sphinx and the exterior of the tomb of Debehen (contemporary with Menkaure, 2490-2472 BC) should have weathered exactly the same unless the Sphinx was older and was weathered by water during a wetter period.

In fact, the tomb of Debehen is some 418 meters (1371 feet) west-southwest of the Sphinx and approximately 27 meters (88.5 feet) higher in elevation; it’s not in the same series of layers. The difference in weathering is due to different physical properties of the rock and to different conditions of the environment, not the age of the monuments.

Until recent years, the Sphinx was still disintegrating. In the 1980s, two sizeable stones fell from the statue: masonry veneer from the left hind paw in 1981 and a large piece of bedrock from the right shoulder in 1988.

On any windy day, you can watch large flakes of limestone blow off the walls of the Sphinx quarry. The Supreme Council of Antiquities’ decade-long restoration in the 1990s was only the latest of the repairs to the Sphinx that began at least in the New Kingdom (1550-1070 BC).

If the Sphinx erodes so rapidly, there’s no requirement to set an age older than 4,500 years to explain its present state of deterioration. Aside from the geology, we can present other evidence that ties the Sphinx to Pharaoh Khafre’s building program at Giza.

 

[Asante]

Why Sequence is Important « Ancient Egypt Research Associates
The archaeological evidence points with a high degree of probability to the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, rather than to much earlier dates proposed in recent popular theories.​

30 years ago expert forensic scientist Frank Domingo of the NYPD conducted an analysis, and found that the Sphinx's facial features are not consistent with the facial features of pharaoh Khafre. He found that the Sphinx's facial structure was instead more consistent with "more prognathous" Africans, and completely inconsistent with any depiction of Khafre.

​

There have been no rebuttals to this analysis.

It's amazing watching this dumbass use logical fallacies "appeal to authority" to maintain the status quo of Sumeria being older than Nile Valley civilization.

 

[Asante]

Gobekli Tepe isn't a question.​

​

Your own source said that Gobekli Tepe was impossible, because of it's early dating. Your source's (below) claims that this construction was too "advanced" for populations of that time. For that assumption of your source, they attempted to place limitations on the Sphinx's true age.​

The major fact disputing Dr. Schoch's conclusion, Dr. Lehner said, is the absence of any evidence that a civilization advanced enough to carve the Great Sphinx existed in Egypt from 7000 to 5000 B.C. "If the Sphinx was built by an earlier culture, where is the evidence of that civilization?" he said. "Where are the pottery shards? People during that age were hunters and gatherers. They didn't build cities."

-your source
​

You saying that an even older structure is somehow exempt from your sources criticism essentially nullifies the claims of your sources that attempt to limit the age of the Sphinx based on the assumption that people even post Gobekli Tepe (10th millennium BC)were somehow incapable of building structures.

​

Bolded to emphasize why that doesn't prove your argument or Schoch's in-regards to the Sphinx, located in Egypt, or Mesopotamian cities. That settlement is only 6,000 years older and supported about 30 people.

​

No you're missing the point. The permanent structure in Nubia is completely irrelevant to the argument of the Sphinx's 10,000 year plus age. The structure in Nubia is the World's second oldest structure (the oldest structure is in South Africa), at around 15,000 years old. It predates anything found in what would become Mesopotamia by close to 10,000 years.

​

 

[Asante]

​

"Geologists have been working on the Sphinx for years studying its rapid weathering and have found that the rapid weathering (which predates high atmospheric acid content) is due to formation of salt crystals in the rock pores which causes exfoliation due to hydrostatic pressure (see papers by Punuru et al., 1990; Chowdhury et al., 1990; Guari et al., 1990; and Guari et al., 1995). This exfoliation results in a rounded profile similar to that which Schoch indicates could only be due to "precipitation-induced weathering." "

The question that this does not answer is why aren't any of the other limestone structures that were built during dynastic times as the Sphinx supposedly was also affected by weathering to the degree that the Sphinx is? Why didn't the "salt crystals" severely damage those other structures that were just as exposed to elements?

"Dr. Schoch noted that a nearby tomb, also carved out of limestone, was thought to have been built at the same time as the Sphinx. But, he said, his studies clearly show that the Sphinx is so much more weathered than the tomb that it has to be more than 2,000 years older. So if the tomb is dated at 2500 B.C., the Great Sphinx has to be dated no later than 5000 B.C., he said."
​

Explain Dafunkdoc...Why is the tomb not as affected by the "salt crystals" as the Sphinx?

ALL peer-reviewed.

​

That is an appeal to authority, because you're trying to escape the logic of this argument (that is gaining much traction) by saying "see look the status quo (that also denies that Kemet was comprised of melaninated African origin) agrees with me". That's not disputing the facts of the argument. That is a logical fallacy, but for a low IQ fellow like yourself that weak shyt works for ya. That's what I mean when I say let the big boys handle these discussions. Let's not forget that you didn't know what AMH meant in regards to the Out of Africa movement, but tried to formulate wild theories of extremely earlier human exoduses. From that you were actually trying to argue continuity in the region of Mesopotamia. You will resort to anything to try to prove that Mesopotamia is older than Nubia and Kemet.​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The question that this does not answer is why aren't any of the other limestone structures that were built during dynastic times as the Sphinx supposedly was also affected by weathering to the degree that the Sphinx is? Why didn't the "salt crystals" severely damage those other structures that were just as exposed

They were buried under sand.

​