Studies &Comments Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships

[zarahan]

QUICK EXCERPT: BLAST FROM THE PAST: KEITA 1993- still very much relevant today-
Rough text..




www.academia.edu/34184073/STUDIES_AND_COMMENTS_ON_ANCIENT_EGYPTIAN_BIOLOGICAL_RELATIONSHIPS

Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships
S. O. Y. Keita 1993. History in Africa, Vol. 20 (1993), pp. 129-154
---------------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------- -------------

This review looks at various studies in order to evaluate these terms, as well as ascertain, as far as possible the biological affinities. No new data are presented; however, a new look at old data and/or conclusions is undertaken. The variation in opinion is of great interest since it allows a check of public perceptions (including those of general scholars) against the data versus the conclusions of the studies. The focus here is on formal anthropological studies. Minor attention is given to iconographic analysis or comments since these generally fall outside the data employed by physical anthropology. These cannot be ignored since some place great importance on iconography and interpret any difference in portraiture as a "racial" diffe This of course allows a subjectivity which may clash with modern biological and archeological data, and likely probabilities.

There is little interest in this review in "social race," since this varies from place to place. "Black "White" are differently defined in America than Panama or Brazil. interest is in "real" affinities. Baldly asked, were the Egyptians in the emigres to the Nile valley from outside of Africa in "Egypt's" earlier period, or were they merely another African population, differentiated f common African ancestral group? Were the Egyptians natives of Africa with greater affinties to Nubians and othe between northern and southern EEgyptians share biologcal traits wt tropical adaptations, obtained via share In ths paper a representative sam whch examne the racial or biologca the northern Nle valley specifically the studies employed cranai, long belie race or population biologcal affint for current purposes into three group mtric/mrphomtric; and nonmetri these include limb ratio studies, A studies. Of greatest interest are the ov Nle valley groups. Earlier studies interested in ascertai examned the data froma racial per spective assums that humn variatio populations that are conceived as type type. Skeletal or other populations to a particular race or subrace or admxture between two or mre of depended and depends on arbitrari complexes or types whch had by de mdern population biology has demns cally defined breeding populations, or rule for humn groups. Definng a leads to procedures such as pickng ou notype and seeing themas mmbers the sam characteristics. Ths would brunettes ws somhowmre related mdiate famly mmbers.

The flaw in typologcal thinkng a are not collections of mnotypic subs viduals conformng to an invariant t Wlson 1954. Hence, namng such p implyng that they have no genetic o Evolution and population gene exchan another and polytopicity is possible as vergence, or chance. Polytopicity refer the external phenotype of wdely geo larity is not due to recent commn a Phenotype is a complex issue. The m sumof that individual's genetic const ronmnt. That environmnt includes mnt, as well as disease and se and local c interested in population relationships focus on traits which are believed t little affected by their environments during development. Approaches using ideal typological conceptual frameworks may also misleading in that many terms used to describe particular "types" or race imply that those types have a particular origin, the "home" of the type. In t approach similarity (great or small), in morphology to a particular predefin type necessarily implies recent similar origin, even if historical or archeolo cal data do not provide supporting evidence. Neo-Darwinian theory require the constant consideration of adaptive and other selection pressures and g netic drift to explain variation. Thus, populations which differ significan may be related by close common ancestry, although not identical in exter phenotype. This is not to say that gene flow or population replacement ne occurs, but that variation in a given situation must be explained based on the data and likely probabilities. The racial-typological approaches tend to deductive and reductionist and only conceive populations or individual terms of predefined types.

Philosophically, in these approaches species are conceived as collections of "types." Hence, in this approach all variatio due to admixture. The predefined "types" known to most laymen are arbitra and to a degree are historical artifacts based on the first "populatio encountered by early European anatomists, and philosophical idealism. The concept of "biological affinity" as used here differs from a concept "racial" identity in that it presumes only the reality of the local breeding population, or its oft-assumed operational equivalent-the archeologic skeletal series. The local population is the unit of analysis (Hiernaux 19 Working from this perspective means evaluating "populations" with statisti techniques and seeing what kinds of patterns emerge. This inductive approa is preferable (Greene 1981). Similarity or dissimilarity between population interpreted as indicative of degrees of biological affinity. Hence there are preconceptions. This avoids already decided "racial" taxonomic sche (some still persisting) passed on from earlier periods and even the pregene era. Thus, ideal typological thinking is minimized. This inductive approach does not guarantee that "true" genetic relationships will always be ascertai since all similarity does not mean close genetic relationship, in the sense o recent common ancestry.

While variable selection and technique will aid in obtaining more accuracy, other kinds of data must be used in order to ob the most probable scheme of relationships. Overall, phenetic similarity m be informed by other data. The possibility exists that bony morphological metric characteristics will be found which can be used to determine populat lineages or descent groups accurately and repeatedly. However, until these a determined geography, archeology, history and likely probabilities must employed, to provide a context for assessing the meaning of biologi similarity in a given case. In general there is also a need to recognize the range of natural variabili This can be determined by the fossil and subfossil record. The time-depth variation is important in establishing biogeographical units. Saharo-tropic variant (or Africoid), as used here, refers to African populations which ha

132 S O Y KEITA the range of currently observable c the early holocene or earlier in Saha validation by indicating if there w unts of analysis must be appropriat has often pre-empted biological or sense. For example, som (e.g, Selig Caucasian ws to denote a very re and ws the ony real African thus type to be admxed wth other race the real European as an abstracted N admxed Negro has not alwys be as a denotation of people in geogr Peschel 1888. In these schems im Negroes. II Morphological and Morphotypological Studies Classical morphological approaches, derived from paleontology, employ observations about the shape of multiple anatomical complexes or features in the craniofacial unit. These complexes or traits were observed primarily in extreme variants of various groups defined by geography and soft tissue, such as described in American forensic works (e.g., Krogman 1962). Historical cir-cumstances contributed to the particular crania evaluated.

Hence, "Caucasian," "Negro," and "Mongoloid" (including Native American) were defined, and reflect northwestern Europeans, primarily coastal West Africans and "Indians." This became important in forensic work. Skeletally, these cate-gories were based on specimens whose "racial" identities had been known in life. Hence, in using this approach, an external to bony craniofacial phenotypic match was assumed in all future cases where a particular bony craniofacial "type" was found. Thus "race" was able, or assumed to be, predicted by the skeleton. This may be even almost theoretically acceptable in restricted circum-stances where historical and biological data validate the assumptions, although numerous exceptions are known. It is unacceptable, however, to project such types back into the indefinite past as absolutes since evolution occurs, and population "reference" groups may reflect only one end of a spectrum of vari-ation of numerous related populations. Also, in American forensics "racial" hybrids (with "mixed" features in a skull) in this context do not get labeled as such, but rather get classified into the "social race" into which hybrids are placed. "Black-White" crania or those interpreted as such are classified as "Black." Other morphological approaches have defined numerous types within so-called major races (cf. Dixon 1923; Angel 1971). These numerous taxonomic schemes do not necessarily agree with each other and vary im- mensely. Some morphological approaches are placed within a more popula-tionist perspective and comment on types within a "race" (e.g., Angel 1971 others focus on individuals and attempt to evaluate the racial "types" whic constitute their ancestry (see Wiercinski 1980).


ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 133

All uses of morphology ar not necessarily typological. Morphological data may help establish likely r tionships without reference to preconceived types. "Morphotypology" is t term used here to describe the explicit type concept based on morphology metric variables. The types are arbitrary fixed complexes, which are nam and vary from worker to worker. Morton (1844) examined numerous Egyptian crania and classified them mainly as "Caucasian," having believed that the bulk of the Egyptian popu tion was of European or Asiatic (Near Eastern) origin. For Morton "Egypti was a "race," by definition "Caucasian," such that crania with other m phologies had to be foreign or admixed with foreigners. Therefore, he had egories such as "Egyptian-with-Negro-influence" (Egyptian/"Negro" hybri with "Egyptian" dominance), "Negroid" (Egyptian/Negro hybrid with "Negro" element predominating), and Negro ("unmixed Negro"). Egypt and "Negroid" in this scheme are mutually exclusive. Morton did not see t Egyptians as "Africans," to which he confined the term "Negro," althoug thought that some Coptic Christians of Egypt had varying degrees of "Neg admixture, and were in some sense mulattos. The Coptic people were appar ently not seen by him as being "really" connected to ancient Egypt. Mort called the Meroitic "Kushites," "Austral-Egyptians," and viewed them as n African Strains of this kind of thinking persist (e.g., Vercoutter 1976 and tire volume). Incidentally, Nott and Gliddon (1854), devotees of Morton, sa Theban crania designated Negroid by Morton, as the "Old Egyptian ty "Negroid" and African but not related to any "Negro." Their polygen allowed distinct origins for each "nation." Thus, the contradictions of bias a bad science are manifest, since for Morton "Negroid" meant a hybrid wit Negro predominance. Employing various morphological observational techniques, MacI (1901) and Thomson (1905) concluded that the early southern Egyptians we a population of hybrid origin of Negroid and non-Negroid elements ("Semit or otherwise). Thomson and MacIver (1905) made similar observations. reading of the most brief morphological observations in primarily me studies also leads to similar conclusions even when labels like Negroid are used (e.g., Fawcett and Lee 1902; Stoessiger 1927; Morant 1925, 1935, 1 Batrawi 1935, 1945, 1946; Nutter 1958). Other summary statements w similar and noted a Negroid element, especially in southern Egypt, and/or another non-Caucasian tropical African element, but non-"Negro" (Had 1912; Giuffrida-Ruggeri 1915, 1916, 1922). Smith (1909) and Smith a Derry (1910) observed, with some surprise, that the early predynas "Egyptians" were more like "Middle Nubians" than later Egyptians. A predynastic group was very similar to A-Group Nubians, who were noted be similar to the central Sudanese Jebel Moyans. None of this is surprisin given the geographical propinquity of these regions. Smith's anatomical d scriptions betray his efforts to label these Nubians as something other than Africans, even Negroids, once the r for the early Holocene. These Nubi Africa fromelsewhere.

134 S O Y KEITA


Egypto-Nubian Nle valley although Brown Race concept ws confusing Caucasians and Africans. (Smth a term Caucasian ) Smth postulated been mdified by Negroes in the So Smths concept seem to have func mediated the conflict between what Smith and his associates saw in the crania and their notions about who could create civilization. Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1922) concluded that the Lower Egyptians were Mediterranean Whites, and the Upper Egyptians real (non-Caucasian) Africans, of an "Ethiopian" type and not "Nubian," since the latter brought to mind a Negro "type;" interest-ingly, Seligman (1930) called Nubians "Hamites," a branch of the "white" race. The contradictions and variability in opinion are obvious. Falkenburger (1947), Strouhal (1971), and Angel (1972) all noted that southern early Egyptian groups were "Negroid" or hybrid and composite to greater or lesser degrees with the understanding that the remainder of the population was either Mediterranean White or Hamitic (also read as "Caucasian"). A review of other morphotypological studies reveals the earliest "Egyptians" to have been seen as hybrid and composite with various degrees of the "Black" and "Yellow" but mainly "White" "varieties" (Wiercinski 1962, 1963, 1965, 1972). Wiercinski (1965) noted an increase in the "African" (Negroid) element in crania recovered from early dynastic tombs of Abydos as compared to the previous period. His taxonomy, like others, seems to have a narrow conception of the range of real "African" variability. In general, this restricted view presents all tropical Africans with narrower noses and faces as being related to or descended from external, ultimately non-African peoples. However, narrow-faced, narrow-nosed populations have long been resident in Saharo-tropical Africa (Gabel 1966; Hiernaux 1975; Rightmire 1975; Schepartz 1987) and their origin need not be sought elsewhere. These traits are also indigenous. The variability in tropical Africa is expectedly naturally high. Given their longstanding presence, narrow noses and faces cannot be deemed "non-African." Wiercinski (1965) views the Badari predynastic crania as the basic defining "Egyptian" morphology. Badari is the earliest "predynastic Egyptian" culture (4400-4000 BCE). In his view, this defining base morphology was modified by Near Eastern and European immigrants and tropical African "Negro" people. Wiercinski hypothesized that the base population was ulti-mately of Near Eastern origin, but he presented no data to support this. Other workers had a different opinion of the Badari morphology (Morant 1935, 1937; Coon 1939; Nutter 1958; Strouhal 1968, 1971; Angel 1972), and inter-preted it as fundamentally "Negroid." Badari culture was African (Saha Nilotic) in origin.


ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 135

The predynastic crania of northern Egypt have been stated to be less o non-"Negroid" (Coon 1939), although some writers have reported featu generally called such in some northern groups (Hayes 1965). Wiercins (1962, 1963) detailed anatomical descriptions of northern crania, suggest th there was some overlap with more southern groups like the Nubians, althou more different than Badari groups from further south. Badari and Nakada crania fall within the range of "neolithic" Saharan and later Nubian or Kushi crania (see descriptions above; personal observation). Descriptions (Brig 1955; Chamla 1968) of these "neolithic" Saharan crania suggest extensi overlap with the various kinds of southern Egyptian and tropical African m phologies and metric patterns. Hiernaux (1975) suggests that these Saharan patterns are ancestral to those of later West Africans; this would perhaps i clude some of the narrow-faced and narrow-nosed "Elongated" groups which the label "Hamitic" was once applied. He has parsimoniously explaine how the "Hamitic" morphology, called by him "Elongated," is indigenous t Africa, and not due to external sources. The natural geographical range these populations included at least southern Egypt. Descriptions and photographs of late paleolithic remains from Egypt indi cate characteristics which distinguish them clearly from their European cou terparts at 30,000 and 20,000 years BP (cf. Thoma 1984; Stewart 1985; Ange and Kelley 1986). These distinguishing characteristics, commonly cal "Negroid," are shared with later Nile valley and more southerly groups. It not important to label the characteristics "Negroid," only to note that they shared with a wide range of African populations. Epipaleolithic "mesolithic Nile valley remains have these characteristics and diverge notably from th Maghreban and European counterparts in key craniofacial characteristics (s comments in Keita 1990) although late Natufian hunters and early Anatolia farmers (Angel 1972) shared some of these traits, suggesting late paleolithi migration out of Africa, as supported by archeology (Bar Yosef 1987 "Lumping" the epipaleolithic remains of the Nile valley and even those fro the Maghreb, into one group has little to support it. III Morphometric/Metric Studies Morphometric/metric studies are defined here as those which employed numerous indices, as well as angles and metric variables. Indices are ratios such as obtained by dividing nasal height by breadth, in order to obtain some measure of shape. Not all studies used the same variables. Many used the Coefficient of Racial Likeness (C.R.L.) or its derivative Penrose's Size and Shape measure. The C.R.L. has since been discredited (Seltzer 1937; Howells 1973).


136 S O Y KEITA

Earlier studies fromths century su hybrid and/or composite group non-1902 Thomon and Randall-McIve earliest predynastic group-Badari-ws series (Stoessiger 1927. Morant (1925 types whch he interpreted as bein Upper Egyptian type had mre Ne Egyptian type. Over tim, according lost, although Thomon and McIve true, ths would not man that the essentially agreed wth Morants view tendencies, as opposed to a mdel o racial origins. Ths contrasts wth viewwhch defined the Lower Mditerraneans of non-African Ethopians/Erythreans of equatorial change the distinctions would be blur It is well to note that Fawcett and sample as a race, by whch they m statistical analysis of mtric traits, an 1902-03. Myers disagreed, stating th nous on mrphological grounds (see K the Nakada my have been a Bumsc origin but he dened that the Nakada races, i.e., a composite group In a Nakada to be mre Negroid than th although still mre simlar to it than typological conception of Negro, su wrong Negro group or that the anc Egyptian population my have bee Nubian series my have been bett although he did not pursue ths. Followng Smths (1916 mdel, Der early northern dynastic crana as com immgrants fromthe Near East. St Negroid traits in Badari and throu Cephalomtric studies suggest that Dynasty III) northern nobles had Nub In a study of East African crana, Bra crana for comparison hs analyses, and early Egyptian series generally t The Nle valley cranal series did not c in Howell's (1973 study or forma m racial type mdel would predict, w of a different race, than mre southe dynastic northern series from Gizeh dixtgrict, containing southern Nile valley series, but not from the "Africans" as a whole.

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 137



The southern grouping interestingly usually included the Galla/Somali and other more southern series (e.g., southern African). IV Metric Studies The studies discussed here employ metric variables (measurements), but without using indices or angles in the majority of cases. Various statistical techniques can be used to analyze this kind of data. D2 (the generalized dis-tance of Mahalanobis), Penrose's statistic and discriminant functions sup-planted the C.R.L. Nakada and Badari predynastic Egyptian series can be noted to be gener-ally more similar to Nubian, Tigrean, and sometimes other more southern series by D2 than to series from mid- to late-dynastic northern Egypt (Mukherjee et al 1955). In this same study a central Sudanese series (the ob- ject of the study) from Jebel Moya was found to be most similar to groups from West Africa, although there were some relative similarities to other Nile valley series (e.g., A-Group Nubians and late dynastic northerners ) Recall that Smith noted this central Sudanese series to resemble A-Group Nubians morphologically. This study illustrates the great variability of more southerly Africans (Greene 1981). Jebel Moya plots apart from the Nubian-predynastic Egyptian cluster, northern Egyptian series, and more equatorial Africans. The plot emphasizes the distinctiveness of the Jebel Moyan metric pattern. Some of this may be due to the distortion caused by plotting multidimensional data in two dimensions. However, the actual D2 values also show a uniqueness. Nutter (1958) found the Badari and Nakada I series to be essentially the same and very similar overall to the Kerma (Kushite-Sudanese) series using the Penrose statistic (morphologically she called them all Negroid).

In Howells' (1973) global study of 17 cranial series, the late dynastic Gizeh series from northern Egypt clustered with tropical Africans or northern Europeans depending on the technique used. A Palestinian series was found to overlap more with early Maghreb and Gizeh series than with those from southern Egypt (Keita 1988). The distinct Palestinian core plotted between the northern Egyptian and European series. Inspection of dendrograms and plots in Brauer's (1976, 1980) work reveal no discrete major clustering of Nile val-ley series apart from more tropical Africans as noted previously; other African groups appeared in primary clusters with various Nile valley groups. The Gizeh (late dynastic northern) series did sometimes stand somewhat apart, as noted previously. Using published and new data and multidimensional scaling, Hillson (1978) found two trends in Nile valley series: a Lower Egyptian and northern tendency and a southern Egyptian-southerly African trend; Upper Egyptians overlapped notably with more southern African groups. These trends are also found by Keita (1990, 1992), who noted extensive overlap of southern Egyptians and mre southerly African Sudanese, and equatorial Africans, functions.


138 S O Y KEITA

There ws no break as pr beled Egyptians as Caucasian Keita unknowns in order to assess the degr No notion of series as types is involv predynastic northern crana. Musgrav and principal coordinates, found the la lier, to be very simlar to Aegean seri gest little relationshp of other Africa (Kerm). Petit-Mire and Dutour (1987 early southern Egyptian series shared mtric patterns. These early Sahara shared traits wth later mre southern Henneberg et al (1980 describes a W southern Egypt as being Negroid Mld criticism of these mtric stu cover the cranofacial pattern (Muk perhaps causing overdiscrimnation mre Levantine and Aegean series (Cri were no multivariate metric studies which included the northern ne-olithic/predynastic series; it would be of interest to know if they would be metrically ambiguous, like the Gizeh series in Howell's study, or cluster con-sistently with tropical Africans. The metric studies suggest a broad biological affinity of early and south- ern Nile valley peoples with other more southerly Africans. The kind of dis-tinct geographical primary clusters of tropical Africans, Europeans, and Pacific Islanders observed by Howells (1973) were not found to occur or be suggested when Nile valley and more southern Africans were studied. The southern affinities of the series are striking given that commonly held or stated classical "racial" views of the Egyptians predict a notable distinction from "Africans."

Thus any scheme that labels Nubians and all Egyptians as a "Caucasian" monotypic entity is seen to be a hypothesis which is easily falsi-flied. Metric analyses in fact clearly suggest that at least southern "Egyptian" groups were a part of indigenous holocene Saharo-tropical African variation. V Non-Metric Studies Non-metric or discrete cranial characteristics, specifically anatomical anomalies, have been employed in several studies, and are believed to have a very strong genetic basis. Using these traits, measures of divergence have been calculated to ascertain the affinity of populations. The studies have been carried out in global and more local contexts. Berry and Berry (1967) com- bined Egyptian series from various locales and time periods, thus creating a single "Egyptian" series.

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 139

This combined entity was found to be most similar an Asian Indian series with an African series being next in similarity. A African series was also found to be very similar to the Indian series, as well nondivergent (i.e., statistically and genetically no different) from a Burm group This, while interesting, has no supporting data. The similarity to t Indians can be regarded as spurious as well. Interestingly, the Egyptian se was less similar to a Palestinian series than to a West African one. Berry and Berry (1972) included Byzantine, Palestinian, European, and Asian Indian series in a better-designed study which used separate Egyptian series from different periods. They found that the Nakada predynastic series was more similar to other Egyptian series (Middle Kingdom and late period Gizeh) than to any other series. The next closest affinity was with an Asian Indian series. A Middle Kingdom group was most similar (outside Egypt) to the central Sudanese Jebel Moya series-in their study called "Nubian." The late period Gizeh sample found its greatest relationships (after other Egyptian series) with the Asian Indian and not Palestinian series. The West African series was more similar to the Asian Indian series than to the Jebel Moyan ("Nubian"), Egyptian, or any other series, while the Indian series was found to have greatest affinities with the late period Egyptian and West African series. All of this resists easy explanation, unless radical diffusionist ideas are enter- tained, for which there is no archeological support. When the unlikely rela-tionships are eliminated, the Egyptian series are more similar overall to other African series than to European or Near Eastern (Byzantine or Palestinian) series. Berry et al (1967) showed that numerous Egyptian series from different regions and epochs usually showed greater affinity to one another than to Sudanese, Palestinian (Lachish), and West African (Ashanti) series.

Notably missing from their study were the A, C, X, and Meroitic Nubian groups. Numerous inconsistencies were apparent in that successive regional popula-tions sometimes had less affinity to one another than to some from greatly dif-ferent time periods and regions. For example, early Nakada predynastic crania had less affinity with late Nakada series than the even earlier predynastic Badari did with the late dynastic northern Gizeh groups Overall, when the Egyptian crania are evaluated in a Near Eastern (Lachish) versus African (Kerma, Jebel Moya, Ashanti) context, the affinity is with the Africans. The Sudan and Palestine are the most appropriate comparative regions which would have "donated" people, along with the Sahara and Maghreb. Archaeology validates looking to these regions for population flow (see Hassan 1988). Examination of the data in Strouhal and Jungwirth (1979) reveals great overlap of southern Nile valley crania with more southerly Africans in the fre- quency of numerous non-metric traits. This agrees with the results obtained by careful inspection of the data in Berry and Berry (1972), where Egyptian groups showed less overall affinity to Palestinian and Byzantine remains than to other African series, especially Sudanese.

140 S O Y KEITA

VI Limb Ratio Studies

Limb ratio studies are of interest because of limb ratios' general relation-ship to climate as per Allen's rule. Mammals (including Homo sapiens sapi-ens) tend to have shorter distal members of the extremities in colder climates; this is viewed as being adaptive. Hence the shin (tibia)/thigh (femur) index in Europeans would on average be expected to differ from an equatorial popula- tion. Indeed, this is one line of evidence used to support the idea that at least some, if not most, Upper Paleolithic (anatomically modem) "Europeans" were immigrants from warmer areas (Trinkhaus 1981). Of course variation is ex-pected in any region or population. Trinkhaus (1981) provides upper and lower extremity distal/proximal member ratios for numerous populations, including a predynastic Egyptian and Mediterranean European series. The predynastic Egyptian values plotted near tropical Africans, not Mediterranean Europeans. Warren (1897) had ob- served that these ratios for early Nakada Egyptians were similar to those of "Negroes." Robins and Shute (1983, 1986) evaluated predynastic and dynastic limb ratios and found the former to be "supemegroid." They also noted a Negroid ratio in a sample of New Kingdom dynastic remains. This suggests that the ancestors of the southern Egyptians were not cold-adapted immigrants to Africa. A sample of definite northern Egyptians may have given different results.

VII Blood Typing and Hair Morphology

Paoli (1972) found dynastic mummies to have ABO frequencies most like those of the northern Haratin, a group believed to be largely descended from the ancient Saharans. However, great skepticism is in order in viewing the Haratin as essentially unchanged over the last 6,000 years. Strouhal (1971) microscopically examined some hair which had been preserved on a Badarian skull. The analysis was interpreted as suggesting a stereotypical tropical African-European hybrid (mulatto). However, this hair is grossly no different from that of Fulani, some Kanuri, or Somali and does not require a gene flow explanation any more than curly hair in Greece necessarily does. Extremely "woolly" hair is not the only kind native to tropical Africa. This is not to say that gene flow (admixture) never occurred, but only to reit- erate that natural variation should be considered the first line of explanation. This kind of hair, and the lack of appreciation of the Elongated African con- cept (see Hiernaux 1975), have led some (e.g., Robins and Shute 1986) to fail to view their data in an adaptive context. This results in implying that southern early Egyptians were not part of the Saharo-tropical group which includes Negroes.


ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 141

VIII Dental Studies

Permanent teeth are formed in cartilage before birth. It is believed by many that their dimensions and crown variations before wear are largely if no solely determined by genetics. Hence they are viewed as being of potential use in affinity studies. Ruffer (1920) noted an overlap in the presence of numero anomalies in predynastic Egyptian and Nubian teeth. Third molar agenes was noted in numerous cases. The presence of fourth molar variants in thes groups was also significant (although always rare). Greene (1972) recalled various theories of migrations into the Nile valley which purported to explain biological or cultural change. These theories de- pended on rigid racial constructs. Their baseline assumption was that the bas population of the valley was "Caucasian." Greene argued that racial classifica-tions were of little use since ancestors could differ from descendants. However, he compromised his apparent "no race" position by suggesting that third molar agenesis was a "Caucasian" characteristic and offered this as a clue to the taxonomy of the Nile valley. Greene did not mention the presence of fourth molars and alveolar pits behind the third molars, which were felt by Ruffer to contain teeth. These entities can be called fourth molar variants and seem to be more common in more southerly African populations than in Europeans (de Villiers 1968; Irish, personal communication). Greene also noted similarities between Nubian and predynastic upper Egyptian teeth, but reports that this does not necessarily demonstrate close biological affinity, although the regions are geographically contiguous. While this is true, it is difficult to understand why this affinity would be rejected in favor of only a "Caucasian" (European) connection.

Recently Irish and Turner (1990) and Turner and Markowitz (1990) have suggested that the populations of Nubia and Egypt of the agricultural periods were not primarily descendants of the geographical populations of mesolithic/epipaleolithic times. Based on dental morphology, they postulate an almost total replacement of the native/African epipaleolithic and neolithic groups by populations or peoples from further north (Europe or the Near East?). A similarity in dental traits is noted between epipaleolithic Nile valley peoples and modern West Africans and also found for craniometric traits (Strouhal 1984). They argue that the rate of evolutionary change required to achieve the later dentitions would be greater than that for epipaleolithic to ne- olithic dental changes in other parts of the world, and see no reason why this should be true in the lower Nile valley. They take issue with the well-known post-Pleistocene/hunting dental reduction and simplification hypotheses which postulate in situ microevolution driven by dietary change, with minimal gene flow (admixture) (see Carlson and Van Gerven 1979). However, as is well known and accepted, rapid evolution can occur. Also, rapid change in northeast Africa might be specifically anticipated because of the possibilities for punctuated microevolution (secondary to severe micro-selection and drift) in the early Holo munties and cyclical climtic chan humn effects.

142 S O Y KEITA

The earliest southern elemnts to post-desiccation Saharan (Hassan 1988. Bologically these peopl and discussion Keita 1990. It is also been introduced froman external sou because of natural selection either for ing less energy There is no evidence Europeans or Near Easterners into the imply There is limb ratio and crano ity in Upper Egypt-Nubia in a broad dynastic periods, although change occ As previously mntioned, a reviewo the Nazlet Khater (30000 BP, Wdi Wdi Halfa (12000-6000 BP and Ba BCE remins suggest continuity ( Kelley 1986 Anderson 1968 Strou McIver (1905 found continuity throu suggest that no Near Eastern immgra the sole use of one knd of data when knds of data must be used to choose tion. IX Contradictions, Variability, and Problems There has long been a discussion about the origins of the inhabitants of the ancient northern Nile valley. Probably for many reasons the discussion has focused on the Africanity of the ancient Egyptian populations. Africanity has been frequently inappropriately defined. Specifically, there has been a question about the degree or presence of Negro influence (e.g., Diop 1974; Robertson 1978; Robertson and Bradley 1979; Bemal 1987). Negro has been used to mean different things. Frequently earlier writers displayed a bias against Negroes, Blacks, and Africans, although the terms have been used in many ways--consistency has not been a strong point. Many would deny that prejudice had any role in the extreme concern about the origins of the Egyptians, but Morton's comments at least are clear: ...civilization...could not spring from Negroes, or from Berbers and never did... (quoted in Nott and Gliddon 1854). Berbers in this instance probably means Nubian. On the other hand Gilman (1982) reports the strong esthetic bias of Winckelmann, an eighteenth-century scholar, against Egyptians be-cause of their phenotypic blackness.

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 143

Thomson and Randall-MacIver (1905:110) noted the prejudice in the early twentieth century:
A natural but unjustifiable prejudice inclines the theorists to suppose that black men, who in modern days have generally belonged to slave or subject populations, must necessarily have always held that position. But this was not the case in the most ancient time in Egypt... Another example of anti-"Negro" bias is given in Briggs (1955), who re- ports a writer who calls a "Negro" neolithic Fayum (northern Egyptian) sk the remains of a slave; why was it not the skull of a native free Fayumian? T negative bias is also evident in the writings of Nott and Gliddon (1854), wh clearly noted an iconographic distinction between the average Egyptian an European (even Greek) phenotype. Polygenists Nott and Gliddon use the ter "Negroid" repeatedly to describe the early Old Kingdom Egyptians but tak great effort to indicate that these Negroids have no relationship to "t Negroes," which to them were a very restricted taxon with a single, monoty member and distinct origin. This would be equivalent to making the Nordic East Baltic phenotype the only "true Caucasian," "distinct" in origin fr Greeks. Nott and Gliddon (1854) do state that these Old Egyptians w Africans, and that Egyptian civilization moved from south to north, thus di agreeing with their teacher Morton. The other reason for the persistence of searching for the "Negro" or ruli out his presence in Nile valley remains is perhaps methodological. As noted earlier, previous writers divided Homo sapiens sapiens into groups conceive as racial types. The assumption that variation could be partitioned into mo typic types is the fundamental flaw. Consistent with typological thinking w the practice of looking for these types.

The caricatured "Negro," however, has been (and still is in some quarters) identified as being the only "real" Afric group along with the Khoisan, even in the tropics; hence, as noted earli "real" African did not have the range of variation that "real" Caucasian did This makes little sense in terms of current theory or biological data on Afri This false biological perspective (which has non-biological and ideologi origins), has persisted into this era of modern population biology, when th concepts of natural variation and African biological history are better know This persistence among biologists and non-biologists is explicable only terms of the sociology of knowledge (Gabel 1966; MacGaffey 1966). T search for types was uneven; few searched for Nordic or East Baltic pheno types in Greek art and remains in an effort to find "the European" or "th White." The "Negro" craniofacial morphotype is not a sole denotation f Saharo-tropical African any more than Nordic is for European. There is also the issue of "origins." Where did the Nile valley populatio come from, and what were the origins of its culture? The people had been leged to come from Asia en masse by some (e.g., Morton 1844) and this vie of the Egyptians as being "Near Easterners" has persisted and gone frequentl unquestioned, in spite of the historical variation in opinion, and obvious co ceptual problems in the formal and informal literature. For example, Frankfo (1949) long ago stated that Egyptian culture arose from an African substratu General historians and scholars also ignored or paid little attention to variation in the anthropological reports. This variation clearly indicates fu Mediterranean region's peoples could not be viewed at that time as a l population, a single entity.


ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 145

As a term, Hamitic is just as interesting since it changed from meanin "Negro" to dark even black-skinned (Mediterranean?) White (Sanders 1969) Anthropologists and others have used "Hamitic" in many ways, but the i pression gained is that there was no consensus. For example, Seligman (193 called predynastic and dynastic Egyptians Hamitic, and considered this ta "Caucasian," although acknowledging that some believed that only t Northern Hamites (Libyans and other Berber speakers) were related to Mediterranean White peoples. The Eastern Hamites (ancient Egyptia Nubians, Galla), he acknowledged, some called Erythraic (cf. Erythrean). O the other hand Hooton (1932:524) saw the Hamites as Negroid-Cauca hybrids with no more than "one quarter" Mediterranean White ancestry. G (1948:201) stated that the Bantu-speakers were Hamites [read Whites] with "slight admixture of Negro blood."[ ] (This would mean that most s equatorial Africans were in the main really "white ") Coon et al (1950) wer of the opinion that the groups which they called Hamites were "skelet Mediterranean," but with otherwise "Negro" features; they acknowledge t such combinations of traits may be primarily the result of local adaptation microevolution as opposed to gene flow (admixture) and migration. Coon e thus used evolutionary principles to explain variation. As stated previously, Hiernaux has dismissed the Hamitic racial constr and concept; instead the characteristic features are seen as the product of hot-dry climatic microadaptation or genetic drift. Hiernaux calls this phenotype "Elongated African," and parsimoniously lays to rest all doubts about the fundamental Africanity of more southern groups called Hamitic.

In spite this, even modem biologists occasionally make the error of assuming that "black Africans" (Saharo-tropical variants) necessarily have a specific charteristic, for instance notable prognathism. Gould (1987) seems to accept Pet Camper's contention that a Magus painted black with an orthognathous pro could not be a "real" Black man. Clearly only the typological "Negro" as re African, was his "definition." The stereotyped caricatured "Negro" type h long been noted to be rare in Africa (Brace 1863; Peschel 1888). This pheno type and less extreme variants can be called "Broad." It must be advoc that the terms "Negro" and "Black African" be dropped from the biologic lexicon in favor of "Saharo-tropical variant," which subsumes the range o morphologies of great time depth found in Africa. Frequently the Nubians were also called Hamitic and some writers served that the ancient Egyptians were most like the Somali or Bara Nubians (Bohannan and Curtin 1964; British Museum 1930; Haddon 19 Breasted 1908; Prichard 1848). Many viewed the Nubians as Caucasian/Hamitic, yet Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1922) refused to use Nubian to describe the southern predynastics because Nubian to him meant "Negro" Quoting Denon, Prichard (1848) viewed the dynastic Egyptian physiognomy as the defining African phenotype of which the Negro is an "exaggerated and extreme representation."


146 S O Y KEITA

This concept of an African biological continuum was forgotten. Prichard ws one of the fat nor figure. The examples of paradoxes and contradictions could be multiplied but this would be tedious and is unnecessary. More disconcerting is that recent writers ignored and ignore the variability in opinions, factual biological vari- ability, and modem thinking about population processes. Typological thinking tends to structure the discourse on Nile valley peoples. It is clear that popula-tion variability in tropical Africa is real and of local origin. Modem population biology since 1940 and African ecology and sociology predict this variation, given the ample opportunities for genetic drift, local migration, microadapta- tion, and varying climatic belts. Early southern Egyptian/Nubian and Saharan remains clearly are a part of the Saharo-tropical range of variation. Northern modem Berber-speakers are frequently notably European, in phenotype but even they have tropical African marker gene frequencies greater than those found in southern Europeans. Blacks have long lived in northern Africa (see review in Keita 1990). The issue of the authentic African is a non-issue. The concepts of variation and microevolution clearly allow better understanding of the early Saharan-Upper Egyptian peoples. They were tropical variants, not cold-adapted migrants. Even Giuffrida-Ruggeri, while representative of the anti-Negro bias of his day, clearly allowed for natural African population variation. His Ethiopian or Erythrean taxon, now called Elongated African, was non-Caucasian. One could almost derive from his work the concept that Negro was merely a variant, not an original or basal type which became diluted or overrun by outsiders.

The extreme Negroid variant is just that, a variant, and not a founding or the original type. The unit of analysis for examining variation in the Nile valley in African terms has to include the range of early Saharo-tropical African variation. The fact that the Nile valley is a long linear oasis, which splits the eastern Sahara desert facilitated variation. Various views of this variation have been entertained. Batrawi (1945, 1946) and Morant (1925, 1935), while acknowl-edging variability, saw the population as one breeding indigenous group (Hamitic?) with north to south variation (greater Negroid traits in the south). As noted earlier, Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1915, 1916, 1922) saw the indigenous southern Egyptians as authentic Africans but the Lower Egyptians as having been invading Mediterranean Whites (from Europe?), "not at all African." The phenotypic situation can also be interpreted as representing two differentiated African populations, with northerners having diverged early and notably from the southerners, or an earlier ancestral group, by drift and by gene exchange with the Near East. (This, however, would not negate their lineage relation-ship with southerners.) Later, depending on "starting" orientation, the dynastic Lower Egyptians by convergence, secondary to gene flow or microadaptation, either became more African "Negroid" (Howells 1973) or became more Mediterranean "White" (Angel 1972). Making a neat north/south "racial" di-vision in the dynastic Egyptian epoch would be difficult (and theoretically un-sound to most current workers), although trends can be recognized. These ra-cial terms are unnecessary.

ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 147

The variability in the population in Upper Egyptian increased, as its isolation decreased, with the increasing social complexity o southern Egypt from the predynastic through dynastic periods (Keita 1992 The Upper Egyptian population apparently began to converge skeletally Lower Egyptian patterns through the dynastic epoch; whether this is primari due to gene flow or other factors has yet to be finally determined. The Low Egyptian pattern is intermediate to that of various northern Europeans an West African and Khoisan series. Even portraits of early dynastic Egyptians, while a questionable source, reveal a phenotype not seen to the writer in Greek statuary of Greeks (see Nott and Gliddon 1854; Petrie 1906, 1939; Montet 1965; Drake 1987). Karageorghis (1988) elucidated the presence of "Blacks" in early Cyprus through statuary; applying his range of variability, not his extreme examples, for "Black" to early Old Kingdom and early Middle Kingdom statuary reveals numerous elite individuals who would meet his criteria. Unfortunately many of Karageorghis' examples seem to be caricatures. The Elongated African was not taken into account. As noted earlier, Nott and Gliddon (1854) specifically called early Old Kingdom Egyptians, African and Negroid, both based on portraiture. Their sophistry with the terms Negroid, African, and "true Negro" rooted in a biased polygenism can be ignored in this era of modern population biology. Morton claimed on portrait evidence that the "real" Egyptians were "Caucasian." Junker (1921) also thought this and has been criticized for his sophistry with regard to the definition of Negro (MacGaffey 1966). He sys-tematically converted all (high status?) Negroid portraits to the Hamitic taxon.

Junker argued that "the first appearance of Negroes in history" occurred in New Kingdom art when "genuine Negro peoples" are represented. Even Seligman (1930, 1966:30) disagreed with this: This, however is scarcely accurate, or becomes so only if special defini-tions be framed for "history" and "Negro," for on one of the great proto-dynastic slate palettes dating circa 3200 B.C. are represented captives and dead with spiralled hair...there is every reason to believe that these men were as much "Negroes" as [are] many of the East African tribes of the present day to whom this name is commonly applied. This is not the comment of a revisionist, given that Seligman was a champion of the "True Negro" construct. MacGaffey (1966) notes the unfa-vorable reactions of some scholars to "Negroid" portraits in Egyptian art. It is interesting that Vercoutter (1976) seems to use Junker's caricatured Negro cri-teria although in 1974, at the Unesco Cairo conference on "The Peopling of Ancient Egypt..." (published 1978), he made the observation that Negro/Negroids were highly variable and present in substantial numbers in the base Nile valley population, as noted by "most of the anthropologists." Junker's view was that the only real African was the caricatured "true Negro" ("genuine Negro"). In searching for the "Image of the Black" in Old Kingdom art, Vercoutter (1976) would have been more scientific had he heeded his own words, even followed Seligman, or better still acknowledged modern biology helped produce the variation and cline visible in late Old Kingdom times an today.


ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 149

The historical record clearly suggests more "population" movem into Egypt (northeast Africa) in later times from the Near East than elsewhe The data clearly suggest that the population of southern Egypt became mo diverse as the society became more complex (Keita 1992). Egyptian socie seems never to have been "closed," and it is hard to believe that the modal phenotype could have remained unchanged, especially if social and sexual se lection were operating. However, it is important to emphasize that, while biology changed with increasing local social complexity, the ethnicity Niloto-Saharo-Sudanese origins did not change. The cultural morays, rit formulae, and symbols used in writing, as far as can be ascertained, remaine true to their southern origins. In most cases the morphological descriptions of early southe "Egyptian" crania clearly fall within Broad to Elongated Saharo-tropic African ranges of variation. If treated as an unknown, Egyptian variation to be judged in the context of the range of early Saharo-tropical African vari tion (Broad to Elongated) and not be analyzed in terms of one abstracted p notype deemed to be the only "African."

In other words, the baseline definition of biological African has to take in the entire range of tropical Afric variability, including fossil and subfossil data, and not be based on the bias (for whatever reason) musings of race theorists from the earlier part of t century. The notion of Negro (Broad) phenotype-as-the-only-real African o has persisted. The legacy of these theorists has obstructed progress in und standing African variability. An analysis of the overt bias of some of thes theories is beyond the scope of this paper, but has been covered elsewh (MacGaffey 1966; Sanders 1969). "Holocene Saharo-tropical variant" o Africoid describes "authentic" (by descent) Africans. "Negro" and "Black," a well as "White," should perhaps be dropped. Negro, like Nordic, is not a bio logical unit. Negro describes an ensemble of characteristics which is one va ant among "real" Africans. The supra-Atlas mountain and coastal northe Africans are viewed here as perhaps being biologically more, but not only, related to southern Europeans, primarily by gene flow. Given that Berber la guages are not creoles, which, if they were, might indicate massive Europe contact, it may be well to view the gene flow as having occurred steadily ov a long time. More recent metric and morphometric studies largely confirmed the over-lap of early southern Egyptians with more southern, especially East Africans. The comparative inductive method utilized in these studies is very useful on a theoretical level, since no predetermined racial groups are required. The dif-ferent studies allowed for the examination of contrast. For example, Howells (1973) obtained results in one instance which agreed with Musgrave and Evans (1980) in suggesting a wider affinity of late dynastic northern Egyptians with Europeans. In another analysis, as noted earlier, this late dy- nastic northern series clustered with tropical Africans from West and South Africa. The works of Mukherjee et al (1955), Hillson (1978), Brauer (1976, 1980), and Keita (1988, 1990) contain data which demonstrate the overlap of early southern Egyptians wth Sudan.


150 S O Y KEITA

These studies should be augmnted or earlier Levantine, Aegean and nor Egyptian and Nubian groups. On heterosis on mtric variables needs t The non-mtric studies were usef affinties and of internal Nle valley do not invalidate mgration or ge parental trait population frequenc som sense static, but showa Nubian It would be useful to examne va Palestinan and Byzantine contex Aegean crana should also be a part o Acareful reading of the various st Egyptians (and Nubians) placed in ory and archeological data (e.g, d Arkell 1975 Hassan 1988 suggests part of the African population retic. Culturally their Africanty the si Nlotic systemis clear (Vercoutter a ing are in evidence by mddle Na and ritual symbols and indications o predynastic period in southern Upp dence support the Africanty on fu lustrate the fallacy of som earlier b BCE had a known heterogenous po hgh culture of Carthage ws fun the Levant. Contemporaneously E ruled by Kushtic Pharaohs who wer store in essence the core traditio Nubian geographcal origin Ths c unike Carthage, there were fewor Ths reviewhas addressed several i ties of the ancient inhabitants of th mtric, mrphomtric, and nonmt wth tropical variants. General sc paradigm from Negro -ony-as-Af as-European ws never accepted Act to viewthe Broad phenotype as repr somthng understood by som nn populations are best viewed as par wth tropical adaptations and relatio would be expected Archaeological not new Over tim, gene flow(adm Europe and the Near East, thus also groups. Ths admxture, if it had occ major affinity of southern predynastic peoples as illustrated here. As indicated the analysis of the data in the studies reviewed here, the southern predyna peoples were Saharo-tropical variants.

REFERENCES
ANCIENT EGYPTIAN BIOLOGICAL RELATIONSHIPS 151

Note * I wish to thank F. Gaballah, C. Stringer, J.L. Heim, M. Chamla, and P. Garlick for
permission to study collections in their care. Part of this work was supported by the Boise Fund,
Oxford University. Mrs. Wiggins of KOM Company typed the final manuscript. This paper is
dedicated to V. Rochester, Y. Walker, Patrik, and India.


REFERENCES

Anderson, J. E. 1968 "Late paleolithic skeletal remains from Nubia" In F.Wendorf ed, The
Prehistory of Nubia. Dallas. pp. 996-1040.

Angel, L. and J. Kelly 1986 "Description and comparison of the skeleton." In F. Wendorf and R.
Schild, ed., The Wadi Kubbaniya Skeleton. Dallas.

Angel, J. L. 1971 The People of Lerna. Washington. . 1972 "Biological relationships of Egyptian and Eastern Mediterranean populations during
Predynastic times." Journal of Human Evolution 1:307-13.

Arkell, A. J. 1975 "The prehistory of the Nile valley." Handbuch der Orientalisk, 1. Leiden. Arnett, W. 1982 The Predynastic Origins of Hieroglyphs. Washington.

Bar Yosef, 0. 1987 "Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest Asia." African
Archaeological Review 5:29-38.

Batrawi, A. M. 1935 Report on the Human Remains. Cairo.
. 1945 "The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, I." Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 75:81-102.
. 1946 "The racial history of Egypt and Nubia, II." Journal of the Royal Anthropological
Institute 76:131-56.

Bennett, K. A. 1969 "The typological versus the evolutionary approach in skeletal population
studies." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 30:407-15.

Bernal, M. 1987 Black Athena, London.

Berry, A. C. and R. J. Berry 1967 "Epigenetic variation in the human cranium." Journal of
Anatomy 101:361-79.

Berry, A. C., R.J. Berry, and P.J. Ucko 1967 "Genetical change in ancient Egypt." Man 2:551-68.

Berry, A. C. and R.J. Berry 1972 "Origins and relationships of the ancient Egyptians." Journal of
Human Evolution 1:199-208.

Bohannan, P. and P.D. Curtin 1964 Africa and Africans. Garden City.

Brace, C. L. 1863 The Races of the Old World. New York.

Brauer, G. 1976 "Morphological and multivariate analysis of human skeletons from Iron Age graves northeast of Lake Eyasi (Tanzania)." Homo 27:185-765. "Human skeletal remains from Mumba Rock Shelter, Northern Tanzania." American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 52:71-84. Breasted, W. 1908 A History of the Ancient Egyptians. New York.

Briggs, L. C. 1955 "The Stone Age Races of Northwest Africa." Bulletin 18. American School of Prehistoric Research. Cambridge.
British Museum. 1930 General Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British
Museum. London.

Brown, W. and E. O. Wilson. 1954 "The case against the trinomen." Systemic Zoology 3:174-76.

Carlson, D. and D. Van Gerven. 1979 "Diffusion, biological determinism, and biocultural
adaptation in the Nubian corridor." American Anthropologist 81:561-80.

Cavalli-Sforza, L. 1991 "Genes, peoples and languages." Scientific American 265(5):104-10.


152 S O Y KEITA

Chama, MC 1968 Les populations anciennes
de Recherches Anthropologques Prehstoriq

Childe, V G 1953 NewLght on the Most Ancie

Coon C 1939 The Races of Europe. NewYor

Coon C, S M Garn and J Brdsell. 1950 Rac
mn Springfield Crichton J M 1966 Amultipe dscrimnant
Papers of the Peabody Museum5745-67

Derry D 1956 The dynastic race in Egypt. Jo

Diop, CA 1974 The Egyptian race as seen a
Orign of Cvlization Myth or Reality? Brid

Dixon R 1923 The Racial Hstory ofMn Ne

Drake, S 1987 Back Folk Here and There.Angeles.

Falkenburger, F. 1947 La composition raciale de l'ancienne Egypt. L'Anthropologie 51:239-50.

Fawcett, C.D. and A. Lee. 1902 A second study of the variation and correlation of the human
skull, with special reference to die Nagada crania. Biometrika 1:408-67.

Finkel, D. 1978 Spatial and temporal dimensions of middle eastern skeletal populations.
Journal of Human Evolution. 7:217-29. Frankfort, H. 1949 The ancient Egyptians and the Hamites. Man 2(130):95-96.

Gabel, C. 1966 Prehistoric populations in Africa. In Boston University Papers on Africa.
Volume II. African History. Ed. Jeffrey Butler. Boston.

Gates, R. 1948 Human Ancestry. Cambridge.

Gilman, A. 1982 On Blackness Without Blacks: Essays on the Image of the Black in Germany.
Boston.

Giuffrida-Ruggeri, V. 1915 Were the predynastic Egyptians Libyans or Ethiopians? Man 15:51-
55.
. 1916 A few notes on thdie neolithic Egyptians and the Ethiopians. Man 16:87-90. . 1922 The actual state of the question of the most ancient populations of Egypt. Harvard African Studies 3:3-7.

Gould, S. 1987 Petrus Camper's angle.. . Natural History Magazine. July:12-18.

Greene, D. L. 1972 Dental anthropology of early Egypt and Nubia. Journal of Human Evolution
1:315-24.
. 1981 "A critique of methods used to reconstruct racial and population affinity in the Nile
Valley." Bulletin et Mimoires de la Societe d'Anthropologie de Paris 13/8:357-65. Haddon, A. C. 1912, 1984 The Wanderings of Peoples. Oxford, Washington, D.C. . 1925 The Races of Man. New York.

Harris, J. and K. Weeks 1973 X-Raying the Pharaohs. New York.

Hassan, F. A. 1988 "The predynastic of Egypt." Journal of World Prehistory 2:135-85.

Hayes, W. C. 1965 Most Ancient Egypt. Chicago. de Heinzelin, J. 1962 "Ishango." Scientific American 206(6):105-16.

Henneberg, M., J. Piontek, and J. Strzaldo 1980 "Biometrical analysis of the early Neolithic
human mandible from Nabta Playa (Western Desert of Egypt)." In F. Wendorf and R.
Schild. eds. Prehistory of the Eastern Sahara. New York.

Hiernaux, J. 1975 The People of Africa. New York.

Hillson, S. W. 1978 "Human Biological Variation in the Nile Valley, in Relation to
Environmental Factors." Ph.D., University of London.

Holmes, D. L. 1989 The Predynastic Lithic Industries of Upper Egypt. Cambridge monographs in African Archaeology 33. BAR International Series 469. Parts I and II.

Hooton, E. A. 1932 Up from the Ape. Cambridge.

Howells, W. W. 1973 "Cranial variation in man." Papers of the Peabody Museum 67:1-269.

Irish, J. and C. Turner C. 1990 "West African dental affinity of late Pleistocene Nubians." Homo
41(1):42-53.

Junker, H. 1921 "The first appearance of the Negroes in history." Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology 7:121-32.

Karageorghis, V. 1988 Blacks in Ancient Cypriot Art. Houston.

Keita, S. O. Y. 1988 "An analysis of crania from Tell Duweir using multiple discrimi
functions." American Journal of Physical Anthopology 75:375-90.
. 1990 "Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa." American Journal of Physi
Anthropology 85:35-48.
. 1992 "Further studies of crania from ancient northern African crania...." American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 87:245-54.

Krogman, W. M. 1937 "Cranial types from Alishar Huyuk." In H.H. van der Osten, ed., The
Alishar Huyuk, Seasons of 1930-32, Part III. Oriental Institute Publications 30:213-93.

MacGaffey, W. 1966 "Concepts of race in the historiography of northeast Africa." Journal of
African History 7:1-17.

MacIver, D. R. 1901 The Earliest Inhabitants ofAbydos. Oxford.

Morant, G. 1925 "A study of Egyptian craniology from prehistoric to Roman times." Biometrika
17:1-52.
_ 1935 "A study of predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari..." Biometrika 27:293-309.

Morant, G. 1937 "The predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari and their racial affinities." In G. Brunton, ed., Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, pp. 63-66. London. Montet, P. 1965 Eternal Egypt. London.

Morton, S. G. 1844 "Crania AEgyptiaca." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 9.

Mukherjee, R., C. Rao, and J. C. Trevor 1955 The Ancient Inhabitants of Jebel Moya (Sudan).
Cambridge.

Musgrave, J. H. and S. P. Evans 1980 By Strangers Honored: A statistical study of ancient crania
from Crete, Mainland Greece, Israel and Egypt. Journal of Mediterranean Anthropology
and Archaeology 1:50-107.
Nielson, O. V. 1970 Human remains: Metrical and non-metrical anatomical variations.

Copenhagen: Scarndinavian Joint Expedition to Sudanese Nubia. Vol. 9.

Nott, J. and G. Gliddon 1854 "Egypt and Egyptians (Chapter VII)." In Types of Mankind.
Philadelphia. Nutter, M. C. 1958 An Osteological Study of the Hominoidea. PhD.Dissertation, Cambridge
University.

O'Connor, D. 1971 Ancient Egypt and Black Africa--early contacts. Expedition 14:2-9.

Paoli, G. 1972 Further biochemical and immunological investigations on early Egyptian
remains. Journal of Human Evolution 1:457-66.

Pearson, K., S. Jacob, A. Lee, C. S. Myers, and A. Von Torok 1902-03 Craniological notes.
Biometrika 2:339-47, 504-12. Peschel, O. 1888 The Races of Man. New York. Petit-Mair, N. and O. Dutour 1987 Holocene populations of the Western and Southern Sahara: Mechtoids and paleoclimates. In Close, A., ed., Prehistory ofArid North Africa, Dallas.

Petrie, W. M. F. 1906 Migrations. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 36:189-223.
. 1939 The Making of Egypt. London. Prichard, J. C. 1848 The Natural History of Man. London.

Rightmire, G. P. 1975 Problems in the study of later Pleistocene Man in Africa. American
Anthropology 77:28-52. Robertson, J. H. 1978 On the presence of the Negro in the Nile Valley. Current Anthropology
19(1): 177-78.

Robertson, J. H. and R. Bradley 1979 On skeletal analysis and the race concept. Current
Anthropology 20(4):414-15.

Robins and Shute 1983 The physical proportions and living stature of New Kingdom pharoahs. Journal of Huntan Evolution 12:455-65.
_ ._1986 Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical proportions. Human Evolution 1(4):313-
24.

Ruffer, A. 1920 Study of Abnormalities and pathology of ancient Egyptian teeth. American
Journal of Physical Anthropology 3:335-82. Sanders, E. 1969 The Hamnitic Hypothesis: Its origin and functions in time perspective. Journal of African History 10:521-32.

Schepartz, L. A. 1987 Who were the later Pleistocene Eastern Africans? African Archeological
Review 6:57-72.

Seligman, C. 1930, 1966 The Races of Africa. London.

Seltzer, C 1937 Acritique of the coefficient
Anthropology 23101-09

Sergi, G 1901 The Mditerranean Race. Lond

Smth G E 1909 Anatomcal Report. B
Archaeologcal Survey of Nubia 419-21

Smth G E and D Derry 1910 Anatomcal rep
Archaeologcal Survey of Nubia 69-30

Smth G E 1916 The influence of racial ad

Stewrt, TD 1985 Prelimnary report on an ea
In PV Tobias ed, Homnd Evolution Past,

Stoessiger, BN 1927 Astudy of the Badarian c
Archaeology in Egypt. Bomtrika 19110-5

Strouhal, E 1968 Une contribution a la questio
haute-Egypte. Anthropologe 619-22
. 1971 Evidence of the early penetration o
African Hstory 121-9
. 1981 Current state of anthropologcal stu
Mmires de la Societ dAnthropologe de P
. 1984 Cranomtric analysis of the late pa
(Lower Nubia). In Orign and Early Develo
Eastern Africa. Poznan

Strouhal, E and J Jungwrth 1979 Paleogeneti
at Sayala, Egyptian Nubia. Journal of Hum

Thom, A 1984 Morphology and affinties
Evolution 13:287-96.

Thomson, A. 1905 "Composite photographs of early Egyptian skulls." Man 38. Thomson, A. and D. Randall-MacIver 1905 Ancient Races of the Thebaid. Oxford.

Trinkhaus, E. 1981 "Neanderthal limb proportions and cold adaptation." In C. Stringer, ed.,
Aspects of Human Evolution. London.

Turner, C. and M. Markowitz 1990 "Dental discontinuity between late Pleistocene and recent
Nubians." Homo 41/1:32-41.
Vercoutter, J. 1976 "The iconography of the Black in ancient Egypt." In J. Vercoutter, J. Leclant,
F. Snowden, and J. Desanges, eds., The Image of the Black in Western Art. Lausanne. pp.
33-88.
. 1978 "The peopling of ancient Egypt and Discussion." In The Peopling of Ancient Egypt
and the Deciphering of Meroitic Script. Paris. pp. 15-36. de Villiers, H. 1968 The Skull of the South African Negro. Johannesburg.

Warren, E. 1897 "An investigation of the variability of the human skeleton; with especial
reference to the Nagada race .. ." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London 189B:135-227.

Wiercinski, A. 1962 "Report on human crania recovered at Maadi cemetery." Anthropologie
(Brno) 1:38-48.
. 1963 Report on human crania recovered at Wadi Digla cemetery. Anthropologie (Brno)
2:41-48.
. 1965 "The analysis of racial structure of early dynastic populations in Egypt." Materialy i
Prace Antropologiczny. 71:348.
. 1972 "The problem of anthroposcopic variations in ancient Egyptians." In D. Brothwell
and B.Chiarelli, eds., Population Biology of the Ancient Egyptians. London.
. 1980 "Individual typology and the intraspecific taxonomy of man. Materialy i Przeglad Antroplogiczny. 46:279-96.

Williams, B. 1986 The A-Group Royal cemetery at Qustul: Cemetery L. University of Chicago
Oriental Institute Nubian Expedition III. Chicago.

Wilson E. 0. and W. Brown 1953 "The subspecies concept and its taxonomic application."
Systematic Zoology 2:97-110.