A commonly ‘misunderstood’ paper by Dr C. Loring Brace.

The amount of times I’ve read work that thinks this paper proves …

• The ancient Greeks were black
• All the moors were black
• etc
• That the original Europeans weren’t Caucasians (yes, some people are that  dumb).

It’s really quite entertaining. Dr Brace recently said of the Cro Magnons…

I was able to get just under 20 measurements on Cro Magnon of the two dozen data set I have used to compare populations in the world and the statistics showed convincingly that while  Cro Magnon does not tie in with the recent French, it does indeed tie closely with our English and Scandinavian samples. What we have been able to show is that the Upper Paleolithic and subsequent Mesolithic of northwest Europe simply developed there in situ out of Neanderthal precursors. We published some of this in Human Evolution 19(1):19-38 (2005) and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(1):242-247 (2006). In the latter paper we showed that a picture of demic diffusion from the Middle East and subsequent absorption by the indigenous north and western Europeans can account for the appearance of living European form.

C. L. Brace

The conclusion reads that the Natufians in the Levant seemed to be a mix of Eurasian and Negroid, tending more to the Eurasian, and the African features had vanished into the population by the time of the Neolithic farming expansion. I’ll mark the most relevant quotes in bold.

So, here it is..

The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

C. Loring Brace,*† Noriko Seguchi,‡ Conrad B. Quintyn,§ Sherry C. Fox,¶ A. Russell Nelson, Sotiris K. Manolis,** and Pan Qifeng††Received September 20, 2005.

Many human craniofacial dimensions are largely of neutral adaptive significance, and an analysis of their variation can serve as an indication of the extent to which any given population is genetically related to or differs from any other. When 24 craniofacial measurements of a series of human populations are used to generate neighbor-joining dendrograms, it is no surprise that all modern European groups, ranging all of the way from Scandinavia to eastern Europe and throughout the Mediterranean to the Middle East, show that they are closely related to each other. The surprise is that the Neolithic peoples of Europe and their Bronze Age successors are not closely related to the modern inhabitants, although the prehistoric/modern ties are somewhat more apparent in southern Europe. It is a further surprise that the Epipalaeolithic Natufian of Israel from whom the Neolithic realm was assumed to arise! ( slightly incorrectly, as Turkey is now looking good for the origin of the Neolithic revolution) has a clear link to Sub-Saharan Africa. Basques and Canary Islanders (Guanches) are clearly associated with modern Europeans. When canonical variates are plotted, neither sample ties in with Cro-Magnon as was once suggested. The data treated here support the idea that the Neolithic moved out of the Near East into the circum-Mediterranean areas and Europe by a process of demic diffusion but that subsequently the in situ residents of those areas, derived from the Late Pleistocene inhabitants, absorbed both the agricultural life way and the people who had brought it.

Among those who deal with the background of European history, there is a generally accepted view that the foraging way of life in the post-Pleistocene Mesolithic was succeeded by the Neolithic farming way of life. With the addition of metallurgy, the Neolithic morphed into the Bronze Age, which was succeeded by the Iron Age and the more recent European civilization (1–4). Further there is a general acceptance of the assumption that the farming way of life of the Neolithic arose in the Middle East ≈11,000 years ago and spread to the western edge of Europe by about 6,500 years ago (Incorrect. The Neolithic farmers seem to have arrived in Europe about 8,000 years ago, and the oldest founddomesticated grains are 13,500 years old in Abu Hurerya, Northern Syria. The original grains seem to be domesticated from a wild race of Turkish einkhorn wheat) (5–10). Researchers have questioned whether that spread took place by cultural diffusion to in situ people (11) or whether it was a “wave of advance” or a matter of “demic diffusion,” the actual movement of groups of people (see refs. 1, 8, and 12–15). Some researchers have observed that, although the two possible modes of Neolithic spread need not be mutually exclusive (see refs. 9 and 12), principal components analysis of allele frequencies in living humans shows a southeast–northwest cline that favors the idea that the spread had been the result of actual demic movement rather than by diffusion of cultural elements to pre-existing populations (see refs. 11–15).

Previous assessments of the Neolithic spread from the Middle East westward have been based on a consideration of tools and pottery on the one hand and genetically controlled aspects of living human populations on the other (14, 15). Here we offer an assessment based on a comparison of a set of metric dimensions of both prehistoric and more recent human craniofacial morphology. Craniofacial analysis has been previously applied to this question, but the comparison to living populations was not done (16). It has already been shown that the quantitative treatment of craniofacial form produces a picture of the movement of human populations from Asia into the New World that is largely compatible with the picture produced by the molecular genetic comparison of nucleotide haplotypes (17, 18).

The underlying reason that such different approaches yield comparable results is that neither the nucleic acid components identified nor the particular craniofacial dimensions used have any obvious adaptive value. Both evidently behave in a manner compatible with what has been called the “neutral theory,” where the traits assessed are under genetic control and the differences between groups are principally the result of genetic drift (12–22). What they show, then, is the extent of genetically shared relationships between adjacent populations. Here we offer a comparable treatment of samples of recent and prehistoric human populations running from the Middle East to the western edge of the Eurasian continent, north to Crimea, east to Mongolia, and southward through Nubia and Somalia plus samples from North Africa and representatives of the Niger-Congo-speaking peoples of Sub-Saharan Africa (Table 1). Teeth and the tooth-bearing parts of facial skeletons of course do reflect differences in response to the forces of selection on different populations (23), but they were left out of our analysis.

 Table 1.
Samples and numbers used in the analysis

Sample	No.
1. Norway	40
2. Finn/Sami	21
3. Denmark	19
4. Iceland	34
5. England	39
6. France	67
7. Basque	22
8. Canary Islands	24
9. Switzerland	50
10. Germany	27
11. Czech	25
12. European Upper Palaeo.	8
13. France Mesolithic	4
14. Denmark Neolithic	40
15. England Neolithic	12
16. France Neolithic	44
17. Swiss Neolithic	22
18. German Neol. (Mühl.)	9
19. Ger. Neol. (Tauberbisch.)	7
20. England Bronze	26
21. Portugal Mesolithic	12
22. Portugal Neolithic	18
23. Italy	80
24. Sicily	9
25. Sardinia	15
26. Etruscan	38
27. Italy Eneolithic	32
28. Italy Bronze	7
29. Greece	22
30. Franchthi (Greek Mesolithic)	1
31. Nea Nikomedea (Greek Neolith.)	7
32. Greek Bronze	16
33. Middle East (Iran/Iraq)	16
34. Morocco	24
35. Algeria	25
36. Berber	15
37. Tunisia	12
38. Egypt	28
39. Israeli Fellaheen (farmers)	15
40. Taforalt/Afalou (Morocco)	10
41. Natufian	4
42. Algerian Neolithic	6
43. Egypt Bronze (Naqada)	52
44. Jericho Bronze	4
45. Kurgan Bronze (Crimea)	30
46. Mongolian Bronze (Chandman)	54
47. Somalia	30
48. Nubia	64
49. Nubia Bronze	15
50. Congo (Gabon)	36
51. Dahomey (Benin)	32
52. Haya (Tanzania)	36
Total	1,282

 

References Neighbor-Joining ComparisonsA battery of 24 craniofacial measurements (Table 2) was used to compare the similarities and differences of living human populations and their prehistoric predecessors where possible throughout the area in question. The significance of the difference between any pair of the total sample can be assessed from Mahalanobis D2 figures (24), and a graphic depiction of the similarities and distinctions of the various groups tested can be seen from the dendrogram produced by using the D2 figures as input for the neighbor-joining procedure (Fig. 1) (25). To compute the Mahalanobis distances, we used a pooled within-group covariance matrix derived from all groups and weighted by sex and group sample size. The neighbor-joining method can be used for discrete differences, as is done with molecular data, or it can be used on continuous data, as we have done here (25). Assessments can also be made with canonical variate plots, which have the added advantage that single individuals can be placed in relation to the other samples used (Fig. 2) (29–32).

 Table 2.
 Craniofacial measures used in the UMMA data set

Variable no.	Description
1	Nasal height
2	Nasal bone height
3	Piriform aperture height
4	Nasion prosthion length
5	Nasion basion
6	Basion prosthion
7	Superior nasal bone width
8	Simotic width
9	Inferior nasal bone width
10	Nasal breadth
11	Simotic subtense
12	Inferior simotic subtense
13	FOW subtense at nasion
14	MOW subtense at rhinion
15	Bizygomatic breadth
16	Glabella opisthocranion
17	Maximum cranial breadth
18	Basion bregma
19	Basion rhinion
20	Width at 13 (fmt fmt)
21	Width at 14
22	IOW subtense at nasion
23	Width at 22 (fmo fmo)
24	Minimum nasal tip elevation

Figure 1

Neighbor-joining dendrogram for a series of prehistoric and recent human populations running from the western edge of the Eurasian continent and North Africa to the Middle East and down East Africa as far as Somalia, plus a sampling of Niger-Congo-speaking people from Gabon, Benin, and Tanzania in Sub-Saharan Africa. The samples used and the number for each are spelled out in Table 1. The kinds of measurements used to generate the dendrogram are listed in Table 2.

 Fig. 2.
Placement of the samples used in Fig. 1 determined by the values of canonical variates 1 (30.0%) and 2 (16.2%).

It is no surprise to discover that individual samples of recent humans tie more closely with other samples of extant people from the same part of the world than with more distant peoples. What does come as a surprise is that the Neolithic samples tend to tie with Neolithic samples across the entire range from east to west but do not cluster with the living people in many of the areas tested. There is more of a link between the prehistoric and modern samples in southern Europe as opposed to the picture in central and northern Europe. Much the same is true for the Bronze Age samples, although these do tend to tie to the preceding Neolithic in the same part of the range tested.

Unlike the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and modern samples, the Palaeolithic samples are not from single sites. There is no single European Upper Palaeolithic sample large enough to run as a single twig in a dendrogram. Instead, we had to use Cro-Magnon 1, La Ronde du Barry, Abri Pataud, Saint Germain-La Rivière, and Le Placard, all from southwestern France, plus Obercassel 1 from western Germany, and Předmostí 3 and 4 from the Czech Republic. Measurements of the latter two specimens were taken on casts because the originals had been destroyed by retreating Germans near the end of World War II (33). The same kind of problem of finding more than one individual in a burial site also tended to be true for some of the available Mesolithic of Europe. Individual specimens from Brittany to Monaco (Gramat, Rastel, Recheril and Téviec) were lumped together to make the European Mesolithic sample. There are larger Mesolithic samples, but we were not able to get permission to work on them. The North African Epipalaeolithic sample was made on the basis of specimens from Afalou in Algeria and Taforalt in Morocco. The Natufian sample from Israel is also problematic because it is so small, being constituted of three males and one female from the Late Pleistocene Epipalaeolithic (34) of Israel, and there was no usable Neolithic sample for the Near East.

The difficulty in making comparisons with Neolithic and Palaeolithic samples is the result of the very different treatment of the deceased. Neolithic communities established cemeteries where the remains of the departed accumulated in some numbers. Most Upper Palaeolithic peoples tended to bury the dead singly and in widely separated locations. Furthermore, Neolithic pottery became fractured with considerable frequency, leaving potsherds in quantity at Neolithic sites. Consequently there may well have been a tendency to overestimate the size of Neolithic populations vis-à-vis the contemporary surviving foragers (6, 35, 36). Despite the small numbers and scattered locations of the Late Pleistocene specimens, they tend to cluster with each other rather than with any groups of more recent date.

In dendrograms such as Fig. 1, the little Natufian sample clusters with the Mesolithic of France, the North African Epipalaeolithic, and the European Upper Palaeolithic, but the lengths of each of these twigs show that the relationships are comparatively remote. These are all Late Pleistocene or very early post-Pleistocene groups, and they are also noticeably more robust than more recent human groups. The three Niger-Congo-speaking groups (the Congo from Gabon, the Dahomey from Benin, and the Haya from Tanzania) cluster together away from most of the other samples. They do show a somewhat more distant link to the Nubians and the Nubian Bronze Age, who are so close to each other that they were combined for subsequent analyses.

When the samples used in Fig. 1 are compared by the use of canonical variate plots as in Fig. 2, the separateness of the Niger-Congo speakers is again quite clear. Interestingly enough, however, the small Natufian sample falls between the Niger-Congo group and the other samples used. Fig. 2 shows the plot produced by the first two canonical variates, but the same thing happens when canonical variates 1 and 3 (not shown here) are used. This placement suggests that there may have been a Sub-Saharan African element in the make-up of the Natufians (the putative ancestors of the subsequent Neolithic), although in this particular test there is no such evident presence in the North African or Egyptian samples. As shown in Fig. 1, the Somalis and the Egyptian Bronze Age sample from Naqada may also have a hint of a Sub-Saharan African component. That was not borne out in the canonical variate plot (Fig. 2), and there was no evidence of such an involvement in the Algerian Neolithic (Gambetta) sample.

Conclusions
References Combining SamplesWhen groups that are close to each other in the dendrogram in Fig. 1 are combined to make a single dendrogram twig, the picture is simplified, but much the same conclusion is supported. Czech, Denmark, England, Etruscan, Finn/Sami, France, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Sardinia, and Swiss samples are combined to make a sample designated as “Modern Europe.” Algeria, Berber, Greece, Iran/Iraq, Italy, Morocco, Sicily, and Tunisia samples were combined to generate a “Modern Mediterranean” twig, and the Algerian Neolithic was run as a separate twig. Next the Congo, Dahomey, and Haya samples were run as a “Niger-Congo” twig. Then Neolithic samples from Denmark, England, France, Germany, and Portugal were combined with Bronze Age samples from England, Jericho, and Mongolia to make a “Late Prehistoric Eurasia” sample. Mongolia is a long way east of any of the other samples used, but it has previously been shown that the Mongolian Bronze Age sample is unrelated to modern Mongols and has more in common with prehistoric Europeans and the Native Americans of the United States–Canada border (17).

Next the Portuguese Mesolithic, Greek Neolithic, Italy Eneolithic, and Swiss Neolithic samples and the Italian and Greek Bronze Age samples were combined to make a “Prehistoric Mediterranean” twig. Then Naqada Bronze Age Egyptian, the Nubian, Nubia Bronze Age, Israeli Fellaheen (Arabic farmers), and Somali samples were lumped as “Prehistoric/Recent Northeast Africa.” The Natufians and the Algerian Neolithic samples were run as separate twigs, and there were separate twigs for Basques and Canary Islanders. Figure 3 shows the results of running all of these twigs in a single neighbor-joining dendrogram. Only 18 of the 24 variables were used to construct Fig. 3, allowing us to add the Basque sample. When the Basques are left out and all 24 variables are used, the main twigs in the resulting dendrogram relate to each other in exactly the same way as those in the 18-variable version shown in Fig. 3. The D2 figures that were used in the construction of Fig. 3 are printed in Table 3.

 Fig. 3.
Neighbor-joining dendrogram of combined adjacent groups from Fig. 1.

Mahalanobis distance figures for the twigs in Fig. 3

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Modern Europe	—
2. Modern Mediterranean	3.34	—
3. Niger-Congo	16.42	16.26	—
4. Late Prehistoric Eurasia	1.87	2.52	12.15	—
5. Prehistoric Mediterranean	4.19	3.90	15.60	2.65	—
6. Prehist/Recent NE Africa	5.16	5.22	6.67	4.54	5.78	—
7. Canary Islands	3.58	7.22	19.16	4.68	5.90	7.01	—
8. Basques	7.16	8.81	30.77	10.98	14.31	11.82	7.94	—
9. Natufian	21.00	19.93	14.66	14.00	16.59	15.31	20.62	33.97	—
10. Algerian Neolithic	8.20	7.62	12.84	6.71	5.71	5.14	6.47	14.98	17.60	—

 There are some generalizations that are apparent from the picture presented in both the greater individual numbers of twigs shown in Fig. 1 and the combined pattern shown in Fig. 3. When the maximum number of twigs is plotted, despite the very small numbers involved, the Late Pleistocene samples from Israel, Europe, and North Aftica tend to link to each other before they tie to the modern representatives of each of the areas in question, as shown in Fig. 1. In that run, the Natufian of Israel ties to the French Mesolithic and then to the Afalou/Taforalt sample from North Africa. These then link with the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and, somewhat surprisingly, with the Chandman (the Mongolian Bronze Age sample) and finally, at the next step, with the Danish Neolithic. One of the things that these geographically diverse groups clearly have in common is a degree of robustness that sets them apart from the recent inhabitants of the areas in which they are found.

Apart from the quantitative relationships shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, most of the Neolithic samples in Europe share nonmetric features of the lateral edge of the orbit, the shape of the gonial angle of the mandible, and the configuration of menton that are present even when degrees of size and robustness vary between the regions represented. These nonmetric attributes all support the view that most of the Neolithic inhabitants of Europe tie more closely together with each other than with the living representatives of the areas in question. The principal exception to this generalization is one of the two small samples of the German Neolithic, the Mühlhausen sample, which ties closer metrically to the living inhabitants of the Middle East and North Africa. Metrically the other German Neolithic sample, Tauberbischofsheim, links with the living Central European samples. Nonmetrically, those two small German Neolithic samples also appear strikingly different from each other.

 Fig. 4.
Canonical variates 1 (58.1%) and 2 (16.2%) for the same groups represented in Fig. 3.

The Niger-Congo speakers (Congo, Dahomey, and Haya) cluster closely with each other and a bit less closely with the Nubian sample (both the recent and the Bronze Age Nubians) and more remotely with the Naqada Bronze Age sample of Egypt, the modern Somalis, and the Arabic-speaking Fellaheen (farmers) of Israel. When those samples are separated and run in a single analysis as in Fig. 1, there clearly is a tie between them that is diluted the farther one gets from Sub-Saharan Africa. The other obvious matter shown in Fig. 3 is the separate identity of the northern Europeans. This matter is treated in the next section.
 
The Basque language is a linguistic isolate unrelated to any other language (37), and there is a long-held idea that the Basques may represent a modern survival of the Pleistocene human inhabitants of western Europe (38). Our measurements were made on the sample gathered from the French side of the French/Spanish frontier that runs through Basque country in southwestern France. These specimens were stored in the Broca collection at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris. Paul Broca himself had promoted the view that the Basques represent the continuing existence of the kind of Upper Paleolithic population excavated at the Cro-Magnon rock shelter in the village of Les Eyzies in the Dordogne region of southwestern France in 1868 (38–41). Shortly thereafter the “old man” (“le vieillard”) found in that rock shelter was elevated to the status of typifying a whole “Cro-Magnon race” regarded as ancestral to not only the Basques but also the aboriginal inhabitants of the Canary Islands (38, 42–45).

When the Basques are run with the other samples used in Fig. 1, they link with Germany and more remotely with the Canary Islands. They are clearly European, although the length of their twig indicates that they have a distinction all their own. It is clear, however, that they do not represent a survival of the kind of craniofacial form indicated by Cro-Magnon any more than do the Canary Islanders, nor does either sample tie in with the Berbers of North Africa as has previously been claimed (38, 45–46). This is particularly well documented when the 18 variables are used to generate a plot of the first two canonical variates as shown in Fig. 4. In this figure, one can see a clear link between the Niger-Congo sample and the Natufians. The Prehistoric/Recent Northeast African sample also has a subsequent link to the Niger-Congo sample in Fig. 3. Yet the D2 values in Table 3 show that it is slightly closer to Late Prehistoric Eurasia than to the Algerian Neolithic, Modern Europe, and Modern Mediterranean and that it is farthest from the Niger-Congo, the Natufians, and the Basques. Although the Algerian Neolithic sample has an even more residual link to this cluster, the D2 figures in Table 3 show that it is almost as far from the Niger-Congo twig as from the Basques and Natufians. The generally high D2 values for the Natufian sample in Table 3 are almost certainly a reflection of the very small sample size.

To test the analysis shown in Fig. 3, Cro-Magnon (Fig. 4, ×) was removed from the European Upper Palaeolithic sample and run as a single individual. Interestingly enough, Cro-Magnon is not close to any more recent sample. Clearly, Cro-Magnon is not the same as the Basque or Canary Island samples. Fig. 4 plots the first and second canonical variates against each other, but that conclusion is even more strongly supported when canonical variate 3 (not shown here) is plotted with variate 1. The probabilities of Cro-Magnon’s ties to any of the groups in Figs. 3 and 4 are shown in Table 4. If this analysis shows nothing else, it demonstrates that the oft-repeated European feeling that the Cro-Magnons are “us” (47) is more a product of anthropological folklore than the result of the metric data available from the skeletal remains.

 Table 4.
Probabilities and squared Mahalanobis distances between Cro-Magnon 1 and reference samples 

   Probabilities and squared Mahalanobis distances between Cro-Magnon 1 and reference samples

	ModEur	ModMed	NigCon	LPEurasia	PrehMed	P/RNEAfr	CanIsl	Basq	Natuf	AlgNe
Cro-Magnon
Posterior probability	0.49	0.01	0.00	0.39	0.03	0.01	0.07	0.01	0.00	0.00
Typicality probability (F distribution)	0.26	0.04	0.01	0.25	0.10	0.04	0.19	0.09	0.07	0.04
Squared Mahalanobis distance	21.72	30.53	36.35	22.15	26.80	30.10	24.42	28.30	35.00	36.00

 

Conclusions
The assessment of prehistoric and recent human craniofacial dimensions supports the picture documented by genetics that the extension of Neolithic agriculture from the Near East westward to Europe and across North Africa was accomplished by a process of demic diffusion (11–15). If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a SubSaharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone (6, 9, 33, 34, 48, 49), but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared.
 

How this actually works in plain English… The Natufians were slightly more of Eurasian ancestry than African, and by the time the Neolithic farming expansion started, any Negroid features had been diluted to invisibility, and you are left with with an essentially Eurasian population. The African Niger Congo (included only as an outlier) never comes anywhere near the measurements of stone age/bronze age Europeans or bronze age North African and near East .

Limb length in ancient and modern Egyptians, compared.

In all ‘who were the Egyptians’ arguments, the single most important question is always ‘are the ancient Egyptians different to the modern?’ It is not enough to observe that the remains fit into the normal range for half a dozen different population samples, the point is…  are they different to the people there now? Are the ancient population showing themselves to be essentially different to the modern.

One of the often quoted facts is that the ancient Egyptians come closer to black Americans than white Americans for limb length (an adaptation to a tropical climate). What these studies generally fail to comment on is the limb length of modern Egyptians. Modern Egyptians are the same as the ancient Egyptians.

This data is taken from a chart on page 92 of Stringer and Gamble (Stringer and Gamble, 1993, p. 92). 

crural index = Tibia/Femur length
modern peoples      79% in Lapps
                    86% in Black African groups

Lapps               79%        .25
modern Inuit        81.5%     4
Belgium             82.5%    10
S.African white     83.2%     8.5
Yugoslav            83.75%    8.4
American white      82.6%     9.8
Kalahari Bushman    83.4%    18
New MexicoIndian    84.6%    14
S.African black     86.4%    17
Arizona Indian      85.5%    18
Melanesian          84.8%    23
Pygmy               85.1%    24.2
Egyptian            84.9%    26.1
American Black      85.25%   26

Modern peoples limb length. , on a page about Neanderthals and hybridisation.

Amusingly I found this image from Trinkhaus on ‘Peopling of the Nile Valley’ where it outright lies and says this limb length represents ancient Egyptians. It doesn’t, it is showing all modern human populations. A similar graph can be seen at the book link below.

Principles of Human Evolution, Google book review.

Variation in ancient Egyptian stature and body proportions
Sonia R. Zakrzewski *
Department of Archaeology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BF, UK
 
Abstract
Stature and the pattern of body proportions were investigated in a series of six time-successive Egyptian populations in order to investigate the biological effects on human growth of the development and intensification of agriculture, and the formation of state-level social organization. Univariate analyses of variance were performed to assess differences between the sexes and among various time periods. Significant differences were found both in stature and in raw long bone length measurements between the early semipastoral population and the later intensive agricultural population. The size differences were greater in males than in females. This disparity is suggested to be due to greater male response to poor nutrition in the earlier populations, and with the increasing development of social hierarchy, males were being provisioned preferentially over females. Little change in body shape was found through time, suggesting that all body segments were varying in size in response to environmental and social conditions. The change found in body plan is suggested to be the result of the later groups having a more tropical (Nilotic) form than the preceding populations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2003. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc. Received: 19 February 2002; Accepted: 11 November 2002

Stature estimation in ancient Egyptians: A new technique based on anatomical reconstruction of stature
Michelle H. Raxter 1 *, Christopher B. Ruff 2, Ayman Azab 3, Moushira Erfan 3, Muhammad Soliman 3, Aly El-Sawaf 3

Abstract
Trotter and Gleser’s (Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 10 [(1952)] 469-514; Trotter and Gleser: Am J Phys Anthropol 16 [(1958)] 79-123) long bone formulae for US Blacks or derivations thereof (Robins and Shute: Hum Evol 1 [(1986)] 313-324) have been previously used to estimate the stature of ancient Egyptians. However, limb length to stature proportions differ between human populations; consequently, the most accurate mathematical stature estimates will be obtained when the population being examined is as similar as possible in proportions to the population used to create the equations. The purpose of this study was to create new stature regression formulae based on direct reconstructions of stature in ancient Egyptians and assess their accuracy in comparison to other stature estimation methods. We also compare Egyptian body proportions to those of modern American Blacks and Whites. Living stature estimates were derived using a revised Fully anatomical method (Raxter et al.: Am J Phys Anthropol 130 [(2006)] 374-384). Long bone stature regression equations were then derived for each sex. Our results confirm that, although ancient Egyptians are closer in body proportion to modern American Blacks than they are to American Whites, proportions in Blacks and Egyptians are not identical. The newly generated Egyptian-based stature regression formulae have standard errors of estimate of 1.9-4.2 cm. All mean directional differences are less than 0.4% compared to anatomically estimated stature, while results using previous formulae are more variable, with mean directional biases varying between 0.2% and 1.1%, tibial and radial estimates being the most biased. There is no evidence for significant variation in proportions among temporal or social groupings; thus, the new formulae may be broadly applicable to ancient Egyptian remains. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Ancient Egyptian teeth.

Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic through postdynastic peoples.

Irish JD.

Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7720, USA. ffjdi@uaf.edu

Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed to describe and compare up to 36 dental morphological variants in 15 Neolithic through Roman-period Egyptian samples. Trait frequencies are determined, and phenetic affinities are calculated using the mean measure of divergence and Mahalanobis D2 statistics for discrete traits; the most important traits in generating this intersample variation are identified with correspondence analysis. Assuming that the samples are representative of the populations from which they derive, and that phenetic similarity provides an estimate of genetic relatedness, these affinities are suggestive of overall population continuity. That is, other than a few outliers exhibiting extreme frequencies of nine influential traits, the dental samples appear to be largely homogenous and can be characterized as having morphologically simple, mass-reduced teeth. These findings are contrasted with those resulting from previous skeletal and other studies, and are used to appraise the viability of five Egyptian peopling scenarios. Specifically, affinities among the 15 time-successive samples suggest that: 1) there may be a connection between Neolithic and subsequent predynastic Egyptians, 2) predynastic Badarian and Naqada peoples may be closely related, 3) the dynastic period is likely an indigenous continuation of the Naqada culture, 4) there is support for overall biological uniformity through the dynastic period, and 5) this uniformity may continue into postdynastic times. Copyright 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Sub Saharan teeth are described as being complex, massive teeth, not similar to the ancient Egyptians, who had simple mass reduced teeth like modern North Africans.

This chart shows the relative similarities between the teeth of different populations. As you can see, the Egyptians don’t cluster with the Sub Saharan African teeth (marked by black triangles). Click on it for a larger image.

This is another link to a JD Irish study,

Who Were the Ancient Egyptians? Dental AffinitiesAmong Neolithic Through Postdynastic Peoples.

The conclusion of this is that he couldn’t find any evidence of a major population change from the pre-dynastic to Roman times.

The excellent preservation of ancient Egyptian hair.

Abstract: Developments in microfocus synchrotron techniques have led to new results regarding the long-term alteration of archaeological samples of biological origin. Here, ancient hair samples from two Egyptian mummies have been analyzed using a conjunction of structural and elemental synchrotron methods. In this favored context of conservation, structural analysis revealed a remarkable preservation of keratin supramolecular organization at any observed length scale. Bulk keratin structure has therefore not been modified significantly over 2000 years. However, infrared spectroscopy indicated a partial disorganization of keratins close to the hair surface through polypeptide bond breakage. Elemental mapping showed a strongly heterogeneous distribution which can be related to mummification and cosmetic treatments.

Essentially, other than the surface being a little disturbed by by the mummification chemicals and cosmetics, the hair is in remarkably good shape. I suppose that’s what comes of being in a pitch black environment with a stable temperature.

The pyramid builder’s DNA.

Who were the pyramid builders?
After comparing DNA samples taken from the workers’ bones with samples taken from modern Egyptians, Dr Moamina Kamal of Cairo University Medical School has suggested that Khufu’s pyramid was a truly nationwide project, with workers drawn to Giza from all over Egypt. She has discovered no trace of any alien race; human or intergalactic, as suggested in some of the more imaginative ‘pyramid theories’.

Effectively, it seems, the pyramid served both as a gigantic training project and – deliberately or not – as a source of ‘Egyptianisation’. The workers who left their communities of maybe 50 or 100 people, to live in a town of 15,000 or more strangers, returned to the provinces with new skills, a wider outlook and a renewed sense of national unity that balanced the loss of loyalty to local traditions. The use of shifts of workers spread the burden and brought about a thorough redistribution of pharaoh’s wealth in the form of rations.

Almost every family in Egypt was either directly or indirectly involved in pyramid building. The pyramid labourers were clearly not slaves. They may well have been the unwilling victims of the corvée or compulsory labour system, the system that allowed the pharaoh to compel his people to work for three or four month shifts on state projects. If this is the case, we may imagine that they were selected at random from local registers.

But, in a complete reversal of the story of oppression told by Herodotus, Lehner and Hawass have suggested that the labourers may have been volunteers. Zahi Hawass believes that the symbolism of the pyramid was already strong enough to encourage people to volunteer for the supreme national project. Mark Lehner has gone further, comparing pyramid building to American Amish barn raising, which is done on a volunteer basis. He might equally well have compared it to the staffing of archaeological digs, which tend to be manned by enthusiastic, unpaid volunteers supervised by a few paid professionals.

The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt: A Modern Investigation of Pharaoh’s Workforce by AR David (Boston and Henley, London, 1986)

I’d be a lot happier if I could see the DNA results from the source.

Seventies Nubian mummy hair study.

KEY WORDS Hair analysis . Hair form Mummy hair .
Nubia – Meroitics
ABSTRACT

Hair samples from 76 burials at Semna South (Sudanese Nubia) were examined using a variety of techniques. Electrophoresis and fluorescence microscopy indicated some oxidation of the cuticule and keratin protein had taken place. However, the cuticular structure and the lack of fluorescence
of the cortex indicate that the low humidity and non-alkaline conditions preserved the physicaland chemical properties of the hair well. Pigmentation, even allowing for oxidation of melanin, showed a higher proportion of lighter samples than is currently associated with the Nubian area. Hair form analysis showed medium diameter and scale count; the curling variables were intermediate between European and African samples. There was a high ratio of maximum to minimum curvature (a measure of irregularity), approached only by Melanesian samples. Meroitic and X-group burial types were not statistically significantly different (largely due to sample sizes), but the X-group, especially males, showed more African elements than the Meroitic in the curling variables. Principal components analysis showed the Semna sample to be significantly different from seven populations examined earlier.

Though several studies have been conducted on ancient hair, because of small sample sizes, few have allowed adequate statistical quantification, and none has dealt with Nubian material. Egyptian mummy samples have been examined in the past for color and structure by Pruner-Bey (18771, Virchow (18981,
and reportedly by Minakow (18993. Woodbury and Woodbury(’32) and Trotter (’431 have examined ancient Peruvian material using metric techniques; they found the ancient hairs to generally fall in the range of modern variation. Brothwell and Spearman(’63) studied North African and other material using a
variety of techniques, including microscopic examination, fluorescence microscopy, and reflectance spectrophotometry; they found the state of preservation of the samples closely related to environmental factors of the burial sites. More recently, Chiarelli et al. (’70/’71) studied ancient Egyptian samples with scanning electron microscopy, finding significant loss of cuticular scale edges. Using microscopic and macroscopic techniques, Titlbachova AM. J. PHYS. ANTHROP. (1978) 49: 277-262. and Titlbach (’77) studied Egyptian mummies in Czechoslovakian collections; they found generally good preservation, with the samples resembling modern European populations with significant African admixture.

This study analyzes hair samples from Semna South in Sudanese Nubia using several biochemical and metric techniques. The samples contain Meroitic( First Century A.D. to Fourth Century A.D.), X-group (Fourth Century to Sixth Century A.D.), and Christian period (Seventh Century to Tenth Century A.D.) material. Strouhal has pointed out (’77) that the physical relationship of Meroitic and Postmeroitic
populations is not clear. It is still not known whether X-group burials represent a migration of an ethnically distinct people or change in situ of the Meroitics. It is more generally accepted that Christian period inhabitants were the descendants of the X-group.

Hence this study adds perspective to the physical anthropology of the area. ‘ Current address: Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Harvard Medical SchwI, Boston, Massachusetts 021 15.
277 The hair samples were analyzed by quantitative hair form analysis (Hrdy, ’73), electrophoresis of hair keratins (Hrdy and Baden, ’731, qualitative hair pigmentation analysis (Martin and Saller, ’62), and  fluorescence microscopy (Brothwell and Spearman. ’63). The findings of the quantitative hair form analysis were compared to four populations examined by Hrdy (’73).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The sample consisted of 56 Meroitic, 15 X group, and 5 Christian individuals from Semna South collected between 1966 and 1968 in the course of the excavations of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago directed by L. V. Zabkar (Zabkar, ’73/’74, “78). Specific information on individual burials is located in Zabkar(’78). There was no embalming; mummification resulted from burial conditions alone. Burials  were either of a simple pit grave type, or of more complex types, including separate burialchambers, ramps, and vaults. The hair was either attached to the skull or associated with the remains in the fill. Hair from infants under six months, and samples of insufficient size for measurement were excluded from the analysis. Age and sex determinations and burial type were according to the criteria of Zabkar (’78).
Electrophoretic studies were carried out as outlined in Hrdy and Baden (’731, with the addition of soaking the samples overnight in 0.05 M EDTA and 0.05 M Tris buffer at pH 9.6 to chelateheavy metals that interfere with chemical extraction of keratin. Fluorescence microscopy was done using the method of
Brothwell and Spearman (’631, using 0.1% Acridine Orange dye at pH 4.9. Qualitative hair color analysis was performed with a Fischer-Saller hair color standard (Peabody Museum, Cambridge, Massachusetts) (Martin and Saller, ’62).

Quantitative hair form analysis was carried out by the method of Hrdy(’731, using the principal components analysis variables: diameter (in microns, an average of several determinations); scale count (the number of curicularscale ridges per 0.52 mm); average curvature (the inverse of the radius of curvature); ratio of maximum to minimum curvature (a measure of regularity of hair curling); crimp (number of reverse twists along the hair shaft per unit distance); and ratio of natural to straight length (a measure of functionalhair shortening due to curling). Principal components analysis was performed using scores standardized on the seven population sample (Hrdy, ’73) and the Semna sample.

RESULTS
Electrophoresis of alpha SCM-keratin protein from three samples (identification numbers: Meroitic N224-B, N455; X-group M107) showed similar patterns for all samples. There was a large band at the origin and a large band at the buffer from which represented SCMKB. This aberrant pattern indicates that the fibrous protein had aggregated at the origin, probably from cross linking of the protein chains.

Fluorescence microscopy on modern controls showed a greenish fluorescence throughout the cortex and cuticle, with areas of bright orange associated with fractures in the shaft, as reported by Brothwell and Spearman (’63). These fractures and areas of orange were more pronounced on hairs that had been bleached. Of nine Semna samples, all had a completely orange cuticle, with brighter orange highlighting
the cuticular structure, which was intact on all samples. Debris clinging to the shaft was also bright orange. The cortex on all samples was greenish, except where the shaft was broken, which was orange. Hair which was blond or “bleached” appearing (M048, M061, M205, M228) fluoresced identically to the brown samples (M069, M098, M107, M188, M246). Macroscopically the hair was in generally good condition, with approximately one percent of the shafts damaged. Eight of the 76 samples had debris clinging to the shafts; the remainder were relatively clean. Two of the samples were braided.

Qualitative grading of the samples on the Fischer-Saller scale is shown in table 1. Samples that were graded on the red scale (I-VI) for degree of red pigmentation were also graded on the blond-brown-black scale (A-Y) for degree of black pigmentation. Twenty-six percent (29% of the Meroitic, 13% of the Xgroup) of the total sample had some red pigmentation, and 10.5% (8.9 Meroitic, 13% Xgroup) had “blond” pigmentation (Fischer- Saller category G or less). The crude variables of the quantitative hair form analysis are presented in table 2. The results are also broken down for subpopulations of Meroitic,  X-group, and Christian; male and female; and simple burial type and more complex. Results from Hrdy (’73) for Northwest European, East African, Bougainville (Melanesian), and Japanese populations are presented for comparison. In no variable was the Meroitic significantly different from the X-group, male from female or simple burial type from non-simple. However, the X-group sample showed higher curling variables than the Meroitic, especially in males (the Christian group is too small to make valid comparisons).

The sample as a whole was significantly different from the other populations in average curvature, ratio of maximum to minimum curvature, crimp, and ratio of natural to straight length. Diameter was significantly different from Japanese and Bougainville, and scale count significantly different from the European,
Bougainville, and African populations.

Principal components analysis (Hrdy, ’73) results on the first three components (accounting for 80% of the variance) are shown in table 3 for the total population, with comparative populations from Hrdy (’73). In
component I, which is heavily loaded on general curling variables and scale count, the total sample centroid was significantly different from European and African samples, though it was definitely more European than African.Component 11, loaded on diameter, was not significantly different from the comparison populations. Due to the large amount of irregularity (high ratio of maximum to minimum curvature values), the Semna sample had a higher score on component 111, which was heavily loaded on that variable, than the African and European samples. Only Melanesian samples had a higher score on this
component.

DISCUSSION
 Hair keratin is remarkably stable due to cross-chain disulfide linkages. However, prolonged exposure to harsh conditions will alter the keratin. The Semna samples were in contact with sand for over a thousand years, and hence were at risk for oxidation of the protein molecules. There undoubtedly was some oxidation, as shown by the aggregation of the protein on electrophoresis and the orange fluorescence
of the cuticle by fluorescence microscopy.

However, the cortex did not have this oxidized pattern, unlike samples from Egypt examined by Brothwell and Spearman (’531, which fluoresced orange throughout. Since hair form is probably determined by physical arrangements of the alpha helical proteins within the cortex (Hrdy and Baden, ’731, the
apparent limitation of oxidation to the cuticle in the Semna sample argues for the maintenance
of hair form in the samples in spite of their age. In line with this is the large variability in hair form (rather than the uniformity that one would expect if a uniform environmental force was acting on the sample),
and the lack of macroscopic cuticular and shaft damage. Also arguing for intact keratin is the large number of samples with intact cuticle, as opposed to the ancient Egyptian sample analyzed using scanning electron microscopy by Chiarelli et al. (’70/’71). In general, low humidity and non-alkaline conditions
are optimal for preservation of keratin; both conditions were met in the Semna samples.

As Brothwell and Spearman(‘63) point out, reddish-brown ancient hair is usually the result of partial oxidation of the melanin pigment. This color was seen in a large proportion of the Semna sample, and also noted by Titlbachova and Titlbach(‘77) on Egyptian material, where it also may have resulted from the mummification process. However, the large number of blond hairs that are not associated with the cuticular damage that bleaching produces, probably points to a significantly lighter-haired population than is now present in the Nubian region. Brothwell and Spearman (’63) noted genuinely blond ancient Egyptian samples using reflectance spectrophotometry. Blondism, especially in young children, is common in many dark haired populations (e.g., Australian, Melanesian), and is still found in some Nubian villages(J. Zabkar, personal communication).Only one sample (M197) showed cuticular damage and irregularities definitely consistent with bleaching, although bleaching could not be ruled out in some of the blond samples.

The average diameter of the Semna sample was close to both the N.W. European and East African samples, which are of medium thickness. Of the variables that best distinguish European and African samples, the total Semna sample was closer to the European on average curvature, crimp, and ratio of length. The ratio of curvature, however, was higher than either, indicating a degree of irregularity approached only by Melanesian samples. Obviously the sample has a greater degree of African admixture than the Egyptian hair sample described by Titlbachova and Tiltbach (‘771, which had three of 14 samples showing “Negroid elements.” Although there is not a consistent statistically significant difference between the X-group and Meroitic samples, it is interesting that the X-group sample, especially the males, had higher curling variables, indicating more of an African element. Although larger sample sizes are needed for statistically significant results, the results here are consistent with the evidence summarized by Strouhal (‘77) for skeletal material, which shows X-group very similar to Meroitic, but having increased negroid elements.

The principal components analysis showed the Semna population in a unique position on the three component space when compared to seven other populations (Hrdy, ’73). The combination of high ratio of curvature with moderate diameter and curling differentiates the sample from the Melanesian, European, African, and Mongoloid groups.

The Semna sample had high coefficients of variation compared to four other populations, especially in scale count, average curvature, and ratio of curvature. This high intra-population variability undoubtedly reflects the heterogeneous nature of the Nubian population during the Meroitic and Post-meroitic periods.

If I read this correctly, the conclusion is that the Nubian samples are showing a mix of European and African hair, with a few natural blondes in their number. This study doesn’t seem to be recent, but as I understand there hasn’t been any real change in the study of hair over the last few decades. This tallies with the Mt DNA study of Nubian mummies that shows them to be about 60% non Sub Saharan African.

I would just like to add that the blond Melanesian gene isn’t found in Africa anywhere, it’s an in situ mutation in the Australoids. The only known blond gene known in Africa and Europe is traceable to Northern Europe, and is only about 10,000 years on, which makes it pretty specific to European ancestry.

There’s a tendency for Afrocentrists to include Melanesians into their calculations. They shouldn’t, Melanesians and Australoids aren’t even closely related to Africans, and are the people on the planet least related to them. Also, no Australoids were ever in Nubia or Egypt.

Percentage genetic distances among major continents based on 120 classical polymorphisms

	Africa	Oceania	East Asia	Europe
Oceania	24.7
East Asia	20.6	10
Europe	16.6	13.5	9.7
America	22.6	14.6	8.9	9.5

As you can see from this Africa shows the most genetic distance from Australoids (Oceania). Chart from a study by Cavalli-Sforza using 120 blood polymorphisms provides information on genetic distances of the various continents. This chart also matches the work of geneticist Niell Risch, who has shown that the people most closely related to the Aborigines are Asians. You’ll note, Europeans are significantly more closely related to Aborigines than Africans. The people most closely related to Africans are… Europeans.

DNA evidence from ancient Nubians.

Unfortunately this DNA study doesn’t discriminate between L3 and later non African mutations. However, since M1, U, pre HV and a whole slew of other Eurasian DNA hg’s date to about 35k, then later to 12k in North Africa, this study probably isn’t massively far off the mark for lower Nubia . 

mtDNA analysis in ancient Nubians supports the existence of gene flow between sub-Sahara and North Africa in the Nile valley

C. Fox, 1997:

Abstract:

The Hpal (np3,592) mitochondrial DNA marker is a selectively neutral mutation that is very common in sub-Saharan Africa and is almost absent in North African and European populations. It has been screened in a Meroitic sample from ancient Nubia through PCR amplification and posterior enzyme digestion, to evaluate the sub-Saharan genetic influences in this population. From 29 individuals analysed, only 15 yield positive amplifications, four of them (26·7%) displaying the sub-Saharan African marker. Hpa I (np3,592) marker is present in the sub-Saharan populations at a frequency of 68·7 on average. Thus, the frequency of genes from this area in the Merotic Nubian population can be estimated at around 39% (with a confidence interval from 22% to 55%). The frequency obtained fits in a south-north decreasing gradient of Hpa I (np3,592) along the African continent. Results suggest that morphological changes observed historically in the Nubian populations are more likely to be due to the existence of south-north gene flow through the Nile Valley than to in-situ evolution.
Krings et al study, 1999:

A study which included the modern population of both lower and upper Nubia show them to be about 45% maternally Eurasian, and there’s been virtually no immigration into the lower Nubia area from Asia according to the Y chromosome study of the area by Lucotte; which suggests this 60% Eurasian figure in the mummies is probably very roughly correct; (unless you believe there were invading armies of Arab women) particularly since the Dakhleh Oasis ancient and modern mt DNA analysis shows more Sub Saharan mt DNA than the ancient Egyptian samples, which is possibly attributable to the Arab slave trade. The Y chromsome study of lower Nubia here suggests historic male input from non Africans into the area is less than 5%, so it’s hard to argue for the ancient samples being massively different based on the modern DNA of the area.

Prehistory of the Nile.

 

A paste from the Tour Egypt site, for my own reference.

http://www.touregypt.net/ebph3.htm

Some time around the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic, or in the few centuries before it, the Mousterian Pluvial ended and desert once again reclaimed the Sahara region. Fleeing the desert, many of the peoples settled in the area migrated closer and closer to the Nile. It is possibly during this time that various tribes began to interact, providing a much wider gene pool on which to draw. It is unfortunate that little is known about the period from 40,000 – 17,000 BC. However, it is easy to draw conclusions based on earlier and later events. The growing barrenness of the Sahara would obviously cause many of the settlements to die of starvation, and once again survival of the human race in this area depended on the Nile. Naturally, some industries would survive and new ones would be created. These new industries show many similar trends, especially that of the miniaturization of tools, possibly as a desire to conserve resources. Most of the data about this period in time comes from the famous site of Kom Ombo. Kom Ombo is located on the east bank of the Nile in the southern area of Upper Egypt. Archaeologists know that this site is from the Upper Paleolithic because of the existence of burins, small, stubby, pointed tools made of flakes and characterized by long, narrow flakes forming a point. The discovery of burins in Egyptian archaeological sites prompted Edmund Vignard, the discoverer of Kom Ombo, to label it a new industry: the Sebilian.

Sebilian tools are manufactured from diorite, a hard, black, igneous rock that was plentiful in the area. The Sebilian Industry is divided into three distinct stages, based on the artifacts created and the techniques used to make them. Sebilian I, also called Lower Sebilian, is essentially a modified Levallois industry with retouched points and the first burins (small, knobby points). Sebilian II and III are true microblade and burin industries and by this time diorite had given way to the more durable and workable flint. But even with these developments, Sebilian artifacts appear technologically conservative and backward when compared with some of the Upper Paleolithic industries in Europe.

Complicating everything, however, is the discovery of a co-existing industry now labeled Silsillian (c. 13,000 BC) which effectively puts the early Egyptians back at the forefront of prehistoric technological development. Sisillian was a highly-developed microblade industry that included truncated blades, blades of unusual shapes made specifically for one task, and most significant of all, a wide variety of bladelets for mounting onto spears, darts, and arrows. There is almost no trace of earlier techniques such as Levalloisian, and Silsillian blades in some cases are thousands of years ahead of anything found in Europe from this period. The Silsillian Industry also premiered the creation of microliths. Microliths are small, fine blades used in advanced tools such as arrows, harpoons, and sickles, and since they are smaller, use less material. This latter development may have been due to the fact that in the Kom Ombo area, high-quality stone was in short supply. Additionally, the fact that these blades were used for agricultural tools such as sickles shows that by this time basic farming had begun, and earlier than had been previously thought.

Unlike their European “contemporaries” who had to deal with the changing post-ice age climate and the disappearance of several food species, the early Egyptians were still able to engage in hunting large game animals, and since many of the animal herds were now concentrated near the Nile, more stable settlements could be made. The Halfan Industry, or rather, the Halfan people, for it was much more than just a way of making tools, flourished between 18,000 and 15,000 BC (though one site has been found dating to before 24,000 BC) on a diet of large herd animals and the Khormusan tradition of fishing. Although there are only a few Halfan sites and they are small in size, there is a greater concentration of artifacts, indicating that this was not a people bound to seasonal wandering, but one that had settled, at least for a time.

Another group that did rather well during this time (17,000 – 15,000 BC) was the Fakhurian, an industry based entirely on microlithic tools. Indeed, they are the only industry discovered so far that is solely microlithic. Some Fakhurian blades are less than 3 cm long! At the same time, the two Idfuan industries were retaining a culture based on nomadic hunting, trapping, and snaring. During this time, at least in Upper Egypt, there is a trend for industries, as they become more advanced, to become more localized. No doubt this is due to the fact that the people were ceasing to be nomadic, settling in various areas, and then developing separately from everyone else depending on the environment in which they made their home, whether it was on the banks of the Nile, on the savannas, or in one of the outlying oases not yet claimed by the desert. Perhaps it should be mentioned that the Nile of the Paleolithic was much different than the Nile of today. Although dry, the desert areas were not completely hostile, as the annual flooding of the Nile was much higher than today, which resulted in a greater groundwater table and in turn, oases, floodpools, and waterholes.

With the sites from these periods archaeologists begin to see the signs of “true” cultures emerging. The Qadan (13,000 – 9,000 BC) sites, stretching from the Second Cataract of the Nile to Tushka (about 250 km upriver from Aswan), actually have cemeteries and evidence of ritual burial. It is also during this time that the first great experiments in ordered agriculture began. Grinding stones and blades have been found in great numbers with a glossy film of silica on them, possibly the result of cut grass stems. Sadly, as stone preserves better than straw baskets or satchels, the extent of agriculture from this period can not be determined. It may not have been true agriculture as we know it, but rather a sort of systematic “caring for” the local plant life (watering and harvesting, but as yet no planting in ordered rows and the like). Yet even this would put the Paleolithic Egyptians on almost the same technological level as the early Neolithic peoples in Europe. Some of the sites also give evidence that fishing was abandoned by the people living there, possibly because farmed grains (barley, most likely), together with the large herd animals still hunted, created a diet that was more than adequate.

Oddly though, almost as soon as this protoagriculture was developed, it appears to have been abandoned. Beginning around 10,500 BC, the stone sickles that were so predominant seem to simply fade out of the picture and there is a return to the hunter-gatherer-fisher culture that came before. Invasion by another people is a possible explanation, though a series of natural disasters that devastated the fledgling crops is more logical, as we are dealing with abandonment by not one, but many prehistoric societies over a widespread area. At first it would seem that the growing aridity of the environment was the cause. Certainly, given the present state of the Sahara and the surrounding area, this is a logical conclusion, but new evidence shows that this period was marked by a series of rather severe and violent Nile floods which could have destroyed the “farmlands” and discouraged the people from continuing to rely on crops as a dietary index.

It was about this time that the demise of the various Paleolithic peoples in Egypt began. It may very well be that the abandonment of protoagriculture contributed to this, but the discovery of the Jebel Sahaba cemetery sheds some new light on the end of many Paleolithic cultures. In all, three Qadan cemeteries are known: one at Tushka, and two at Jebel Sahaba, one on each side of the river. Although many of the remains unearthed at these sites are the usual cross-section of elderly and young, chieftains and commoners, there are quite a disturbing number of bodies from the final 10,000 years of the Upper Paleolithic that appear to have died by violence. Stone points found with the remains were almost all located in areas of the body that suggests penetration as spear points or similar weapons. Most were located in the chest and back area, with others in the lower abdomen, and even a few entering the skull through the lower jaw or neck area! Additionally, the lack of bony calluses as a result of healing near these points shows that in many of these cases the wound was fatal (bone tissue repairs itself rather quickly, preliminary healing often begins before even that of soft tissues). A statistical analysis of the main cemetery at Jebel Sahaba gives a figure of 40 percent of the people buried there died from wounds due to thrown projectiles; spears, darts, and arrows.

Why then was a hunter-gatherer culture so prone to violence? One explanation is diminishing resources, caused by the growing aridity and the failure of the protoagriculture experiments. The Jebel Sahaba cemeteries must only have been used for a few generations and for that many violent deaths to occur within that time supports an explanation based on massive intertribal warfare. Also, since the victims were of all ages (except infants; only one infant is buried in each of the Jebel Sahaba cemeteries), this could indicate that the majority of the skirmishes were actually based on raiding and ambush, as “normal” warfare usually only involves young to middle-aged males. And we should not dismiss the possibility of invasion by a more advanced, or at least more powerful, people from outside, especially if Jebel Sahaba and similar sites date to as late as 7000 BC, as by then the people would have been in competition with larger and more advanced Epipaleolithic cultures.

Bi-facial stone knives from Abydos.

A mixer post.

I just gave up on a ‘discussion’ on youtube over the race of the ancient Egyptians. He’s posted a few dozen rambling ranty ‘replies’. As is the way with fanatics, if you actually come up with a piece of hard evidence that shows they are wrong, the just blast past the issue and don’ t mention it. Ramses II was a white dude with red hair. The guy insisted that Africans have red hair (they don’t) and blonds (only from Caucasian mixing). He was also a ‘one drop’-er. One of those angry young black men. A major part of his evidence was ranting on about how racist Europeans ‘whitened’ the Egyptians. I think he’d find that was the American film studios that did that. Europe is less hung up than them. He’s still posting replies now, at least three since I said I wasn’t going to be involved in his rant. People.

The picture is one of the Fayum portraits, about 1900 years old. He looks middle Eastern to me. Oh, this guy insisted that all the ancient Egyptians had been chased into sub Saharan Africa by the Arabs, in spite of no evidence, and plenty to the contrary. He also said that the very pale bust of Nefertiti was actually a black woman. Hmm, a black woman with white skin?

I’m only interested in this from an anthropology point of view. To me one of the big puzzles to solve is the spread of humans out of Africa around the globe, and some racial characteristics are pointers as to what the original tribes would have looked like.

In spite of there being no traceable Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA or Y chromosomes in the human population, I still think there was some interbreeding. Mostly due to the variety of Caucasian hair and eye colouring, and lately a few geneticists have said that quit a lot of ancient genes splashed into the pool at once, for which there in no explanation. Except hmm, maybe a little Neanderthal ancestry.

Descriptions of ancient Egyptians by others.

Taken from another site striving for historical accuracy.

Reconstruction of Tutankhamun, for National geographic.

Ancient Greco-Roman descriptions of Egyptians

Egyptians had a “medium tone”

The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it it a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone.

– Manilius, Astronomica 4.724 Here the term Ethiopians (= Greek “burnt face”, denoting very dark skin) refers to Africans inhabiting latitudes south of Egypt (Snowden, 1989). The term “Ethiopian,” in that it was a broad category encompassing diverse ethnic groups of tropical Africa, was similar to a modern-day “racial” designation and roughly corresponded to what early anthropologists would have called “Negro.” Yet classical writers, as exemplified by Manilius’ quote above, clearly differentiated the Egyptians from “Ethiopians.” Philostratus, for example, noted that a people living near the Nubian border were lighter than Ethiopians, and that Egyptians were lighter still.

Egyptians resembled Northern Indians
There are cases of Greco-Roman authors likening Egyptians’ appearance to that of northern Indians, who generally do not look like black Africans. According to Arrian (Indica 6.9):

The appearance of the inhabitants is also not very different in India and Ethiopia: the southern Indians are rather more like Ethiopians as they are black to look on, and their hair is black; only they are not so snub-nosed or woolly-haired as the Ethiopians; the northern Indians are most like the Egyptians physically.

Strabo confirms in Geography 15.1.13, in almost identical wording:

As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.
Arrian and Strabo concur that the Egyptians resembled northern Indians – who are usually straight-haired and occasionally as light-skinned as southern Europeans – rather than the dark Dravidian types of southern India.

Furthermore, although Arrian and Strabo differentiate Ethiopians from South Indians in terms of facial form and hair texture, they cite no such differences between the Egyptians and northern Indians.

Afrocentric misreadings of classical texts-The meaning of melas and melanochroes

In their efforts to paint the ancient Egyptians “black,” Afrocentrists rely heavily on misreadings of ancient Greek and Roman literature – many of which stem from a severe misunderstanding of the historical use of color terms. In many ages and many cultures, descriptions of human complexion as “white,” “brown” or “black” would correspond in modern usage to “fair,” “tan” or “swarthy.” According to the anthropologist Peter Frost (*): This older, more relative sense has been noted in other culture areas. The Japanese once used the terms shiroi (white) and kuroi (black) to describe their skin and its gradations of color. The Ibos of Nigeria employed ocha (white) and ojii (black) in the same way, so that nwoko ocha (white man) simply meant an Ibo with a lighter complexion. In French Canada, the older generation still refers to a swarthy Canadien as noir. Vestiges of this older usage persist in family names. Mr. White, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Black were individuals within the normal color spectrum of English people.

Ditto for Leblanc, Lebrun, and Lenoir among the French or Weiss and Schwartz among the Germans. In the same vein, the Greek words melas and leukos when applied to skin color were usually equivalent to “swarthy” and “fair” rather than the racial terms “black” or “white” as Afrocentrists would prefer (see definition of melas in the online LSJ lexicon). There are numerous examples of this usage in Greek literature – one unequivocal example describes an aged Odysseus magically regaining his youth (Homer Odyssey 16.172-176):

“With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroiês], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.”

In describing the skin tone of Odysseus, Homer used the word melanchroiês – a form of the same word that other

Greeks sometimes chose to describe Egyptians, and one that is the source of much Afrocentric misunderstanding. If taken literally, the word would mean “black-skinned”; however, it is clear from the context that Homer means “of swarthy complexion” rather than racially “black,” and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. Otherwise we would have to assume that during the process of rejuvenation Odysseus transformed into a black African! This despite the numerous ancient artistic portrayals of Odysseus as Greek-looking and certainly not “black” in any modern racial sense.

Likewise, when the ancient writers described Egyptians as melas or melanchroes, they almost surely meant “dark-complected” rather than literally “black.” Any ambiguity in such descriptions can be resolved by noting that other classical writers such as Manilius specifically identified the Egyptians as medium in complexion rather than “black,” and that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as lighter and finer-featured than their African neighbors to the south.

The Herodotus quote
Perhaps the most frequently cited Greek quote among Afrocentrists is that of Herodotus (Histories 2.104.2) describing Egyptians as well as Colchians of the Caucasus as “dark-skinned and woolly-haired.” That the Egyptians were dark relative to Greeks is not surprising, considering that the same is true today. But Herodotus’ description of Egyptian hair would, at first glance, appear to conflict with the physical evidence left by the Egyptians themselves – numerous mummies with hair still attached to the skulls showing more straight, wavy, or lightly curled hair types than “woolly.”

The only way to make the evidence consistent is to assume Herodotus spoke in a relative rather than absolute sense. That is, Egyptian hair was on average curlier than Greek hair, and the tightly-curled (“woolly”) hair type was found more often in Egyptians than in Greeks – as is true today. There is no reason to assume on the basis of Herodotus’ words that all or even most Egyptians had “woolly” hair, nor that such hair found in Egyptians was as “woolly” as that of tropical Africans. Indeed, Herodotus himself mentions only “Ethiopians” – not Egyptians – as having the “woolliest hair of all men” (Herodotus Histories 7.70.1). Moreover, Herodotus’ explanation that being melanchroes or oulotriches “indeed counts for nothing, since other peoples are, too” suggests that these adjectives did not apply exclusively to any one “race” of people.

An analogous example of a stereotype based on relative comparison comes from the medieval Arab scholar Ibn Butlan, who noted the Greeks as having “straight blond hair” and “blue eyes.” Does this mean that all medieval Greeks had a Nordic appearance? Certainly not: it merely suggests that the blond-haired, blue-eyed type is more common among Greeks than Arabs and stood out more as a salient characteristic worthy of mention. The Arabs, like the Greeks, noted characteristics that were unusual in their own population and used these traits to typify the foreigners.

Interestingly, Herodotus mentions the Colchians as another group having “dark skin and woolly hair.” Considering that the Colchians inhabited what is roughly modern-day Georgia in the Caucasus, it would seem that the vast majority of Colchians were most likely – and quite literally – Caucasian. Of course Afrocentric diehards might claim that Colchians too were black Africans, but such a theory runs into trouble when one considers the observations of Hippocrates, who wrote that the Colchians in Phasis “are large and corpulent in body. Neither joint nor vein is evident. They have a yellow flesh, as if victims of jaundice” (Hippocrates, Airs, Waters, Places 15). Nothing in Hippocrates’ description suggests that Colchians look anything like sub-Saharan Africans and this further weakens the Afrocentric argument that Egyptians and Colchians must have looked like “blacks” on the basis of Herodotus’ words.

Other ancient quotes cited by Afrocentrists

There are certain other quotes that some Afro-Egyptocentrists interpret in such a way as to conflict with other descriptions such as the ones at the top of this page. The interpretations have similar failings as the Herodotus quote.

That is, (1) misconstruing melas and its variants as meaning racially “black”; (2) assuming certain traits mentioned in quotes are found in all or even most of the Egyptian population; and (3) assuming that when Egyptians do possess such traits, they are expressed nearly as strongly as in tropical Africans to the south. Using similar faulty methods, Afrocentrists might as well say Jews in the Middle Ages were “black” because Joseph ben Nathan in the 13th century quoted his father as saying “we Jews come from a pure, white source, and so our faces are black.” Of course to do this would be to ignore the fact that in medieval Europe as in ancient Greece, black often meant “swarthy.” Likewise, Afrocentrists could insist that 12th-century Moors were “black” on the basis of their being exaggerated as “blacker than pitch or ink” in the epic Chanson d’Aspremont. But we know on the basis of physical remains and ample pictorial evidence that neither the Jews nor Turks were actually “black” in medieval times.

They never believe you though. I’ve had one insist it meant the ‘real’ Jews were all black.

There’s a quote from Jane Eyre, where she describes a gypsy as being ‘as black as a crock’, and references to gypsies and Spaniards as being black can be found through European literature.

 ‘Black as crock’ Roma girls.