The Journal of African History, Vol. 12, No. 1. (1971), pp. 1-9.
“In Nubia, according to the analysis of physical anthropology, the original Europoid (Caucasoid) stock of the population was several times overrun by Negroid waves, flowing from the South. Negroes and Negroids penetrated to Egypt only sporadically, and their frequency, uneven according to time, place and the diagnostical knowledge of the investigator, has been estimated as 1 to 5 per cent. An increase in the number of Negroes was observed only in the New Kingdom, in connexion with the expansion of Egyptian domination to the south. From that time onwards, they were pictured as symbols of the south. The perfect portrayal of their morphological features shows that the Egyptian artists knew them very well.”
“By the individual analysis of nasal measurements and indices of the first Badarian series in comparison with the mixed Europoid-Negroid series from Wadi Qitna in Nubia (fourth-fifth century AD), with the Europoid series from Manfalout in Upper Egypt (Ptolemaic period) and with a series of recent Nilotes, I came to the conclusion that the distribution of the Badarian skulls extends from the Europoid to the Negroid range.”
“Of the total 117 skulls, 15 were found to be markedly Europoid, 9 of these were of the gracile Mediterranean type, 6 were of very robust structure reminiscent of the North African Cromagnon type. Eight skulls were clearly Negroid… We may conclude that the share of both components was nearly the same, with some overweight to the Europoid side.”
“In some of the Badarian crania hair was preserved, thanks to good conditions in the desert sand. In the first series, according to the descriptions of the excavators, they were curly in 6 cases, wavy in 33 cases and straight in 10 cases. They were black in 16 samples, dark brown in 11, brown in 12, light brown in 1 and grey in 11 cases.”
This is the study I saw Keita misquote, as saying ‘80% of the hair was negroid’. I’m pretty sure ‘black’ is the only colour you see in Africans without admixture.
I also want to know why Keita didn’t use the neighboring Caucasians as a base line… he used Nordic-types from as his baseline instead of the nearby North Africans (quite a difference facially and in skull shape) and omitted one nasal measurement, which is a dead giveaway as far as racial relationships go. Essentially, this study contains one very dubious quote, and a dubious methodology. In another paper he says that NW Europeans show no relationship to European phenotype Mahgrebians, so his choice of them as his European baseline is very odd indeed.
Since I’m pretty familiar with the neolithic expansion by now, I’ll simplify it for all.
About 8,000 BP, the Neolithic farmers arrived in Northern Egypt (from Turkey, originally) and then spread across the North of Africa, and down the Nile (minorty contributors to North Africa, but still there). At the same time, the other branches of the expansion were reaching Pakistan, the Ukraine and the Balkans.
Modern Egyptians are; upper Egypt still 80% native African, and in lower Egypt 60%, with a large proportion of the rest traceable to the incoming neolithic farmers. Prior to that the people along the Nile were a mix of an ancient Eurasian back migration, and east African, who expanded slowly out as far as Somalia and the Levant at varying times.
This makes the ancient Egyptians pretty similar to the modern ones. In fact, they show themselves to be so every time you compare things like limb length, teeth, hair and skulls. At least one of the studies I have on Nubian teeth shows a major population influx before pre-dynastic Egyptian times, and one on Egyptian teeth that shows a ‘continuity of population from pre-dynastic times to present’.
So, I’d like to see this Keita study re-done with South Eastern Europeans, Berbers and modern Egyptians and as some of the baseline populations, including the nasal measurements!