Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Memeruka and his wife seated on bed, Mastaba of Vizier Memeruka,
2325 BC
(http://www.tulane.edu/lester/images/Ancient.World/Egypt/A83.gif)
To: Athena Discuss
From: "S. Thomas"
Subject: Re: Melanin content of mummies
Date: Mon, 27 May 1996 10:43:21 -0400
Vdismas@aol.com wrote:
(( cuts ))
> If however, by "people of color" you mean people who are tropical,
> sub-Saharan Africans--Bantu or Masai or Twa--then you are correct. Using
> this definition, I do not think that the majority of ancient Egypt's
> population were people of color.
This sounds to me like a strong statement of prior belief,
probably arrived at using considerations that have nothing
to do with what is known about the ancient Egyptians themselves,
rather what the author knows, or thinks they know, about
Bantu, Masai and Twa people today. She(?) is not ready to
accept that people suchas they might have been the ones to
have produced the accomplishments of ancient Egypt.
There is an irony here that merits remarking. Diop,
in _The African Origin of Civilization_
(Lawrence Hill Books, 1974), quotes Champollion the Younger, in
his 13th letter to his brother, remarking (about certain bas-reliefs
he had seen in various tombs):
"According to the legend...they wished to represent the
inhabitants of Egypt and those of foreign lands. Thus
we have before our eyes the image of the various races
of man known to the Egyptians... the last one is what
we call flesh-colored, a white skin of the most delicate
shade, a nose straight or slightly arched, blue eyes,
blond or reddish beard, tall stature and very slender,
clad in a hairy ox-skin, a veritable savage... he is
called Tamhou.... I certainly did not expect, on arriving
at Biban-el-Moluk, to find sculptures that could serve
as vignettes of the history of the primitive Europeans,
if ever one has the courage to attempt it. Nevertheless,
there is something flattering and consoling in seeing
them, since they make us appreciate the progress we
have subsequently achieved."
It strikes me that were those ancient Egyptians to visit us
here today, they might have as difficult a time attributing
the accomplishments of Western Civilization, such as they
are, to the people they knew as Tamhou, the savages of their
day.
I am reminded also of the news reports a year or two ago
in which it was claimed that Colin Powell and Princess
Diana might be distant cousins. That in itself is unremarkable,
because in some sense we are ultimately all related anyway.
But the reporting seemed to imply that this relationship
was to Powell's credit, when, whether by accomplishment
or pedigree, in light of what we know of Tamhou,
it should at least arguably have been the other
way 'round--Diana should be the one to feel honored by
the relationship. Be that as it may, I wish only to make the
point that strongly held prior beliefs are apt to make fools
of those holding them, especially where the beliefs are
about people, and what they are presumed, on surface
consideration, not to be capable of.
> V. N. Weiner
Regards,
S. F. Thomas
---------------
Scott MacEachern wrote:
On 10 May 96 at 20:34, paul manansala wrote:
[clip]
> Generally, Keita does not disagree much in substance with the
> views of Cheikh Anta Diop many years before him. Egypt was
> basically a mixed population with tropical Africans of
> the primarily the Nubian type dominating in the South, and
> a "northern coastal type" (Saharan) resembling the Semites found in
> Northern Egypt. Both types crossed over to form large minorities in
> the other region, and their was significant racial intermixture.
Well, I'd have to disagree here, using the only source I have at
home, Diop's article in vol. 2 of the UNESCO General History. Keita
attacks the validity of some of the racial constructs that Diop
himself uses -- including most notably 'Mediterranean'. (Diop's
definition of 'negroid/negrito/negro' in that article almost comes
down to 'non-Nordic'.)
****
I have the complete opposite view. Diop saw the 'Mediterreanean'
classification as an attempt to cover up the existence of different
racial types in prehistoric Europe, and also to justify by
various diffusionist ideas based on a theory of "dark whites."
The dark white theory eventually incorporated previous categories
like the Proto-Austroloid, Austroloid, Eurafrican, pre-Mediterranean,
proto-Mediterranean, etc., altogether under the single, unconfusing
heading of 'Mediterranean.' The theory was that these dark whites
were 'primitive' versions of the modern population of southern
Europe, and that they had their origin in the Mediterranean area.
This theory has been shown to be invalid. Austroloid types in
India, Southeast Asia and Australia are now dated much earlier than
similar types in the Mediterranean. Also, there is no evidence
from genetic studies and physical anthropology do not support such
claims. Keita may have attacked the term 'Mediterranean' but
Diop was only using the nomenclature that was current at the time.
Diop's views on the racial composition of pre-Dynastic and dynastic
Egypt though, seem to coincide with Keita's.
*******
Diop's conception of race and history is
pretty strange in any case; look at page 1 of that article. Humans
originated in Africa, early humans were black, the Nile Valley was
one of the corridors out of Africa to other continents and therefore
the Dynastic populations of the Nile Valley were black. The fact that
even using archaeological knowledge at the time he wrote, such
movement out of the continent had been going on for 500,000 -
1,000,000 years (now maybe 1,800, 000 years), seems not to have figured
in his reconstructions.
*****
Diop was using information available at the time. Some of his
view are still held today by certain theorists. For example,
the Humans Out of Africa, which is probably still more widely
held than the multiple geographic origin theory. I'm not so
sure that the dates you give above for human (?) movement out
of Africa were so well-accepted in Diop's time. Also, are you
saying fully-developed humans were moving out of Africa
1,800,000 years ago?
*****
(We should also note the critique that follows this chapter.)
> Also, quite significantly, no major racial movements were associated
> with the founding of dynastic Egypt.
Well, maybe not, but note what Keita says about the increase in
'northern' traits during the Dynastic. He gives a good explanation of
this, in the movement of officials and others around the Egyptian
state -- but people were certainly moving around, and north as well
as south.
*****
The culture, though, was decidely non-Northern, and certainly
not West Asian or European. It developed from a base found
at Qustul.
*****
> Later I will try to identify some of the cultural traits shared by
> tropical Africans (including W. Africans) with Egypt and Nubia.
> Offhand, some of these include female circumcision, burial customs,
> dance rituals, belief systems, etc., but I'll have to do some
> searching through my files.
That would be interesting, because that is the real gap in this.
We have very interesting developments in our conception of state
formation in northeastern Africa, both along the Nile (Qustul, Kerma
and etc) and in Ethiopia (pre-Axumite), at different times but in
general earlier than we would have expected 20 years ago. Probably
in Arabia as well.) The question now is -- what about
southern Sudan? Darfur? Chad? The Lake Chad Basin? If/how did that
northeastern African world articulate with the rest of the continent?
Some of these areas are _not_ well-known archaeologically, but
there's no convincing evidence for Egyptian contact that I know of.
****
I'm not sure of what you mean by "no convincing evidence for
Egyptian contact?" Are you referring to the whole pre-Assyrian
period of Egypt. The Egyptian records mention sea voyages
to Punt going back to Old Kingdom times, if I remember right.
Many believe this may have been in Somalia. In fact, Punt is
often called the "land of the ancestors." Strangely, some
anthropologists had pondered over whether many early southern
Egyptian series should be classed together with series from
Kenya. Others were more close to Gabon series than anything
nearby. As you note, though, archaelogy in the region you mention
is in its infancy. It certainly is light years behind the work
in Egypt, and yet still, every few months we hear of major
discoveries in the latter country.
****
One general point: all of this work is coming out of pretty
mainstream research. Keita is publishing in arguably the premier
journal of physical anthropology in the world, the work at Qustul and
in Ethiopia is just straight academic research. Afrocentrism carries
a strong flavour of critique of the manner in which research is
undertaken. Where is the failure here?
Scott
_______________________________________________
Keita may be published in mainstream journals, but he
is known as an Afrocentrist. Diop also was published
in mainstream journals (French) of high repute. Yet,
look how Diop was and is being attacked. Also, the
assertions of the researchers at Qustul, who work
closely with Sudanese and Egyptian specialists, have
met considerable resistance from Egyptologists. If
you are suggesting there is some balance, I think even
Keita and the Qustul excavators would disagree.
PKM
----------------
Brace et al's views about the "trivial" nature of tropical
variation is not supported by the evidence. The M-W team
"expect" traits like "nasal elevation and elongation,"
from long-term residents of the East Horn of Africa, and attempt
to prove their point by comparing Europeans with Somalis (who
live in a dry environment albeit in the tropics).
What they don't mention is that the Badari, early Naqada
and Kerma series possess "blurred margin, platyrrhinism (broad
nose), and alveolar prognathism," (Keita, 1990; also Morant
1925, Stoessiger 1927, Anderson 1968, Strouhal 1971, Chamla
1980) and so did the predominant element of the 1st Dynasty Abydos
tombs (Keita 1992, 1993). This agrees with the characteristics
of the modern Nubian and Sudanese population and also with the
ancient Egyptian iconography. These characteristics, combined
with the limb proportions, unjustifiably dismissed by Brace et
al, confirm the views of Diop and Keita that the predynastic,
early dynastic, Nubian and Sudanese populations are/were of
relatively recent tropical African provenance. Egypt is
not in tropical Africa, neither are Nubia or Sudan anymore
tropical than Somalia.
On p. 18, Brace et al state:
"From the observation that 12,000 years was not a long
enough period of time to produce any noticeable variation
in pigment by latitude in the New World and tht 50,000
years has been barely long enough to produce the beginnings
of gradation in Australia (Brace 1993a), one would have
to argue that the inhabitants of the Upper Nile and the
East Horn of Africa have been equatorial for many tens of
thousands of years."
This statement, of course, makes the assumption that these peoples
were originally white and from the North! If Brace et al do believe
in an African genesis of modern humans in tropical Africa (i.e.,
Ethiopia) why would there be an assumption that those of "the
Upper Nile and the East Horn of Africa" would require adaptation
rather than the lighter-skinned northern coastal peoples?
Brace et al also mention a "circum-Mediterranean basin" in which
they attempt to relate the peoples of the Northern Mediterranean
with those of North Africa. This again contradicts all the
evidence which show that the Maghreb, E, Sedment and other N.
African series had great variation, to include tropical and
"mulatto" forms that are rare, if found at all, in the N.
Mediterranean. The evidence does not support a closer
relationship between the northern coastal (Saharan) type with
southern Europe than with populations immediately to the south,
who shared the same trait of high variability.
References
Brace et al, "Clines and Clusters vs. "Race"" _Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology_, vol. 36, 1993.
Diop, C.A., "Historie primitive de l'Humanite: Evolution du monde Moir,"
Bulletin de l'Institut francaise d'Afrique Noire, 24, 449. 1962.
Ruggeri-Giuffrida, V., "Were the pre-Dynastic Egyptians Lybian or Ethiopians?"
_Man_ 32 1915.
Ruggeri-Giuffrida, V., "A few notes on Neolithic Egyptians and the Ethiopians."
_Man_, 55, 1916.
Keita, S.O.Y., "Further Studies of Crania from Ancient Northern Africa:
An Analysis of Crania from First Dyansty Egyptian Tombs, Using Multiple
Discriminant Functions" _American Journal of Physical Anthropology_
87:245-254, 1992.
____, "Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa,"
_American Journal of Physical Anthropology_, 83: 35-48, 1990.
____, "Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships," _History
in Africa_ 1993.
Morant, S.G., "The predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari
and their racial affinities," IN G. Brunton (ed.) _Mostagedda and
the Tasian Culture_ 1937.
Robins, G. and Shute C. Predynastic Egyptian stature and physical proportions"
_Journal of Human Evolution_ 4:313-324, 1986.
Strouhal, E. "Une contribution a la question du caratere de la population
prehitorique de la haute-Egypte" _Anthropolgie_, 6, 1968.
____, "Evidence of the early penetration of negroes into prehistoric
Egypt," _Egyptian Journal of African History_, 12: 1-9, 1971.
[continued]
The Brace et al. article is all too alarming in that it
appears in a peer-reviewed journal leveling charges of
racism against a scholar who spent his life breaking down
theories of racial superiority, and the practice of these
theories in institutional racism. J.D. Walker states
in "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views," _Journal of Black
Studies_, Vol.26, No. 1, Sept. 1995, 77-85:
"The charge of racism is alway serious and is interesting
in light of Brace et al. calling Rushton a "racialist," a term
rarely seen in American writing or heard on American media, and
therefore apt to be confusing. The charge that Diop was an
inverted racist is countered by the fact, among others, that he
was married to a "White" French woman. (Are there any Ku Klux
Klan members married to Nigerians?). Diop was an internationalist
who cited and had great respect for works of various European
writers. He made it quite clear that culture, not "race," was
his primary interest. Diop never said that "Blacks" were
genetically superior, which would be racist, although such
sentiments divorced from real power can only be judged morally and
not from the economic, psychological, and physical damage that
anti-Black racism has actually done. The road to Damascus is long.
Diop's widow deserves an apology." (p.78)
Brace et al., like Cavalli-Sforza and company, have attempted
to replace the old phenotype concept with a new one of "clusters
and clines." On the surface, these specialists are made out
to be anti-racist as they belong to the "no-race" school. But
a deeper examination shows that the "clusters and clines" they
propose are often only a resurrection of older ideas of the
"Great White Race." Cavalli-Sforza, for example, has tried to
relate his genetic research to verify the Indo-European family
proposed by Greenberg, and has even shown some inklings toward
the more moderate Nostracists. Basically, these "no-race"
scholars have been cementing the old concept of a linguistically,
and now, genetically, related group of "Caucasoids" (although
Brace sometimes avoids this term) speaking mostly Indo-European (IE).
At the same time, the older typological language groups have
been broken into numerous units, supposedly unrelated not only
linguistically but also genetically.
Cavalli-Sforza has tried to relate the North Africans to the Southern
Europeans, and Brace et al. do the same:
"The latter in turn show ties with
the inhabitants of the circum-Mediterranean basin past and
present."
In fact, this is only a repetition of older theories of Seligman and
others who followed the "Aryan Model" described by Bernal. The
problem is, despite denying the existence of race according to
phenotype, Brace et al. use a phenogram to show ancient Egyptians,
Nubians, Somalis, etc., are not related to those in tropical Africa!
They ignore the possibility of relationship despite variance (or
with variability) as Walker points out regarding the stereotype
concept of the "Negro":
"...Negro, like Nordic, should be understood as
denoting one ensemble of traits or anatomical trends in
the numerous interconnected populations of Saharo-tropical
Africa, or just Africa. The "Negro" physiognomy has no
priveleged place in the pantheon of African human variation.
It does not define African (see Gabel, 1996; Hiernaux, 1975).
Brace et al. have a monotypic a priori definition of biological
Africans."
Brace et al. set out to prove what cannot be proven by the methods
they use, according to their own stated beliefs. Differences in
phenotype, by their own standards, cannot show that tropical
Africans are unrelated in any way -- genetically, culturally,
historically--from the peoples of Egypt and the Horn of Africa.
Yet this is what they try and do. If they had understood Diop's
model, they would know that all peoples are related, but that
tropical Africans and Egyptians, Nubians, etc., are *coextensive*
in a variety of ways. This is, of course largely supported by
the geographic facts. The "Nilo-Hamitic" (Cushitic) languages
spoken by Egyptians, Nubians, Sudanese, and among populations in
Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, and as far south as Tanganyika.
These peoples are coextensive with the Semitic speakers and
Chadic speakers in a microlinguistic sense, but not at all with
the people of southern Europe. Furthermore, the pyramid tombs
found from Ethiopia to Egypt through the Sahara are only one
point of correspondence between the AfroAsian cultures of Africa.
The Nile River has also been a line of communication between
cultures to the North and South, not only in the historical
period, but in the prehistoric as well.
While Brace et al. asserts the Africoid-like qualities in the
Horn of Africa are due to climatic adaptation (by whites?!),
they don't consider the possibility that cranial traits among
the northern coastal peoples, as Keita calls them (Keita 1990,
1992, 1993) may also be variation from peoples related to
tropical Africans. Walker points this out clearly:
"For example, the M-W team explains the clustering of certain
cranial series with ones from Europe as being the
result of gene flow/migration from Europe without
discussing the more likely explanation that the
biological characters responsible for the similarity
are the result of convergence or chance. This is
Seligmanish and nonevolutionary." (p. 79)
Indeed, this hearkens back to theories of the physical variability
of "Caucasoids" as opposed to the static, fixed "Negroids," "Mongoloids,"
etc. The old "Dark White" theory proposed that whites could
adapt dark skins, broad noses, thick lips, etc., while traits like
narrow noses, thin lips, fair skins, etc., were evidence, even when
found in isolation, of white intermixture or even white provenance!
Yet in examining the ancient Egyptians, Brace et al. ignore the
fact that the predynastic Egyptian, early dynastic and Nubian
crania all show evidence of tropical adaptation such as broad noses
and long, gracile limbs. Other traits they shared with typical
tropical African types were alveolar prognathism and blurred nasal
margin. (Keita 1992) Such traits have been widely acknowledged in
non-Afrocentric works, albeit sometimes with the opprobrium that
predynastic population were ruled by a "Caucasoid" ruling class.
Indeed we are getting a clear picture of the importance the
areas to the South may have played in forming the Egyptian
civilization. Recent discoveries have revealed the first tool
manufacturing society was located in Zaire. Remains showing
similarity to some groups found in Nubia and South Egypt have
been found at Gamble's Cave (Kenya) dating back to 11,000
ot 9,000 B.C.E. (Walker 1995) It was at this time that evidence
of movement out of Africa into the Near East has been discovered,
possibly connected to the spread of the Afro-Asiatic languages
(Bar Yosef, 1987).
The direct origin of Egyptian dynastic civilization has been traced
to the Nubians, who are closer in phenotype to peoples of
sub-Saharan Africa than anyone in Europe or even to northern
coastal types. Clyde Ahmad Winters states:
"The A-Group people were caled Steu "bowmen." The Steu
had the same funeral customs, pottery, musical instruments,
and related artifacts as did the Egyptians. Williams (1987,
pp.173, 182) believes that the Qustul pharoahs are the Egyptian
rulers referred to as the Red Crown rulers in ancient Egyptian
documents. Williams (1987) gives six reasons why he believes
that the Steu of Qustul founded Kemetic civilization:
1. direct progessin of royal complex designs from
Qustul to Hierakonpolis to Abydos;
2. Egyptian objects in Naqada III a-b tombs;
3. no royal tombs in Lower and Upper Egypt;
4. pharoahic monuments that refer to conflict
in Upper Egypt;
5. inscriptions ofthe ruler Pe-Hor that are older than
Iry-Hor of Abydos; and
6. the 10 rulers of Qustul, 1 at Hierakonpolis, and
3 at Abydos corrspond to the "historical" kings of
the late Naqada period.
The findings of Williams support the findings of Diop
(1991) because
we also understand better now why the Egyptian term
royalty etymologically means: (the man) who comes
from the South=n y swt=who belongs to the South=
who is a native of the South=the King of Lower Egypt,
and has never meant just King; in other words king of
Lower and Upper Egypt, King of all Egypt. (p.108)"
References
Bar Yosef, O. (1987) Pleistocene connexions between Africa and Southwest
Asia. _African Archaeological Review_, 5, 29-38.
Seligman, C.G., (1930) _The races of Africa_, Oxford.
Winters, Clyde Ahmad (1994) Valid frame of reference, _Journal of Black
Studies_, December 1994.
(see previous posts for further references)
[continued]
Brace et al. and the 'Dark White' Theory
The Brace et al. article (see previous posts) revives
in a subtle, and sometimes not so subtle way the old
'Dark White' theory of Bernal's Aryan Model.
The idea that modern humans in Africa were originally
"Caucasoid" and that they evolved into "blacks," stems
from the old Aryan Model, and it is the same argument
used by the anti-Afrocentric side in the UNESCO conference
on African history (See _UNESCO General History of Africa_ vol.
II). Brace et al. suggest this scenario when they offer
a time line for Somalis and other East Africans to "adapt"
their skin pigment to the tropical African climate.
The history of these ideas is based on a number of fallacies.
One example is the classification of Neanderthals as primitive
Caucasoids. This despite such non-Caucasoid traits as
broad nose, prognathism and short squat stature. Indeed,
the platyrrhine noses of Neanderthals suggest tropical
adaptation according to the theories set forth by Brace et al.
Such classifications were justified on false assumptions
that Caucasoids were more highly variable than other races.
In a similar fashion, the Austroloid type was also classified
as a primitive Caucasoid (and still is by some), and was said
to originate in the Mediterranean. However, as Prof. Diop points
out in _Civilization or Barbarism_, new evidence shows the
Austroloid type was most likely descended from Pithecanthropes
of Java through Ngandong man of Java. Also, remains of this type
have been found in Australia and Sri Lanka predating similar finds
in the Mediterranean.
But most important regarding the area around Egypt is the
fact that modern humans first appear in Europe as tropically
adapted with "super" tropical limb ratios (Trinkhaus, 1981).
They do not become fully cold adapted until about the end of the
mesolithic (Jacobs 1993). Brace et al. suggest substantial gene
flow from Europe as far south as Somalia on a number of occassions:
"...the presence of a palpable early German in Late Dynastic
Egyptian cemetery exemplifies the contact that the delta
region had with the world to the north and west. The
contribution that such individuals surely made to the Lower
Egyptian gene pool (Bowman, 1986) could well explain why both
our dendograms and our discrimination function analysis suggest
that the people of Lower Egypt at the end of Dynastic times had
more in common with members of our European regional cluster
than was true for the inhabitants of Upper Egypt 3,000 years
earlier." (p.21-22)
Not only do Brace et al.'s conclusions differ from earlier work
by Keita and Hassan, the idea of such significant gene flow is
contradicted by other studies. Limb ratios in northern Egypt,
Late Stone Age Egypt and predynastic Egypt are all tropically
adapted. There is no "northern port of entry" (Walker, 1995)
where limb ratios alter due to gene flow from the north.
What Brace et al. also ignore is the fact that most of the
genetic variation leading to the types described are found
in Africa *before* the presence of modern humans in Europe.
In fact, examples of possible prototypes can be found in
Kenya thousands of years before the predynastic period, and
before any evidence of migration from Europe.
They also ignore or trivialize the possibility that any
similarities between people in N. Africa and Europe may be
due to gene flow from South to North rather than vice a
versa. Indeed the earliest migrations must have been in
this direction as proven by the limb ratios of early modern
humans in Europe. Even as late as Phoenician times, the flow
seems to have been more South, or Southeast to North/Northwest.
Some of the assertions of Brace et al. are simply ridiculous
prima facie. For example, their attempt to show Somalis
are closer to Europeans than West Africans. (pp. 17-20)
Anyone who has seen the images on CNN, etc., from the
American fiasco in Somalia will come to the unbiased
conclusion that they are pulling our legs.
One of the problems with Brace et al. seems to be their
excessive reliance of outdated sources from the "Aryan"
period:
"Blumenbach, however, saw human form as grading
without break from one region to another
(Blumenbach, 1865). The continuum could be cut
however one might choose to suit one's convenience.
The Egyptians who displayed a mixture of "Hindoo"
and "Ethiopian" characteristics were not therefore a
mixture of separate "primordial" elements but just
what would be expected to occur between one region
to another. These expectations are precisely what
we are defending in our present treatment..." (p.25)
The truth is, though, in suggesting substanial gene flow from
Europe, and even Germany, they did the exact opposite and betrayed
their Aryan Model biases.
References
Hassan, F. (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. _Journal of
World Prehistory_, 2, 135-185.
Jacobs, K.H., (1993) Human postcranial variation in the
Ukranian mesolithic-neolithic, _Current Anthropology_
26(4), 512-514.
Trinkhaus, E. (1981) Neanderthal limb proportions and cold
adaptation, IN C.B. Stringer (ed.) _Aspects of human evolution_,
(pp. 187-224), London: Taylor & Francis)
Paul Kekai Manansala
----------------
Sir E.A. Budge
"The prehistoric native of Egypt, both in the old and new Stone
Ages, was African, and there is every reason for saying that the
earliest settlers came from the South."
"There are many things in the manners and customs and religions
of the historic Egyptians that suggest the orignal home of
their ancestors was in a country in the neighborhood of Uganda
or Punt." (Sir E.A. Budge, _Egypt_)
"The ancient Egyptians were Africans, and they spoke an
African language, and the modern people of Eastern Sudan
are Africans, and they speak African languages..." (Sir E.A.
Budge, _Ancient Egyptian Hierogyphic Dictionary_)
Basil Davidson
"That the ancient Egyptians were Black (again, in any variant
you may prefer)--or, as I myself think it is more useful to say,
were African--is a belief which has been denied in Europe since
about 1830, not before. It is a denial, in short, that belongs
to the rise of modern European imperialism..." (Basil Davidson,
reviewing Martin Bernal's _Black Athena_)
----------------
According to Keita (1993):
"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." (p.140)
Livingstone, in _Abnormal Hemaglobins in Human Populations_,
discusses the Haratin in connection with high incidence
of hemoglobin S and C in North Africa:
"The Haratin, who are the Negroid population in
the Saharan oases, are the former slaves of the
Touareg and are primarily agriculturalists." (p. 83)
Regarding the Nubians, D. L. Greene and Keita cite Greene,
Ruffer and Berry in noting the fourth molar variants, third
molar agenesis and in particular the rare sub-maxillary
hypocone in suggesting the population stability of the Nile
corridor over the period from the Mesolithic to the early
historic These traits also show the close relationship between
Egyptians and Nubians. The fourth molar variants are traits
shared with sub-Saharan Africans.
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!
Report any problems to Paul Kekai Manansala at p.manansala@sbcglobal.net
Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com
Ta_Seti, a premier online African-centered discussion group!