PKM's Short Primer on Physical Anthropology

An army of Egyptian spearmen. These reddish-brown statuettes may represent the "Saharan" types, or "northern coastal peoples" as Keita calls them. Close examination reveals that these could indeed simply be variants of darker soldiers depicted during the same period who likely represented the Southern Egyptian variant. The hair seems similar to that found among the modern Fulani and some Kanuri and Somali peoples.
(http://pharos.bu.edu/Egypt/Cairo/Gallery/army.jpg)

Special attention will be focused on the work of S.O.Y. Keita, who bridges the gap in many ways between the Afrocentric and Eurocentric camps. While Afrocentrists do not accept the biased interpretations of Eurocentric scholarship, and the Eurocentrists guard the gates against Afrocentrists, Keita is one of the few who have been accepted by both sides. The historian, Basil Davidson, is another. Even Bernal has been characterized as an "antiquarian" by most of the "establishment." Keita's reputation as a physical anthopologist and his balanced approach to the problem have earned him probably the most trusted place among anthropologists involved in the debate.

The Method of Study

Most research conducted on ancient Egyptian remains has been in the area of "metric" studies (Keita 1993). These studies measure mostly craniofacial features of skulls. These features would be realized in living persons by broad or narrow noses, full or thin lips (caused by projection of the jaw pass the plane of the nose), and other similar features.

Thus, for the most part, even modern studies attempt to establish pretty much the same thing as the older anthropological studies. The main difference is that instead of measuring by indices or angular measurements, a technique known as Mahalanobis is used which measures distances between population (D^2).

That is, it shows which groups "cluster" together due mostly to having similar facial and cranial traits. Other methods often used are the Penrose statistic and discriminant functions. Basically, these use more complex mathematics in statistics and differential equations. Usually, the older studies tended to be "morphological" in nature. They classified groups according to the well-known racial types such as Negroid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, etc. More modern methods tend to relate people in "clusters and clines" based on their closeness in particular traits, as already mentioned. The racial terminologies are usually not used.

However, in studying the cluster and cline method, one outside the Eurocentric perspective cannot but see an attempt to resurrect older "racial" theories under a new guise. Indeed, such old racial notions as the "Great White race," "hyperdiffusion," "dark whites," etc., seem to appear again as ideas with different more discrete labels, and different methods of determination.

The theory of "demic diffusion" (Barbujani et al., 1994) tends to not only support the old Indo-European race concept, but to expand it to include peoples formerly thought of as Ural-Altaic, Dravidian, etc. All these peoples are given a Near Eastern "Caucasoid" origin, and some suggestions have that even the Western Hemisphere was populated by these caucasoid Nostratic peoples of "Turkish" descent.

However, despite new mathematical methods, the same fallacies apply to new classifications as the ones conjured up by the olderl establishment whose racist biases are undeniable. To some extent, newer methods based on non-metric and genetic studies have come to fore, but also showing the same types of bias.

Non-metric studies do not measure features by length, breadth, etc., but take into account less obvious traits in the anatomy. Genetic studies concern themselves with genetic markers, which are said to help distinguish between different "races." In most genetic studies, racial classifications such as Mongoloid, Negroid, etc., are still used to this day.

The Fallacies in the Methods

Without trying to prove the intent of bias in modern anthropology (at least in this article), the presence of bias and the problems and errors in modern methods will be pointed out instead. The most important problems related to include:

1. Greater variability assigned to "Caucasoid" types. This type may have complexions ranging from very fair to very dark, and wide ranges of all other characteristics, often apart from "admixture." However, it is often implied (if not directly suggested) that other types do not have such variability.

2. Related to the previous point is the "labeling" of characteristics. Thus, as an example, there is the implication that narrow noses are "Caucasoid."

3. The inconsistency of results and evidence. The unwarranted assignment of greater value to certain results and evidence while downplaying that which does not agreee.

4. Poor interpretation due to natural biases. This is directly related to the "good ole boys" network in which few non-Euroamerican perspectives are available. These leads to errors that are various obvious to those outside to those outside this group. These are particularly important in bringing linguistic, cultural, historical and other studies into line with the anthropological and archaeological data.

5. Poorly planned studies based on old erroneous methods.

These are some of the faults related to the studies themselves. There are other problems related to the problems of academic racism and fraud that will not be discussed here. A more detailed look into each of the above points will now be given:

1. In the most recent well-known anthropological work attacking Afrocentric positions on the "race" of the Egyptians, Brace et al. (1993) commit the decades old error of giving greater variabilty to those traditionally labeled "Caucasoids." While, Brace et al. attempt to avoid using such labels, their classification methods nonetheless show that they subscribe to the same idea (only under the guise of "clusters and clines"). In attempting to show that greater gene flow has occured between Somalis and Europeans, they assign undue importance to the traits like narrow noses and narrow faces, while discounting evidence such as dark complexion and "supra-Negroid" limb ratios (long, slender limbs). Thus, while suggesting that the dark skins of Egyptians may not be due to gene flow at all, but only to adaptation, they see narrow noses in Somalia as suggestive of gene flow with northwest Europe more subtantial than that with the geographically contiguous sub-Saharan Africa!:

   
        
        "There is the very real possibility, for example,
        that the darker skin pigmentation visible in the 
        people of the Upper Nile is not caused by the mixing 
        of a population that come from somewhere else."
        (Brace et al., 1993, p. 20)
    
        "As our data show, the people of the Horn of Africa
        are craniofacially less distinct from a spectrum of
        samples marginally including South Asia and running 
        all the way from the Middle East to northwest Europe
        than they are to any group in sub-Saharan Africa."
        (Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)

That gene flow is suggested by the Brace et al., data is proven by the following quote:

        "Our own battery of craniofacial measurements, however,
        deals with traits that , for the most part, have little
        demonstrable relationship to specific selective forces.
        For this reason, their use are largely indicators 
        of the genetic relationship of the groups compared."
        (Brace et al., 1993, p. 19)
    

Evidence shows that the structure of the nose, both bony and soft tissue, may undergo radical changes to adapt to the environment (Molnar, 1991). Thus, nose shape would give little evidence of genetic relationship. Eskimos, American Indians, Northern Chinese, etc., all have narrow noses but show little other evidence of gene flow with Europeans. Indeed, genetic studies have shown that the belief that straight, narrow noses among Nilotic peoples is due to migrations from Europe or Asia is not correct. (Molnar, 1991)

There also is no evidence supporting claims that skin complexion and limb ratios are any less genetically determined than nose structure. Probably, light-colored eyes and hair are among the rarest prominent external traits among the human species. They are found mostly in Europe, and aside from albinos, are hardly found at all outside of Europe, West Asia, the northwest part of India (generally not past Gujarat) and possibly a limited region in the northwestern Africa. In the latter two areas their occurrence is very rare, and even in most of West Asia it is uncommon. Even populations that have resided for long periods in cold climates like the Altaic peoples of Siberia, the northern Chinese, the Eskimos and Native peoples of Canada do not possess such traits. Thus, light hair (including light brown and red hair) and light eyes (blue, green, etc.) might be seen as very strong genetic traits, and their complete or near complete absence among a group as evidence of minimal genetic relationship. Given such genetic resistance to such adaptation, the genetic distance between a significantly large Europoid people who had, say, 25% light hair and eyes and that of a proportional group that, outside of albinism, had zero % of these traits would be enormous. However, from the Eurocentric perspective, the color of skin, eyes, hair, etc., is given little importance in anthropological studies. This is not justified, and it shows the different standards in judging shades when the situation is related to politics, society, etc., as compared to matters of anthropology, history and the like.

2. Related to the previous point, there was, and to a great extent, still is a practice of labeling traits according to race. Thus, the long, high narrow nose becomes "Caucasoid." Indeed, the importance of the nose in Western anthropology is so great that one might label it "nasal science." For in the division of the races, the nose has played a greater part than the skull altogether. The nasal nature of the Brace et al. study is reminiscent of an earlier work by Risley (1915), that sought to racially classify the castes of India according to nasal index. According to Risley's thinking, the higher castes would have been primarily of Caucasoid ancestry and thus would have longer noses. Later studies by Ghurye (1961) and Dutt et al.(1973), however, show Risley's studies were invalid. The glaring discrepancy of the data in the two Indian studies as compared with Risley, despite measuring the same populations, was also startling.

One might wonder whether the claim of Afrocentrists and others of vandalism by Europeans of Egyptian, Indian and other non-European sculpture by breaking off the non-Europoid noses is not connected in some way to this nasal 'fetish.' The nasal index was popularly used by diffusionists to prove "white" origins of civilizations as diverse as the Chinese, Mayan and Polynesian. For example, in order to "claim" the great sailing accomplishments of the early Austronesians, the idea of their previously being a branch of "dark whites" unmixed with "Malays," was, and to an extent still is widely offered. This dark white relationship was founded on such concepts as long, narrow noses being labeled "Caucasoid." Although most Indonesian, Micronesian, Melanesian and Polynesian populations are actually mesorhinne, i.e., they possess medium broad noses, there are substanial numbers of individuals with narrow noses. However, at the same time, most Oceanic populations have the trait known as the sacral, or "Mongolian" spot at rates of 100% or nearly so. In comparison, most European populations have rates much lower than 10%, and often lower than 2% (Montagu, 1960). Few if any theories have been offered showing that the sacral spot is due in any great part to selective processes, yet this highly suggestive evidence is ignored, and the nose is focused on instead. In other words, only evidence that supports the idea of Caucasoid cultural and racial superiority, or "white" hyperdiffusion is given weight.

The fact that one of the most discriminating nasal characteristics is often ignored in studies of population affinities is revealing. This is the shape of the nasal profile, a non-metric trait. In forensic anthropology, it is this profile that allows investigators to determine the difference in ancestry between the Amerind or Polynesian, who might have narrow noses, as compared to Caucasians. The Caucasian type is one of the only groups that possesses almost entirely a straight profile, while most other groups have concave or concavo-convex. Most "Negroids," have either concave or straight profiles. Interestingly, in ancient and modern Egypt, the nasal profile is also a mixture of concave and straight. In an interesting study by forensic anthropologists of the Egyptian scribe, Pepi (Kennedy et al., 1986), the following interesting comments are made concerning the racial identification traits of ancient Egyptians:

    
        "While the Upper Nile Egyptians show phenotypic features that
        occur in higher frequencies in the Sudan and southward into
        East Africa (namely, facial prognathism, chamaerrhiny, and
        paedomorphic cranial architecture with specific modifications
        of the nasal aperature), these so-called Negroid features are 
        not universal in the region of Thebes, Karnak, and Luxor." 
            

Notice while the described traits are not "universal" in certain areas of Upper Egypt, yet these features definitely predominate even in these areas. In fact, the studies of Keita have shown this is so, and such traits are by no means uncommon in Lower Egypt (Keita, 1993). However, even such a trait as the concave nasal profile alone would not prove much. Any reasonable study would have to avoid any labeling of traits whether explicit or implied.

3. Inconsistent results and data also flaw most approaches in pinning down biological affinity. Keita (1993) mentions non-metric studies by Berry and Berry (1967) that group a combined series from Egypt with one from Punjab. It further found a West African series to be very similar to one from India, and exactly similar to one from Burma! Even using metric studies, Howells' (1973) found a late dynastic series from Giza clustered with tropical Africans in one study, but with northern Europeans when another technique was used! Even some modern studies like those of Keita and Brace et al. disagree in their conclusions. Keita (1993) believes the ancient Egyptians to be holocene "Saharo-tropical" variants who migrated relatively recently from tropical Africa and the northern Sahara to Southern Egypt before the pre-Dynastic period. Brace et al. (1993) suggest time again that the Egyptians, Somalis and other East Africans were cold-adapted migrants who had to adapt their pigment and limb ratios to the African climate. Keita finds no evidence of Africa-Europe/West Asia-Africa migrations to explain dynastic Egypt. Indeed, there is no suggestion early East Africans were ever cold-adapted.

The importance of the divergent results is that no single study is likely to offer sufficient evidence alone. Thus, casual dismissal of studies which do not agree with one's thesis is highly faulty. In this regard, Keita has been exemplary in carefully analyzing all the data and explaining his findings in his writings.

4. The problems here are self-explanatory. How can a guarded gate system be trusted to provide reliable results? It may be very easy for Europeans to assume original humans were white, but the non-European will notice the perspective problem immediately. In the sense of understanding culture, language, etc., all of which is important in verifying studies, Western scholars have often come up short. A system which is racially non-integrated and that has a long history of racist thinking is not likely to provide trustworthy results in questions bearing on race. Obviously, though, the gate keepers will disagree. 5. Poor approaches. The idea of Brace et al. to prove genetic relationship through a single dendogram that can be usefully termed "cranionasal" or "nasiometric" was indeed flawed. Even Keita, whose own phenograms covered a much broader spectrum of characteristics, and who carefully analyzed previous studies, was careful in suggesting "genetic" relationships. The latter would have been much more justified in doing so, but preferred to refer to ancient Egyptians as indigenous African variants (and not migrants from outside of Africa) whose culture, language, etc., was closely tied to the rest of the continent, particularly the Nile River region.

Brace et al., also made the mistake of pooling Predynastic and Dynastic Egyptians and Late Dynastic groups each into single categories. This method would do little in revealing the highly heterogenous population of Egypt. Sharp differences in features sometimes occurs over smaller spaces of times, and there also is a geographic gradient in features. By pooling the Egyptians north of Assyut together with those to the South, we get little idea of just how many groups indeed shared common features with many sub-Saharan Africans including groups from West Africa. How categories like "African" and "North African" were decided upon is puzzling since a large number of variants can be found in both regions. In order for Brace et al. to prove no affinity between West Africans and ancient Egyptians, which indeed was one of the main goals of their work, they would have to show that no groups in West Africa showed affinities with groups in Egypt or adjacent areas. This cannot be done by clustering all Africans together.

To illustrate this point if one were to group all the residents of modern Hawai'i together, it might be difficult to show any affinity between this grouping and any grouping in Europe, Japan or even Polynesia! Yet, we know that elements from all these areas can be found there.

Now, that we have reviewed some of the major failings in the Eurocentric approach, we will move to examine Keita and how he has properly addressed the problem.

Keita's Approach

Keita is one of the first Africans to reach prominence in Western anthropological circles (if not the first). That is, at least in the area of historical anthropology. If this has made him extra careful, and inspired him to more fervent effort, then it shows in his work.

In his most extensive effort to establish the biological relationships of the ancient Egyptians, Keita (1993) presents no single dendogram of his own to support his contentions. Instead he throughly analyzes previous important studies, including his own, and brings them together in a cumulative and logical argument supporting his case. All approaches including metric, non-metric, morphological, genetic, etc., are used.

Keita's (1988, 1992) own phenograms are among the most well-planned in dealing with this problem. Keita notes that while the use of too few variables would lead to insufficent discrimination of types, too many variables would also lead to excessive discrimination. In the latter case, even peoples whom geographical, linguistic, cultural, historical and other factors show are obviously related, might be shown to be unconnected when using too many trivial discriminating variables. Keita uses phenograms with different quantities of variables and emphasizes only those results verified by all approaches. The choice of variables is broad, and Keita makes few attempts at gauging the selective quality of each trait. Indeed, views like those expressed by Brace et al., (1993) e.g., that the elongation and elevation of the nose is related to the local rate of moisture in the air is inconsistent with a number of examples found throughout the world. For example, the native Australians, despite living in one of the driest regions of the world for tens of thousands of years, have one of the broadest noses of any peoples.

However, Keita generally avoids excessive focus on nasal measurements and simply chooses a wide range of cranial traits, while avoiding excessive discrimination. However, the traits selected do include many widely thought to be determined mostly by genetic factors. The choice of series that are specific in both temporal and geographic ranges is also an important advantage. The pooling together of north and south Egyptian crania over time ranges as wide as "Predynastic," "Dynastic," etc., is avoided. This allows the identification of specific populations of different times and locations that might be physically quite different from each other.

Keita's use of Multiple Discriminant Functions II & III in his phenograms (Keita, 1988, 1993) help demonstrate that the basic population might have been different than that shown by the highly discriminant Function I. In analyzing the First Dynasty royal tomb remains, unknown analysis is used comparing the crania with other known series. This is one of the best approaches to the problem and supports the theory of Keita, Hassan (1988) and others tha in the early dynastic period,the dominant South had engaged in political marriages with nobility from northern Egypt to consolidate their control of the region. Unknown analysis compares individual crania in a series with other known series, rather than using the whole series as a type. With this approach, Keita found that 57% of the First Dynasty Abydos royal tomb crania had affinities with Nubian and Sudanese populations.

None of Keita's work suggests the penetration of West Asian or European types being a factor in the creation of Dynastic Egypt. Both Keita (1993) and Hassan (1988) have suggested that Saharan elements played a role in the modification of Badari and early Nakada types during the late Nakada period. These Saharan elements cannot be identified simply as "Caucasoid" though. Keita and Hassan see them as indigenous African variants among whom gene flow from outside Africa played only a minimal role. Keita classes these Saharans with northern Egyptians and calls them "northern coastal" types. These were by no means homogenous.

The late Nakada series preceding the formation of Dynastic Egypt was closest to the Nubian series at Kerma. Starting with the first dynasty, a trend toward hybridization of southern and northern types began, but with occasional anomalies. For example, the Third Dynasty and the Old Kingdom Giza remains are primarily of "Southern" affinity (Keita, 1992, 1993).

Again, the northern coastal types are indigenous African variants according to the available evidence. That they were not exactly the same as the modern coastal inhabitants could be explained by migration that occured after the breakdown of local sovereignty following invasions from West Asia and Europe. Most important was the Muslim period that brought some 2 million immigrants, mostly from the Levant, Anatolia and the Aegean. In fact, in modern Cairo today, a substantial portion of the population are Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Turks, etc., of fairly recent arrival into the region.

According to Keita (1990) and Livingstone (1967), the Haratin are among the major descendants of the original Saharans. Close similarity in ABO serology between modern Haratin populations and those of ancient Egyptians. These Haratin are considered to be "Negroid" in physical type (Livingstone, 1967). Other serological tests have shown close affinity of certain Berber-speaking groups with tropical Africans in the high rates of cDe, P and V, and low Fy^a antigens(Keita 1990, Mourant et al., 1976, Chamla, 1980). They also group close with West Africans in the high incidence of HbC, HbS and the sickle cell condition (Livingstone, 1967).

However, in terms of phenotype and culture, the Southern Egyptians and Nubians are most closely related to Nile River peoples in the Sudan and to other peoples in adjacent regions. These peoples are, in turn, a blending of the same Saharan type with the type found in the Badari and early Nakada cultures that would fit into the so called "authentic African" typology. However, Keita (1993) rightly rejects such an idea of the authentic African, and similar terms like "Forest Negro," "True Negro," etc. He notes that the rejection of relationship between types not both meeting the "True Negro" standard, would be as invalid as rejecting relationships between Europeans who were non-Nordic, or for that matter, who were not of a type resembling W.C. Fields or Jimmy Durante. Indeed, the suggestion by Brace et al., of genetic relationships between Nordics, Somalis and Asian Indians, based primarily on nasal factors is the height of bad anthropology, and this work belongs to the 1990's rather than the beginning of the 20th century.

The very fact that narrow noses can be found over practically the entire globe among large populations who are highly variant in other ways should suggest that this is not a good choice for a genetic trait. However, early hyperdiffusionists saw it in a different light; one in which quite fantastic racial claims of a "white" origin for all civilization could be made. As mentioned before, blondism and light eye color are far more restricted in numbers and geography and would appear to be more genetically discriminant than nose structure. However, as this would be anti-hyperdiffusionist (in the "Caucasoid culture-bearer" sense) these traits were brushed aside.

So, while the Badari and early Nakada were clearly Africoid in character, even the neolithic Saharan element that came to cast more and more influence on Southern Egypt could also be characterized as African variants. In fact, in most cases, these hetergenous peoples were strongly "Negroid." (Gabel 1966, Keita 1993).

In concluding, we can illustrate the problem in this way using the old three race theory still commonly used by geneticists and forensic anthropologists:

Let A = Africoid, C = Caucasoid, M = Mongoloid; and the monotypic trait types so that in pure form:

A = A monotypic traits
M = M monotypic traits
C = C monotypic traits;

In addition, there are variants to the above traits that are similar to the monotype yet significantly different. Lets label these types:

A2, A3, A4 types,
M2, M3, M4 types,
C2, C3, C4 types;

And also there are variants that don't quite fit any of these patterns (at least not from the non-Eurocentric perspective) such as many South Asians, Australians, etc. For the sake of convenience lets say there are four such types (there are probably more):

D type,
E type,
F type,
G type;

Now, we will take the Eurocentric position and classify all types into the original three monotypic groups:

A does not = A2, A3, A4, M, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types

M does not = A, A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, ,C4, D, E, F or G types

However,

C = A2, A3, A4, M2, M3, M4, C, C2, C3, C4, D, E, F and G types

Armed with such a contrived system, the Eurocentric, hyperdiffusionists can argue just about anything they please without regard to the true facts.

References

Barbujani, G., Robert Sokal, Neal Oden, "Indo-European Origins: A computer-simulation test of five hypotheses," American journal of physical anthropology, Feb 01, 1995.
Barbujani et al., "Genetic evidence on origin and dispersal of human populations speaking languages of the Nostratic macrofamily," Proceedings of the national academy of sciences May 15, 1993.
Barbajuni et al., "Genetic Variation in North Africa and Eurasia: Neolithic Demic Diffusion Vs. Paleolithic Colonisation," American journal of physical anthropology, Oct 1, 1994.,
Berry, A.C., P.J. Ucko and R.J. Berry "Genetical change in ancient Egypt." Man, 2:551-68, 1967.
Berry, A.C. and R.J. Berry, "Origins and relationships of the ancient Egyptians," Journal of Human Evolution 1:199-208, 1972.
Bose, N.K., A. Mitra & Harshanath Mukherjee, The Gazetteer of India, vol. I, Government of India, 1973.
Brace et al, "Clines and Clusters vs. "Race"" Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, vol. 36, 1993.
Chamla, M.C., "The settlement of non-Saharan Algeria from the epipaleolithic to modern times," In I. Schwidetsky, B. Chairelli and N. Necrosov (eds) The Physical Anthropology of european Populations, 1980.
Diop, C.A., "Historie primitive de l'Humanite: Evolution du monde Moir," Bulletin de l'Institut francaise d'Afrique Noire, 24, 449. 1962.
Gaballah, MF, El-Rakhawy MT and El-Eishi HI, " On the cranilogical study of Egyptian in various periods in various periods," Anthropologie X(2,3):29-34.
Gabel, C. "Prehistoric populations in Africa," In J. Butler (ed.) Boston University Papers on Africa. Vol. II, African History., Boston, 1966.
Ghurye, G.S., Caste, Class and Occupation in India, Bombay, 1961.
Gill, George W., "Craniofacial Criteria in Forensic Race Identification," In Katherine J. Reichs (ed.), Forensic Osteology, 1986.
Hassan, F. (1988) The predynastic of Egypt. Journal of World Prehistory, 2, 135-185.
Howells, W.W., "Cranial variation in man" Papers Peabody Museum, 67:1-269, 1973.
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.
Kennedy, Kenneth A.R., T. Plummer, J. Chinment, "Identification of the Eminent Dead: Pepi, A Scribe of Egypt," In Katherine J. Reichs (ed.), Forensic Osteology, 1986.
Livingstone, Frank B., Abnormal hemoglobins in human populations; a summary and interpretation, Chicago, 1967.
Molnar, Stephen, Human Variation, New York, 1991.
Morant, S.G., "The predynastic Egyptian skulls from Badari and their racial affinities," IN G. Brunton (ed.) Mostagedda and the Tasian Culture, 1937.
Montagu, A., An Introduction to Phyiscal Anthropology, 1960.
G. Paoli, "ABO Typing of Ancient Egyptians" In _Population biology of ancient Egyptians, edited by D.R. Brothwell and B.A. Chiarelli, London, New York, 1973
Risley, Herber Hope, Sir, The Peoples of India, London, 1915.
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.
Trinkhaus, E. (1981) Neanderthal limb proportions and cold adaptation, IN C.B. Stringer (ed.) Aspects of human evolution, (pp. 187-224), London: Taylor & Francis)
Walker, J.D., "The Misrepresentation of Diop's Views," Journal of Black Studies, Vol.26, No. 1, Sept. 1995, 77-85
Winters, Clyde Ahmad (1994) Valid frame of reference, Journal of Black Studies, December 1994.

Report any problems to Paul Kekai Manansala at

Sponsored by AsiaPacificUniverse.com