Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships

Abstract

This discussion seeks to evaluate some of the previous writings on the biological origins of the northern Nile valley population or peoples, who came to be known as “ancient Egyptians.” The subject is of interest for three reasons. The first is that Egypt lies at a geographical crossroads and would have been subject to possible colonization or migration from all directions. The second is that Egypt is in Africa and there is no scientific reason to think that Egyptians would not share some biological origins with other Africans. The third reason is that previous discussions have been misguided in focusing on “race” as opposed to biological affinity. There seems to be a problem in understanding that human genetic variation cannot always be easily described. Genetic origins can cut across ethnic (sociocultural or national) lines. At what village along the Nile valley today would one describe the “racial” transition between “Black” and “White”—assuming momentarily that these categories are real? It could not be done.

Multidisciplinary analysis of a mummified cranium claimed to be that of a medieval execution victim

“…Congenital absence of third molars has a genetic basis and has been found to vary dramatically in prevalence between populations (Rozkovcová et al 1999). However, in light of other results obtained during the current study (below), it is of interest that molar agenesis has previously been noted to be particularly common amongst Ancient Egyptian and Nubian populations (Keita 1993;Ruffer 1920). This anomaly is also more common in females (Hillson 1996).…”

Early Nile Valley Farmers From El-Badari

“…However, these studies were not designed to examine the question of European (as Nostratic representatives) migration as the source of early Nile Valley farmers. At another level, the morphometric patterns of Egyptian crania in general, although highly vari-able, exhibit a position intermediate to stereotypical tropical Africans and Europeans in multivariate analyses (see review in Keita, 1993). In one study by Howells (1973), the previously mentioned late dynastic northern Gizeh series, which dates to and after the period of historically known incursions from Europe, clusters with either Africans or Europeans (the same series used here) depending on method.…”

“…In other analyses, these early crania from el-Badari have shown a greater resemblance to southern Nile Valley series and some from tropical Africa (including the Horn) than to northern dynastic Egyptians (see, e.g., Keita, 1983Keita, , 1993Mukherjee, Rao, & Trevor, 1955). However, these studies were not designed to examine the question of European (as Nostratic representatives) migration as the source of early Nile Valley farmers.…”

“…The matrix of Mahalanobis distances (organized into a distance hierarchy) indicates that this series (Gizeh) in Howells's study was not exclusively more similar to various European or African series for the traits used. A careful consideration of these FIGURE 4 Neighbor Joining Dendrograms: 11 and 15 Variables results leads one to consider the issue of variation in Africa, beyond stereotypical raciotypological models and geographical typological thinking (see Hiernaux, 1975;Keita, 1993;Keita & Kittles, 1997;Kittles & Keita, 1999).…”

Finally in Africa? Egypt, from Diop to Celenko

“…Do the early`Egyptians' share biological traits with`tropical' Africans which represent tropical adaptations, obtained via shared ancestry?' 70 Deconstructing the concept of`race' is an important task that Keita takes on, rehearsing again the arguments well known to physical anthropologists, but not, apparently, to the general scholarly community. The idea of`race' as an explanation of human variation is invalid, as`the assumption that variation could be partitioned into monotypic types is .…”