quote:

---

A summary of the results of major previous studies is presented here; for further details see Keita (1995, 2004). The earliest morphological studies of Egyptian crania were chiefly concerned with the shape of certain anatomical complexes. These complexes, defined by extreme variants as geographic groups, were considered to be “racial types” (Warren, 1897; Fawcett and Lee, 1902; Giuffrida- Ruggeri, 1915; Pearson and Davin, 1924; Stoessiger, 1927; Woo, 1930; Morant, 1925, 1935, 1937; Jackson and Cave, 1937; Risdon, 1939; Derry, 1956; Nutter, 1958). For example, Randall-MacIver (1901), and Thomson and Randall-
MacIver (1905), employing morphological observations, concluded that southern Predynastic Egyptians were a hybrid population, consisting of “Negroid” and non-“Negroid” (Semitic) elements. The pattern of variation in facial and nasal indices was similar for both sexes through all periods from the Predynastic to the Roman period. This, they argued, meant that the distribution could not be considered simply a result of normal variation of a single type; rather they suggested the juxtaposition of two groups based upon the correlation between facial and nasal indices as the sole criterion for distinguishing these two racial groups. The first group were short or broad-faced and platyrhine, while the second group was long or narrow-faced and leptorhine. Morant (1925, 1935) argued that the Lower Egyptian type remained relatively unchanged from EDyn times to the Ptolemaic period, but that during this time the Upper Egyptian type changed, and as the vast majority of southern Dynastic crania fell between the two extremes of the “types”, some form of transition must have occurred. Morant considered both types to represent very closely related populations; the differences between them could be due to evolution through selection or differing environments, or through the slow mingling of two different races. Risdon (1939) argued that the population of Upper Egypt underwent gradual change from the Badarian through to the 18th Dynasty, and that by the New Kingdom, one group had almost entirely replaced the other in Upper Egypt. Elliot- Smith (1915–1916) defined as a \Brown Race” the autochthonous population of the Nile Valley, although Giuffrida- Ruggeri (1922) considered this confusing as it blurred Caucasian and African \types”.Elliot-Smith considered the Brown Race to have been modified by \Negroes” in the south and by Near Eastern populations in the north. By contrast, Giuffrida-Ruggeri (1922) concluded that the Lower Egyptians were a Mediterranean white population while the Upper Egyptians were Ethiopians.

Falkenburger (1947), Strouhal (1971), and Angel (1972) all considered the southern Egyptian populations to be “Negroid” or hybrid in character, while the northern populations were more European-like. Wiercinski (1965) defined the basic or indigenous Egyptian type as being Badarian-like, but then said that this group was of Near Eastern origin. Other authors considered the Badarian to be a “Negroid” group (Morant, 1935, 1937; Nutter, 1958; Strouhal, 1971; Angel, 1972). Coon (1939) considered a Delta Predynastic sample to be less \Negroid” in character than southern populations.

Although there was some criticism of the racial typology underlying these studies (Myers, 1905, 1908; Batrawi, 1945, 1946), most morphometric studies continued to employ the concept of two populations in Egypt, such as the Upper and Lower Egyptian types of Morant (1925) and Risdon (1939). Most authors suggested that the Upper Egyptian type (i.e. southern) had more “Negroid” traits that were gradually lost through time (Morant, 1925, 1935; Risdon, 1939; Batrawi, 1946). These studies also found that the southern populations tended to cluster with more southerly groups, e.g. Crichton (1966) found Naqada crania to be more “Negroid” than a later period sample from Gizeh, while Bra¨uer (1976) found that Nubian and early Egyptian series tended to cluster with more southern African groups. Recent craniometric studies continue to note morphological differences between northern and southern Egyptian samples. Hillson (1978) referred to this as two distinct trends within his data set:
1. a northern and lower Egyptian tendency
2. a southern Egyptian and southern African trend.

In his work, the Upper Egyptians overlapped with southern African populations. Billy (1977) noted, from Penrose’s C analyses, that the homogeneity of her Lower Egypt series contrasted with greater dispersion in Upper Egypt with a constant morphological type being conserved through Dynastic times in the north. Keita (1990, 1992), through the use of discriminant function analysis (DFA), noted the overlap of southern Egyptians and some southern African series.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the lioness:
Wallis Budge

Book Title: Egypt

London: Thornton Butterworth, 1925
London: Williams & Norgate, 1925
New York: Holt, 1925

---

quote:

---

"Probably, adds Capart, Menes succeeded in organizing the negro troops with which the population of Upper Egypt provided him in abundance, and thus ruled over the Delta, but in preceding times, the contrary had taken place; known archaeological and historical facts accord in the hypothesis of a conquest of Upper Egypt by the kings of Lower Egypt, which Capart calls a phase of penetration by the Egyptians of the Delta, whose expeditions went up the Nile exploring new regions....

---

quote:

---

....In conclusion Capart clearly states the thesis which he upholds, that "Egyptian Pharaonic civilization came from the Delta; it is there that the true Egyptian developed, as well as the African populations of Upper Egypt." The anthropological elements of this civilization are: on one hand, the Libyan element which belongs to the Caucasian race from Northern Africa; and on the other, a Semitic element from the East. This double origin explains the remarkable resemblance found by Eduard Meyer between Libyans and Egyptians," from which he deduces that the predynastic Egyptians from Lower Egypt must have been a Libyan tribe which had penetrated into the Delta and was very slightly different from its western neighbours of the desert.

---

quote:

---

But probably the Delta was not uninhabited when the Leucoderm element penetrated it, as certainly the Upper Nile was not uninhabited: the natives, belonging to quite a different race, learned the language of their conquerors. That was established years ago by Erman, who from his linguistic studies perceived by intuition that "the Egyptian language was not born in the valley of the Nile; it is a foreign language which the conquerors brought to the primitive populations." According to this linguist, the historical Egyptians were Semitized Nubians. *

---

quote:

---

....Capart concludes from this and other arguments that the Pharaonic Empire was no other than the manifestation of European genius, a true anticipation of later evolutions, and an attempted expansion towards Africa which ceased at its first contact with the African races. The conclusion seems to us fully justified, all the more so because in examining the Egyptian anthropological problem, we came to a very similar conclusion, pointing out that the Egyptians themselves do not believe they are autochthonous

---

quote:

---

All those [Ancient Egyptians] which are not Armenoid, according to Elliot Smith, belong to a "brown race," which is a good way of confounding whatever discrimination may exist between Caucasians (he never uses this term) and Africans. Only those who, like Naville, uphold the African origin of the Pharaonic civilization 2 can applaud Elliot Smith's anthropological conclusions; it seems scarcely possible that the same conclusions can support Capart's contrary thesis which demands a distinction of origin, i.e. between the inhabitants of Southern Egypt who are the only Africans, and those of Northern Egypt who are not at all African. On the other hand we have in various works upheld this distinction — which Capart rightly maintains — on the basis of the skeletal characteristics, which show that the Predynastics of Upper Egypt were in a great part different from the Mediterranean type which predominated later, leaving aside the sporadic Armenoids who are only slightly represented.

---

quote:

---

In Upper Egypt at the same epoch we find peoples very different from the Libyans: indeed Randall MacIver and Wilkin have noted the platyrrhine and other non-Mediter ranean characteristics of the Egyptian series before the IV Dynasty.1 The series from El- 'Amrah studied by Fouquet * and that from Naqada studied by Miss Fawcett * present these same characteristics. In all these series is largely represented a type which I have called Ethiopic — because " Nubian " rather makes one think of a Negro type which it is not — or better perhaps Proto-Ethiopic, which I believe is an ancient type of Erythrean Africa of equatorial derivation, that is, belonging to the group of equatorial races. Amongst these races, besides the Negroes proper, are comprised the actual Ethiopians (those not crossed with Arabs), e.g. Baria, Cunama, Galla, etc., and in antiquity the predynastic natives south of the Delta, the so-called "Nubians Group A," 4 the Yam, the Wawat and the so-called " Middle Nubians or Group C.".

---

And just so we're clear the following are the people he's sayin

Kunama/Cunama




Bari



Oromo/Galla





After attempting to then separate Upper Egyptian “Ethiopian” featured Africans from notions of “negro types” (while previously calling them negroes in the same written work) he then concludes:

quote:

---

To the question whether the most ancient Egyptians were Mediterraneans or Ethiopians, we must reply that those of Lower Egypt were Mediterraneans akin to Libyans, those of Upper Egypt were Ethiopians.

---

quote:

---

Judging from means reduced by Lee from Schmidt's individual measuremenits (see (6), p. 426), the modern Copts have diverged greatly from the type of the dynastic Egyptians and in no way more significantly than in their reduced length (L = 177-0) and greater cephalic index (100B/L = 77 3).But the modern natives of Northern Abyssinia measured by Sergio Sergi (26) are surprisingly similar to the type which predominated in Upper Egypt during the middle dynasties. The relationiship between one of the latter and the Abyssinians is decidedly closer than that between two series-the Whitechapel and Moorfields-of seventeenth century Londoners. This is a striking example of the persistence of a type with only slight modification for a period of at least 3000 years. There are two middle dynastic series which diverge slightly from the pure native population contemporaneous with them in the ways which were more accentuated in the later Abyssinians.

---

Tigray/Northern Abyssinians:









But then Morant like Irish and others in Egyptology distance Upper Egypt from Blacks, by employing "Negroid" as the the only "true Negro" standard.

quote:

---

It is very generally supposed that the population of ancient Egypt was
sensibly affected at various times by the infusion of Negro blood. But in the series
of which we have the mean measurements it is not possible to detect the slightest
effect of any such admixture that can have taken place after early Pre-dynastic
times. Ap-art from isolated negroid skulls which are said to have been excluded
from several of the series, the populations appear to be quite homogeneous and we
have no reason to suppose that the mean type was affected in the slightest by
admixture with any race foreign to Egypt.

---

In a nutshell, Morant acknowledges they are Black, but feels he can afford to backtrack because they don't look like Francis Uzoho.:



Course as soon as they leave their academics at the door, they're back to discriminating against people who look more like the Tigray than Francis Uzoho.
 

---