Ancient Egyptians and Nubians Were Caucasoid

October 8, 2019

Ancient DNA has confirmed that Ancient Egyptians were Middle Eastern and not Sub-Saharan African. This was already suggested by earlier genetic studies that found North Africans were the result of a back-migration from West Asia. But even before that, older craniofacial analyses of skeletal samples from all over Egypt (and Nubia) spanning all of ancient history also showed the same thing.

Here are five lines of anthropological evidence that group Ancient Egyptians and Nubians with North Africans, West/South Asians and Europeans (Caucasoids), and separate them from Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroids). Note that Horn Africans (Somalis) cluster with Caucasoids in some cases and Negroids in others, which indicates they're a racially mixed population that's not representative of either Sub-Saharan Africans or Egyptians and Nubians.

1. Craniometric

Combined samples of Pre-Dynastic (Naqada) and Late Dynastic (Giza) Egyptians, and Bronze Age, Early Christian and Medieval Nubians, cluster with combined samples of Ancient and Modern North Africans, East Indians and Europeans.

Brace et al. "Clines and clusters versus 'Race:' a test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile". Am J Phys Anthro, 1993.

2. Cranial Non-metric

Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada (#59), 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh (#60), 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma (#61), and Early Christian or Christian Nubians (#62) cluster with South Asians (#44) and several European groups: Greeks (#48), Scandinavians (#51 and #52) and Germans (#53). [NOTE that Somalis are up with Sub-Saharan Africans (#63)]

Hanihara et al. "Characterization of biological diversity through analysis of discrete cranial traits". Am J Phys Anthro, 2003.

3. Dental Metric

Pre-Dynastic and 12th-29th Dynasty Egyptians cluster with Afghans and North Indians on the edge of a larger cluster of Europeans and West Asians. [NOTE that here again, Somalis show Sub-Saharan affinities and don't cluster with Ancient Egyptians.]

Hanihara and Ishida. "Metric dental variation of major human populations". Am J Phys Anthro, 2005.

4. Dental Non-metric

12th Dynasty (Lisht), Roman/Byzantine (El Hesa), and Byzantine (Kharga) Egyptians, and Pharonic, Meroitic, X-group and Christian Nubians, cluster with other North Africans and Europeans (Poundbury, England).

Joel D. Irish. "Diachronic and synchronic dental trait affinities of late and post-pleistocene peoples from North Africa". Homo, 1998b.

5. Prognathism

Ancient Egyptians from Badari, Pre-Dynastic Egyptians from Naqada, and 26th-30th Dynasty Egyptians from Gizeh, as well as 12th-13th Dynasty Nubians from Kerma and Early Christian or Christian Nubians, all cluster with Europeans and West/South Asians on the negative end of the prognathism scale.

Tsunehiko Hanihara. "Frontal and Facial Flatness of Major Human Populations". Am J Phys Anthro, 2000.


Latinus said...

Off-topic: why did you remove your other blog, Italianthro? Will it return one day?

MasterOfAnimals said...

Also Notice that Badarians cluster dentally with north africans , before other ancient nubians or modern east africans.

Dental trait analysis of Badarian fossils found that they were closely related to other Afroasiatic-speaking populations inhabiting Northeast Africa and the Maghreb. Among the ancient populations, the Badarians were nearest to other ancient Egyptians (Naqada, Hierakonpolis, Abydos and Kharga in Upper Egypt; Hawara in Lower Egypt), and C-Group and Pharaonic era skeletons excavated in Lower Nubia, followed by the A-Group culture bearers of Lower Nubia, the Kerma and Kush populations in Upper Nubia, the Meroitic, X-Group and Christian period inhabitants of Lower Nubia, and the Kellis population in the Dakhla Oasis. Among the recent groups, the Badari makers were morphologically closest to the Shawia and Kabyle Berber populations of Algeria as well as Bedouin groups in Morocco, Libya and Tunisia, followed by other Afroasiatic-speaking populations in the Horn of Africa. The Badarian skeletons and these ancient and recent fossils were also phenotypically distinct from those belonging to other populations in Sub-Saharan Africa.[6]

rene_sarabia said...

Off Topic: Hi I am wanting to reregister in Anthroscape but this time I'm gonna use my real FB and Yahoo mail names as my username in Anthroscape but it says Anthroscape is not accepting New members.

rene_sarabia said...

I think your race realism is a controversial reality in the PC crowd which they ignore I want to spread your ideas to people in real life in Facebook and Wikipedia. I'm the top contributor to the Philippines' Wiki page I could help you. I really want to Reregister to Anthroscape again but with my new Tapatalk ID being Rene B. Sarabia Jr. As I can link your ideas more with real life and working with real names and personalities can help you. I admit that I had done bad before by posting my nudes that's why my previous account was name banned by I promise to make it better by removing my anonymity and linking my real life persona here to the cause of racial realism. And I will not post my nudes on your sight anymore.

Lolcox said...

Can you make a post refuting the "There was too much gene flow between populations for there to be human races / subspecies" claim?

eliran said...

the kerma culture was in it's origins a cushitic speaking culture, and had the same origins as somalis, amharas and other cushitic speaking peoples. that is why they have a cacuacsoid origins along with a negroid one.

Wise dragon said...

Hi, racial reality,

according to some amateur archaeogenetics, there is no such a thing as "Negroid" or "SSA" or Eurasian since Africans are genetically highly diverse people and some SSA people like Mota closer to Eurasians than to other SSA. They bring up the brand-new Shum Laka study from Reich and it‘s graphics where Mota is on the same branch as Eurasians. They claim that the term Negroid or SSA is proved to be meaningless in a genetic sense by this paper. What is your take on that?

Here the study.

Wise dragon said...

Hi again,

In the Shum Laka study, Mota and West Africans are both modeled as admixed populations drawing ~70% of their ancestry from a cluster of populations that split off just before OOA, what can be called “pre-OOA”, while the remainder of their ancestry is much more basal and apparently split off around the same time as the ancestors of central and southern hunter-gatherers. So the question is which of these ancestral populations is SSA? And how to define the difference between OOA/Eurasian and African?

Anonymous said...

straw man

NXGNO said...

Wise dragon that’s all false.
Anonymous it isn’t a strawman.
Eliran false they have a caucasiod origins.
MasterOfAnimals that’s false. They weren’t related and everything you said is wrong