Examining the Population History of Three Medieval Nubian Sites Through Craniometric Analyses

Home , Baqt, Kerma, Kulubnarti, Makuria, Napata, Nubians

EXAMINING THE POPULATION HISTORY OF THREE MEDIEVAL NUBIAN SITES THROUGH CRANIOMETRIC ANALYSES

Jennifer Maria Vollner

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Anthropology – Doctor of Philosophy

2016 ABSTRACT

EXAMINING THE POPULATION HISTORY OF THREE MEDIEVAL NUBIAN SITES THROUGH CRANIOMETRIC ANALYSES

Jennifer Maria Vollner

According to the common historical narrative, the area of Nubia, which in the medieval period (ca 550-1500 AD) stretched along the Nile Valley from the first cataract to the confluence of the Blue and White Nile rivers, was ruled by three separate kingdoms. While there is scant historical information on the origins of Nobadia, the northern-most kingdom, Makuria, the middle kingdom, and Alwa, the southern kingdom, many agree that the two northern kingdoms united politically to defend the territory from Egyptian rulers, while Alwa likely served as trading hub for Egypt and other merchants from the Red Sea. These newly converted Christian kingdoms eventually began to deteriorate as Arab Muslims took up residence within the region, changing the dynamics of the land. A worthwhile consideration is whether such changes in religious and political affiliation can be associated with detectable differences in the genetic makeup of the populations of this region.

This dissertation examines the population history of the Nubian kingdoms through craniometric analyses carried out on samples from three sites, each from a different kingdom. A total of 25 cranial measurements are obtained from 209 individuals buried at Kulubnarti (n=89),

Mis Island (n=93), and Gabati (n=27). In addition, Howells’ (1973) and Spradley’s (2006)

African samples are used to contextualize the Nubian samples within a wider geographic region.

The first focus of this research was to examine intra- and inter-site craniometric variation.

No statistically significant intra-site differences were identified at Kulubnarti and Mis Island.

However, there were statistically significant intra-site differences between the three time periods represented at Gabati. These differences do not support a mass migration into the region, but rather these differences likely result from change over time. The inter-site comparison of the three Nubian samples established statistically significant differences. In fact, 22 of the 25 cranial measurements differed significantly between sites. These findings suggest there was no mass migration into any of these regions, but the identified differentiation strongly suggests extra- regional gene flow and/or genetic isolation.

The second focus of this dissertation examines the degree of gene flow through analysis of phenotypic variance within the Nubian samples and comparison of that variation with other

African samples. Results indicate both Kulubnarti and Mis Island have been relatively isolated, whereas Gabati presents evidence of extra-regional gene flow. Additionally, a comparison of the

Nubian samples with other African skeletal samples shows that Gabati was more closely related to Egypt than Kulubnarti or Mis Island. This may indicate Egyptian gene flow into Gabati catalyzed by the known trade economy between those populations.

Finally, an examination of the mobility of each sex within the Nubian sites shows that

Kulubnarti and Mis Island males had greater mobility while the same held true for the females at

Gabati. However, the sex-specific differences at each site are not statistically significant. These mobility patterns may be related to differences in cultural norms governing changes in residence for those reaching adulthood.

In the end, this study adds to the unfortunately scant history pieced together from the extant historical and archaeological record of the southern Nile Valley. Thus, the most significant contribution of this research concerns where these individuals came from, populations to which they were most closely related, and the levels of extra-regional gene flow they experienced.

This work is dedicated to those who have believed in me, especially my parents, Donna and Larry, who have always encouraged me to follow my dreams and my academic parent, Dr. Elizabeth Murray, who has guided me every step of my journey.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible if it were not for the love, support, and encouragement that I received from so many people. First and foremost, I must thank my committee chair, Dr. Todd Fenton for accepting me as a student years ago and staying by my side until I have finished here today. His enthusiasm for this project and encouragement was the driving force for me on many occasions. Thank you for providing me with the copious opportunities, experiences, and all the memories, especially those of the rooftop terrace in Lecce.

I am forever indebted to you.

I must thank the rest of my incredible committee, Dr. Masako Fujita, Dr. Ethan Watrall,

Dr. Jon Frey, and Dr. Kate Spradley. Dr. Fujita offered helpful edits and asked challenging questions throughout this entire process. She was always there to offer encouragement at times when she may not have realized how much I needed to hear it. Dr. Ethan Watrall continually encouraged me to contextualize my findings within a larger archaeological scope and offered many helpful suggestions to improve my dissertation. Dr. Jon Frey asked thought-provoking questions and then allowed me to sit for hours at a time in his office discussing my thoughts and ideas, as well as getting off topic reminiscing about westside Cincinnati. He offered criticism in the most constructive way and exemplified a tradition of help from unexpected places. Finally, many thanks must go to Dr. Kate Spradley for assisting me in the methods used in this dissertation and for generously offering and providing me with part of her own dissertation dataset. She also reminded me to celebrate the steps along the way which is an easy thing to forget to do. This dissertation would not have come to fruition if it were not for all of the hard work and dedication of my committee members.

So many other brilliant individuals have directly had a hand in the completion of my dissertation. Dr. Heather Garvin generously provided me with three-dimensional scans so that I could collect my data. This was critical for my research and I can not thank her enough. Dr. Lyle

Konigsberg provided me with statistical advice and pointed me to R code on his webpage. Dr.

Steve Ousley and Dr. John Relethford both provided me with computer software so that I could collect data and analyze it, respectively. Dr. Derek Welsby and Dr. Daniel Antoine as well as the rest of the Sudan Archaeological Research Society have worked tirelessly to not only continue to preserve Nubian history but also to provide researchers access to the materials, both at the British

Museum as well as loaning the Mis Island collection to Michigan State University. I also must thank Dr. Antoine for being such a kind host during my time at the British Museum.

Additionally, I’d like to thank Dr. Joseph Hefner, Dr. Norman Sauer, Dr. William Lovis,

Dr. Dennis Dirkmaat, Dr. Steve Symes, Luis Cabo, Dr. Elizabeth Murray, Dr. Gene Kritsky, and

Dr. Mark Fischer who all played a large role in shaping me into the person and academic I am today. Each of you has impacted me deeply and I will never forget the lessons learned in your classrooms.

I’d like to thank my friends MSU who have moved on to bigger and better things but who supported me during my time here, Dr. Angela Soler, Dr. Carolyn Isaac, Dr. Cate Bird, Dr.

Tracey Tichnell, Dr. Jared Beatrice, Dr. Lindsey Jenny, Dr. Colleen Milligan and Dr. Nick

Passalacqua. A special thank you to Angela for her dedication in bringing the Mis Island collection to MSU and to Carolyn for sharing many adventures and way too much gelato. I also have to thank my current colleagues for putting up with me during these past few years, Emily

Streetman, Mari Isa, Val Leah, Julie Fleischman, Susan Kooiman and especially Caitlin

Vogelsberg for being an incredible friend for the last three years.

I was fortunate enough to have several other friends writing their dissertations at the same time as well, Amy Michael, Ashley Kendell, and especially Emily Riley. Thank you for the copious amounts of coffee shared and encouragement given. I must also thank Jonathan Lutz for moving to a cabin in Montana with no internet and allowing me to come and finish writing there.

The amount of love and support that I have received from Dr. Natalie Uhl and Amandine Eriksen is unparalleled. I have relied on you both so often for your kindness, intelligence, and ability to make me laugh. I am eternally grateful for your friendships.

Finally, I must express my gratitude to my family. You have kept me grounded and continually reminded me of what is important in life. My parents have always given me the freedom to be myself and encouraged me to spread my wings even when it has taken me further and further from the nest. My brothers, Jeff, Greg, and Brian have kept me humble (that will be

Dr. Sasquatch now by the way), taught me how to take a punch, and most importantly have kept me laughing through the years. My sisters-in-law, Allison and Diane, have been incredibly supportive and proven to be superb allies. My nieces and nephews, Emily, Andrew, Gage and

Cora, have kept my priorities in check and were always eager to all work on our ‘homework’ together. My Brown-Eyed Grandma Vollner has been the best pen pal and support from afar.

Thank you all for understanding my absences and for celebrating when I am home.

So many people have been a part of this process, it is truly humbling. I know it is because of all of you that I am here today. Thank you.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... xi

LIST OF FIGURES ...... xii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Project Objectives ...... 6 An Outline of the Present Study ...... 7 LITERATURE CITED ...... 10

CHAPTER TWO: FOUNDATIONS OF BIOARCHAEOLOGY ...... 14 The Multidisciplinary Nature of Bioarchaeology ...... 14 Biological Distance Studies ...... 15 Biological Distance Analyses in the Nile Valley ...... 21 LITERATURE CITED ...... 26

CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF THE NILE VALLEY ...... 32 Importance of Understanding the Historical Context ...... 35 Nature of the Historical Narrative in Nubia ...... 36 Kingdom of Kush: Napatan Phase ...... 37 Kingdom of Kush: Meroitic Period ...... 39 Post-Meroitic Transitional Period ...... 42 Medieval Christian Kingdoms ...... 44 Post-Medieval Period ...... 49 LITERATURE CITED ...... 51

CHAPTER FOUR: MATERIALS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ...... 54 Medieval Nubian Samples ...... 55 Mis Island Sample...... 57 Kulubnarti Sample ...... 61 Gabati Sample ...... 64 Howells’ Dataset ...... 66 Howells’ Bushman Data ...... 66 Howells’ Zulu Data ...... 67 Howells’ Egyptian Data ...... 67 Howells’ Teita Data ...... 67 Howells’ Dogon Data ...... 68 Spradley’s Dataset ...... 68 West African Samples...... 68 East African Samples ...... 69 Research Questions and Expectations ...... 69 Research Question 1 ...... 71 Research Question 2 ...... 72 Research Question 3a ...... 73

viii

Research Question 3b ...... 73 Research Question 4 ...... 75 LITERATURE CITED ...... 78

CHAPTER FIVE: METHODS ...... 83 Sampling ...... 83 Craniometric Data Collection ...... 84 Mis Island Sample...... 85 Kulubnarti Sample ...... 87 Gabati Sample ...... 88 Comparability of Data Collection Techniques ...... 89 Analytical Methods ...... 90 Research Question 1 ...... 90 Research Question 2 ...... 92 Research Question 3a ...... 92 Research Question 3b ...... 93 Research Question 4 ...... 93 LITERATURE CITED ...... 96

CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS ...... 99 Research Question 1 ...... 99 Mis Island...... 99 Kulubnarti ...... 101 Gabati ...... 103 Research Question 2 ...... 105 Research Question 3a ...... 108 Research Question 3b ...... 110 Research Question 4 ...... 118 LITERATURE CITED ...... 120

CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION ...... 122 Research Question 1 ...... 122 Research Question 2 ...... 126 Research Question 3a ...... 129 Research Question 3b ...... 132 Research Question 4 ...... 138 LITERATURE CITED ...... 141

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS ...... 145 Introduction ...... 145 Revisiting the Research Questions ...... 146 Research Question 1 ...... 146 Research Question 2 ...... 147 Research Question 3a ...... 148 Research Question 3b ...... 149 Research Question 4 ...... 150

Future Studies ...... 151 LITERATURE CITED ...... 153

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. General chronology of the Nubian Nile Valley ...... 37

Table 4.1. The Mis Island individuals used in this study...... 59

Table 4.2. The sample of Kulubnarti individuals used ...... 63

Table 4.3. The Gabati individuals analyzed in this study ...... 65

Table 4.4. The Howells dataset used ...... 68

Table 4.5. West African males and females by sample ...... 69

Table 4.6. East African females and males by sample ...... 69

Table 5.1. Cranial landmarks with subsequent associated measurements ...... 85

Table 5.2. Two-dimensional cranial measurements and abbreviations taken ...... 88

Table 5.3. Total Nubian dataset ...... 91

Table 6.1. Canonical structure for Mis Island cemeteries ...... 100

Table 6.2. Canonical structure for Kulubnarti cemeteries ...... 102

Table 6.3. Canonical structure for Gabati temporal periods ...... 104

Table 6.4. Canonical structure for Nubian samples ...... 107

Table 6.5. Mahalanobis’ distances for Nubian samples derived from z-scores...... 107

Table 6.6. Relethford-Blangero analysis for Nubian groups (h2=0.55) ...... 108

Table 6.7. The upper values are the biological distance values and the lower values are the R matrix values ...... 109

Table 6.8. Relethford-Blangero results with heritability of 0.55 ...... 111

Table 6.9. The R matrix is seen in the lower portion of the table and the biological distance in the upper portion ...... 113

Table 6.10. Relethford Blangero results for all African samples except East Coast (h2=0.55) ...... 114

Table 6.11. The R matrix is seen in the lower portion of the table and the biological distance in the upper portion for all African samples except East Coast (h2=0.55) ...... 116

Table 6.12. Results from Nubian female (H) nonparametric bootstrap testing with Teita females as a reference sample (W) ...... 118

Table 6.13. Results from Nubian male (H) nonparametric bootstrap testing with Teita males as a reference sample (W) ...... 118

Table 6.14. Results from Nubian male (H) nonparametric bootstrap testing with Nubian female sample (W) ...... 119

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1. The three medieval Nubian kingdoms located in the Nile Valley adapted from Welsby (2002) ...... 34

Figure 4.1. Map of Africa indicating the general geographic origin of samples ...... 55

Figure 4.2. The approximate locations of the three archaeological sites used in this study adapted from Welsby (2002) ...... 56

Figure 4.3. Plan view map of cemetery 3-J-10 at a scale of 1:500 with grave numbers indicated. Published in Ginns (2010b) ...... 59

Figure 4.4. Plan view map of cemetery 3-J-11. Originally provided by Ginns and published in Soler (2012) ...... 60

Figure 4.5. Map of the island of Kulubnarti with cemeteries highlighted originally published in Adams, Adams, Van Gerven, & Greene (1999) ...... 63

Figure 4.6. Cemetery at Gabati as published in Edwards (1998) ...... 65

Figure 6.1. Canonical plot of Mis Island individuals...... 100

Figure 6.2. Canonical plot of Kulubnarti individuals ...... 102

Figure 6.3. Plot of canonical means for two canonical variates for Gabati ...... 104

Figure 6.4. Plot of canonical centroids for the three Nubian sites ...... 106

Figure 6.5. Plot of the first two scaled eigenvectors for the three Nubian sites ...... 110

Figure 6.6. Plot of the first two scaled eigenvectors for the African samples ...... 117

xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

The region known in antiquity as Nubia was located in the upper Nile Valley beginning at the first cataract (a natural rocky outcrop that creates a shallow region of the river and is now part of southern Egypt) and stretching south to the place where the White and Blue Nile rivers converge. This area, which is now largely part of the modern nation state the Republic of the

Sudan, has seen a long and rich history of continual human occupation (Edwards, 2004; Fuller,

2004) that extends all the way back to the Early Paleolithic period (Garcea, 2004). Throughout that time, the Nile river served as a major thoroughfare between Nubia and the Mediterranean

Sea, along which individuals lived, traded, and interacted at varying degrees of intensity. This project focuses on the medieval period, ~550-1500 AD, a time of particularly active religious and political change in the course of African history.

Unfortunately, our knowledge of ancient Nubia pales in comparison to the breadth and depth of information known about its northern neighbor, Egypt. The little textual evidence that has been found in Nubia is largely restricted to funerary stelae and graffiti, supplemented by a small body of trade and legal documents such as the collection that has recently been found at

Qasr Ibrim, a site located between the first and the second Nile cataracts (Welsby, 2002). This relatively scant amount of available textual information has encouraged scholars to base their narrative of Nubian history on other outside sources—predominantly accounts of Arabic historians and Christian missionaries—that are marked by inherently biased perspectives.

Because these sources more often express a worldview external to the Nubian cultures they were recording, they served to form the historical narrative we know today of a culture that was seemingly only valued in terms of its relationship to its better known neighbors. The creation of historical narratives based upon a sub-section of society or completely outside of the society is

1 not a unique issue only experienced by Nubia, but a problem seen in many periods of time and parts of the world (Trouillot, 1995).

This externally constructed Nubian narrative indicates that there were three independent

Nubian kingdoms during the medieval period: Nobadia in the north, Makuria in the middle, and

Alwa in the south. Based upon Christian missionaries’ writings, it is known that the three kingdoms converted to Christianity during the same period in the sixth century. These writings also allude to hostilities between the three medieval Nubian kingdoms (Edwards, 2004; Welsby,

2002). Nobadia and Alwa are presumed to have both converted to Monophysite Christianity that believed in the single nature of Christ, partly divine and partly human. However, Makuria is thought to have converted to Melkite Christianity – although it is not explicitly stated in any early scholars’ accounts (Edwards, 2004; Welsby, 2002). The impetus for this religious change for all the Nubian kingdoms is unclear. Although Nobadia and Makuria were believed to have converted to different sects of Christianity and were openly hostile to each other in the past, shortly after these official religious conversions Nobadia and Makuria unite politically (Adams,

1991). It is thought that this alliance was for the purpose of strengthening the defense against

Islamic aggressions coming through Egypt. On the other hand, sources hint at trade relationships that occurred during periods of peace between the Nubian kingdoms and Egypt (Edwards, 2004;

Spaulding, 1995; Welsby, 2002). Such problematic external sources and lack of internal records suggest that the most complete record of Nubian history must depend upon the archaeology of the region and the skeletal remains of the individuals that lived during the medieval period.

Again, though, the archaeology of this region is not without its own problems, as the study of Nubian material culture was long overshadowed by the impressive discoveries of antiquities and massive monuments in Egypt. It was not until the construction of the Old Aswan

2 dam was announced in the early 1900’s that saving the archaeological history of Lower Nubia became a priority. George Reisner (Reisner, 1908a, 1908b, 1909a, 1909b) led several expeditions before the dam was constructed, thus flooding the archaeological sites of that area beneath the waters of Lake Nasser. Since that time, interest in the archaeology and bioarchaeology of this region has increased. However, excavations occurred often in isolated phases of greater activity which are all too often still motivated by dam projects such as at

Aswan and Merowe (Ahmed, 2004) that threatened the history of the early Nubian populations.

Nevertheless, this archaeological record has begun to tell the history of Nubia on its own terms.

Interpretation of who the Nubians were that lived during the medieval period is complicated by the imperfect nature of salvage archaeology conducted at several sites. This interpretation is further complicated by the official conversion to Christianity by each of the three medieval kingdoms that drastically changed the Nubian mortuary practices, specifically by a lack of grave goods which were often used to date burials and the disappearance of overall burial-type diversity which may differentiate socio-cultural groups. Periods earlier than medieval times and the populations that lived then have been categorized and described based on the artifacts found at the site as well as within individual tombs. This method is exemplified by

Reisner’s early work (1908a, 1908b, 1909a, 1909b) developing an archaeological chronology of

Lower Nubia. A heavy reliance on the material culture, especially pottery, has its own set of limitations but is further complicated by the absence of grave goods during the medieval and overall Christian period. The archaeological narrative of Nubian history is then largely based on sites of political or cultural importance and therefore unintentionally excludes the experience of the non-elites of medieval Nubia. Additionally, the grey areas within the Nubian historical narrative, specifically who the people were that lived in Nubia during the medieval period

3 whether they inhabited the area throughout time or migrated into the region to build the medieval kingdoms, open avenues of research that can be addressed by bioarchaeological analyses.

Bioarchaeology, the study of human skeletal remains within their archaeological contexts to extrapolate the past life-ways of individuals and populations (Armelagos, 2003; Buikstra,

2006; Larsen, 2002), can be used in order to fill in the gaps in the Nubian historical and archaeological record. Specifically, the use of craniometric data and statistical analyses can provide insight into the population history of medieval Nubians. Questions that surround the origin of these populations, whether native Nubians created powerful kingdoms or foreigners entered the Nile Valley to found the polities, can be examined through craniometric analyses.

Information on the biological interactions or lack there of between the three Nubian kingdoms and furthermore between other African populations as well as questions surrounding the possible marital residence patterns at each site can also be addressed to some extent through the analysis of craniometric data. Craniometric data has been demonstrated to be an appropriate proxy for the underlying genetic make-up of populations (Relethford & Harpending, 1994; Relethford, 2004;

Relethford, 1994; Strauss & Hubbe, 2010). Therefore by examining differences in craniofacial variation within and between samples, these questions focused on the gaps in the Nubian historical record can be addressed directly through the skeletal remains of those that lived during the medieval period. This direct analysis of the biological remains of these individuals will test the theories proposed by the indirect study of medieval Nubians that has been completed through archaeological methods.

The three skeletal collections used for this research have originated from salvage archaeological operations. First, the archaeological excavations at Mis Island, located near the fourth cataract, were in response to the Merowe dam project (Welsby, 2006, 2007). The skeletal

4 remains excavated from two cemeteries located there, 3-J-10 and 3-J-11, have been examined for overall health and nutritional status of both the populations, as well as some spatial analyses of mortuary patterns (Hurst, 2013; Soler, 2012) shedding light on how these individuals lived and eventually were buried. The second collection is from Kulubnarti, a site located near the second cataract of the Nile that has been extensively studied since its excavation as part of the

International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia (Adams et al., 1999; Adams & Adams,

1998; Adams, 2011; Turner et al., 2007; Van Gerven, Sheridan, & Adams, 1995). The third site,

Gabati, was excavated ahead of highway construction that threatened to destroy the site and is one of the few non-elite cemeteries excavated in the Butana region (Edwards, 1998). Although this site has not been extensively studied, some skeletal analyses have been completed (Judd,

2012).

Although salvage archaeological projects like these have encouraged collaboration in

Nubia, such excavations are also problematic due to the time constraints imposed upon researchers that lead to the inevitable prioritization of projects. Thus, the excavation of cemeteries and larger structures has frequently been favored over settlement archaeology so that scant information is available on the size/population of most occupation sites. The nature of the salvage archaeological excavation with its tight timelines and complete destruction of sites also further complicates future research projects as archaeologists, historians, bioarchaeologists, and other scholars are unable to ever return to these sites for further data collection and must work only with the information and evidence that is currently available.

This project sets out to analyze the skeletal remains of non-elite individuals that lived

5 within the bounds of each of the three medieval kingdoms in order to ascertain the population history of each group thereby shedding light on the unwritten historical narrative of the non-elite

Nubians while adding to the non-elite archaeological narrative.

Project Objectives

This project sets out with the following objectives:

- To use craniometric data to determine whether there is evidence of a single

population at each site. Early theories of the rise of the Nubian kingdoms focused on

the possibility of mass migrations into the Nile Valley. This objective will first

examine whether there is any evidence to support that migrations had occurred at Mis

Island, Kulubnarti, or Gabati.

- To determine if each of the Nubian samples represents separate populations

through craniometric analyses. It is not known where exactly the founding

populations for each of the three Nubian kingdoms originated. It is possible that these

kingdoms could have originated from the Meroitic population or represent separate

populations that lived in the Nile Valley during that period. Issues of similar, but

different nomenclature of populations living within the Nile Valley complicate the

picture of the number of populations present. The samples from Mis Island,

Kulubnarti, and Gabati will be compared to examine whether they appear to represent

separate populations.

- To determine if there is gene flow or relative isolation at each Nubian site based

upon craniometric analyses. The biological interactions between kingdoms and on a

smaller scale communities within those kingdoms, such as the sites under study here,

is unknown. There is evidence of hostile interactions between northern Nubia and

Egypt. There is some evidence of trade networks throughout the Nile Valley.

However, to what extent these interactions affected the Nubian population with

regard to gene flow is not known.

- To determine whether there is evidence of mass migrations or high levels of gene

flow into these Nubian samples based upon comparison with craniometric data

from other African populations. The relative amount of gene flow seen within each

Nubian site can be contextualized by introducing more samples, especially those from

Africa. It would be excpected that geographic proximity would parallel genetic

distances of these samples. If there is a discrepancy between the two measures of

distance other factors such as gene flow may be able to offer an explanation.

- To determine whether the levels craniometric variance between males and

females supports the presence of patrilocal or matrilocal practices at each site.

Little information is available on the mobility of Nubian males and females with

regard to possible marriage patterns. However, it is known that patrilocal and

matrilocal practices produce certain genetic variance patterns within those societies.

Using sex-specific craniometric variance within a sample may provide information on

the marriage practices of that group of individuals.

An Outline of the Present Study

In addressing these issues, this dissertation adopts the following format. Chapter Two addresses the nature of this bioarchaeological investigation within the context of the history of bioarchaeology and craniometric analyses both in general and specifically as relates to studies in

7 the Nile Valley. This chapter also describes the methods chosen for this project as well as setting the stage for the information provided by this research to fit into the larger picture of Nile Valley bioarchaeology.

Chapter Three provides the historical and archaeological setting for this project from the kingdom of Kush, starting with the Napatan period in 722 BC through the post-medieval period, that began with the fall of the medieval kingdoms around the middle of the fourteenth century

AD (Edwards 2004; Welsby 2002). Our current understanding of Nubian history reveals a complex interplay of religious, economic and social developments that often confound any attempt to construct a uniform narrative for this region of the Nile Valley. This chapter and the one which precedes it offer an overview of what is known at present from the often isolated historical and skeletal biological points of view.

Chapter Four outlines the materials used and the questions asked in this project. The materials focus on three samples from Nubia dating to the medieval period and originating from each of the three medieval kingdoms. Additional data from Howells (1973, 1989, 1995) and

Spradley (2006) are used to further contextualize the Nubian samples within the continental region and to address some of the scalar questions raised by the project overall.

Chapter Five introduces the methods used to answer the research questions asked. This chapter begins with a discussion of the various methods of data collection used as conditions of remains and access to equipment altered with each Nubian sample. The statistical analyses used in order to address each research question are described in detail in this chapter.

Chapters Six and Seven report the results of each individual statistical analysis and discuss the possible interpretation this evidence. The organization of these chapters is based on the research questions posed in chapter four.

The final chapter, Chapter Eight, draws conclusions from this body of research and what it means for the history of the medieval Nubian kingdoms. Chapter Eight discusses in greater detail the support of the in situ development of the medieval kingdoms, the general biological isolation of the two more northern sites in contrast to the increase in genetic variance seen in

Gabati and the implications this has for interpretation of the relative biological distance between the Nubian sites and other African populations. This chapter also discusses future research to be conducted as more questions arose during the work completed here and what these new questions will try to address and ends with concluding remarks.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, W. Y. (1991). The United kingdom of Makouria and Nobadia: A medieval Nubian anomaly. In W. V. Davies (Ed.), Egypt and Africa: Nubia from prehistory to Islam (pp. 257–263). London: The British Museum Press.

Adams, W. Y. (2011). Kulubnarti I: The architectural remains. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Adams, W. Y., & Adams, N. K. (1998). Kulubnarti II: The Artifactual Remains. London: SARS.

Adams, W. Y., Adams, N. K., Van Gerven, D. P., & Greene, D. L. (1999). Kulubnarti III: the cemeteries. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Ahmed, S. eldin M. (2004). The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project. In D. A. Welsby & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures (pp. 308–314). London: British Museum Press.

Armelagos, G. J. (2003). Bioarchaeology as Anthropology. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 13(1), 27–40.

Buikstra, J. E. (2006). A Historical Introduction. In J. E. Buikstra & L. A. Beck (Eds.), Bioarchaeology The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains (pp. 7–26). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Edwards, D. N. (1998). Gabati : A Meroitic, post-Meroitic and medieval cemetery in central Sudan. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Edwards, D. N. (2004). The Nubian Past An Archaeology of the Sudan. New York, NY: Routledge.

Fuller, D. Q. (2004). Islands in the Nile: Investigations at the Fourth Cataract in Sudanese Nubia. Archaeology International, 8, 43–47.

Garcea, E. (2004). The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. In D. A. Welsby & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures (pp. 21–24). London: British Museum Press.

Howells, W. W. (1973). Cranial Variation in Man. A Study by Multivariate Analysis of Patterns of Differences Among Recent Human Populations. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum.

Howells, W. W. (1989). Skull Shapes and the Map. Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum.

Howells, W. W. (1995). Who’s Who in Skulls. Ethnic Identification of Crania from

Measurements. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum.

Hurst, C. V. (2013). Growing up in Medieval Nubia: Health , Disease , and Death of a Medieval Juvenile Sample from Mis Island. Michigan State University.

Judd, M. A. (2012). Gabati A Meroitic, Post-Meroitic and Medieval Cemetery in Central Sudan. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Larsen, C. S. (2002). Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People. Journal of Archaeological Research, 10, 119–165.

Reisner, G. A. (1908a). The Archaeological Survey. In The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Bulletin No. 1 (pp. 9–24). Cairo: National Printing Department.

Reisner, G. A. (1908b). The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. In The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Bulletin No. 2 (pp. 3–28). Cairo, Egypt: National Printing Department.

Reisner, G. A. (1909a). The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. In The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Bulletin No. 3 (pp. 5–20). Cairo, Egypt: National Printing Department.

Reisner, G. A. (1909b). The Archaeological Survey of Nubia. In The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Bulletin No 4 (pp. 7–16). Cairo, Egypt: National Printing Department.

Relethford, J. H. (1994). Craniometric variation among modern human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 95(1), 53–62. http://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330950105

Relethford, J. H. (2004). Boas and beyond: Migration and craniometric variation. American Journal of Human Biology, 16(4), 379–386. http://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.20045

Relethford, J. H., & Harpending, H. C. (1994). Craniometric variation, genetic theory, and modern human origins. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 95, 249–270.

Soler, A. (2012). Life and Death in a Medieval Nubian Farming Community: The Experience at Mis Island. Michigan State University.

Spaulding, J. (1995). Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World : A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 28(3), 577–594.

Spradley, M. K. (2006). Biological Anthropological Aspects of the African Diaspora; Geographic Origins, Secular Trends, and Plastic Versus Genetic Influences Utilizing Craniometric Data. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Strauss, A., & Hubbe, M. (2010). Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data. Human Biology, 82(3), 315–330.

Trouillot, M.-R. (1995). Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press.

Turner, B. L., Edwards, J. L., Quinn, E. A., Kingston, J. D., & Van Gerven, D. P. (2007). Age- related variation in isotopic indicators of diet at medieval Kulubnarti, Sudanese Nubia. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 17(1), 1–25.

Van Gerven, D. P., Sheridan, S. G., & Adams, W. Y. (1995). The Health and Nutrition of a Medieval Nubian Population. American Anthropologist, 97(3), 468–480.

Welsby, D. A. (2002). The medieval kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile. London: British Museum Press.

Welsby, D. A. (2006). The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project: Excavations in the Vicinity of ed-Doma (AKSE), 2005-2006. Sudan & Nubia, 10, 8–13.

Welsby, D. A. (2007). The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project: Provisional type series of monuments. Sudan & Nubia, 11, 15–20.

CHAPTER TWO: FOUNDATIONS OF BIOARCHAEOLOGY

The Multidisciplinary Nature of Bioarchaeology

Skeletal remains have not always been a focus of archaeological excavations. As Larsen

(1997) illustrates in his brief review of the relevant literature, archaeologists from North America as well as around the world have often held that the study of skeletal remains was of limited value within the context of excavations. Thus, the first osteological studies were purely descriptive in nature (Armelagos, 2003) and often completed by anatomists or medical doctors

(Larsen, 1997). It was these early descriptive studies that form the beginning of the field of human osteological analysis. Today, however, the work of biological anthropologists ranges from the interpretation of skeletal remains in order to ascertain the overall health and well-being of a population, to the estimation of the population demographics, to recording incidents of trauma, to examining muscle markers and wear facets. Moreover, the information concluded from these studies has been strengthened by using the archaeological context in addition to the use of anthropological theory in the attempt to interpret and reconstruct past human behaviors.

This study of human skeletal remains within their archaeological context in order to explore the past life-ways of individuals or populations is now commonly called bioarchaeology

(Armelagos, 2003; Buikstra, 2006; Larsen, 2002). Over the past few decades, bioarchaeology has made great strides not only in the application of a wide diversity of theories (ex. cultural, ecological), but also in the application of methods from other natural sciences, such as genetics, chemistry, histology and epidemiology, pushing the field beyond macroscopic methods (Larsen,

2002). Great advances in statistical methods have also been applied to skeletal data to ensure that patterns are recognized and that findings are significant (Frankenberg & Konigsberg, 2006;

Konigsberg, 2006). The multidisciplinary nature of bioarchaeological research allows for more

14 powerful interpretations of osteological and archaeological data. However, in spite of these advances, studies that do not embrace the history of the region, do not use as many lines of evidence possible, and interpret data in a closed system still exist and are problematic. The holistic view of a person and the population of which they are a part is important in order to best understand past populations.

Biological Distance Studies

Bioarchaeological studies can be used to reconstruct the past lifeways of human populations and a particular facet being the relationship of one population to another. Biological distance, or biodistance, concerns the relative closeness of different populations to each other as well as individuals to a particular population. Physical anthropology has a long history of examining biodistance through dental and osseous variation seen in populations (Buikstra,

Frankenberg, & Konisberg, 1990). However, these studies of the skeletal remains of individuals must recognize that the manifestation of all human skeletal variation is phenotypic and therefore is partly genetic as well as influenced by environmental and epigenetic factors.

Population variation examined through skeletal or dental remains can be appreciated through two different methods--metric analyses or nonmetric trait analyses. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Because metric data is continuous data and nonmetric trait data is often categorical, these differences dictate the use of different statistical analyses in order to examine biological relationships of populations. Neither metric nor nonmetric variation can be assumed to have a purely genetic influence, but it is understood that this variation still can be used as a proxy for genetic analyses (Konigsberg & Ousley, 1995; Relethford, 2004).

Biodistance studies based on nonmetric traits have used a wide variety of different cranial traits that have been recorded over the past century, but these can be broken into four overall categories: sutural bones, abnormal proliferative ossification (hyperostotic traits), abnormal failure of ossification (hypostotic traits), and foramen variation (ex. number, placement)

(Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994; Larsen, 1997; Ossenberg, 1970). Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) compiled several traits used in previous research (Hauser & De Stefano, 1989; Turner II, Nichol,

& Scott, 1991) to set forth guidelines and recommendations for the collection of such data in order to standardize these types of studies to allow for comparative analyses. The use of nonmetric traits allow researchers to utilize fragmentary remains, but at the same time, they must also address issues of asymmetry, age and/or sex-linked traits, which are often population specific (Saunders & Rainey, 2008). The overall heritability of cranial non-metric traits is also poorly understood as few studies have had access to human skeletal remains with known pedigrees. Heritability (expressed as “h2”) is a measurement of the genetic composition of a trait where a value of “1” would indicate complete genetic control and a value of “0” would indicate there was no genetic component to the presence of the trait. However, in her analysis of the

Hallstatt skulls that have documented family histories and thus allow for measurement of the heritability of several non-metric variants, Carson (2006) discovered most traits did not differ significantly from a heritability of zero although the standard errors were large. Thus, while it is still accepted that cranial non-metric traits offer insight into population history, the issue of appropriate interpretation remains a challenge.

Dental differences within and between populations have been analyzed through metric studies that capture gross morphological differences as well as non-metric studies that record the appearance and prevalence of specific dental traits within and between populations. Dental

16 nonmetric traits are numerous and include variants in shape, cusp appearance, grove and fissure patterns of molars, enamel extensions and pearls as well as the number of roots present (Hillson,

1996). An attempt to address issues of objectivity and inter-/intra-observer error through standards of data collection has been set forth in the ASU dental anthropology system (Turner II,

Nichol, & Scott, 1991). Nevertheless, the inherent subjectivity of these traits leads to problems in the use of this type of data in any comparison between studies, especially if data are used to determine biodistances.

Although biodistance studies based on cranial non-metrics, dental non-metrics, and dental metrics have merit within the field of physical anthropology, the work at hand will use cranial measurements to examine Nubian population histories as this method is well established and accepted as a proxy for genetic studies. Sadly, the history of craniometric analyses and cranial morphology exemplifies some of the more insidious ways that skeletal biology has been used, especially in order to support the eugenics movement (Gould, 1981; Wolpoff & Caspari, 1997).

Eugenics is the ‘science’ of increasing desirable traits within the human population through selective breeding of specific populations; part of this movement was attempting to link traits

(such as cranial capacity and intelligence) to specific populations.

The late 1700s and early 1800s were marred with typological studies that were used to justify the clearly fallacious link between ancestries and levels of intelligence (Nott & Gliddon,

1854). This culturally western construction of racial superiority was used to legitimize the colonialist activity occurring throughout the world at this period and was not limited to anatomical scholars, but permeated most scientific disciplines (Said, 1979). Gould (1981) takes an outside and contemporary perspective on the early anatomical scholars’ work, including

Broca’s cranial capacity studies and Linnaeus’ human classifications, as creating a ‘scientific’

17 justification for racial prejudices. Although the interpretations of craniometric data during this early period were problematic, it was within this timeframe that the methods of craniometry were standardized by the Frankfort Agreement of 1882, which defined a proper orientation of a skull, skull landmarks, and measurements (Garson, 1885).

By the mid-1900’s, a number of scholars had become increasingly critical of earlier physical anthropological studies for simplifying the dynamics of populations into ‘racial typologies’. For example, Washburn (1951) criticized the lack of theoretical advancement in the field of physical anthropology arguing that current studies were focused on the classification of humans. Washburn (1951) called upon physical anthropologists to use evolutionary theory to examine human populations and interpret data with regard to genetic drift, migration, and natural selection while collaborating with other scientists from different fields. On the political stage,

Montagu (1960) published the UNESCO statements on race from 1950 and 1952, in which social scientists and geneticists both agreed that there is no link between inherited traits and a population’s cultural achievements or individual’s mental capabilities.

As previously mentioned, examining evolutionary forces through phenotypic expressions in the skeleton could be construed as problematic as phenotype is dependent both on genetic and environmental components. Recent work has directly addressed the impact of the environment on craniometrics. In order to examine these two factors of craniofacial dimensions separately,

Devor (1987) assessed the amount of transmissibility of familial craniofacial dimensions seen in four different populations and found that most craniometrics offer a level of transmissibility that is within the reported levels of heritability. Devor (1987) found that soft tissue measurements exhibited greater variation that could be explained by environmental factors. More recently,

Relethford (1994) has demonstrated that molecular genetic studies reveal the same amount of

18 variation as seen in craniometric data and both molecular genetics and craniometrics estimate similar levels of heritability. Thus, indicating that craniometric phenotypic data is an appropriate proxy for molecular genetic data. Furthermore, Martínez-Abadías et al. (2009) were not able to demonstrate significant differences in heritability due to developmental differences and environmental effects on the facial cranium, neurocranium, and basicranium. In the end, it is significant that in spite of the different avenues of investigation, all of these studies have been able to demonstrate the strong genetic component of craniofacial variation and therefore support the use of craniometrics as a proxy for genetic data in population history studies.

However, reducing cranial regions into individual measurements, Roseman and Weaver

(2004) determined that when compared to genetic variation, such as genes that code for skin pigmentation within their study populations, there are craniofacial dimensions, especially the nasal region that exhibit interregional differentiation, which may be explained by environmental factors. Strauss and Hubbe (2010) agree that cranial morphology is composed of several regions that can react independently to environmental stresses and evolutionary pressures, yet these differences were demonstrated to have less geographic organization than previously expected.

Although Roseman and Weaver (2004) were able to tease out significant differences in the nasal measurements for the populations used, Strauss and Hubbe’s (2010) findings indicate that any specific differences found between specimens will be population specific and relative.

Craniofacial variation is known to be greater within populations than between populations (Powell & Neves, 1999; Relethford, 1994), yet these traits have still been of use in population studies. Early craniometric analyses focused on the phenotypic variation captured by measurements from different populations in order to draw inferences about the history of those groups. Jantz (1977) analyzed the craniometric data of Native American Plains populations both

19 spatially and temporally to demonstrate biological continuity within the Northern Plains and the

Central Plains through time, although he points out that this does not exclude occasional external influences on each of the populations. Yet, Relethford (2004) concludes that while external influences such as environment can have an effect on craniofacial dimensions, they do not erase or significantly obscure patterns of population structure and history that fit a neutral model of quantitative variation. Additionally, Roseman et al. (2010) found analyzing pedigree baboon skulls that stress and strain on cranial regions involved with mastication were not any more variable than other regions of the skull demonstrating the complexities of interpreting changing cranial dimensions to specific historic events.

Schillaci and Stojanowski (2005) examined cranial dimensions as a proxy to genetic differences to understand the gene flow present in Native American populations in a relatively small geographical area (within ~50 miles from each other in northwestern New Mexico) and reported significantly low levels of heterogeneity in craniometric variation in some populations that was attributed to endogamy practices. This method of examining sex-specific cranial variation within the context of sex-specific mobility has been shown to be valuable with nonmetric cranial variation (Konigsberg, 1988; Konigsberg, 1987) as well as craniometric data

(Schillaci & Stojanowski, 2003; Stefan, 1999) based on the assumption that sexes would have near equal variance if the population was marrying within itself as opposed to increased variance if a particular sex were migrating into the population from outside for partnership and remaining there. More statistically rigorous methods to analyze the variance of a population, especially those with multivariate non-normal data and small sample sizes have been developed (Petersen,

2000) and circumvent several common issues for bioarchaeological studies.

These studies have focused on increased amounts of sex-specific variation within populations in order to describe possible endogamy practices in much the same way as molecular studies have been able to examine sex-specific genetic variance, specifically in analyses of sex- specific inheritance examining mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA (Hamilton,

Stoneking, & Excoffier, 2005; Oota, et al., 2001). In general, sex-specific migration or mobility is determined through increased variance in one sex due to different marriage patterns. These molecular studies have the luxury of contextualizing their findings within current marriage practices or known migration histories for the populations. However, these foundational studies are important in order to validate these methods that can now be extrapolated to the use of phenotypic variation in lieu of genetic information for the study of past populations.

Schillaci and Stojanowski (2005) also reported a lack of correlation between geographic proximity and genetic relatedness between all populations, which they hypothesized was due to extensive trade networks, family migrations, and marriage arrangements. However, the lack of correlation between geographic proximity and genetic variation has also been seen in other populations (Strauss & Hubbe, 2010) which may indicate that geography is not the largest contributor to craniofacial variation.

Biological Distance Analyses in the Nile Valley

The rich history of human occupation in the Nile Valley has frequently drawn anthropologists to this area. Initially, early archaeologists combed the region searching for valuable artifacts, but today with advances in both archaeology and physical anthropology numerous scholars have studied this region in order to understand its history. Several of those studies have used cranial non-metric traits to examine the relationships between populations in

21 the Nile Valley as well as the continuity of a population through time (Godde, 2009, 2013;

Prowse & Lovell, 1995). Dental biodistance studies conducted in the Nile Valley have been mostly non-metric (Greene, 1982; Irish, 2005; Irish & Friedman, 2010; Irish, 2006; Schrader,

Buzon, & Irish, 2014), but some metric dental studies were conducted as well (Calcagno, 1986).

These dental specific studies are not as prolific as the volume of craniometric studies focused on this region.

Specifically with respect to Nubia, eugenic supportive studies were especially prevalent as the area was viewed as a buffer between the Egyptians and all other African populations.

Ancient Egyptians were often described by Western scholars as having attained the pinnacle of civilization with the construction of the pyramids but having reverted back to ‘barbarianism’ in more recent times (Said, 1979). This interpretive approach can be found in all components of early European and American-based studies of Egypt and Africa including physical anthropology reports. To be sure, it is true that even the ancient Egyptians distinguished themselves in antiquity by portraying the Nubians with darker skin, different facial features, hairstyles and clothing (Smith, 2003). Such depictions were used to support early Western scholars’ eugenic studies and agenda, as early anthropologists and anatomists often falsely correlated population variation with general intelligence, cultural development, and a concept of civility. This fallacy that there were distinct ‘types’ of people, mainly ‘Mongoloid’, ‘Caucasoid’, and ‘Negroid’, associated certain cranial traits to each ‘type’ and if those traits were seen in individuals of a different ‘type’ those individuals were deemed ‘admixtured’. This was a common explanation for the cranial variation in Egyptian populations that exhibited evidence of

‘Negroid’ traits (Crichton, 1966; Morant, 1925; Smith, 1908). Some scholars (Morant, 1925) still used terms such as ‘primitive’, ‘advanced’, and ‘pure’ to describe Nile Valley populations

22 implying lingering eugenic sentiments. The physical anthropology movement in the 1950s was to untie the concept of inherited human variation and the cultural component of a population.

This movement did not invalidate craniometric methods, but instead the interpretation of these data.

During this dynamic period of theoretical advancement in physical anthropology several

Nubian sites were excavated as part of the High Dam salvage projects. The changing theoretical perspective coupled with the urgency to excavate Nubian Nile Valley sites provided a perfect foundation to examine this region’s population history anew. During this period, Adams (1966) suggested Nubian history should be examined in light of a continuum of occupation by populations from the Neolithic to the present, although he conceded these Nubian populations were likely influenced by interactions with other populations, such as the Egyptians. This continual occupation theory encouraged Nubian scholars to begin to examine population variation in light of evolutionary forces, including, for example, studies of gene flow as

Washburn (1951) had recommended a decade before, as opposed to complete migrations of populations. Carlson and van Gerven (1977) used this evolutionary approach to analyzing craniometric and dental metric differences in Nubian populations, which they explained were due to dietary changes through time and the subsequent alteration of masticatory stress experienced. However, it should be noted that Carlson and van Gerven (1977) assume genetic isolation of these Nubian populations without any mention of possible extra-regional gene flow for 10,000 years as well as the recent findings from Roseman and colleagues (2010) that indicate additional mastication stresses do not manifest cranial changes in the simplistic fashion previously assumed. Although Carlson and van Gerven (1977) approached craniometric changes within an evolutionary context, they failed to consider all the forces of evolution including gene

23 flow as well as more recent controlled experiments with baboons (Roseman et al. 2010) demonstrating Carlson and van Gerven’s previous interpretations were too simplistic.

Keita (1990) studied the craniofacial variation of populations found within the Nile

Valley as demonstrated by twelve cranial measurements (from six sites ranging as far north as the delta to a site just north of the second cataract) as well as coastal populations from the

Maghreb region (predominantly populations from Algeria). Within this context, he found that there were more similarities within each region than between them, thus concluding that most variation stemmed from microevolution. At the same time, he also discovered that there was an impressive range of variation which could be explained by migration. In a follow-up study, Keita

(1992) incorporated another Egyptian population and found the craniometric variation to occur both diachronically and synchronically within the Nile Valley which he explained as an effect of gene flow. Brace et al. (1993) also examined ancient Egyptian craniofacial variation within the context of other African populations and concluded that there is a continual presence of traits with relatively no adaptive value in populations that inhabit the Nile Valley including Nubian populations. Although, the focus of Brace et al.’s (1993) work is on ancient Egyptian populations, the apparent craniofacial similarities within the Nile Valley point to a clustering of these traits and in situ development and maintenance of said traits. Brace et al. (1993) conclude by urging researchers to examine human variation through the lens of both clusters, populations that group together, and clines, an intensity gradient of traits.

Ideally, biological anthropologists should use both craniometric data and genetic data to analyze population history and structure. A particularly good example is the study of Stynder et al. (2009), who were able to analyze both types of data from a Nubian site which spanned several different historical periods and concluded that although there is evidence for biological

24 continuity, there is a slight shift in craniofacial dimensions which may indicate an increase in gene flow. This was also reflected in the genetic analyses that demonstrate gene flow from the sub-Saharan and Mediterranean regions.

It must be remembered, though, that any craniometric study of a population is actually an examination of the effects of all evolutionary processes that have acted on that population and that these studies may be revealing information about a population’s history as well as structure

(Powell & Neves, 1999). It should also be kept in mind that in most cases, the analysis of genetic data in addition to craniometrics is not a feasible option for researchers. This may be due to financial constraints of the project, limitations on the use of destructive analyses on skeletal materials, and the inability to extract genetic material that can be further analyzed in a refined manner.

LITERATURE CITED

Armelagos, G. J. (2003). Bioarchaeology as Anthropology. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 13(1), 27–40.

Brace, C. L., Tracer, D. P., Yaroch, L. A., Robb, J., Brandt, K., & Nelson, A.R. (1993). Clines and clusters versus “race:” A test in ancient Egypt and the case of a death on the Nile. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 36, 1–31.

Buikstra, J. E. (2006). A Historical Introduction. In J. E. Buikstra & L. A. Beck (Eds.), Bioarchaeology The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains (pp. 7–26). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Buikstra, J. E., & Ubelaker, D. H. (1994). Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 44.

Buikstra, J., Frankenberg, S. R., & Konisberg, L. W. (1990). Skeletal biological distance studies in American physical anthropology: Recent trends. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82, 1–7.

Calcagno, J. M. (1986). Odontometrics and Biological Continuity in the Meroitic, X-Group, and Christian Phases of Nubia. Current Anthropology, 27(1), 66–69.

Carlson, D. S., & Van Gerven, D. P. (1977). Masticatory function and post-Pleistocene evolution in Nubia. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 46, 495–506.

Carlson, D. S., & Van Gerven, D. P. (1979). Diffusion, Biological Determinism, and Biocultural Adaptation in the Nubian Corridor. American Anthropologist, 81(3), 561–580.

Carson, E. A. (2006). Maximum-Likelihood Variance Components Analysis of Heritabilities of Cranial Nonmetric Traits. Human Biology, 78(4), 383–402.

Crichton, J. M. (1966). A Multiple Discriminant Analysis of Egyptian and African Negro Crania. In Craniometry and Multivariate Analysis (pp. 47–67). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum.

Devor, E. J. (1987). Transmission of Human Craniofacial Dimensions. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 7(2), 95–106.

Frankenberg, S. R., & Konigsberg, L. W. (2006). A Brief History of Paleodemography from Hooton to Hazards Analysis. In J. E. Buikstra & L. A. Beck (Eds.), Bioarchaeology The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains (pp. 227–262). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Garson, J. G. (1885). The Frankfort Craniometric Agreement , with Critical Remarks Thereon. The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 14, 64–83.

Godde, K. (2009). An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? HOMO- Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 60(5), 389–404.

Godde, K. (2013). An examination of the spatial-temporal isolation model in a nilotic population: Variation across space and time in nubians using cranial discrete traits. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 23(3), 324–333.

Gould, S. J. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton and Company.

Greene, D. L. (1982). Discrete dental variations and biological distances of Nubian populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 58(1), 75–79.

Hamilton, G., Stoneking, M., & Excoffier, L. (2005). Molecular analysis reveals tighter social regulation of immigration in patrilocal populations than in matrilocal populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(21), 7476–80.

Hauser, G., & De Stefano, G. F. (1989). Epigenetic Variants of the Human Skull. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart.

Hillson, S. (1996). Dental Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irish, D. J. (2005). Population continuity vs. discontinuity revisited: Dental affinities among late Paleolithic through Christian-era Nubians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128, 520-535.

Irish, J. D. (2006). Who were the ancient Egyptians? Dental affinities among Neolithic throuogh postdynastic peoples. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 129, 529–543.

Irish, J. D., & Friedman, R. (2010). Dental affinities of the C-group inhabitants of Hierakonpolis, Egypt: Nubian, Egyptian, or both? HOMO- Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 61(2), 81–101.

Jantz, R. L. (1977). Craniometric Relationships Of Plains Populations : Historical and Evolutionary Implications. Plains Anthropologist, 22(78), 162–176.

Keita, S. O. Y. (1992). Further studies of crania from ancient northern Africa: an analysis of crania from first dynasty Egyptian tombs, using discriminant functions. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 87(3), 245–254.

Keita, S. O. Y. (1990). Studies of Ancient Crania From Northern Africa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 48, 35–48.

Keita, S. O. Y. (1993). Studies and Comments on Ancient Egyptian Biological Relationships. History in Africa, 20, 129–154.

Konigsberg, L. (1987). Population genetic models for interpreting prehistoric intra-cemetery biological variation. Anthropology. Northwestern University.

Konigsberg, L. W. (1988). Migration models of prehistoric postmarital residence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 77, 471–482.

Konigsberg, L. (2006). A post-Neumann history of biological and genetic distance studies in bioarchaeology. In J. E. Buikstra & L. A. Beck (Eds.), Bioarchaeology: the contextual analysis of human remians (pp. 263–280). Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Konigsberg, L. W., & Ousley, S. D. (1995). Multivariate Quantitative Genetics of Anthropometric Traits from the Boas Data. Human Biology, 67(3), 481–498.

Larsen, C. S. (1997). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting behavior from the human skeleton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Larsen, C. S. (2002). Bioarchaeology: The Lives and Lifestyles of Past People. Journal of Archaeological Research, 10, 119–165.

Martínez-Abadías, N., Esparza, M., Sjøvold, T., González-José, R., Santos, M., & Hernández, M. (2009). Heritability of human cranial dimensions: Comparing the evolvability of different cranial regions. Journal of Anatomy, 214(1), 19–35.

Montagu, M. F. A. (1960). Introduction to Physical Anthropology (3rd Edition). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Morant, G. M. (1925). A Study of Egyptian Craniology from Prehistoric to Roman Times. Biometrika, 17(1), 1–52.

Nott, J. C., & Gliddon, G. R. (1854). Types of Mankind. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co.

Oota, H., Settheetham-Ishida, W., Tiwawech, D., Ishida, T., & Stoneking, M. (2001). Human mtDNA and Y-chromosome variation is correlated with matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. Nature Genetics, 29(1), 20–21.

Ossenberg, N. S. (1970). The Influence of Artificial Cranial Deformation on Discontinuous Morphological Traits. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 33, 357–372.

Petersen, H. C. (2000). On Statistical Methods for Comparison of Intrasample Morphometric Variability: Zalavar Revisited. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 79–84.

Powell, J. F., & Neves, W. a. (1999). Craniofacial morphology of the first Americans: Pattern and process in the peopling of the New World. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Suppl 29, 153–188.

Prowse, T. L., & Lovell, N. C. (1995). Biological continuity between the A- and C- groups in lower Nubia: evidence from cranial non-metric traits. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 5(November 1994), 103‒114.

Relethford, J. H. (1994). Craniometric variation among modern human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 95(1), 53–62.

Relethford, J. H. (2004). Boas and beyond: Migration and craniometric variation. American Journal of Human Biology, 16(4), 379–386.

Roseman, C. C., & Weaver, T. D. (2004). Multivariate apportionment of global human craniometric diversity. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 125(3), 257–263.

Roseman, C. C., Willmore, K. E., Rogers, J., Hildebolt, C., Sadler, B. E., Richtsmeier, J. T., & Cheverud, J. M. (2010). Genetic and environmental contributions to variation in baboon cranial morphology. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 143(1), 1–12.

Said, E. W. (1979). Orientalism. New York, N.Y.: Vintage Books.

Saunders, S. R., & Rainey, D. L. (2008). Nonmetric Trait Variation in the Skeleton: Abnormalaties, Anomalies, and Atavisms. In M. A. Katzenberg & S. R. Saunders (Eds.), Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton (Second Edi, pp. 533–559). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Schillaci, M. A., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2003). Postmarital residence and biological variation at Pueblo Bonito. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 120(1), 1–15.

Schillaci, M. A., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2005). Craniometric variation and population history of the prehistoric Tewa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126(4), 404–412.

Schrader, S., Buzon, M., & Irish, J. (2014). Illuminating the Nubian “Dark Age”: A bioarchaeological analysis of dental non-metric traits during the Napatan Period. HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human Biology, 65(4), 267–280.

Smith, G. E. (1908). The Anatomical Report. In The Archaeological Survey of Nubia (pp. 25– 36). Cairo, Egypt: National Printing Department.

Smith, S. T. (2003). Wretched Kush Ethnic Identities and Boundaries in Egypt’s Nubian Empire. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

Stefan, V. H. (1999). Craniometric variation and homogeneity in prehistoric/protohistoric Rapa Nui (Easter Island) regional populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 110(4), 407–419.

Strauss, A., & Hubbe, M. (2010). Craniometric Similarities Within and Between Human Populations in Comparison with Neutral Genetic Data. Human Biology, 82(3), 315–330.

Stynder, D. D., Braga, J., & Crubézy, E. (2009). Craniometric Evidence for Biological Continuity Between Meroitic and Post-Meroitic Populations Buried at the Necropolis of Missiminia, Middle Nubia. The South African Archaeological Bulletin, 64(190), 122–129.

TurnerII, C. G., Nichol, C. R., & Scott, G. R. (1991). Scoring Procedures for Key Morphological Traits of the Permanent Dention: Arizona State University Dental Anthropology System. In M. A. Kelley & C. S. Larsen (Eds.), Advances in Dental Anthropology (pp. 13–31). New York, N.Y.: Wiley-Liss.

Washburn, S. L. (1951). The New Physical Anthropology. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 13(7), 298–304.

Wolpoff, M., & Caspari, R. (1997). Race and Human Evolution A Fatal Attraction. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

CHAPTER THREE: HISTORY OF THE NILE VALLEY

Throughout antiquity, the Nile River has served as a corridor linking the region of Lower

Egypt near the Mediterranean Sea to the area of Upper Egypt near the city of Aswan. The region of the Nile River delta and lower valley feature large floodplains that supported early agricultural efforts. Yet upriver, especially in the area south of Aswan, the placid conditions of the Nile River drastically change as the river cuts through steeper, more rugged terrain that is broken at intervals by a series of six, natural rocky obstructions known as cataracts.

The Nile cataracts have always played a significant role in shaping the social, political and economic practices of those who live in upper stretches of the river. The first cataract and its subsequent rapids blocked early shipping vessels from easily traveling farther south. As a result, this cataract also frequently served as a political boundary between Egypt and the neighboring region of Nubia. To the south of this natural boundary, the surrounding terrain becomes increasingly steep and arid and therefore limits the successful return on agricultural efforts

(Kendall, 1997). Farther upstream the region south of the second cataract featured additional smaller cataracts, known as Batn el-Hajjar (or “Belly of Stones”), that acted as a natural barrier between two regions that have come to be known as Lower and Upper Nubia. While Lower

Nubia was categorized as being harsh and inhospitable, Upper Nubia, which stretched from the second to the fourth cataracts, possessed somewhat larger flood plains and fertile lands, thus making it a more attractive place to settle. On the other hand, archaeological investigations have shown that the region from the fourth cataract to the fifth cataract was not as populous a region as those to the north and the south (Kendall, 1997). The conditions after this stretch of the Nile seem to improve based upon the numerous sites south of the fifth cataract through the sixth cataract and extending to the point of confluence between the White and Blue Niles. It is this

32 region of the Nile Valley from the first cataract to the river confluence that is considered to be

Ancient Nubia.

This project is focused on the three Nubian medieval Christian kingdoms (Figure 3.1) that spanned geographically from the first cataract in the Nile River valley to the area between the fifth and sixth cataracts. Nobadia, the northern kingdom, was located in the Nile Valley from the first cataract to the third cataract. Makuria was the middle kingdom which Alwa bordered as the most southern Nubian Kingdom. O’Connor (1993) places the border between Makuria and

Alwa within the Atbara region. However, Zarroug (1991) creates a map based upon the account of Ibn Hawqal, a medieval Arabic writer, that places a border in the Nile Valley midway between the fourth and fifth cataract. The political line in the sand between these two kingdoms cannot be accurately defined due to the lack of archaeological and historical evidence (Welsby, 2002).

Figure 3.1. The three medieval Nubian kingdoms located in the Nile Valley adapted from Welsby (2002).

The history of Nile Valley is punctuated by political upheavals, where borders were redrawn and populations interacted with each other and likely migrated into new regions. There were times of relative peace, where trade and travel between regions were not uncommon. All of which lead up to the formation of the medieval kingdoms that is interpreted through the archaeological record and described by various outside written records. It is necessary to contextualize this period and these kingdoms within a more extensively studied, and therefore better understood, Egyptian timeline. While it is always preferable to rely primarily on the history and archaeology of the actual area under study, the continually developing archaeological

34 interpretation of data coupled with the lack of internal textual sources does not support such a methodology in the case of medieval Nubia. In addition, the close political and economic ties between ancient Egypt and Nubia make the task of completely separating the history of these two regions difficult. Thus, a consideration of the Nubian past in the context of Egyptian history remains the most effective approach to a study of the causes of the political, economic, and ideological shifts in this region.

Importance of Understanding the Historical Context

Although the medieval era is the focus of this study, it is critical to place this period within the larger historical context of the region and surrounding area in order to fully understand the implications of the findings. Not insignificantly, this history is marked by several instances of the movement or potential movement of peoples. The interactions between Egypt and Nubia, military conflicts, and occupations along with evidence of trade, all provided opportunities for gene flow between these populations, especially in the region of Lower Nubia that is closest to the border. Yet, the border itself was a fluid entity and the relationship with

Nubia’s northern neighbors changed often with the conquests of Egypt by the Persians, Romans,

Fatimids, Ayyubids, and Mameluks. Moreover, the religious conversion of the medieval kingdoms to Christianity likely introduced a new influence in Nubia in the form of missionaries and religious leaders. The merging of two of the three medieval kingdoms into a united political state effectively erased an established political boundary, thus creating another possible point in time for the movement of individuals. Finally, throughout this time, trade is assumed to have continued along the axis of the Nile and perhaps the Red Sea as well.

As will be seen, the narrative tradition of Nubian history is simply not able to provide a full account of the effects of such a diverse array of economic, political, religious influences on the social makeup of the upper Nile river population.

Nature of the Historical Narrative of Nubia

Textual information generated from within Nubia is scarce. The most common sources include graffiti, funerary inscriptions, correspondence (often between Nubia’s Islamic neighbors), and a scant few legal texts (Welsby, 2002). The lack of written evidence is further complicated due to the fact that the ancient Nubian language is not well understood. Thus, a great deal of the textual Nubian historical narrative depends upon outsiders writing about their encounters within the land itself or dealings with individual Nubian elites. This information is often biased in the favor of the author’s “outsider” point of view. Many of the writings that scholars do have a focus on Nubia as it relates to Egypt and effectively ties the history of these two separate entities together. Fortunately, the archaeological record helps to clarify much of the historical narrative, but it is also problematic in its own ways. Most of the archaeological investigations that have been completed in Nubia were part of salvage operations, carried out in anticipation of the construction of dams and highways that threatened known sites. The necessary time constraints placed upon archaeologists tasked with these projects often create problems for later analysis such as sampling bias in data collection. Such impediments need not be taken as insurmountable, though, there is much that can be done with the evidence that has been collected in order to come to a better understanding of the Nubian past. The following historical narrative relies upon all possible lines of evidence in order to construct an overarching narrative and general chronology table (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1. General chronology of the Nubian Nile Valley. Cultural Phases Date Kingdom of Kush –Napatan Period ~722-332 BC Kingdom of Kush – Meroitic Period ~332 BC – 350 AD Post-Meroitic Period ~350 – 550 AD Medieval Period 550 – 1400 AD Post-Medieval Period 1400 AD

Kingdom of Kush: Napatan Phase

The kingdom of Kush rose to power after the Egyptian withdrawal from Lower Nubia at the end of the Egyptian New Kingdom period (~1060 BC). The Kushite kingdom grew and united polities from Lower Nubia near the First Cataract to Butana, the region near the confluence of the Atbara River and the Nile (Török, 2004). Scholars subdivide the Kushite kingdom into two time periods - the Napatan (~722-332 BC) and the Meroitic (~332 BC – 350

AD) - centered upon the transfer of the royal cemeteries from Napata to Meroe (Fisher, 2012).

Napata, located near the Fourth Cataract, was central to the early Kushite kingdom. This kingdom and period sometimes referred to as the XXV Dynasty, is often considered the most prestigious in Nubian history because during this time Nubians were able to gain control of the

Egyptian throne.

According to the texts written at the time of his grandson Taharqo, Alara is recognized as the first Napatan king of Egypt (Edwards, 2004a; Török, 1997). It is believed that Alara sought to smooth the transition for Egyptians to Kushite rule by adopting the Egyptian cult of Amun

(Edwards, 2004a). Whatever the effect of this shift in religious practice, it is known that Kashta,

Alara’s successor enlarged the territory of the Kushite kingdom to include the parts of Lower

Nubia that were traditionally controlled by Egypt. A stele referring to Kashta as the “king of

Upper and Lower Egypt” (Bianchi, 2004) was identified at Aswan in Lower Nubia, indicating the geographic span of his reign.

Following Kashta’s reign, Nubian rulers were recognized as the XXV Dynasty rulers of

Egypt (and, of course, Nubia). These kings further embraced Egyptian culture by employing

Egyptian artists and scribes within the Nubian kingdom (Fisher, 2012). It is during this period that these Egyptian scribes begin to write the history of Nubia in the Egyptian language recording some of the Napatan period (Edwards, 2004a).

Piankhy, Kashta’s successor, utilized his dedication to Amun to slowly infiltrate Upper

Egypt and seize control over the region through strategic alliances (Bianchi, 2004). Piankhy then launched a military campaign to take control over Lower Egypt focusing on Memphis, but stopped short of seizing the entire Delta before returning to Napata (Bianchi, 2004). The successors to Kashta and Piankhy were able to enter Memphis and continue to control the region, even going so far as to set up trade relations with the Assyrian Empire to the east (Edwards,

2004a). During this time, the Kushite identity became even more intertwined with Egyptian culture, as can be seen in governmental structure, architecture, and mortuary customs (Török,

1997).

The end of this period of Kushite rule comes with the Assyrian capture of Memphis, which brought to a close nearly a century of military conflict between the two empires (Edwards,

2004a). The Kushite ruler, Tantamani, was forced back to Napata when Assyrian military forces took control of Egypt and placed Psamtek I, a ruler from the western delta, on the Egyptian throne (Bianchi, 2004). Psamtek I was able to reclaim and unite Egyptian territory to a point just north of Aswan. It appears the Nubians inhabiting Lower Nubia retained an amicable relationship with the Assyrian-ruled Egyptians across this political boundary (Bianchi, 2004).

Psamtek II, the grandson of Psamtek I, led military forces into Nubia in 593 BC. It is thought that this campaign reached as far as the Fourth Cataract (Fisher, 2012) although scholars debate

38 what effect this invasion had on the Nubian population (Bianchi, 2004). Edwards (2004a) suggests that the Kushite border was at the Second Cataract where there were diplomatic gift- exchanges between the different populations. Shortly after Psametik II invaded Nubia, Persian invaders entered Egypt and conquered the region, which they controlled from 525 BC to 332 BC

(Welsby, 1996). According to the 5th century Greek historian Herodotus, the Kushites fought along with Xerxes, the Persian king, against the Greeks in 480-479 BC (Edwards, 2004a). It is after these conflicts that the Kushite royal cemeteries were moved to Meroe (~300 BC), which historically marks the end of the Napatan Period (Edwards, 2004a; Fisher, 2012).

Kingdom of Kush: Meroitic Period

Although it is evident that the royal cemetery shifted from Napata to Meroe around 300

BC, the processes that led up to this transition are not well understood. There are cultural consistencies between the Napatan and Meroitic periods, especially with respect to their monumental architecture, but there are also several cultural changes that support the separation of the two time periods (Edwards, 2004a). During this time in Egypt, there are several different occupations of the region. The second Persian occupation takes place from 772-332 BC. Then the Ptolemaic period begins in 332 BC, but ends in 30 BC with the defeat of the Hellenistic

Queen Cleopatra VII and the Roman conquest of Egypt.

The territory associated with the Meroitic Kushite kingdom is not well defined archaeologically and not evident in texts, but is believed to be larger than the medieval kingdoms that succeeded it (Edwards, 1996). The Meroe region and Dongola region, both heavily populated, were connected along a route across the Baiyuda Desert as evidenced by the discovery of sporadic sites along the way. The Meroitic northern periphery was subject to

Roman Egyptian military campaigns as can be seen in the Roman rubbish, fragments of Greek and Latin texts, broken amphora, and ballast balls that are found at the edges of Meroitic sites.

However, the lack of construction of larger Roman structures indicates that the occupation was temporary (Edwards, 2004a). The southern stretches of the Meroitic state may have reached to the banks of the White Nile, although the context of Meroitic material goods associated with some sites is not clear (Edwards, 2004a). Sparse amounts of Meroitic pottery have been found south of Khartoum along the White Nile (Edwards 2004a), but this is in addition to other distinct pottery which Adamson et al. (1987) described as likely dating to the Meroitic period and may represent a different population that inhabited the region.

Edwards (1996) explains that the Meroitic kingdom was able to develop diplomatic relationships through the exchange of exotic goods with the Persian, Ptolemaic and later the

Roman rulers of Egypt, likely in an effort to reduce warfare and raiding. According to his model of Meroitic society, the ruling elite were supported by several regional authorities who relied on locals to pay tribute and dues/taxes. Thus at the sites of Faras, in southern Sudan, ostraca have been found that appear to be receipts from tax payments to regional authorities, which Welsby

(1996) theorizes were then turned over to the ruling elite.

The eventual collapse of the Kushite kingdom in the fourth century AD is not well understood. Edwards (1996) theorizes that the arrival into southern Egypt and Lower Nubia of a nomadic group from the eastern desert called the Blemmyes cut off the Meroitic kingdom’s contacts with Roman Egypt, thus halting the normal flow of trade, which led to the deterioration of this complex exchange web between external and internal powers. Similarly, Burstein (2009) hypothesizes that the kings of Axum, in the northern region of modern Ethiopia known as

Tigray, which formed an ideal trade center between the Nile Valley and the Red Sea, were also

40 able to cut off the Roman-Egyptian trade to Meroe. According to this theory, the Axumite kings’ desire for close trade relations with Roman Egypt may explain the motivation to cut out the Kush as middlemen between the two populations.

According to literary and epigraphic sources from the late fourth and fifth centuries AD, a group known as the Nobadae struggled with the Blemmyes for control of Lower Nubia

(Welsby, 2002). However, the nomenclature of Nobadae is similar to that of several other groups, which are named by various sources to have inhabited different regions of Nubia (ex. the

Nubai by Hellenistic geographers, the Noba as well as the Red Noba were referenced by

Askumite king Ezana’s victory inscriptions, the Nobades, a Greek form of Noba, found on

Silko’s inscription in a Lower Nubian temple) (Kirwan, 1974). These linguistic similarities make it difficult to determine how many individual groups are concerned and whether each group had a specific geographic point of origin. For example, the sixth century AD Byzantine historian Procopius recorded that the Roman emperor Diocletian invited the Nobati people from the Great Oasis to occupy the Nile Valley from Maharqa to Philae (Welsby, 2002). This account may indicate the geographic origin of the people who engaged in warfare with the Blemmyes.

Lenoble (1992) has demonstrated that there exists a connection between the Nobadian elite and

Kushite royal iconography, religion, and funeral rituals, which indicates that the Nobadae may be the ancestors of the final Kushite leaders. However, our present understanding of the limited archaeological and textual evidence leaves several questions about the ‘decline’ of the Meroitic kingdom unanswered (Edwards, 2004a).

Post-Meroitic Transitional Period

While the specific details remain unresolved, we do know that in the early fourth century

AD, the political and economic power and prestige of the Meroitic kingdom and its capital city began to dissipate. Archaeologically, the collapse of urban life in Meroe is indicated by final habitation horizon dominated by dwellings, abandoned temples, and burials found within the ruins of palatial buildings (Török, 2009). The last well-dated Meroitic royal burial has been identified as King Teqorideamani and dated to 253 AD (Edwards, 2004a). George Reisner

(1908) was the first individual to identify a post-Meroitic population, which he designated as the

‘X-Group’. However, this term has fallen out of favor as a description for all people found in

Nubia after the collapse of the Meroitic kingdom (Adams, 1965; Edwards, 2004a). There is evidence of continual occupation from the Meroitic period through the post-Meroitic period at several sites, such as Gabati, located in Upper Nubia, but also the formation of new post-

Meroitic settlements, such as Soba and the hilltop forts near the sixth cataract (Edwards, 2004a).

Some of these sites saw continuous habitation well into the medieval period.

Due to its close proximity to Egypt, the northern portion of Nubia is the most well understood region during this time period. This area of Lower Nubia experienced a constant fluctuation of its northern boundary as control of that region shifted between its northern neighbors, the Roman-Egyptians and the Blemmyes (Edwards, 2004a; O’Connor, 1993; Welsby,

2002). The Blemmyes had previously controlled the eastern desert, from which they would raid

Kushite-controlled Lower Nubia and Roman Egypt, but near the time of the fall of the Meroitic kingdom the Blemmyes had seized control of part of the Nile Valley (Welsby, 2002). The post-

Meroitic Nubian population in this region was mainly centered at the second cataract at sites such as Gemai and Qasr Ibrim (Lenoble, 2004). Edwards (2004a) believes that this area was a

42 stronghold against the Blemmyes who fought for control over the area north of the second cataract. The post-Meroitic pottery in this area has very distinct appearance and has been tentatively seriated according to stylistic differences. For example, the wheel-made pottery excavated from Lower Nubia is distinct from the pottery found south of the second cataract which was hand built and differentiates the northern population as a separate from those in the south (O’Connor, 1993).

In the area between the third and fourth cataracts known as the Dongola Reach, fewer tumuli have been found and there is a lack of material evidence for settlement, which together suggests that this area was sparsely populated during the post-Meroitic period. The site at Old

Dongola, however, was still an important area of settlement that eventually served as the capital of medieval Makuria (Edwards, 2004a; Welsby, 2002).The area downstream near the third cataract does not appear to have been inhabited, but further upstream near the fourth cataract, there appears to be an expansion of this population from Old Dongola into a less hospitable regions (Edwards, 2004a).

The introduction of the saqia water wheel sometime in the fourth to fifth centuries AD allowed a more sophisticated irrigation of crops, extended the timeframe in which to farm, and allowed for the utilization of previously uninhabitable land in the Nile Valley (Fisher, 2012;

Edwards, 2004a). This agricultural development also allowed new crops to be grown, expanded the areas and regions that could be cultivated, and allowed for year round farming. These advances subsequently changed the diet of many individuals. Sorghum, grape seeds, millet, date stones, pulses, figs, cucumber seeds, wheat and palm nuts have been found in excavations dated to this period, thereby supporting the proposed timeline for the changes in the agricultural capabilities of this population due to the new irrigation technique (Anderson, 2004).

This expansion of possible farmland in the Nile Valley and beyond likely had an effect on the political aspect of land ownership and boundaries (Fisher, 2012). It also placed greater importance on property boundaries as the saqia would need to be powered, generally by animals, in order to irrigate the land. A landowner would want to ensure that they were watering the crops that they were harvesting and not those of their neighbors. Perhaps these issues were in part the driving force for the formation and political differentiation of the three separate medieval kingdoms.

Medieval Christian Kingdoms

Historical evidence for the rise of the medieval kingdoms is scarce and in large part focuses on the conversion of these polities to Christianity, which is often considered the defining moment for the beginning of the medieval period. While the borders remain poorly defined in modern scholarship, it is assumed that the kingdom of Nobadia extended from the first to the third Cataracts, the kingdom of Makuria extended from the third cataract to between the fifth and sixth cataracts beyond which was located the kingdom of Alwa (Zarroug, 1991; Welsby, 2002).

It has not been possible to trace in any detail the emergence of these political centers from the post-Meroitic transitional period.

At the time of the Nubian kingdoms’ conversion to Christianity, there were two major heterodoxies centered on the question of the physical nature of Jesus Christ. One group, the

Melkites believed in the separate divine and human natures in the one figure of Christ whereas the other, the Monophysites professed a single figure that was partly divine and partly human.

According to John of Ephesus, a Monophysite bishop and missionary from Asia Minor who resided and worked in Constantinople, the king of Nobadia was converted to Monophysite

Christianity by an Egyptian monk named Julian. On the other hand, even though it is not explicitly stated in any contemporary accounts, it is assumed that Makuria converted to Melkite

Christianity. According to texts written by John of Ephesus, Nobadia and Makuria appear to have been in conflict with each other at the time of their conversions (Kirwan, 1935), which may offer a reason why Makuria opted to follow a different sect of Christianity. John of Ephesus also wrote that the Alwan king requested the Nobadian king to ask for the bishop who converted their kingdom to voyage south to convert those under his rule (Anderson, 2004; Welsby, 2002). This request may indicate that Nobadia and Alwa had friendly political interactions. Oddly enough, the Christian missionaries who converted the kingdoms of Nubia did not come from Ethiopia or

Egypt, but from Constantinople (Kirwan, 1959). This Byzantine influence infiltrated other aspects of the kingdom’s ideology and the structure of its political system, such as the combination of church and state, which may help to explain the strength and longevity of the

Nubian kingdoms (Kalu, 2007).

The conversion of the Nubian kingdoms to Christianity can be seen archaeologically through changes in burial practices and the construction of Christian churches, but the material evidence of the conversion is complicated by evidence of the continued practice of the pre- existing religion. As a result, there is some debate over the extent to which Christian conversion actually affected the general population of Nubia as opposed to those individuals in power.

Fairly late pagan burials are found at Qasr Ibrim, which had served as a pilgrimage center for the old Nubian religion (Edwards, 2004a). Additionally, some Christian churches were often built within pagan buildings and Christian cemeteries appear next to earlier pyramids at sites such as

Nuri (Fisher, 2012). This juxtaposition of the burials and religious buildings exemplifies the complex nature of religious conversion at a communal scale. According to Welsby (2002), the

45 dating of Christian church construction may elucidate when a region officially adopted

Christianity while the burial practices may better indicate the remnants of pagan practices in the same area.

Information on the more southern kingdoms, Makuria and Alwa, is scarce as Arabic accounts are the only source in this period. Military campaigns into Makuria, which were documented by Arabic historians, are thought to have occurred after the fall of Egypt to the

Islamic Arabs, in 642 and again in 652 AD, and resulted in the creation of the Baqt treaty. At present, it has not been conclusively determined whether the Baqt treaty was an oral agreement between the Arab-Egyptian leaders and Makurian king or if it was a written treaty that has since been destroyed. In either case, it appears that this agreement not only promised peace from both sides but also outlined a system of royal reciprocal trade. According to Spaulding (1995), the earliest known reference to the Baqt is found in the works of Ibn Abd al-Hakam, a scholar writing over a century after the agreement took place. Unfortunately, already by this time, there were two interpretations of the agreement. One was based on the existence of a written treaty that had since been destroyed where Nubians agreed to avoid settling in Egyptian territory, to extradite runaway slaves and fugitives, and to pay an annual tribute of 360 slaves in exchange for peace in the region (Spaulding, 1995). The other interpretation that al-Hakam offered was that the Baqt was an oral agreement by which the Nubians provided the Muslim rulers with a set number of captives in exchange for a specified amount of wheat and lentils. Welsby (2002), on the other hand, follows an interpretation offered by tenth-century writer el-Mas’udi that details specific exchanges from both sides (mostly slaves from the Nubians in exchange for foodstuffs, horses, and textiles from the Muslims). Edwards (2004a) takes a conservative approach to the

Baqt agreement by describing the problems surrounding the interpretations of this treaty, but

46 acknowledging that it existed and likely included a component of royal reciprocity. This royal exchange apparently did not include any lower level trade as it is thought the Makurian population was hostile to the Arabic individuals who were migrating into their country

(Spaulding, 1995).

There is no mention of the northern kingdom, Nobadia, nor the southern kingdom, Alwa, in the Baqt treaty. Silence concerning Nobadia is likely because the Makurian kingdom is believed to have absorbed the neighboring kingdom sometime before 652 AD and therefore before the treaty existed. This new united kingdom had its capital in Old Dongola, but distinct ethnic and linguistic differences between the two regions occasionally led to civil wars (Adams,

1991; Edwards, 2004). According to the Arabic sources, Alwa, which was still recognized as a separate kingdom during this period, was more prosperous and powerful than Makuria (Welsby,

2002). Despite the fact that Alwa and Makuria had separate royal lineages, their elites were known to have intermarried (Welsby, 2002). Defensive systems were built within the capitals of both kingdoms, Old Dongola and Soba, at this time, but it is not clear whether this indicates an increase in threats against the kingdoms or merely a political statement of power and ownership of the territories (Welsby, 2006).

There is much evidence of the continual movement of the northern border of the Nubian territory in the Islamic period as Egyptian and Nubian powers ebbed and flowed. Around the mid-tenth century AD, Nubian raids into the southern portion of Egypt near Aswan provoked counter-raids into the northern regions of Nobadia reaching Qasr Ibrim between the first and second cataracts (Edwards, 2004). This hostility continued to be the case until the rise of the

Fatimid rule in Egypt, which was established in 969 AD and brought about an era of relative peace centered on economic ties (Fage, 1978).

However, with the change from the Fatimid to the Ayyubid dynasty in Egypt (around

1170 AD) came a resumption of Makurian attacks on southern Egypt, which were perhaps launched in support of the Fatimids as was the case with the assault on Aswan in 1172 AD

(Welsby, 2002). There is archaeological evidence for the construction and reinforcement of settlement structures along the Nile likely because of these violent interactions between Nubia and its neighbors (Edwards, 2007; Welsby, 2002). While the Ayyubid dynasty was particularly hostile to Christianity—there is evidence that Christian churches were destroyed in this era and mosques built in their place—the Makurian kings’ attempts at creating peace were only successful because of the attacks on Egypt by the western armies of the Fourth Christian Crusade and Egypt’s need to focus on stability as opposed to expansion of their territory (Welsby, 2002).

When the Mameluks, who are believed to have been slave soldiers under the command of the Ayyubid sultanate, seized control of Egypt in 1250 AD, they gained control of the northern portion of Makuria twice, but were unable to retain possession of the region (Edwards, 2004). El-

Maqrizi, a fifteenth century historian gives an account of an attack by the Muslims on Makuria in

1265 AD and a cycle of subsequent retaliations for the next century. Eventually, however, the infiltration of Islamic groups who were openly hostile to an already highly fragmented state brought about the collapse of Makuria around the middle of the fourteenth century AD

(Edwards, 2004a; Welsby, 2002). The kingdom of Alwa also appears to have fallen at this time, as is indicated by archaeological evidence for the destruction of its capital in Soba (Edwards,

2004a; Welsby, 2002).

Post-Medieval Period

The abandonment of the royal city of Old Dongola in 1365-6 AD is often considered to mark the end of Makuria and the medieval kingdoms of Nubia (Welsby, 2002). Several sources have been used to try to piece together a comprehensive timeline, but this task is difficult as there are discrepancies between sources on dates and events. Welsby’s (2002) proposed a timeline of events in which control over the geographic area known as Makuria passed through several hands remains the most careful consideration of the topic.

The characterization of the time period after the medieval Christian kingdoms has often been placed under the heading of the Islamicization of the region, but this is much too simplistic a view of the cultural changes that took place (Edwards, 2004b). For example, there is evidence that conversions to the Islamic faith were occurring well before the post-medieval period (Elzein,

2000, 2004). Most of this evidence is archaeological and found in the form of monumental architecture and changes in burial patterns. Furthermore, there are possible cases of individual

Muslims being buried in Christian cemeteries with Christian burial markers and tomb structures

(Salih 2004) indicating this period of co-existence for both ideologies in the same region. Thus, as with the region’s conversion to Christianity, the conversion to Islam cannot serve as a definitive point in history regardless of how greatly it eventually affects the region and culture.

While it is not possible to establish an exact date for the process of conversion, it is nevertheless the case that when the Ottoman Turks entered Nubia in the early sixteenth century, there were no remnants of the powerful Christian medieval kingdoms that had once existed there

(Welsby, 2002). This later period is marked by an increase of influence of Islamic law, customs, and trading practices that shaped the region at the same time as the Nubian languages were

49 disappearing (Edwards, 2004b).Thus, most of the available historical evidence is based upon textual information from Arabic sources and not upon the archaeology of the region.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, W. Y. (1965). Post-Pharaonic Nubia in the Light of Archaeology II. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 51, 160–178.

Adamson, D. A., Clark, J. D., & Williams, M. J. (1987). Pottery tempered with sponge from the White Nile, Sudan. The African Archaeological Review, 5(1987), 115–127.

Anderson, J. R. (2004). The Medieval kingdoms of Nubia. In D. A. Welsby & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures (pp. 202–237). London: The British Museum Press.

Bianchi, R. S. (2004). Daily Life of the Nubians. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.

Burstein, S. M. (2009). Ancient African civilizations: Kush and Axum. Princeton, N.J.,: Markus Wiener Publishers.

Edwards, D. N. (1996). The Archaeology of the Meroitic State: New Perspectives on Its Social and Political Organisation. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Edwards, D. N. (2004a). The Nubian Past An Archaeology of the Sudan. New York, NY: Routledge.

Edwards, D. N. (2004b). The Potential for Historical Archaeology in the Sudan. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 39(1), 13–33.

Edwards, D. N. (2007). The archaeology of Sudan and Nubia. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 211–228.

Elzein, I. S. (2000). The Archaeology of the Early Islamic Period in the Republic of the Sudan. Sudan & Nubia, 4, 32–36.

Elzein, I. S. (2004). Islamic Archaeology in the Sudan. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Fage, J. D. (1978). The Cambridge history of Africa, Vol 1-3. (J. D. Fage, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, M. M. (2012). The History of Nubia. In M. M. Fisher, P. Lacovara, S. Ikram, & S. D’Auria (Eds.), Ancient Nubia African Kingdoms on the Nile (pp. 10–44). Cairo, Egypt: The American University in Cairo Press.

Kalu, O. (2007). African Christianity: an African story. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

Kendall, T. (1997). Kerma and the Kingdom of Kush, 2500-1500 B.C.: The Archaeological Discovery of an Ancient Nubian Empire. Washington, D.C.: National Museum of African Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Kirwan, L. P. (1935). Notes on the topography of the Christian Nubian kindoms. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 21(1), 57–62.

Kirwan, L. P. (1959). The International Position of Sudan in Roman and Medieval Times. Sudan Notes and Records, 40, 23–37.

Kirwan, L. P. (1974). Nubia and Nubian Origins. The Geographical Journal, 140(1), 43–51.

Lenoble, P. (1992). The “End” of the Meroitic Empire: The Evidence from Central Sudan. Sudan Archaeological Research Society Newsletter, (3), 9–12.

Lenoble, P. (2004). The Pre-Christian empire and kingdoms. In D. A. Welsby & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures (pp. 186–201). London: The British Museum Press.

O’Connor, D. B. (1993). Ancient Nubia: Egypt’s Rival in Africa. Philadelphia: The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology University of Pennsylvania.

Reisner, G. A. (1908). The Archaeological Survey. In The Archaeological Survey of Nubia Bulletin No. 1 (pp. 9–24). Cairo: National Printing Department.

Spaulding, J. (1995). Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World : A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 28(3), 577–594.

Török, L. (1997). The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meriotic Civilization. Leiden: Brill.

Török, L. (2004). The Kingdom of Kush: Napatan and Meroitic Periods. In D. A. Welsby & J. R. Anderson (Eds.), Sudan Ancient Treasures (pp. 132–137). London: British Museum Press.

Török, L. (2009). Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 BC-AD 500. Leiden: Brill.

Welsby, D. A. (1996). The Kingdom of Kush: The Napatan and Meroitic Empires. London: British Museum Press.

Welsby, D. A. (2002). The medieval kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile. London: British Museum Press.

Welsby, D. A. (2006). Settlement in Nubia in the Medieval Period. In Acta Nubica: Proceedings of the X International Conference of Nubian Studies, Rome 9-14, Sept 2002 (pp. 21–44).

Zarroug, M. el-D. A. (1991). The Kingdom of Alwa. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

CHAPTER FOUR: MATERIALS AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The materials for this study consist of several different African skeletal samples, including three medieval Nubian samples as well as several other African comparative samples

(see Figure 4.1). The Nubian samples from the sites of Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati were the focus of this research. Data from these Nubian samples were collected by the author using various 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional methods. Scans of crania from Kulubnarti were provided by Dr. Heather Garvin (2012) allowing for digital data collection of that sample while skeletal materials from Mis Island as well as Gabati were available for data collection.

In order to contextualize these medieval Nubian samples into a wider geographic scope, other African craniometric datasets were used for comparative purposes. Other cranial data were generously provided by access to the W.W. Howells dataset (Howells, 1973, 1989, 1995, 1996) including his Egypt, Dogon, Teita, Zulu, and Bushman data all available through the University of Tennessee, Knoxville website. Additionally, data collected by Dr. Kate Spradley (Spradley,

2006) including West African samples, Ashanti, Calabar, Cameroon, and Gold Coast individuals, and East African samples, Somali and Haya individuals, was generously provided for use as a comparative dataset. These additional datasets were critical to interpreting portions of the population history of the medieval Nubian samples and addressing the research questions for this dissertation.

Figure 4.1. Map of Africa indicating the general geographic origin of samples.

Medieval Nubian Samples

Cranial dimensions were collected from three medieval Nubian samples, Mis Island,

Kulubnarti, and Gabati, which were located within each of the three medieval Nubian kingdoms

(Figure 4.2). All individuals analyzed were selected based on the following criteria: they were fully developed adults based upon skeletal maturity and suffered from no apparent pathology that altered their cranial dimensions. All crania fitting these criteria were analyzed and all possible measurements and/or available landmark coordinate data were taken.

The estimation of biological sex for each of these archaeological samples based upon pelvic morphology (e.g., sciatic notch dimensions, ventral arc presence) (Bruzek, 2002; Buikstra

& Ubelaker, 1994; Phenice, 1969). The use of these pelvic indicators is well established and

55 considered to be the most accurate indicator of skeletal biological sex. Additionally, the skeletal remains were categorized as young adult (20-34), middle adult (35-49), and old adult (50+)

(Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994) based upon pubic symphysis morphology (Katz & Suchey, 1986), auricular surface topography (Lovejoy et al., 1985; Osborne, Simmons, & Nawrocki, 2004), and sternal rib end morphology (İşcan, Loth, & Wright, 1984).

Figure 4.2. The approximate locations of the three archaeological sites used in this study adapted from Welsby (2002).

Mis Island Sample

The medieval Nubian Kingdom of Makuria occupied the area from the third cataract to the region between the fifth and sixth cataracts of the Nile and was bordered by the northern kingdom of Nobadia and the southern kingdom of Alwa. Mis Island, located upstream from the fourth cataract, was part of the Sudan Archaeological Research Society’s (SARS) concession as part of the Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project (MDASP) and was first surveyed by an archaeological team directed by Dr. Derek Welsby in 1999 (Ginns, 2006; Welsby, 2006). Mis

Island itself was found to have a total of 15 archaeological sites. Several of these sites were excavated from 2005-2007, including a late Christian period church, a medieval settlement, a

Kerma period tumulus, and medieval period cemeteries.

The settlement site on Mis Island, identified as 3-J-19, was partially excavated during two field seasons (Ginns, 2006, 2007) and was temporally associated with a Late Christian church, identified at 3-J-18. The settlement was located on the eastern side of the island about 50 km from the church (Ginns, 2010e). Stone foundations were identified in the excavation and are believed to have been the remnants of huts. Likewise, the associated post-holes found nearby are thought to indicate the presence of animal pens in addition to foundations that were found close to the hillside at the site; Ginns (2010e) theorizes these may be animal pen structures similar to those seen in modern times within the region. Lastly, the fact that modern agricultural activity has encroached into the medieval cemetery 3-J-11 (Ginns, 2010c) has lead scholars to hypothesize that medieval inhabitants of Mis Island, much like the modern inhabitants, were small-scale agriculturalists and pastoralists.

The burials associated with this settlement were identified in four different areas.

Cemetery 3-J-18 was associated with the Late Christian church at the site (Ginns, 2010a). This

57 cemetery was excavated (Ginns, 2006, 2007), but has been excluded from this study due to the fact that several of the individuals buried there were found to have been naturally mummified and their crania unable to be accurately measured. Cemetery site 3-J-20 was located at the highest elevation on the eastern side of the island. It was a bounded space with five medieval inhumations which had been heavily disturbed by looting (Ginns, 2010d). Ginns (2010d) postulates that this small, exclusive cemetery would have likely contained individuals of an elevated social status but unfortunately little remained beside the emptied tombs themselves.

The focus of this study is on two of the other cemeteries from the Christian period, cemeteries 3-J-10 and 3-J-11, which were excavated in 2005-2007 by a team of archaeologists from the British Museum and assisted by individuals from Michigan State University. Cemetery

3-J-10 (Figure 4.3) was located 300 meters northwest of the Christian church and contained some burials with a distinct grave marker type that may be attributed to an Islamic mortuary tradition (Ginns, 2006, 2010b). Cemetery 3-J-10 was used from 1100 - 1500 AD which would encompass the time at which Nubia was converted to Islam. This cemetery was estimated to have about 262 medieval box-grave monuments and a total of 126 individuals were recovered from the site (Ginns, 2010b). Table 4.1 shows the numbers of adults from 3-J-10 analyzed in this study, sorted by sex. The sex of these individuals was previously determined through the use of the pelvis, both innominates and sacrum, when available (Soler, 2012).

Figure 4.3. Plan view map of cemetery 3-J-10 at a scale of 1:500 with grave numbers indicated. Published in Ginns (2010b).

Table 4.1. The Mis Island individuals used in this study. Males Females Total 3-J-10 39 34 73 1100-1500 AD 3-J-11 62 69 131 300-1400 AD Total 101 93 204

The largest cemetery, 3-J-11 (Figure 4.4), was located near the northern edge of the island (Ginns, 2006, 2010c). This cemetery was used from 300 – 1400 AD, and had over 500 medieval box-grave monuments, but it is likely that it contained more graves that have been destroyed by modern agricultural intrusions (Ginns, 2010c). A total of 288 individuals were exhumed and the majority of those individuals were represented by complete skeletons (Ginns,

2010c). The numbers of adults examined for this study are seen in Table 4.1, sorted by sex. All of the skeletonized individuals from cemetery 3-J-10 and 3-J-11 are currently on loan from the

British Museum to Michigan State University and are curated under the direction of Dr. Todd

Fenton.

Figure 4.4. Plan view map of cemetery 3-J-11. Originally provided by Ginns and published in Soler (2012).

Kulubnarti Sample

The northern medieval Nubian kingdom, Nobadia, is believed to have spanned the geographic region from the first cataract of the Nile south to the third cataract. Kulubnarti was an island in this northern portion of Nubia which is now part of the Republic of Sudan. Kulubnarti was located south of the second cataract of the Nile in the region known as Batn el-Hajjar (belly of stones), which is an especially treacherous and inhospitable region (Adams, 2011). This island site was historically not a true island for most of the year, but became separated from the shoreline only during the peak flooding season of the Nile River (Adams, 2011). The Nile Valley here has little in the way of floodplains, which restricted the agricultural efforts in this region to small areas that could sustain such efforts.

Most of the sites excavated on Kulubnarti were occupied contemporaneously and continually from about 1000 – 1800 AD. These sites have demonstrated evidence for textile manufacturing and basketry-making industries, but also show that Kulubnarti was not a major hub for trade or goods manufacture, but rather was restricted to local production during the medieval period (Adams & Adams, 1998). The lack of sufficient land suitable for agricultural production indicates that the individuals of Kulubnarti were likely self-sufficient farmers with little surplus available for trade (Adams & Adams, 1998; van Gerven, Sheridan, & Adams,

1995). Based upon the artifact assemblage found here, as well as the paucity of luxury goods,

Adams and Adams (1998) conclude that the inhabitants of Kulubnarti were not prosperous and were relatively isolated from the types of Egyptian trade that were practiced at other Lower

Nubian sites.

Two cemeteries at Kulubnarti, named 21-S-46 and 21-R-2 (Figure 4.5), were partly excavated in 1969, but in 1979 teams from the University of Kentucky and the University of

Colorado were allowed to complete excavation of site 21-R-2 (Adams, 2011). Cemetery 21-S-46 was located on the west side of the island whereas site 21-R-2 was located on the western bank of the Nile across from the southern tip of the island. Site 21-S-46 is estimated to have contained about 300 graves which were most often not marked by superstructures (Adams & Adams,

1998). Cemetery 21-R-2 was almost double the size of 21-S-46 with an estimated 500-600 graves (Adams & Adams, 1998). These cemeteries are understood to have seen overlapping use in the early Christian period (21-S-46 was used during the early Christian period ~550-850 AD while 21-R-2 was used from the early to the terminal Christian period ~550-1500 AD). In previous studies, these cemeteries have been treated diachronically as an ‘early’ and ‘late’ cemetery (van Gerven, Beck, & Hummert, 1990; van Gerven, Sheridan, & Adams, 1995). The number of adults from Kulubnarti used in this study are shown in Table 4.2, sorted by sex. These individuals are currently housed at the University of Colorado Boulder. However, three- dimensional scans of the crania were provided by Dr. Heather Garvin (Garvin, 2012).

Figure 4.5. Map of the island of Kulubnarti with cemeteries highlighted originally published in Adams, Adams, Van Gerven, & Greene (1999).

Table 4.2. The sample of Kulubnarti individuals used. Males Females Total 21-S-46 16 24 40 550-850 AD 21-R-2 28 26 54 550-1500 AD Total 44 50 94

Gabati Sample

The site of Gabati is located on the east bank of the Nile in the Butana region between the fifth and sixth cataracts upstream from the Atbara River, between the Atbara and Meroe archaeological sites. Gabati was surveyed in the spring of 1993 and again in 1994 by a SARS team at the request of the Sudan National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums in anticipation of a highway that was to be constructed in the area (Edwards, 1998). The cemetery at Gabati was excavated in the following field season and on the basis of carbon dating and mortuary treatment was found to date back as far as the Meroitic period. The site also contained burials from the post-Meroitic and medieval periods. The continuity of occupation through time, in addition to the good preservation of materials and skeletal remains, make this site critical to the study of ideological transition in Nubia.

While the exact location of political boundaries remains unclear, the skeletal remains excavated from Gabati may be used as a representative sample of a population that lived within the territory under the control of the Kingdom of Alwa. The lack of elite burials at this cemetery

(Figure 4.6), which was excavated the year after the site survey, makes it an important counterpoint to the mortuary contexts that historically have been the focus of early excavations in Northern Africa. The cemetery at Gabati dates from the Meroitic period through the medieval

Christian period ~200BC-1100AD (Edwards, 1998) and represents the largest temporal span in the skeletal samples that were used for this study. The number of adults from Gabati examined in this study are seen in Table 4.3 sorted by sex. These individuals are currently housed at the

British Museum in the care of Dr. Daniel Antoine.

Figure 4.6. Cemetery at Gabati as published in Edwards (1998).

Table 4.3. The Gabati individuals analyzed in this study. Females Males Total Meroitic 11 14 25 200 BC – 100 AD Post-Meroitic 12 7 19 275 –700 AD Medieval 5 6 11 700 – 1100 AD Total 28 27 55

Howells’ Dataset

From 1965-1980, W.W. Howells collected up to 82 cranial measurements on 2504 individuals of known or estimated biological sex representing 28 populations from around the world (Howells, 1996). This dataset was published in three volumes that report on analyses conducted in order to understand the relationship between cranial variation and geographic distance (Howells, 1973, 1989, 1995). Of the 17 populations highlighted in Howells’ 1973 publication, five concern African populations and therefore have been selected to be used as comparative samples in this current project. The number of adults from each site/collection that were used in this study are seen in Table 4.4 sorted by sex. The estimation of sex varied in method from sample to sample and will be described below within the context of the particular skeletal collection.

Howells’ Bushman Data

Howells selected crania from individuals who were known to identify as Bush and excluded crania that were of questionable or unknown identities. These individuals are not from a single ‘local population’, but pieced together from several skeletal collections: the Pöch collection, Colesburg cemetery, RA Dart Collection, Musée de l’Homme collection, University of Edinburgh collection, and remains from the Department of Anatomy, Oxford. A total of 41 male and 49 female crania were selected based on preservation and ability to be ethnically determined as Bush. Some of these individuals were of known biological sex (n=20) while others were estimated from the associated pelves (n=43), and the few remaining (n=25) were estimated based on cranial morphology (Howells, 1973).

Howells’ Zulu Data

Howells collected data from 102 crania (55 males and 47 females) from the R.A. Dart

Collection housed at the University of Witwatersrand. These South African individuals were mostly cadaver specimens in the anatomy lab that were then macerated for a skeletal collection and therefore of known biological sex. This collection was created in the 1920s and was continually updated until the time of Howells study (Howells, 1973).

Howells’ Egyptian Data

Howells also collected data from 111 crania housed at the Duckworth Laboratory of

Physical Anthropology at Cambridge University. The remains were excavated under the direction of W. M. Flinders Petrie from a single cemetery dated to the 26th-30th Dynasties (~600-

200 BC) near the Giza Pyramids. The remains were first studied by Karl Pearson and Adelaide

Davin (Pearson & Davin, 1924) and have subsequently been housed at Cambridge University.

Howells collected data on 58 males and 53 females that were sexed by cranial morphology by

Howells and checked against the previous sex assignments which were decided by several anatomists (Howells, 1973).

Howells’ Teita Data

In addition, Howells collected data from 83 crania housed at the Duckworth Laboratory of Physical Anthropology at Cambridge University. These crania were collected in 1929 by L.

S. B. Leakey from a population in the southeast part of Kenya whose living ancestors had directed him to the cave memorial where the crania were housed. Kitson (1931) writes that these crania are not believed to be more than 100 years old at the time of Leakey’s retrieval. The modern populations were reported to be exogamous patrilineal and patrilocal. The biological sex of the 34 male and 49 female crania was estimated by Howells in two series based on cranial

67 morphology and then checked against the previous sex assignments made by earlier researchers

(Howells, 1973).

Howells’ Dogon Data

Howells collected data from 101 crania housed at the Musée de l’Homme in Paris,

France. These crania were collected from cave burials in the Mali Republic by Professor Marcel

Griaule in 1934. Radiocarbon dates from the site were compiled in a review by Willett (1971) and ranged from A.D. 1055±95 - 1750±90. Craniometric data was collected on 48 males and 53 females with sex estimations based upon cranial morphology alone (Howells, 1973).

Table 4.4. The Howells dataset used. Females Males Total Bushman 49 41 90 Zulu 47 55 102 Egyptian 53 58 111 Teita 49 34 83 Dogon 53 48 101 Total 251 236 487

Spradley Dataset

Additional African samples have been provided by Dr. Kate Spradley from part of her doctoral dissertation sample (Spradley, 2006). These samples can be broken into two overarching regional groups, West Africa and East Africa and shall be discussed here as such. These data consist of up to 82 cranial measurements based on the Howells’ dataset.

West African Samples

These crania are housed at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) located in

New York City as part of the Felix von Luschan collection. The samples at the AMNH from the

Ashanti, Calabar, Cameroon, and Gold Coast are believed to have been obtained from the 1880s to the early 1900s as part of Felix von Luschan’s attempts to refute typological views on ‘race’

(Smith, 2002; Spradley, 2006). Data from the West African crania used in this study is seen in

Table 4.5 sorted by sex and population sample.

Table 4.5. West African males and females by sample. Females Males Total Ashanti 13 18 31 Calabar 7 18 25 Cameroon 10 39 49 Gold Coast 10 10 20 Total 40 85 125

East African Samples

The Haya and Somali samples are housed in the Duckworth Laboratory in Cambridge,

England. The Somalian individuals are all male and believed to have been soldiers that perished in the Italian invasion of 1940. The Haya collection is composed of males and females that were distinguished by cranial morphology and believed to date to the 19th Century (Spradley, 2006).

Data from the East African crania used in this study is seen in Table 4.6 sorted by sex and population sample.

Table 4.6. East African females and males by sample. Females Males Total Haya 17 19 36 Somalia 0 50 50 Total 17 69 86

Research Questions and Expectations

This project is focused on the biological history of the populations that inhabited the region of Nubia during the medieval Christian period. Little is known about the geographic origins, composition and interactions of the medieval Nubian populations. A victory inscription erected in the mid fourth century AD mentions the Noba and the modern, generally accepted, interpretation places the Noba as occupants of Gezira, the land between the White and Blue Nile

(Welsby, 2002). The sixth century AD Byzantine historian Procopius wrote that the Noba entered the Nile Valley in Lower Nubia around the late third century AD, but had occupied the oases west of Nile before the migration north (Welsby, 2002). Eratosthenes, a third century BC geographer, described a group known as the Nubai as living west of the Nile and north of the

Nile-Atbara junction (Török, 2009). Török (2009) hypothesized that this group described by

Eratosthenes migrated up the Nile and settled into Lower Nubia. Welsby (2002) takes a conservative approach by addressing the fact that the Noba and Nubadae along with other nomenclature associated with groups in the area (Nubae, Nobades, Nobates, Annoubades,

Nouba, and Red Noba) could represent differences in the names used by various sources

(Greeks, Romans, Byzantine, and Arab) or could represent a single group of people or any number of distinct groups. Török (2009) writes that it is unlikely that all these groups are completely different ethnicities, but may represent different sub-groups of the same people.

Welsby (2002) recognizes that archaeologically there are not enough distinct material cultures in the area to represent all the distinct names, but the material culture that is present does not appear to stem from a single population.

It is the aim of this work to elucidate the possibility that, in spite of scant written references to the contrary, the three medieval Christian kingdoms actually originated from a single population. Additionally, it is a goal to explore through a smaller scale study the validity of the traditional approach to studies of biodistance in Northern Africa that lump together several different time periods and geographic areas (Godde, 2009; Irish, 2005). While these studies are informative, the present research attempts to hold temporal variation to a minimum and understand the cranial variation of populations that are often pooled together to represent Nubia.

This study will attempt to determine if these data pooling scenarios are appropriate or if these cemetery populations appear distinct, thus warranting separate analyses.

Research Question 1

Is there evidence for significant intra-site craniofacial differences at the Nubian sites of Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati?

Mis Island has two cemeteries used during the Christian period, 3-J-11 which was used throughout the entire period from 300 – 1400 AD and 3-J-10 which was used in the later portion of the period from 1100 – 1500 AD. Although the textual information is limited, the archaeology of the Mis Island cemeteries indicates that these sites were used continuously without any drastic change in burial customs (Ginns, 2010b, 2010c). Given this, it is hypothesized that there are no cranial differences between the individuals buried at different cemeteries on Mis Island during the above time period.

It is expected that there will be no significant differences in craniometrics between the two cemeteries, 3-J-10 and 3-J-11, located on Mis Island.

At Kulubnarti, the two cemeteries are defined spatially and have been interpreted to have had overlapping use in the early Christian period, 21-S-46 which was used during the early

Christian period (~550-850 AD) and 21-R-2 that spanned in use from the early to the terminal

Christian period (~550-1500 AD). In previous studies, these cemeteries are treated diachronically as an ‘early’ and ‘late’ cemetery. Although archaeological and textual information is limited, mortuary analyses (Adams, Adams, Van Gerven, & Greene, 1999) of burial practices of these cemeteries indicate similarities, pointing to the possibility that these cemeteries served people with cultural continuity. Given this, it is hypothesized that there are no cranial differences between individuals buried at different Kulubnarti cemeteries during the above time period.

It is expected that there will be no significant differences in craniometrics between the two cemeteries at Kulubnarti, 21-S-46 and 21-R-2.

The cemetery at Gabati dates from the Meroitic period through the medieval Christian period, ~200 BC-1100 AD (Edwards, 1998) and represents the largest temporal span in the skeletal samples used in this study. The craniometric data from this site will be analyzed to determine if there is biological continuity at this site from the Meroitic period to the medieval period. Although there is little textual information, the archaeological evidence at Gabati demonstrates a wide variation of mortuary practices through time but no indication of differences that are not expected based on temporal changes in burial patterns for the region. Given this, it is hypothesized that there was biological continuity through time at Gabati.

It is expected that there will be no significant differences in craniometrics between individuals buried at different time periods at Gabati.

Research Question 2

Are the three Nubian samples representative of three distinct populations based upon significant craniometric differences?

Geographic distance and genetic differentiation are closely correlated and have a linear relationship when cases of admixture and extreme isolation are treated as outliers

(Ramachandran et al., 2005). High correlations have been found between molecular genetic distances and distances based on the morphology of the overall cranium, basicranium, temporal bone, and the upper face indicating that these cranial morphologies can be used as a proxy to assess genetic distances between populations (Martínez-Abadías et al., 2009; Relethford, 2004).

The notion that these three medieval kingdoms represent a single indigenous population that came into power cannot be easily refuted if the genetic distance (as measured by cranial

72 morphology) between the three samples is small. A small genetic difference may indicate that these populations were native to the geographic area and were not nomadic populations that traveled great distances to inhabit the area. There is little evidence to support the idea of a mass migration of a population into Nubia before the medieval period and based on nomenclature differences previously discussed, the archaeological record does not support a theory of mass migration. Given this, it is hypothesized that the Nubian populations developed in situ.

It is expected that there will be no significant differences in craniometrics between the sites.

Research Question 3a

Is there craniometric evidence of gene flow into each site? Alternatively, is there evidence indicating relative isolation of each site?

Research Question 3b

Is there evidence for a mass migration or high levels of gene flow into Nubia based on cranial variation when compared to populations from other parts of Africa?

Due to the different interpretations of the Baqt treaty in the ancient sources and lack of textual information on migrations from other lands, there is an understandable disagreement over the possibility of migrants entering Nubia from Egypt in the medieval period. According to most accounts, the Baqt treaty restricted the movement of Arabic Egyptians into Lower Nubia and forbade their travel into the Middle Nubia. Moreover, it stipulated that neither Nubians nor

Egyptians were permitted to settle in each other’s land (Spaulding, 1995).

Middle Nubia received less attention from the trade agreement as well as fewer hostile changes of leadership after the peace treaty dissipated. The relative isolation of this area may have insulated it from an increase in gene flow. The agricultural community of Mis Island would

73 not be expected to have a large source of outside gene flow. These individuals were not known to be merchants and did not live close to the border region between Egypt and Nubia that seemed to be in constant flux. Given the fact that Mis Island was an agricultural community distant from the Nubian borders, it is hypothesized that there was no extraregional gene flow into Mis Island populations. This hypothesis will be tested using craniometric data as a proxy for genetic data to examine the levels of heterogeneity in the population.

It is expected that there will be no evidence of gene flow into the Mis Island population.

Although the Baqt treaty was believed to have discouraged Egyptians and Nubians from interacting, Van Gerven, Sheridan, and Adams (1995) claim that the Muslims of Egypt were allowed to trade, travel and settle in Lower Nubia. It is also known that after the Ayyubids came into power (around 1170 AD) Nubia and Egypt began to feud again with a series of aggressive attacks into both regions. It is likely that during this period there was more gene flow than before into Lower Nubia, but to what extent this would effect a the relatively isolated farming communities under study is currently unknown. Given the plausibility of the general scholarly consensus that foreigners were not permitted to settle in Lower Nubia, it is hypothesized that there was no extraregional gene flow into Kulubnarti. This hypothesis will be tested using craniometric data as a proxy for genetic data to examine the levels of heterogeneity in the population.

It is expected that there will be no evidence of gene flow into the Kulubnarti population.

The kingdom of Alwa and Upper Nubia was not mentioned in the Baqt treaty. This is likely due to the distance of the kingdom from the Egyptian-Nubian border. However, the existence of Red Sea ports, exportation of exotic goods (ex. gold, ivory, salt, and slaves), and

74 presence of foreign glass and ceramics along with extensive desert caravan routes suggests the existence of a strong trade economy directed by royal and elite members of society (Zarroug,

1991). It is not known how this trade economy had an impact on the Nile River valley agriculturalists of this kingdom. Given the fact that Gabati has little archaeological evidence of outside goods and appears to be culturally isolated, it is hypothesized that there was no extra- regional gene flow into Gabati. This hypothesis will be tested using craniometric data as a proxy for genetic data to examine the levels of heterogeneity in the population.

It is expected that there will be no evidence of gene flow into the Gabati population.

Overall, it is expected that the Nubian samples will cluster most closely to each other than any other African sample supporting the theory that no mass migration took place and the Nubian kingdoms developed in situ.

Research Question 4

Is there genetic evidence of patrilocal or matrilocal practices at each site based on the levels craniometric variance between males and females?

Nubian ethnohistoric studies have illustrated that lineage was determined through the maternal line (Adams, 1969; Salih, 2004). This was in direct conflict to the patrilineal inheritance of the Islamic faith that Nubians converted to after the disintegration of the medieval kingdoms. It would be expected in the Nubian communities of the medieval period that if there was any sex-specific mobility it would likely be males. However, Saxe (1971) hypothesized that more variation in female body position in burials at a cemetery near Wadi Halfa (region near the second cataract) may indicate a more patrilocal pattern. Part of Saxe’s theory was that women migrated from different regions may be buried according to different cultural practices. This assumes that the women buried would have other members of their non-natal community willing

75 to bury them in a different manner and furthermore being cognizant of that individual’s natal community’s burial practices. A more direct way to study sex-specific variation that may provide information on the cultural aspect of post-marital residence patterns would be to study the biological remains of the individuals of interest.

Mis Island represents a small agricultural community. Much like the hypothesis of gene flow into the region, it is not expected that individuals of either sex will be coming into the community for post-marital residence. The individuals from Mis Island were likely isolated from most other populations. Although there may have been a redistribution of crops (Edwards, 1996) into a hierarchical system, it is unlikely that the inhabitants of Mis Island traveled with their goods and/or interacted with other groups nearby.

It is expected that there will not be significant amounts of craniometric variance seen in males and females of Mis Island.

Kulubnarti represents another island agricultural community that is believed to have been self-sustaining. There are several sites that have been excavated from this region, so it is not outside the realm of possibility that there were some outside marriages and marriage arrangements. However, similar to Mis Island there is no evidence of post-marital residence patterns, but it is likely that this population married within itself. Some of the later residences constructed to have a raised living space reached by ladders (Adams, 2011). These defensive structures were likely built for protection against Egyptian forces, but may also complicate relationships between the other Nubian settlements near Kulubnarti.

It is expected that there will not be significant differences between the amount of craniometric variance as exhibited in males and females of Kulubnarti.

The individuals at Gabati are known to have been non-elites and represent the largest temporal span of the Nubian populations examined in this work. This non-elite status and the general isolation of the site, as currently understood, does not support that these individuals were practicing inter-regional marital practices. However, this site and the southern kingdom is the least well understood of the medieval kingdoms.

It is expected that there will not be significant differences between the amount of craniometric variance seen in the males and females of Gabati.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, W. Y. (1969). Ethnohistory and Islamic Tradition in Africa. Ethnohistory, 16(4), 277– 288.

Adams, W. Y. (2011). Kulubnarti I: The architectural remains. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Adams, W. Y., & Adams, N. K. (1998). Kulubnarti II: The Artifactual Remains. London: SARS.

Adams, W. Y., Adams, N. K., Van Gerven, D. P., & Greene, D. L. (1999). Kulubnarti III: the cemeteries. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Bruzek, J. (2002). A method for visual determination of sex, using the human hip bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 117(2), 157–168.

Buikstra, J. E., & Ubelaker, D. H. (1994). Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 44.

Edwards, D. N. (1996). The Archaeology of the Meroitic State: New Perspectives on Its Social and Political Organisation. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Edwards, D. N. (1998). Gabati : A Meroitic, post-Meroitic and medieval cemetery in central Sudan. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Garvin, H. M. (2012). The Effects of Living Conditions on Human Cranial and Postcranial Sexual Dimorphism. John Hopkins University.

Ginns, A. (2006). Preliminary Report on the Excavations Conducted on Mis Island (AKSC), 2005-2006. Sudan & Nubia, 10, 13–19.

Ginns, A. (2007). Prelimary Report on the Second Season of Excavations Conducted on Mis Island (AKSC). Sudan & Nubia, 11, 20–26.

Ginns, A. (2010a). Church 3-J-18 Draft report.

Ginns, A. (2010b). Medieval Cemetery 3-J-10 Draft Report, 1–36.

Ginns, A. (2010c). Medieval Cemetery 3-J-11 Draft Site Report.

Ginns, A. (2010d). Medieval Cemetery 3-J-20 Draft Report.

Ginns, A. (2010e). Medieval Settlement 3-J-19 Draft Report.

Godde, K. (2009). An examination of Nubian and Egyptian biological distances: Support for biological diffusion or in situ development? HOMO- Journal of Comparative Human

Biology, 60(5), 389–404.

Howells, W. W. (1995). Who’s Who in Skulls. Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum.

Howells, W. W. (1996). Howells’ craniometric data on the Internet. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 101(3), 441–442.

Irish, J. D. (2005). Population Continuity vs. Discontinuity Revisited: Dental Affinities Among Late Paleolithic Through Christian-Era Nubians. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 128, 520–535.

İşcan, M. Y., Loth, S. R., & Wright, R. K. (1984). Metamorphosis at the sternal rib end: a new method to estimate age at death in white males. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 65, 147–156.

Katz, D., & Suchey, J. M. (1986). Age determination of the male os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 69(4), 427–435.

Kitson, E. (1931). A Study of the Negro Skull with Special Reference to the Crania from Kenya Colony. Biometrika, 23(3/4), 271–314.

Konigsberg, L. W. (1988). Migration models of prehistoric postmarital residence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 77, 471–482.

Lovejoy, C. O., Meindl, R. S., Pryzbeck, T. R., & Mensforth, R. P. (1985). Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 68(1), 15–28.

Osborne, D. L., Simmons, T. L., & Nawrocki, S. P. (2004). Reconsidering the auricular surface as an indicator of age at death. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49(5), 905–911.

Pearson, K., & Davin, A. G. (1924). On the Biometric Constants of the Human Skull.

Biometrika, 16(3/4), 328–363.

Petersen, H. C. (2000). On Statistical Methods for Comparison of Intrasample Morphometric Variability: Zalavar Revisited. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 79–84.

Phenice, T. W. (1969). A newly developed visual method of sexing in the os pubis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 30, 297–301.

Ramachandran, S., Deshpande, O., Roseman, C. C., Rosenberg, N. a, Feldman, M. W., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (2005). Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(44), 15942– 15947.

Relethford, J. H. (2004). Boas and beyond: Migration and craniometric variation. American Journal of Human Biology, 16(4), 379–386.

Salih, A. O. M. (2004). Archaeology and Settlement in the Third Cataract Region During the Medieval and Post-Medieval Periods. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 39(1), 34–39.

Saxe, A. A. (1971). Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices in a Mesolithic Population from Wadi Halfa , Sudan. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, (25), 39–57.

Schillaci, M. a., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2005). Craniometric variation and population history of the prehistoric Tewa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126(4), 404–412.

Smith, J. D. (2002). W. E. B. Du Bois, Felix von Luschau,and Racial Reform at the Fin-de- Siecle. Amerikastudien/American Studies, 47(1), 23–38.

Soler, A. (2012). Life and Death in a Medieval Nubian Farming Community: The Experience at Mis Island. Michigan State University.

Spaulding, J. (1995). Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World : A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 28(3), 577–594.

Török, L. (2009). Between Two Worlds: The Frontier Region Between Ancient Nubia and Egypt, 3700 BC-AD 500. Leiden: Brill. van Gerven, D. P., Beck, R., & Hummert, J. R. (1990). Patterns of enamel hypoplasia in two medieval populations from Nubia’s Batn el Hajar. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82(4), 413–420.

81 van Gerven, D. P., Sheridan, S. G., & Adams, W. Y. (1995). The Health and Nutrition of a Medieval Nubian Population: The Impact of Political and Economic Change. American Anthropologist, 97(3), 468–480.

Welsby, D. A. (2002). The medieval kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile. London: British Museum Press.

Welsby, D. A. (2006). The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project: Excavations in the Vicinity of ed-Doma (AKSE), 2005-2006. Sudan & Nubia, 10, 8–13.

Welsby, D. A. (2007). The Merowe Dam Archaeological Salvage Project: Provisional type series of monuments. Sudan & Nubia, 11, 15–20.

Willett, F. (1971). A Survey of Recent Results in the Radiocarbon Chronology of Western and Northern Africa. The Journal of African History, 12(3), 339–370.

Zarroug, M. el-D. A. (1991). The Kingdom of Alwa. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

CHAPTER FIVE: METHODS

The methods of this project are two-fold, the data collection methods and the analytical methods. First, however, is a short discussion on sampling in bioarchaeology in consideration of some of the specific limitations of this project. The data collection is described below for each

Nubian sample with a short discussion on the comparability of the various methods used. The analytical methods are described by each research question asked.

Sampling

Sampling methods to ensure the representativeness of a population are incredibly important for statistical analyses. However, sampling in a bioarchaeological setting is fraught with several limitations because of the nature of the cemetery populations from which data can be drawn. The skeletal remains excavated from cemeteries have inherent biases which do not reflect the same demographics, health, and nutrition statuses of the living population with which they are associated (Cadien, et al., 1974; Larsen, 1997; Wood, et al., 1992). This fact poses issues for bioarchaeological studies of paleodemography, growth studies, and studies of health for past populations (Larsen, 1997; Wood, et al., 1992). In addition to these issues of true population representation for a cemetery sample, problems also occur with skeletal preservation.

The degree to which human remains are preserved is linked to several factors including environment, mortuary treatment, age-at-death, and health of an individual. These preservation factors may also be linked to issues of status within a population. For example, elite burials may be conducted with more deliberate and extensive mortuary practices than non-elite burials.

This study focuses on the collection of craniometric data from three Nubian cemetery populations as well as from other previously collected datasets from cemetery samples and

83 various anatomical collections. Only individuals who were fully developed adults (based upon skeletal maturity) and suffered from no apparent pathology that altered their cranial dimensions were selected for analysis, which consisted of the recording of all possible measurements and/or available landmark coordinate data. Previous time and monetary constraints on the archaeological excavations of the Nubian sites forced archaeologists to sample the cemeteries to the best of their abilities. They often selected burials for excavation based on grave monument type (Adams, et al., 1999), imminent threat of destruction by construction (Edwards, 1998), or degree of disturbance by modern agriculture. (Ginns, 2010a, 2010b).

Although sampling strategy is critical to properly represent populations, the nature of the salvage archaeology that recovered these skeletal remains does not allow for such methods to be implemented. The Nubian samples in this dissertation were used in their entirety based upon their level of preservation and only excluded if pathological processes were apparent or mummified tissue obscured measurements. However, even these simple sampling methods effectively diminish the variability examined by excluding individuals from the dataset which should be considered when drawing conclusions from the results of this study.

Craniometric Data Collection

Craniometric data were collected from the Nubian samples using different methods based upon the availability of equipment and skeletal material. Although it would be preferred to collect data using the same methods, constraints on equipment availability and data availability did not allow for the same method to be used on the three collections. As such each of these samples’ data were collected using a different method and each process is explained below in greater detail.

Mis Island Sample

Skulls from individuals excavated from Mis Island cemeteries 3-J-10 and 3-J-11 (Table

4.1) were digitized with a Microscribe digitizer and the data recorded using the computer program 3Skull (Ousley, 2004). Each cranium was placed atop three clay pillars, as recommended in Ousley and McKeown (2001), which enabled all landmarks and arcs to be collected without repositioning. A total of 78 cranial and mandibular landmarks (seen in Table

5.1) and 5 arcs (bregma-nasion; lambda-bregma; opisthion-lambda; zygoorbitale-zygotemporale inferior; nasion-rhinion) were recorded in three-dimensional space to capture the overall size and shape of each skull.

Additionally, the mandible of each individual was positioned against a piece of plexiglass and secured with dental wax in order to capture 23 points in space, which were used to extract two-dimensional measurements that are traditionally taken with sliding calipers and a mandibulometer (Ousley & McKeown, 2001). Both the cranial and mandibular landmarks recorded by 3Skull were used to determine traditional craniometric measurements which were exported from the computer software.

Table 5.1. Cranial landmarks with subsequent associated measurements. Landmark Associated Measurement(s) Prosthion – Howells BPL, NPH Prosthion – Martin Subspinale SSR, SSS Alare L/R NLB Most inferior nasal border L/R NLH Nasale inferius L/R Nasale superius L/R Nasomaxillary suture pinch L/R WNB Nasal bone elevation SIS, SIA

Table 5.1. (cont’d) Deepest point on nasal bone profile NDS, NDA Zygoorbitale L/R MOW, IML, XML Lower orbital border L or R OBH Upper orbital border L or R OBB Cheek height superior point L or R WMH Cheek height inferior point L or R WMH Ectoconchion L/R OBB, EKB Dacryon L/R OBB, DKB Zygion L/R ZYB Zygomaxillare L/R ZMB, IML Zygotemporale inferior L/R IML, XML Zygotemporale superior L/R Jugale L/R JUB Marginal process lateral L/R Frontomalare anterior L/R FMB, NAS Frontotemporale L/R WFB Sphenion L/R Krotaphion L/R Maximum frontal point L/R XFB Stephanion L/R STB, STS Frontomalare anterior L/R FMB, NAS Frontomalare temporale L/R UFBR Sphenofrontale L/R Nasion NOL, NLH, NAS+ Glabella GOL Supraglabella GLS Bregma FRC, PAC, BBH + Lambda PAC, OCC Asterion L/R ASB Eurion L/R XCB Radiometer point L/R Various radii Porion L/R MDH Mastoideale L/R MDH Radiculare L/R AUB Opisthion FOL Basion BBH, BNL, BPL + FOB point L/R FOB Ectomolare L/R MAB M1 anterior point AVR Hormion Alveolon MAL Staurion Pogonion XRL, MAN Gnathion GNI

Table 5.1. (cont’d) Infradentale GNI HMF superior point HMF HMF inferior point HMF TMF buccal point TMF TMF lingual point TMF Gonion L/R GOG Coronion L/R Condylion laterale L/R CDL WRB posterior point WRB WRB anterior point WRB L/R angle base MAN Superior condyle L/R L/R superior condyle posterior CDL, MAN Condylion mediale L/R

Kulubnarti Sample

The skeletal remains excavated from Kulubnarti are currently housed at the University of

Colorado, Boulder. Dr. Heather Garvin (2012) previously used a NextEngine Desktop 3D

Scanner (model 2020i) and NextEngine ScanStudio HD Pro software (NextEngine, Inc., Malibu,

CA) in order to capture high-resolution optical laser scans (0.127 mm accuracy, 400 dpi maximum resolution) of Kulubnarti crania with associated mandibles. This process is fully described by Garvin (2012), but in general, crania and associated mandibles were secured with clay and scanned several times from differing angles with the final product being compiled from merged scans to ensure a complete scan of all portions of the skull.

A total of 94 crania and when possible associated mandibles, 40 individuals from cemetery 21-S-46 and 54 individuals from cemetery 21-R-2 (Table 4.2), were scanned by Dr.

Heather Garvin (2012). These data were then imported into GeoMagic Wrap to digitally collect three-dimensional landmark data and two-dimensional measurements. Some measurements were unable to be accurately assessed because of adhering, mummified tissue and were therefore excluded from the final dataset.

Gabati Sample

A total of 55 individuals (Table 4.3) were examined from this site to collect up to 36 cranial measurements and an additional 7 mandibular measurements as seen in Table 5.2.

Measurements were made with spreading calipers or sliding calipers where appropriate. Due to issues of preservation and fragmentation of remains, not all measurements could be taken on every individual, only 17 individuals (9 females and 8 males) were complete enough to record all

36 cranial measurements.

Table 5.2. Two-dimensional cranial measurements and abbreviations taken. Abbreviation Description Instrument GOL Greatest length from glabella to opisthocranion Sp NOL Greatest length from nasion to opisthocranion Sp BNL Basion to nasion length Sp BBH Basion to bregma height Sp XCB Maximum cranial breadth on parietals Sp ZYB Bizygomatic diameter Sp XFB Maximum frontal breadth Sp STB Bistephanic breadth Sp FRC Frontal chord Sl PAC Parietal chord Sl OCC Occipital chord Sl BPL Basion-prosthion length Sl WFB Minimum frontal breadth Sl UFBR Upper facial breadth – Maximum Sl JUB Bijugal breadth Sl IML Inferior malar length Sl XML Maximum malar length Sl NPH Nasion-prosthion height Sl NLH Nasal height Sl NLB Nasal breadth Sl MAB Maxillo-alveolar breadth Sl MAL Maxillo-alveolar length Sl OBH Orbital height Sl OBB Orbital breadth Sl MOW Midorbital width Sl WNB Least nasal breadth Sl EKB Biorbital breadth Sl DKB Interorbital breadth Sl

Table 5.2. (cont’d) FOL Foramen magnum length Sl FOB Foramen magnum breadth Sl ASB Biasterionic breadth Sl WCB Minimum cranial breadth Sl AUB Biauricular breadth Sl MDH Mastoid height Sl MDB Mastoid breadth Sl GNI Chin height Sl HMF Height of mandibular body at mental foramen Sl TMF Breadth of mandibular body at mental foramen Sl GOG Bigonial width Sl CDB Bicondylar breadth Sl WRB Minimum ramus breadth Sl XRB Maximum ramus height Sl

Comparability of Data Collection Techniques

Three-dimensional cranial data was collected from the Mis Island samples as well as the

Kulubnarti sample which allowed two-dimensional inter-landmark distances (ILDs) to be computed including common cranial measurements (Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994; Howells,

1973). The Mis Island sample was collected using a microscribe digitizer and the Kulubnarti sample was collected from three-dimensional scans, previous researchers have found that these methods are suitable and display a low amount of variation between measurements collected by either method (Sholts, Flores, Walker, & Wärmländer, 2011). Algee-Hewitt & Wheat (2015) examined the applicability of three-dimensional scans in comparison to digitized point data and found that some landmarks were more challenging to locate on the three-dimensional scans than others, but overall that the data was comparable.

Two-dimensional traditional craniometric data was collected from the Gabati sample housed at the British Museum using spreading and sliding calipers. The use of spreading and sliding calipers in the collection of traditional craniometric data has been shown to be in

89 congruence with the inter-landmark distances calculated from three-dimensional point data

(Hildebolt & Vannier, 1988).

Analytical Methods

The various research questions each necessitate a different method of analysis and differing datasets based upon requirements for each statistical test. Each of these methods is described by the research questions they address.

Research Question 1

Is there evidence for significant intra-site craniofacial differences at the Nubian sites of Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati?

In order to investigate the craniometric variation between cemeteries at Mis Island and

Kulubnarti as well as between time periods (based on mortuary practices) at Gabati, only measurements that were common among all Nubian samples were used. Due to the fragmentary nature of several individuals in each sample a subset of data, 25 cranial measurements, were created based upon the prevalence of each measurement for each sample. Individuals who were missing six or more measurements were excluded from the dataset. Individuals who were missing five or fewer measurements were included in the dataset and the missing measurements were subsequently estimated using the sex-specific population mean. Admittedly, this mean substitution for missing data will decrease the amount of variability within each site. However in consideration of other methods to deal with missing data, mean substitution performs fairly well as compared to more involved data imputation methods (Kenyhercz & Passalacqua, 2016). The resulting craniometric dataset for all available individuals (n=209) is seen in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3. Total Nubian dataset. Site Sex N F 47 Kulubnarti M 42 Total 89 F 51 Mis Island M 42 Total 93 F 16 Gabati M 11 Total 27 F 114 Total M 95 Total 209

The cranial measurements were first standardized in SPSS 21 by creating z-scores within each cemetery sample by sex, setting the mean to “0” and the standard deviation to “1”, in order to pool the sexes and increase sample sizes. These z-scores were then analyzed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) which determines if there are significant differences between independent groups on multiple, continuous variables. Additionally, the subsequent analyses of variance (ANOVAs) which determines if there are significant differences between independent groups on a single continuous variable were run to determine whether there are significant differences between the different samples at each site.

Additionally, the z-scores were subjected to a canonical discriminant function analyses in

SPSS 21. A canonical discriminant function analysis produces canonical variables that summarize the between-group variation based on the groups provided, in this case, the individual cemeteries at Mis Island and Kulubnarti as well as the temporal periods represented at Gabati.

The canonical discriminant functions produce the between canonical structure which can be used to interpret the canonical variate plot.

Research Question 2

Are the three Nubian site samples representative of three distinct populations based upon significant craniometric differences?

In order to investigate the craniometric variation between the three Nubian sites only measurements that were common among all three sites were used. Again the raw craniometrics were standardized by sex, so that the sexes could be pooled. These z-scores were then analyzed using a MANOVA in order to determine if there were significant differences between the three

Nubian sites. Additionally, ANOVAs were used to determine which standardized scores were demonstrating significant differences between the groups.

The z-scores were also subjected to a canonical discriminant function analyses in SPSS

21. A canonical discriminant function analysis produces canonical variables that summarize the between-group variation based on the groups provided, in this case, the Nubian sites, Mis Island,

Kulubnarti, and Gabati. The canonical discriminant functions produce the between canonical structure which can be used to interpret the canonical variate plot. Additionally, Fordisc 3.0

(Jantz & Ousley, 2005) was used to determine the Mahalanobis’ distances between the three

Nubian samples from Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati.

Research Question 3a

Is there craniometric evidence of gene flow into each site? Alternatively, is there evidence of relative isolation of each site?

The level of heterogeneity as seen craniofacially at each site was examined using Rmet

5.0, a program written by Dr. John Relethford that performs population genetic analyses using quantitative data. Rmet 5.0 produces an R matrix, a variance-covariance relationship matrix of population similarity (Relethford, Crawford, & Blangero, 1997). Examining the weighted

92 average of the diagonal of the R matrix provides estimates of genetic differentiation (Fst = genetic variation between groups/total variation) where populations with a moderate Fst are characterized as having low gene flow and/or being a relatively small population and populations with a small Fst are characterized by having a high rate of gene flow and/or being a large population (Relethford et al., 1997).

Research Question 3b

Is there evidence for a mass migration or high levels of gene flow into Nubia based on cranial variation when compared to populations from other parts of Africa?

Rmet5.0 was again used in order to determine the levels of gene flow into Nubia as well as into other African populations, Howells’ dataset (Howells, 1973, 1996) and Spradley’s dataset

(Spradley, 2006). Rmet 5.0 also provides a R matrix, a variance-covariance relationship matrix of population similarity (Relethford et al., 1997), demonstrating how closely related groups are to each other. The program also produces genetic distances between all samples. Examining the

Nubian samples within the larger geographic context of Africa will provide additional information on the population history of each Nubian site.

Research Question 4

Is there genetic evidence of patrilocal or matrilocal practices based on the levels craniometric variance between males and females at each site?

The amount of phenotypic variance for males and females at a particular site can be used to inform on sex-specific mobility and possible cultural norms for marriage/residence patterns at each site (Schillaci & Stojanowski, 2005). Petersen (2000) has developed more rigorous statistical methods to examine surplus variability within a population in comparison to other populations with specific methods to deal with small sample sizes and multivariate non-normal

93 data. The nonparametric bootstrap method, as explained by Petersen (2000), allows for an

‘assumption-free’ statistical analysis of data and does not require that data be multivariate normal or have a large sample size. This method along with Petersen’s two other recommended methods, Zhivotovsky’s F-ratio and Wishart bootstrap, have been developed into R code by Dr.

Lyle Konigsberg and is freely available on Dr. Konigsberg’s website.

This R code was used to analyze the phenotypic variance in the sex-specific samples at each site compared to a reference sample (Howells’ Teita sample) in order to look at the amount of variance seen in each sex-specific sample. Due to statistical constraints on the number of variables in relation to the sample size, a subset of ten measurements was selected for use. The ten measurements included, ASB, BBH, BNL, BPL, ZYB, FOL, FRC, GOL, NPH, and OBB.

Nine of these measurements were selected in Petersen (2000) with ZYB used in place of

Petersen’s tenth measurement, FMB. These ten measurements form an overall representation of the shape and size of the crania. These measurements were then used to calculate the determinant ratios of covariance matrices between the samples analyzed with test specific p-values. The nonparametric bootstrap method was set to 999 iterations and was determined to be the most appropriate test as it does not assume multivariate normal data or require large sample sizes. This nonparametric bootstrap will be the test reported in the results.

Additionally a more direct examination of possible sources of genetic variation due to sex- specific mobility, each Nubian sample was compared and the natural log computed as to account for the natural higher relative level of male variability (Konigsberg, personal communication,

2016). Again the original determinant ratio and subsequent p-values used were from the nonparametric bootstrap that was set to run 999 iterations and analyzed the subset of ten measurements. The sign of the natural log of the determinant ratio was used to determine

94 whether males appear to have more mobility, indicated by a positive value, or if females appear more mobile as indicated by a negative value.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, W. Y., Adams, N. K., Van Gerven, D. P., & Greene, D. L. (1999). Kulubnarti III: the cemeteries. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Algee-Hewitt, B. F. B., & Wheat, A. D. (2015). Brief Communication : The Reality of Virtual Anthropology : Comparing Digitizer and Laser Scan Data Collection Methods for the Quantitative Assessment of the Cranium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

Buikstra, J. E., & Ubelaker, D. H. (1994). Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, Arkansas: Arkansas Archeological Survey Research Series No. 44.

Cadien, J. D., Harris, E. F., Jones, W. P., & Mandarino, L. J. (1974). Biological lineages, skeletal populations, and microevolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 18(194-201).

Edwards, D. N. (1998). Gabati : A Meroitic, post-Meroitic and medieval cemetery in central Sudan. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Garvin, H. M. (2012). The Effects of Living Conditions on Human Cranial and Postcranial Sexual Dimorphism. John Hopkins University.

Ginns, A. (2010a). Medieval Cemetery 3-J-10 Draft Report, 1–36.

Ginns, A. (2010b). Medieval Cemetery 3-J-11 Draft Site Report.

Hildebolt, C. F., & Vannier, M. W. (1988). Three-dimensional measurement accuracy of skull surface landmarks. Am J Phys Anthropol, 76(4), 497–503.

Howells, W. W. (1996). Howells’ craniometric data on the Internet. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 101(3), 441–442.

Kenyhercz, M., & Passalacqua, N. V. (2016). Missing data imputation methods and their performance with biodistance analyses. In M. A. Pilloud & J. T. Hefner (Eds.), Biological Distance Analysis: Forensic and Bioarchaeological Perspectives. San Diego: Elsevier, Academic Press.

Larsen, C. S. (1997). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton (Vol. 27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ousley, S. D. (2004). 3Skull.

Ousley, S. D., & McKeown, A. H. (2001). Three Dimensional Digitizing of Human Skulls as an Archival Process. In Human Remains: Conservation, Retrieval, and Analysis: Proceedings of a Conference Held in Williamsburg, VA, Nov. 7-11th, 1999 (pp. 173–184). Archaeopress.

Petersen, H. C. (2000). On Statistical Methods for Comparison of Intrasample Morphometric Variability: Zalavar Revisited. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 79–84.

Relethford, J., Crawford, M. H., & Blangero, J. (1997). Genetic drift and gene flow in post- famine Ireland. Human Biology, 69(4), 443–465.

Schillaci, M. a., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2005). Craniometric variation and population history of the prehistoric Tewa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126(4), 404–412.

Sholts, S. B., Flores, L., Walker, P. L., & Wärmländer, S. K. T. S. (2011). Comparison of coordinate measurement precision of different landmark types on human crania using a 3D laser scanner and a 3D digitiser: Implications for applications of digital morphometrics. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 21(5), 535–543.

Wood, J. W., Milner, G. R., Harpending, H. C., & Weiss, K. M. (1992). The Osteological Paradox : Problems of Inferring Prehistoric Health from Skeletal Samples. Current Anthropology, 33(4), 343–370.

CHAPTER SIX: RESULTS

The results of the statistical analyses to answer each research question are presented here.

Research Question 1

Is there evidence for significant intra-site craniofacial differences at the Nubian sites of Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati?

Mis Island

The multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) demonstrated that there was no significant difference between 3-J-10 and 3-J-11 cranial measurements as standardized z-scores with a Wilk’s lambda value of 0.693 and a significance of 0.285. There was no significant difference in craniofacial morphology between the two cemeteries at Mis Island. Additionally, the results of the separate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) for each score found two measurements to have significant differences (p≤0.05), nasal breadth (p=0.016) and interorbital breadth (p=0.004).

The canonical discriminant function for Mis Island cemeteries produced one canonical variate with a canonical correlation of 0.554. The individuals from each cemetery were plotted according to their canonical variate value (Figure 6.1).

Figure 6.1. Canonical plot of Mis Island individuals.

The between canonical structure (Table 6.1) of the canonical variates analysis (CVA) demonstrates the general weight of each variable to the produced canonical function. It is apparent that the most relative weight was from interorbital breadth, nasal breadth, and minimum nasal breadth.

Table 6.1. Between canonical structure for Mis Island cemeteries. Function 1 DKB -.463 NLB -.386 WNB -.301 EKB -.269 PAC .259 BNL -.230 NOL -.195 JUB -.167 GOL -.161 BPL -.136 OBH .135 XCB -.111 OBB -.096

100

Table 6.1. (cont’d) OCC -.079 FRC -.079 NPH -.079 AUB -.069 BBH .066 ZYB -.065 STB -.055 FOL .042 XFB -.039 NLH -.029 MDH .025 ASB .015

Kulubnarti

The MANOVA demonstrated that there were no significant craniofacial differences between the individuals buried at the two Kulubnarti cemeteries with a Wilk’s lambda value of

0.623 and a significance of 0.091. Further examination of the individual ANOVAs, two measurements differed significantly (p≤0.05) between the cemeteries, basion-prosthion length

(p=0.049) and mastoid height (p=0.016).

The canonical discriminant function for the Kulubnarti cemeteries produced one canonical variate with a canonical correlation of 0.614. The individuals from each cemetery were plotted according to their canonical variate value (Figure 6.2).

101

Figure 6.2. Canonical plot of Kulubnarti individuals.

The between canonical structure (Table 6.2) of the CVA demonstrates the general weight of each variable to the produced canonical function. It is apparent that the most relative weight was from the mastoid height, basion-prosthion length, and maximum frontal breadth.

Table 6.2. Between canonical structure for Kulubnarti cemeteries. Function 1 MDH .337 BPL .275 XFB .247 OCC .181 NPH .135 ZYB -.125 STB -.110 NOL .095 ASB -.091 NLB -.090 DKB .088 FOL .067 WNB -.053 OBH -.052 EKB .049

102

Table 6.2. (cont’d) BNL -.049 AUB -.048 GOL .040 FRC -.039 JUB .031 PAC .026 XCB -.018 BBH -.013 OBB -.008 NLH .005

Gabati

Individuals from the Gabati cemetery were dated based upon their mortuary patterns and burial goods. The MANOVA indicated that time period did significantly affect the standardized measurements with a Wilk’s lambda value of 0.000 and a significance of 0.037. Further examination of the individual ANOVAs showed that three measurements differed significantly

(p≤0.05) between the temporal periods. These were maximum cranial breadth (p=0.019), interorbital breadth (p=0.001), and minimum nasal breadth (p=0.020).

The canonical discriminant function for the temporal groups found at Gabati produced two canonical variates with a canonical correlation of 0.998 and 0.981. These canonical variates excluded the use of the foramen magnum length and the parietal chord length as these measurements did not meet the tolerance levels, implying that these variables were redundant for this sample. The remaining variables that formed the two canonical variates explained 89.6% and

10.4%, respectively, of the variance. The individuals from each cemetery were plotted according to their canonical variate group centroids (Figure 6.3).

103

Figure 6.3. Plot of canonical means for two canonical variates for Gabati.

The between canonical structure (Table 6.3) of the CVA demonstrates the general weight of each variable to the produced canonical function. The first canonical variate separated the

Meroitic period individuals from the post-meroitic and medieval individuals based upon overall larger values for basion-bregma height, frontal chord, and bizygomatic breadth for individuals dated to the meroitic period. The second canonical variate separated the medieval individuals from the post-meroitic and meroitic based on the larger values for medieval individual’s interorbital breadth. It should be noted that the Gabati sample overall has a lot of homogeneity in regard to the cranial measurements.

Table 6.3. Between canonical structure for Gabati temporal periods. Function 1 2 BBH -0.031 -0.005 FRC -0.03 -0.019 ZYB -0.029 0.004 XFB -0.025 -0.023

104

Table 6.3. (cont’d) AUB -0.022 0.016 ASB 0.02 -0.006 STB -0.018 0.015 NPH 0.004 0.003 DKB -0.009 0.174 XCB -0.029 -0.09 OCC -0.012 -0.081 NLB -0.023 0.08 EKB -0.023 0.071 NLH 0.019 -0.07 WNB -0.035 0.068 JUB -0.018 0.062 BNL -0.019 0.06 NOL -0.019 0.06 GOL -0.016 0.052 MDH -0.002 0.047 OBH 0.001 -0.044 BPL 0.005 -0.031 OBB -0.01 0.01

Research Question 2

Are the three Nubian samples representative of three distinct populations based upon significant craniometric differences and craniometrically estimated biological distances?

A MANOVA was performed in SPSS 21 with the z-scores of 25 cranial measurements from the three samples. The MANOVA results indicate that there were significant differences between the three Nubian sites with a Wilks’ lambda of 0.164 and a significance of 0.000.

Further examination of the separate ANOVAs demonstrates that only three measurements were not significantly different between the three samples. These were biasterionic breadth, occipital chord length, and foramen magnum length. Thirteen of the measurements were found to be significant at the p≤0.005 level and an additional nine were significant at the p≤0.05 level.

105

The canonical discriminant function was performed with the z-scores for each Nubian sample. The canonical discriminant function produced two canonical variates with canonical correlations of 0.821 and 0.706. Each site was plotted according to their canonical variate group centroids (Figure 6.4).

Figure 6.4. Plot of canonical centroids for the three Nubian sites.

The between canonical structure (Table 6.4) is used to interpret the canonical variates.

The first canonical variate explains 67.5% of the total variance. Gabati and Mis Island are separated from Kulubnarti based on overall larger values for orbital height and bistephonic breadth, yet overall smaller values for orbital breadth at Kulubnarti. The second canonical variate explains 32.5% of the variance and separated Gabati from the two northern sites. This second canonical variate was based on an overall larger maximum cranial breadth and biauricular breadth at Gabati in conjunction with an overall more narrow nasal breadth than seen at

Kulubnarti and Mis Island.

106

Table 6.4. Between canonical structure for Nubian samples. Function 1 2 OBH -.220 -0.129 STB -.195 -0.001 OBB .152 -0.019 DKB .148 0.085 FRC .141 -0.069 NOL .137 0.044 GOL .124 0.057 BBH .121 0.014 BNL .117 0.055 FOL -.101 0.07 ASB -.077 -0.039 XCB 0.04 -.342 NLB -0.066 .306 AUB 0.179 -.276 WNB 0.222 -.238 XFB -0.063 -.234 NLH 0.155 -.234 PAC 0.047 .227 BPL 0.185 .200 ZYB -0.027 -.198 NPH 0.144 -.180 MDH -0.117 .169 JUB -0.056 -.160 EKB -0.117 -.151 OCC -0.029 .052

In order to appreciate the biological distances between these groups, all 25 z-scores were used, although the sample size of Gabati was admittedly small. The Mahalanobis’ distances and subsequent significance were also calculated and appear in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5. Mahalanobis’ distances for Nubian samples derived from z-scores. Kulubnarti Mis Island Gabati Kulubnarti Mis Island 8.11* Gabati 13.79* 8.88* *All distances were significant at the p<0.001 level

107

Research Question 3a

Is there craniometric evidence of gene flow into each site? Alternatively, is there evidence of relative isolation of each site?

The Rmet 5.0 analysis was run for the three Nubian samples for 209 individuals for 25 measurements. It is important to point out that Rmet 5.0 converts raw measurements into standardized z-scores before performing analyses. The overall unbiased minimum FST (assuming heritability = 1) for the three-population analysis was 0. 067359, but with the accepted heritability of 0.55 (Devor, 1987; Relethford, 1994) unbiased FST increases to 0.106236 which is within the expected value for humans from direct genetic studies (Relethford, 1994). The remaining results are reported from the second analysis with a heritability of 0.55.

The Relethford-Blangero analysis (Relethford & Blangero, 1990) which estimates a genetic relationship matrix from phenotypic data has been incorporated into Rmet 5.0. The results of the Relethford-Blangero analysis (seen in Table 6.6) demonstrate that both Kulubnarti and Mis Island have less external gene flow than expected while Gabati has more external gene flow than expected, as evidenced by the residual values.

Table 6.6. Relethford-Blangero analysis for Nubian groups (h2=0.55). Unbiased Population rii Observed Expected Residual Kulubnarti 0.130219 0.977 1.237 -0.008 Mis Island 0.063135 0.887 1.418 -0.173 Gabati 0.125353 1.171 0.288 0.181

The R matrix provides not only the weighted average diagonal as FST, but also weighs the relationships between populations. Positive R values for populations indicate these populations are more closely related than average. None of the populations have a positive value, indicating that they are not more closely related than average to each other (Table 6.7).

108

Rmet 5.0 also provides a genetic distance between populations offering another way to view the biological relationships between these populations. Kulubnarti and Mis Island are the closest to each other, but Mis Island is also close to Gabati (Table 6.7). The furthest biological distance is between Kulubnarti and Gabati. These biological distances are in line with the geographic distances from each site.

Table 6.7. The upper values are the biological distance values and the lower values are the R matrix values. Kulubnarti Mis Island Gabati Kulubnarti 0.253831 0.466771 Mis Island -0.030238 0.265033 Gabati -0.105599 -0.038273

Lastly, Rmet 5.0 runs a principal coordinate analysis of the R-matrix. The first two eigenvalues were found to account for 100% of the variation, 71.1% and 28.9% respectively.

Two eigenvectors were scaled by the square root of their eigenvalues seen in Figure 6.5 almost equally separating the three Nubian sites.

109

Figure 6.5. Plot of the first two scaled eigenvectors for the three Nubian sites.

Research Question 3b

Is there evidence for a mass migration or high levels of gene flow into Nubia based on cranial variation when compared to populations from other parts of Africa?

The Rmet 5.0 analysis was run for the three Nubian samples along with the Howells and

Spradley samples for a total of 912 individuals representing 14 populations with a total of 25 cranial measurements. The overall unbiased minimum FST (assuming heritability = 1) for the fourteen-population analysis was 0.551736, but with the accepted heritability of 0.55 (Devor,

1987; Relethford, 1994), unbiased FST increases to 0.689644. This high FST value indicates,

“greater variation around the contemporary allele frequencies, indicating greater differentiation”

(Relethford, 1994). This greater genetic differentiation could be due to genetic drift of a

110 relatively small population. The remaining results are reported from the second analysis with a heritability of 0.55.

The Relethford-Blangero analysis results are seen in Table 6.8. It is apparent that the

Somali and Haya samples have positive residuals indicating a higher than normal level of gene flow while all other populations have less than average level of gene flow based upon the mean phenotypic variance seen within-group. It appears that the high level of variance for the Somali and Haya may be masking the variance of any other group.

Table 6.8. Relethford-Blangero results with heritability of 0.55. Unbiased Population rii Observed Expected Residual Kulubnarti 0.197936 0.700 2.013 -1.312 Mis Island 0.161670 0.641 2.104 -1.463 Gabati 0.262384 0.876 1.851 -0.975 Bushman 0.215561 0.831 1.969 -1.137 Dogon 0.161346 0.710 2.105 -1.395 Egypt 0.165559 0.690 2.094 -1.404 Teita 0.152074 0.756 2.128 -1.372 Zulu 0.126893 0.729 2.191 -1.462 Ashanti 0.097327 0.759 2.265 -1.506 Calabar 0.185401 1.038 2.044 -1.007 Cameroon 0.176732 0.877 2.066 -1.189 GoldCoast 0.111951 0.957 2.229 -1.271 Haya 3.711141 0.672 -6.804 7.476 Somali 3.929044 0.667 -7.350 8.018

The R matrix for these populations was also calculated in order to examine how closely related these populations are to each other (seen in Table 6.9). Focusing on the three Nubian populations, it is clear that these groups are more closely related on average to all other African populations with the clear exception of Haya and Somali samples. Rmet 5.0 also produces genetic distances seen here in Table 6.9 in the upper portion of the table. Kulubnarti and Mis

Island are most closely related to each other. Kulubnarti and Mis Island’s next closest 111 relationship is with Gabati. Gabati is closest to Mis Island than any other African population examined here.

112

Table 6.9. The R matrix is seen in the lower portion of the table and the biological distance in the upper portion. Came- Gold So- Kulub Mis Gabati Bushm Dogon Egypt Teita Zulu Ashan Calab Haya roon Coast mali Kulub 0.074 0.139 0.221 0.186 0.192 0.149 0.149 0.136 0.246 0.19 0.16 5.191 5.41 Mis 0.143 0.08 0.194 0.152 0.138 0.079 0.125 0.089 0.206 0.141 0.099 5.168 5.385 Gabati 0.161 0.172 0.262 0.219 0.118 0.138 0.22 0.253 0.312 0.272 0.272 5.465 5.617 Bushm 0.096 0.092 0.108 0.156 0.204 0.115 0.121 0.223 0.275 0.232 0.244 5.078 5.361 Dogon 0.087 0.085 0.102 0.111 0.143 0.076 0.059 0.054 0.037 0.054 0.076 5.207 5.505 Egypt 0.086 0.095 0.155 0.089 0.092 0.142 0.126 0.177 0.19 0.188 0.219 5.03 5.116 Teita 0.101 0.118 0.138 0.126 0.119 0.088 0.055 0.081 0.138 0.091 0.091 5.168 5.475 Zulu 0.088 0.082 0.085 0.111 0.114 0.083 0.112 0.062 0.073 0.062 0.077 5.004 5.309 Ashan 0.08 0.085 0.053 0.045 0.103 0.043 0.084 0.081 0.04 0.023 0 4.827 5.112 Calab 0.069 0.07 0.068 0.063 0.155 0.08 0.01 0.119 0.122 0.004 0.037 5.227 5.506 Camer. 0.092 0.099 0.084 0.08 0.142 0.077 0.119 0.12 0.125 0.179 0.015 5.288 5.589 Gold C 0.075 0.087 0.051 0.042 0.098 0.029 0.087 0.081 0.118 0.13 0.137 4.846 5.162 Haya -0.641 -0.648 -0.746 -0.576 -0.667 -0.576 -0.652 -0.583 -0.509 -0.665 -0.7 -0.512 0.138 Somali -0.639 -0.647 -0.712 -0.608 -0.708 -0.51 -0.697 -0.627 -0.543 -0.696 -0.742 -0.56 3.751

113

Due to the large residuals and extreme biological distances of the east coast samples, another Rmet 5.0 analysis was run excluding Somali and Haya. This created a sample of twelve populations with 818 individuals analyzing 25 cranial measurements. The overall unbiased minimum FST (assuming heritability = 0.55) for the twelve-population analysis was 0. 186173.

The Relethford-Blangero analyses results (Table 6.10) indicate that five populations,

Gabati, Bushman, Calabar, Cameroon, and the Gold Coast, have positive residuals and therefore more gene flow than average.

Table 6.10. Relethford Blangero results for all African samples except East Coast (h2=0.55). Unbiased Population rii Observed Expected Residual Kulubnarti 0.242322 0.745 0.791 -0.046 Mis Island 0.144076 0.679 0.894 -0.215 Gabati 0.369303 0.919 0.659 0.261 Bushman 0.345247 0.882 0.684 0.199 Dogon 0.106937 0.759 0.933 -0.173 Egypt 0.249535 0.740 0.784 -0.044 Teita 0.096516 0.802 0.943 -0.141 Zulu 0.088991 0.778 0.951 -0.174 Ashanti 0.108959 0.808 0.930 -0.123 Calabar 0.199546 1.106 0.836 0.270 Cameroon 0.127087 0.938 0.911 0.026 GoldCoast 0.155561 1.043 0.882 0.161

Examining the R matrix produced by Rmet 5.0 (Table 6.11) indicates that Kulubnarti is more closely related to Mis Island and Gabati out of all the other African populations than average. Mis Island is more closely related to Kulubnarti and Gabati, as well as Egypt and Teita, than average. Gabati is more closely related to Kulubnarti and Mis Island, as well as Egypt and

Teita, than average. Focusing on the biological distances (Table 6.11) of the three Nubian populations in relation to each other and African populations, Kulubnarti is closest to Mis Island, followed by the Ashanti, Zulu, Teita, and then Gabati. Mis Island is closest to Kulubnarti,

114 followed by the Teita, Gabati, and Ashanti. Gabati is closest to Mis Island, followed by Egypt,

Teita, and Kulubnarti. It is also apparent that the West Coast samples, the Ashanti, Calabar,

Cameroon, and Gold Coast cluster together with the Dogon between that cluster and the Zulu.

The Bushman sample appears to be very distinct from most groups. The Teita and Zulu are closest to each other. The Teita are close to the Nubian cluster all seen more visually by plotting the first two eigenvectors provided by Rmet 5.0.

115

Table 6.11. The R matrix is seen in the lower portion of the table and the biological distance in the upper portion for all African samples except East Coast (h2=0.55). Kulub- Mis Bush- Gold Gabati Dogon Egypt Teita Zulu Ashanti Calabar Cameroon narti Island man Coast Kulubnarti 0.213 0.437 0.501 0.536 0.403 0.401 0.399 0.683 0.519 0.473 0.589 Mis Island 0.087 0.263 0.546 0.413 0.393 0.222 0.341 0.281 0.578 0.397 0.326

Gabati 0.087 0.125 0.746 0.612 0.358 0.394 0.62 0.767 0.895 0.777 0.835

Bushman -0.001 -0.028 -0.015 0.441 0.556 0.339 0.345 0.661 0.779 0.65 0.738

Dogon -0.076 -0.081 -0.068 0.006 0.392 0.22 0.183 0.193 0.14 0.167 0.268

Egypt -0.022 0 0.131 0.019 -0.018 0.397 0.35 0.527 0.545 0.527 0.658

Teita -0.032 0.009 0.036 0.051 -0.008 -0.025 0.162 0.271 0.41 0.273 0.313

Zulu -0.035 -0.054 -0.081 0.045 0.006 -0.006 0.012 0.208 0.241 0.199 0.263

Ashanti -0.024 -0.014 -0.144 -0.103 0.012 -0.084 -0.033 -0.005 0.164 0.107 0

Calabar -0.121 -0.117 -0.163 -0.117 0.083 -0.048 -0.057 0.024 0.072 0.059 0.175

Cameroon -0.075 -0.063 -0.14 -0.089 0.034 -0.075 -0.025 0.009 0.064 0.134 0.104

GoldCoast -0.038 -0.013 -0.155 -0.118 -0.003 -0.127 -0.03 -0.009 0.134 0.134 0.089

116

Lastly, Rmet 5.0 runs a principal coordinate analysis of the R-matrix. Ten non-zero eigenvalues were produced. The first two eigenvalues were found to account for 61.8% of the variation, 41.3% and 20.5% respectively. These first two eigenvectors were scaled by the square root of their eigenvalues seen in Figure 6.6. Note the distance between Mis Island and Kulubnarti in relation to Gabati. Additionally, note the general cluster of the three Nubian samples from the rest of the African samples with Egypt and Teita the closest.

Figure 6.6. Plot of the first two scaled eigenvectors for the African samples.

117

Research Question 4

Is there genetic evidence of patrilocal or matrilocal practices at each site based on the levels craniometric variance between males and females?

The relative amount of variation seen in each sex-specific sample was analyzed by comparing each group to Howells’ Teita which served as a reference sample. This allowed for the overall hierarchy of variance to be seen between the three Nubian sex-specific groups. The females from Kulubnarti displayed the highest level of variance, followed by the females from

Mis Island and then the females from Gabati (Table 6.12). Although none of these determinant ratios are statistically significant.

Table 6.12. Results from Nubian female (H) nonparametric bootstrap testing with Teita females as a reference sample (W). Determinant Female Ratio Population (H/W) F Ratio p-value Kulubnarti 6.0496 1.2073 0.207 Mis Island 0.3062 0.8861 0.212 Gabati 0.0023 0.7919 0.206

The Nubian males followed the same hierarchy as the females. Kulubnarti males displayed the largest amount of variance, followed by Mis Island males and then Gabati males as seen in Table 6.13. However, none of these determinant ratios are statistically significant.

The difference between the amount of variance between the three male subsamples does differ from the females when looking at the determinate ratios.

Table 6.13. Results from Nubian male (H) nonparametric bootstrap testing with Teita males as a reference sample (W). Determinant Male Ratio Population (H/W) F Ratio p-value Kulubnarti 8.6353 1.1847 0.202 Mis Island 5.4877 1.1322 0.236 Gabati 1.19e-5 0.7848 0.232

118

The determinate ratios of covariance matrices between the males and females of each

Nubian sample were calculated and the natural log taken in order to account for the normal unbalance of variation in males and females (Konigsberg, personal communication, 2016). These scaled measurements demonstrate more male variance with a possible explanation of mobility if the value is positive and more female variance with a possible explanation of mobility if the value is negative (Schillaci & Stojanowski, 2005). Both Kulubnarti and Mis Island have more variance seen in males than females, but Gabati females have more variance than males as seen in Table 6.14. However, none of these values have significant p-values associated with them.

Therefore, the data is inconclusive to inform on the possibility of these samples representing matrilocal or patrilocal societies.

Table 6.14. Results from Nubian male (H) nonparametric bootstrap testing with Nubian female sample (W). Determinant Ratio Population (H/W) Ln(H/W) F Ratio p-value Kulubnarti 1.8421 0.6109 1.0813 0.23 Mis Island 23.130 3.14 1.408 0.219 Gabati 0.0067 -5.006 1.0921 0.208

119

LITERATURE CITED

120

LITERATURE CITED

Devor, E. J. (1987). Transmission of Human Craniofacial Dimensions. Journal of Craniofacial Genetics and Developmental Biology, 7(2), 95–106.

Relethford, J. H. (1994). Craniometric variation among modern human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 95(1), 53–62.

Relethford, J. H., & Blangero, J. (1990). Detection of Differential Gene Flow from Patterns of Quantitative Variation. Human Biology, 62(1), 5–25.

Schillaci, M. a., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2005). Craniometric variation and population history of the prehistoric Tewa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126(4), 404–412.

121

CHAPTER SEVEN: DISCUSSION

The results of each research question are discussed below. Overall, it was supported that the three Nubian sites are cohesive internally and represent three separate populations. These sites were also found to have differing levels of gene flow. The genetic distance between the sites was generally smaller than the distance to several other African samples. Additionally, various levels of sex-specific mobility were noticed in each Nubian site which may represent cultural differences in post-marriage residence patterns.

Research Question 1

Is there evidence for significant intra-site craniofacial differences at the Nubian sites of Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati?

Mis Island had two separate cemeteries, 3-J-10 and 3-J-11, that overlapped in period of use. The reason a second cemetery was started at Mis Island remains elusive and may never be known. Cemetery 3-J-11 was the larger cemetery and was used from 300 – 1400 AD. Cemetery

3-J-10 was created later, around 1100 – 1500 AD, which would encompass the time at which

Nubia was converted to Islam. Studies at Mis Island examining the demographic composition and overall health of the two cemeteries found no significant differences that could explain the formation of a new cemetery because of warfare (for example, if a high male population were discovered) or disease (for example, if a high instance of pathologies were seen) (Soler, 2012).

Although an area of subadults was discovered in 3-J-10 (Hurst, 2013; Soler, 2012), this specialized region does not explain the appearance of this separate cemetery.

In order to investigate this issue further, Mis Island cemeteries 3-J-10 and 3-J-11, which were geographically close but differed slightly in the period of use, were compared. The

MANOVA demonstrated that burial in either cemetery had no significant relationship to the

122 cranial measurements as standardized z-scores with a Wilk’s lambda value of 0.693 and a significance of 0.285. Although the individual ANOVAs did show that the nasal breadth and interorbital width of the two cemetery samples did differ significantly, these cemetery samples did not have significant craniofacial differences overall. Additionally, the difference in mean between these two measurements, although statistically significant would not likely have been appreciated visually in life to be able to distinguish the two cemetery samples. These midfacial measurements were also capitalized upon in the canonical discriminant function to distinguish the individuals from the Mis Island cemeteries. However, these two cemetery samples do not differ significantly according to the MANOVA and can, therefore, be treated as a single sample.

Additionally, the lack of craniometric difference does not support the idea that individuals who migrated to Mis Island created a new cemetery for themselves. The reason why the cemetery 3-J-

10 was created during the period when cemetery 3-J-11 was still being used is not known, but is not able to be associated with social motivations tied to biological differences in craniofacial morphology.

At Kulubnarti a similar situation occurs, as the reasons behind the presence of two spatially distinct cemeteries is not known. Both cemeteries started at about ~550 AD, but cemetery 21-S-46 was used until 850 AD and 21-R-2 was used until 1500 AD. These cemeteries are often treated as ‘early’ and ‘late’ (Van Gerven, Beck, & Hummert, 1990; Van Gerven,

Sheridan, & Adams, 1995; Van Gerven, 1982). The MANOVA for these samples was not significant, but an examination of the individual ANOVAs demonstrated that there were significant differences in basion-prosthion length and mastoid height. These measurements were also weighed heavily in the canonical discriminant function. However, it is unwise to categorize these two differences as temporal variations without more precise dating of the skeletal remains

123 as the period of use for each cemetery overlaps. No matter the exact source of this limited variation, craniometric difference is not sufficient as an explanation for the creation of 21-S-46 and 21-R-2 at almost the same time.

Therefore, the two cemeteries at Mis Island and those at Kulubnarti do not appear to have been formed because of any social differences resulting from craniofacial or biological variation.

In other words, the individuals excavated from each site, regardless of the cemetery, appear similar in regard to craniofacial morphology. These individuals were not buried in different cemeteries based upon skeletal morphology. The slight temporal difference between each of these two cemeteries cannot be associated with differences in the skeletal samples. There is no skeletal indication based on the individuals examined at each site of an outside population appearing at either site.

Unlike the Mis Island and Kulubnarti samples, the Gabati sample posed a different reason to examine the craniometric variation within the site. The large temporal span of the burials from this third location, not to mention the relatively small sample sizes, necessitated the closer inspection of craniometric variation within the site before further analyses. The individuals buried at Gabati were assigned to one of three time periods (Meroitic, post-Meroitic, or medieval) based on the presence and type of burial goods as well as overall mortuary treatment.

Although several individual crania were measured, most were fragmentary in nature and were unable to contribute toward a complete dataset. A MANOVA was performed and showed that there were significant differences between the three time periods represented at Gabati with a

Wilks’ lambda value of 0.000 and a significance of 0.037. This significance does not hold if the p-value level were increased to p≤0.005 or p≤0.001. Three measurements, maximum cranial breadth (p=0.019), interorbital width (p=0.001), and minimum nasal breadth (p=0.020), were

124 found to be significantly different between the three temporal groups based on individual

ANOVAs. Maximum cranial breadth decreased throughout time, interorbital breadth increased overall throughout time, and minimum nasal breadth decreased from the meroitic sample to the post-meroitic sample, but then increased from the post-Meroitic to the medieval sample.

Meaning that the overall head width decreased through time, whereas the space between the eyes including the bridge of the nose increased through time. This would have changed the ratio of these facial features. The canonical discriminant function’s first canonical variate separated the

Meroitic period individuals from the post-meroitic and medieval individuals by heavily weighing basion-bregma height, frontal chord, and bizygomatic breadth. The second canonical variate separated the medieval individuals from the post-meroitic and meroitic by heavily weighing interorbital breadth.

The three samples from Gabati demonstrated more significant differences than the samples at the other two sites. However, it should be kept in mind that, when broken down into the three time periods this third site had very small sample sizes, which may mean that they are not an accurate representation of each temporal population as a whole. This issue of small sample sizes and missing data is common in bioarchaeology, but there is no consensus on the best way to deal with the matter. Unfortunately, this complicates further the already difficult situation of establishing biological continuity, which is made problematic by the fact that human variation is vast and humans are continually evolving.

In spite of this shortcoming, these intra-site examinations have succeeded in soundly refuting the notion that the creation of the medieval kingdoms came as the result of large groups of individuals migrating into Nubia during this period. Thus, the present study confirms the conclusion that has previously been drawn showing biological continuity in Lower Nubia from

125 the Meroitic period through the Christian period specifically at each of the three sites analyzed here (Carlson, 1976; Carlson & van Gerven, 1979; Greene, 1972).

Research Question 2

Are the three Nubian samples representative of three distinct populations based upon significant craniometric differences?

In order to determine if these Nubian samples were appropriate to treat as separate populations, several analyses were completed. First, the MANOVA confirmed that there were statistically significant differences between the three Nubian samples, thus suggesting that it is reasonable to categorize these different groups as representative of separate populations. Once this was determined, a canonical discriminant function could then capitalize on the variation between these samples and produced Mahalanobis’ distances after each site’s cemetery samples were pooled to increase the number of variables able to be selected without overfitting the data.

Samples from these three locations were found to have numerous statistically significant differences between them (22 measurements at the p≤0.05 level) and only three measurements that were found not to be statistically significant. The other 22 measurements that did have statistically significant differences were often slight, less than a few millimeters. The canonical discriminant function’s first canonical variate separated Gabati and Mis Island from Kulubnarti by heavily weighing orbital height, bistephonic breadth, and orbital breadth. The second canonical variate separated Gabati from the two northern sites by weighing maximum cranial breadth, nasal breadth, and biauricular breadth most heavily.

Next, the relationship between the three sample populations was also examined through

Mahalanobis’ distances. In terms of craniometric dimensions, the Mis Island sample is almost

126 equidistant to that of Kulubnarti and Gabati, which parallels the geographical locations of each of the sites. Although these sites are geographically close and in part biologically similar, there are enough differences between each location’s representative samples that they can be treated as individual populations.

According to these findings, the population at each site appears to have some component of isolation and craniometric differentiation. This would suggest that the division of medieval

Nubia into three separate kingdoms with different political and religious affiliations, trade agreements and economies sustained enough separation to maintain (or create) biological craniofacial differences. Although, the overall similarity of these samples supports the hypothesis that these populations developed in situ within the Nile Valley as these similarities could be explained by geographic clines, the gradation of a trait following geographic parameters. The craniofacial differences seen between the sample means are small in magnitude, usually only a few millimeters, but still significantly different. Edwards (2004) discussed the origin of the Nubian kingdoms as likely stemming from populations that were within the Nile

Valley and surrounding deserts. At the same time, though, he points out that the overall uncertainty of the nomenclature for these groups has created an uncertainty of where these populations may have been originating. Unfortunately, the present study cannot help to clarify this issue. The results of the statistical study may indicate that the Nubian medieval kingdoms originated from three geographically distinct populations along the Nile Valley that did not have much biological interaction with one another at the non-elite level. But again, it is also possible that the populations originated from a single population (for example the population stemming from the Kushite kingdom) and through time and isolation became biologically distinct from each other. The slight craniofacial differences between these populations could have developed

127 based on the separation of an original population into three distinct polities. The medieval kingdoms converted to different sects of Christianity which indicates a level cultural distinction that is also evident in modern linguistic differences that are present in the Nile Valley (Edwards,

2004; Salih, 2004). This type of cultural separation could reinforce a biological separation of these kingdoms decreasing the amount of gene flow between the kingdoms and eventually creating distinct populations.

These results also raise questions about the appropriate nature of pooling samples from different archaeological sites, often spanning geographical space and temporal periods, in order to answer questions about population history within the Nile. This is challenging as several of the studies attempting to study the biological continuity of the region and understand the normal variation of this region, as well as others, struggle with issues of sample size. The importance of the questions and objectives of these craniometrics studies is great as the scalar issues have an impact on whether differences are deemed significant or in support of biological continuity of populations within a region.

Overall, these three samples from three different Nubian kingdoms appear to be biologically distinct from each other, but the differences separating the groups appear relatively slight. The Mahalanobis’ distance between Kulubnarti and Mis Island is almost the same as the distance between Mis Island and Gabati indicating that biologically Mis Island is equidistant from the other two Nubian samples. Additionally, the Mahalanobis’ distance between Kulubnarti and Gabati is almost perfectly twice the distance between either sample to Mis Island.

Considering the general geographic location of these three sites, the furthest geographic distance is between Kulubnarti and Gabati with Mis Island located near the middle of that geographic span. The Mahalanobis’ distances mirror the geographical location of each site indicating that

128 normal variation dictated by clines likely play a large part in this separation and not that a relatively outside group came into power in the Nile Valley during the medieval period.

Research Question 3a

Is there craniometric evidence of gene flow into each site? Alternatively, is there evidence indicating relative isolation of each site?

The phenotypic variance as demonstrated through the Nubian craniometrics produced an unbiased FST of 0.106236 which is within the range of published genetic studies (FST from near 0 to 0.10), although this is on the higher end of that range (Relethford, 1994, 2012). The FST value indicates that about 11% of total genetic variation is due to between group variation, therefore, the remaining 89% of total genetic variation is from within group variation. This higher FST value indicates these Nubian samples may represent smaller populations and/or those that have a relatively limited amount of gene flow as compared to other populations that have been studied.

It is not a surprise that self-sustained agricultural communities may represent a smaller population that also would likely experience less gene flow than average.

The examination of within population variation through the Relethford-Blangero analyses calculates the unbiased rii for each sample and subtracts the expected amount of variance from the observed variance producing the residual variance. The residual variance, therefore, reflects the amount of gene flow into the population, both by the sign and magnitude of the value. Within the three-region analysis of the Nubian populations, both Kulubnatri and Mis Island have negative residual values indicating a low level of external gene flow into these Nubian sites.

Kulubnarti’s residual value comes the closest to zero while Mis Island has a much larger negative value. However, Gabati has a positive residual value indicating that this population may

129 have been subject to gene flow. It was not expected that any of these populations would experience much gene flow and it is possible that some of the variation examined here may be resultant from small populations.

Examining the R matrix fully it is apparent that there is less genetic similarity between the three populations than average. The genetic distance (or biodistance) matrix demonstrates that Mis Island is almost equidistant to Kulubnarti and Gabati. The distance between Kulubnarti and Gabati is almost double of that between each site and Mis Island. The genetic distance is parallel with the geographic distance between the sites where Mis Island falls between

Kulubnarti and Gabati. This is the same pattern seen from the previously reported Mahalanobis’ distances.

The phenotypic variation seen at Gabati is likely due to gene flow, but could also be explained by genetic drift if the population at Gabati was sufficiently small. Relethford (1996) outlines statistical methods to scale R matrices by population size in order to hold genetic drift constant, however, these methods require at least an approximate estimation of each population’s size and this is something that is not possible in the present study. For where some scholars

(Schillaci & Stojanowski, 2005) have been able to use an estimated number of ground floor rooms to extrapolate population sizes, no proper settlement archaeology was able to be conducted for the Nubian sites due to time constraints. This leads to a less definitive explanation of the within group variation exhibited by Gabati as caused by either genetic drift of a small population or extra-regional gene flow.

Assuming the variation seen at Gabati is due to external gene flow, it may be a result of the trade economy of the Kingdom of Alwa during the medieval period as well as before the establishment of the kingdom. Zarroug (1991) writes of a strong gold and iron trade with

130

Ptolemaic Egypt during the Meroitic period accompanied by additional regulation of other exotic goods, such as animal pelts, ivory, incense, with the Hellenic populations at that time as well.

According to the accounts of Muslim travelers, Ibn Selim and Ibn Hawqal, Alwa was known to have control over at least portions of the gold trade in Nubia (Welsby, 2002; Zarroug, 1991). Ibn

Selim also recorded a number of Muslim merchants living near Soba, the presumed capital of

Alwa, which is located just south of the confluence of the White and Blue Nile Rivers on the bank of the Blue Nile (Welsby, 2002). This indicates that there was a relationship between this southern kingdom and the Muslims of Egypt. Glass bottles believed to have originated from

Egypt were also discovered at Gabati (Edwards, 1998), thereby strengthening the hypothesis that

Egyptian merchants may have been trading with the southern kingdom. The presence of these goods does not necessarily indicate that those merchants were in Alwa or Gabati as goods do not necessarily move with the individuals that created them or were selling them. But it is interesting to see the presence of this variation in a non-elite cemetery, which may indicate that in the south these non-elite individuals had contact with others from outside their population. In the northern sites of Kulubnarti and Mis Island, the non-elite individuals buried there did not experience extra-regional gene flow. The gene flow seen at Gabati may be due to merchants coming from the Red Sea and traveling inland and stopping somewhere close to the site or due to Egyptian merchants travelling along the Nile and interacting with these individuals. The trade industry of

Alwa is thought to have capitalized on Nile River and tributary routes, as well as desert caravan routes to the Red Sea ports, creating a web of interaction between the kingdom of Alwa and the outer world.

The relatively low rate of gene flow at Kulubnarti and Mis Island, representing populations from Nobadia as well as Makuria, is not surprising. Their location, as well as the

131 modern tradition of farming in the area, gives credence to the notion that these were primarily small agricultural groups (Adams & Adams, 1998; Adams, 2011; Ginns, 2010). These communities may have participated in the larger economic model proposed by Edwards (1996) by providing the surplus of crops to a regional ruler, but were not likely part of a macro-scale trade system. It could be argued that after the merger of the two kingdoms, the absence of a political barrier ensured that there was a higher likelihood of interactions between the groups.

However, in addition to the genetic evidence of the separation of these two agricultural communities, the former political border between the two kingdoms is still a modern-day line between Mahas- and Dongolawi-speaking individuals in the Nile Valley (Grzymski, 2004) resulting in a linguistic barrier between the two populations in addition to the geographic distance. It appears that at these sites although political barriers were changing both between

Egypt and Nubia, as well as the union of Nobadia and Makuria, this fluidity of borders did not have an effect on the biological component of these two agricultural populations.

Research Question 3b

Is there evidence for a mass migration or high levels of gene flow into Nubia based on cranial variation when compared to populations from other parts of Africa?

As previously discussed, physical anthropology and archaeology have been criticized for using overly simplistic theories to explain changes in the past and with particular relevance to this case, the poorly documented rise in power of the medieval kingdoms. Previous studies have been able to demonstrate biological continuity within the Nile Valley before, up to, and through the medieval period. This study has taken an additional step to determine if there was any apparent gene flow with external African populations as well as the biodistances between those

132 populations and the individuals from the Nile Valley, thereby contextualizing the Nubian populations on a larger continental geographic scale.

The craniometrically derived phenotypic variance between each population was relatively high overall, producing a high FST (0.689644) for the samples. Again, this indicates that there is not a high amount of gene flow among all of these populations. This could be due to genetic drift occurring in some small population(s) or external gene flow from outside the

African samples being analyzed. It is also important to note that this high FST level appears to have been greatly affected by the variation seen in the samples from Eastern Africa which were eventually excluded and the analyses rerun. The first analysis of all samples will be discussed here followed by an analysis with the Eastern African samples excluded.

The original Relethford-Blangero analysis that includes the Haya and Somali samples, which are the only samples representing Eastern Africa from the Spradley dataset, produces remarkably high residual values for those two samples. This high residual value indicates a relatively high level of phenotypic variation between these samples compared to the rest of the samples, which in turn points to a high level of gene flow into a population from extra-regional sources (Relethford & Blangero, 1990; Steadman, 2001). All other African populations have negative residuals that indicate there was no extra-regional gene flow into these populations.

However, it is likely that the outlier East African populations are masking any variation seen in the other African populations.

Looking at the R matrix it is apparent that all the African populations are more closely related to each other than average, except the Haya and Somali samples which are less related to all African populations than average with the exception of the relationship between the two samples as they are both negative values. The Haya and Somali samples are both originating

133 from the Eastern coast of Africa, increased trade access on the coast may explain their high levels of gene flow and subsequent separation from the other African samples.

With this larger dataset, the genetic distances between populations indicate some interesting patterns. It is no surprise that Kulubnarti and Mis Island (D2=0.074) are most close to each other in terms of biodistance. Kulubnarti is then most close to the Ashanti (D2=0.136) followed by Gabati (D2=0.139) then tied the Teita and the Zulu (D2=0.149). Mis Island is closest to Kulubnarti then to the Teita (D2=0.079), Gabati (D2=0.08), followed by the Ashanti

(D2=0.089). Gabati is most closely related to Mis Island (D2=0.08), then to Egypt (D2=0.138), followed by the Teita (D2=0.138) and Kulubnarti (D2=0.139).

It is interesting that all the Nubian groups are closely related to each other as well as the

Teita, who were located in southeastern Kenya and whose remains were thought to date to the mid-1800s. These individuals are relatively close geographically to the Nile Valley sites. Both

Kulubnarti and Mis Island are close to the Ashanti who resided in what is now Ghana on the west coast of Africa. However, the Ashanti are more closely grouped with the rest of the African west coast samples than with the Nubian populations. Gabati is the only site with a population that is relatively biologically close to the Egyptian sample. This sample does represent an earlier time period, but it is surprising that these Egyptians who lived further north in the Nile Valley are not more closely related to the nearest geographical sites of Kulubnarti and Mis Island. The relationship between Gabati and the Egyptian samples should be considered with regard to the history of the economic relationship between Egypt and the kingdom of Alwa.

The high level of variation present in the East African samples, the Haya and Somali, likely masked the more nuanced variation in and between the other African populations. The exclusion of these samples from the dataset from a re-examination of the phenotypic variance

134 produces a much more reasonable FST (0. 186173). This value is still high for a human population study and indicates that almost 19% of the total genetic variation is due to between sample variation and about 81% of the total genetic variation is due to among sample variation.

It is known that human populations have more variation within the population than between populations, but it has also been demonstrated that the between variation can be capitalized in order to statistically separate populations (Ousley, Jantz, & Freid, 2009).

The new phenotypic residuals also provide new insight into the population history of the samples. Five samples (Gabati, Bushman, Cameroon, Calabar and the Gold Coast) now have positive values indicating extra-regional gene flow into each of those populations. The Bushmen of South Africa were part of Howells’ dataset whereas the Cameroon, Calabar, and Gold Coast samples were part of the Spradley dataset representing western Africa. The extra-regional gene flow of Gabati was not expected to exist. This site, which represents non-elite individuals within the kingdom of Alwa, was thought to have been excluded from extra-regional gene flow due to the status of the individuals coupled with the lack of historical knowledge on large scale economic relationships with outside populations. Zarroug (1991) has proposed that the reason there is a lack of knowledge about trade relationships with the southern medieval Nubian kingdom is likely due to a lack of archaeological excavations within the region. However, this issue is currently a problem with most excavations in Nubia occurring elsewhere and the overall backlog of archaeological and bioarchaeological studies in those regions.

The new R matrix produced values demonstrating that Kulubnarti is more closely related to Mis Island and Gabati than average. Mis Island is more closely related to Gabati and Teita with positive values and Egypt with a value of zero. Gabati is more closely related to the other

135

Nubian sites, the Teita and Egypt. This pattern was previously masked by the high values of the

East Coast African samples.

The genetic distances reveal a similar pattern of close relationships between the Nubian sites and the Teita. Kulubnarti is closest to Mis Island (D2 = 0.213), followed by the Ashanti (D2

= 0.399), the Zulu (D2 = 0.401), the Teita (D2 = 0.403) and then Gabati (D2 = 0.437). Mis Island is most closely related to Kulubnarti (D2 = 0.213), the Teita (D2 = 0.222), and then Gabati (D2 =

0.263). Gabati is most closely related to Mis Island (D2 = 0.263), then Egypt (D2 = 0.358), then the Teita (D2 = 0.394), and Kulubnarti (D2 = 0.437). The overall pattern of these relationships was not changed with the exclusion of the East Coast African samples. The Teita continue to be closely related to the Nubian populations while Egypt is only closely related to Gabati.

The Teita are geographically closest to the Nubian sites so it is not surprising to see this spatial relationship be mirrored in the biological relationships between the sites. The proximity of Kulubnarti and Mis Island is also not surprising, but the relationship of both of these populations to the Ashanti of western Africa is unexpected. Additionally, the relative closeness of Kulubnarti and the Zulu of South Africa beyond the distance between Kulubnarti and Gabati is surprising. The geographic proximity of Kulubnarti to Gabati would be expected to have a great effect on the biological distance between the two. One possible explanation for this discrepancy would be the extra-regional gene flow present in the Gabati sample as indicated by the residuals previously discussed. Perhaps not all of this gene flow was extra-regional as Gabati is biologically close to Egypt and there were known trade economies between Egypt and the southern kingdom of Alwa.

Overall, the Nubian populations cluster near each other as was expected although there are some differences in the relationships between the Nubian populations and the other African

136 samples. The introduction of other samples, especially those known to have interacted with the

Nubian kingdoms up to and during the medieval period may shed more light on the craniofacial variation present in these populations.

Considering both the gene flow as well as the biological distance of these samples within their archaeological context creates a picture of the possible interactions between the groups.

Previous works (Buzon, 2008; Carrano, Girty, & Carrano, 2009) have demonstrated the presence of Egyptian goods at sites, along with Roman goods, at sites in northern Nubia demonstrating the permeability of that northern border. This can also be seen with the religious iconography adopted from the Egyptian culture as well as the similarity in burial practices. However in both of the northern sites, there is no evidence of gene flow in the populations. Additionally, the biological distance from Mis Island and Kulubnarti to Egypt is greater than would be expected if there were biological interactions between the populations. This may support the interpretations of the Baqt treaty stipulating that Egyptian merchants were allowed to trade within Nubian territory but not to settle (Edwards, 2004; Spaulding, 1995; Welsby, 2002).

The information presented here on the amounts of gene flow and biological distances between medieval populations provides an important component to the ongoing effort to write a more complete history of the Nile Valley. The use of this data allows the skeletal remains of the non-elites to describe in part what life was like during that period of time. This adds to the previous work on population health and disease rates (Carlson, Armelagos, & Van Gerven, 1974;

Hurst, 2013; Soler, 2012; White & Armelagos, 1997) as well as the general paleodemographic representations of these populations. The use of skeletal material directly examines the biological experience of these populations instead of relying upon indirect archaeological evidence or inferences from scant written and linguistic evidence.

137

Research Question 4

Is there genetic evidence of patrilocal or matrilocal practices at each site based on the levels craniometric variance between males and females?

The overall hierarchy of variance between the Nubian samples placed the males and females from Kulubnarti as the displaying the most variance. However, this level of variance was not found to be statistically significant through the nonparametric bootstrap. The natural log of the determinant ratio between Kulubnarti males and females was positive (0.6109, p=0.23) but again was not statistically significant. The value was close to zero indicating that the variance between males and females was close in magnitude.

Little information in known concerning the marital practices of medieval Nubians, but

Nubian ethnohistoric studies have illustrated that lineage was determined through the maternal line (Adams, 1969; Salih, 2004). However, it is not surprising that the individuals of Kulubnarti seem to keep within their own population as is also suggested by the Rmet analyses. The relatively balanced variance between males and females of the sample indicates that there was almost equal mobility between the sexes. This finding is coupled with the lack of evidence of gene flow into the population.

The next most variant Nubian sample was Mis Island males and females when compared to the Teita references. It appears that the males had more overall and relative variance than the females when compared to the appropriate sex-specific Teita group. Again these levels of variance were not found to be statistically significant by the nonparametric bootstrap analyses.

The natural log of the determinant ratio of Mis Island males and females was positive, (3.14) but not statistically significant (p=0.219). The natural log of the determinant ratio was relatively large as opposed to the value seen between the Kulubnarti males and females.

138

Similar to Kulubnarti, the marriage practices of Mis Island or the middle Nubian region are not known, although ethno-historic studies point to a maternal lineage. The Mis Island results, although not statistically significant, would paint a different picture of the overall mobility and opportunities for gene flow in the region for Mis Island than what was seen through the Rmet analysis. If this is the case, it would suggest that males had a greater mobility than females, but is coupled with a lack of evidence of gene flow into the region.

The least variant Nubian sample concerned Gabati males and females when compared to the Teita males and females for reference. Overall, the sample at Gabati appears very homogeneous when compared to the two more northern sites. This overall similarity within

Gabati could be in part due to the highly fragmentary nature of the remains and the mean imputation for missing data employed here. It appears that the females had more overall and relative variance than the males when compared to the sex-specific sample which is interesting as the Islamic promotes patrilineal lineage. However, the level of variance seen in both males and females was not found to be statistically significant by the nonparametric bootstrap analyses.

The natural log of the determinant ratio between Gabati males and females was negative (-5.006) although this value was not statistically significant (p=0.208). These results indicate that there was more variance in the female subsample than the male.

Like the rest of the Nubian region, the marriage practices in the southern kingdom of

Alwa are also unknown. These results would indicate that females had greater mobility into the region than males, but the results were not found to be significant. However, it would produce an interesting pattern in a population that has evidence of extra-regional gene flow.

The selection of a reference sample for the first portion of the analysis of variance can be problematic as it assumes this sample has a ‘normal’ amount of variance (Petersen, 2000). The

139 selection of a different reference sample would then produce different values for the amount of variance for each test sample. This allows for the Nubian populations to be tested indirectly for the amount of variance, but limits the discussion of this variance. However considering these analyses are essentially examining the homogeneity of two variance-covariance matrices, any sample can be used as a reference (Konigsberg, personal communication, 2016). This allows the natural log of the determinant ratio of the Nubian male and female samples to be directly compared.

140

LITERATURE CITED

141

LITERATURE CITED

Adams, W. Y. (1969). Ethnohistory and Islamic Tradition in Africa. Ethnohistory, 16(4), 277– 288.

Adams, W. Y. (2011). Kulubnarti I: The architectural remains. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Adams, W. Y., & Adams, N. K. (1998). Kulubnarti II: The Artifactual Remains. London: SARS.

Buzon, M. R. (2004). A Bioarchaeological Perspective on State Formation in the Nile Valley. University of California Santa Barbara.

Buzon, M. R. (2008). A bioarchaeological perspective on Egyptian colonialism in Nubia during the New Kingdom. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 94(2008), 165–181.

Carlson, D. S. (1976). Temporal variation in prehistoric Nubian crania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 45, 467–484.

Carlson, D. S., Armelagos, G. J., & Van Gerven, D. P. (1974). Factors Infuencing the Etiology of Cribra Orbitalia in Prehistoric Nubia. Journal of Human Evolution, 3, 405–410.

Carlson, D. S., & van Gerven, D. P. (1979). Diffusion, Biological Determinism, and Biocultural Adaptation in the Nubian Corridor. American Anthropologist, 81(3), 561–580.

Carrano, J. L., Girty, G. H., & Carrano, C. J. (2009). Re-examining the Egyptian colonial encounter in Nubia through a compositional, mineralogical, and textural comparison of ceramics. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36(3), 785–797.

Edwards, D. N. (1996). The Archaeology of the Meroitic State: New Perspectives on Its Social and Political Organisation. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Edwards, D. N. (1998). Gabati : A Meroitic, post-Meroitic and medieval cemetery in central Sudan. Oxford, England: Archaeopress.

Edwards, D. N. (2004). The Nubian Past An Archaeology of the Sudan. New York, NY: Routledge.

Ginns, A. (2010). Medieval Cemetery 3-J-11 Draft Site Report.

Greene, D. L. (1972). Dental anthropology of early Egypt and Nubia. Journal of Human Evolution, 1, 315‒324.

Grzymski, K. (2004). Landscape Archaeology of Nubia and Central Sudan. The African Archaeological Review, 21(1), 7–30.

142

Hurst, C. V. (2013). Growing up in Medieval Nubia: Health , Disease , and Death of a Medieval Juvenile Sample from Mis Island. Michigan State University.

Ousley, S., Jantz, R., & Freid, D. (2009). Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 139(1), 68–76.

Petersen, H. C. (2000). On Statistical Methods for Comparison of Intrasample Morphometric Variability: Zalavar Revisited. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 113, 79–84.

Relethford, J. H. (1994). Craniometric variation among modern human populations. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 95(1), 53–62.

Relethford, J. H. (1996). Genetic Drift Can Obscure Population History: Problem and Solution. Human Biology, 68(1), 29–44.

Relethford, J. H. (2012). Human Population Genetics. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.

Relethford, J. H., & Blangero, J. (1990). Detection of Differential Gene Flow from Patterns of Quantitative Variation. Human Biology, 62(1), 5–25.

Salih, A. O. M. (2004). Archaeology and Settlement in the Third Cataract Region During the Medieval and Post-Medieval Periods. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa, 39(1), 34–39.

Schillaci, M. A., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2005). Craniometric variation and population history of the prehistoric Tewa. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 126(4), 404–412.

Soler, A. (2012). Life and Death in a Medieval Nubian Farming Community: The Experience at Mis Island. Michigan State University.

Spaulding, J. (1995). Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World : A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 28(3), 577–594.

Steadman, D. W. (2001). Mississippians in motion? A population genetic analysis of interregional gene flow in west-central Illinois. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 114(February 1999), 61–73.

Van Gerven, D. P. (1982). The contribution of time and local geography to craniofacial variation in Nubia’s Batn el Hajar. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 59(3), 307–316.

Van Gerven, D. P., Beck, R., & Hummert, J. R. (1990). Patterns of enamel hypoplasia in two medieval populations from Nubia’s Batn el Hajar. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82(4), 413–420.

Van Gerven, D. P., Sheridan, S. G., & Adams, W. Y. (1995). The Health and Nutrition of a

143

Medieval Nubian Population. American Anthropologist, 97(3), 468–480.

Welsby, D. A. (2002). The medieval kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile. London: British Museum Press.

White, C. D., & Armelagos, G. J. (1997). Osteopenia and stable isotope ratios in bone collagen of Nubian female mummies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 103(2), 185– 199.

Zarroug, M. el-D. A. (1991). The Kingdom of Alwa. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

144

CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS

Introduction

This study set out to examine the craniofacial variation within and between three Nubian populations in order to better understand the medieval period as experienced by non-elite individuals. The recorded history of this period is written by contemporaneous outside sources.

This study was designed in order to examine the skeletal remains of the individuals that lived during that period to add to the history pieced together by the archaeological record of the Nile

Valley. This population history study examined where these individuals came from, what populations they were closely related to and how much extra-regional gene flow they experienced. The individuals buried at the three Nubian sites appear to have stemmed from populations that lived within that area and not migrants coming into the region. The separation of the northern two sites from the Egyptian sample indicates that the Baqt treaty may have been respected and there was a division between these populations. The southern population of Gabati and its relative biological proximity to Egypt supports that these two entities were in close contact with each other supported by the evidence of the trade economy between the two. The northern two sites also experienced less than average gene flow into the population supporting the isolation of these agriculturalists. Gabati had an increased amount of gene flow supporting the frequent interactions of this group with outside populations which could be due to the trade economy of the kingdom of Alwa.

This scalar study examined the skeletal remains from different populations in order to understand the history of these people that has yet to be written. This study has demonstrated the utility of craniometric analyses to inform on the population history of a region. The support of archaeological hypotheses of the origin of the Nubian kingdoms is a critical piece to

145 understanding the nature of these kingdoms. These analyses can be used in other regions to explore the population history of other areas.

Research Questions Revisited

The beginning of the medieval period in Nubia is often marked by the independent conversions to Christianity of each of the three kingdoms following a relatively undocumented and quiet time after the collapse of the powerful Meroitic kingdom. Unfortunately, the history is sporadically recorded so that the origin of these kingdoms has been an unresolved question to scholars for a long period of time.

Early theories, often eugenic in nature, proposed that outside populations came into the area and rose in power to form the medieval kingdoms, but the archaeological record and distinctions in nomenclature are not sufficient to confirm this. Additionally, there is little evidence to ascertain the movement of individuals and the interactions between populations within the medieval kingdoms. In the end then, the skeletal remains of the individuals that lived during this period are the best resource to analyze the social history of the region. Thus, the present project set forth to use biological data in order to examine the archaeological assumptions of the origin of the medieval kingdoms.

Research Question 1

Is there evidence for significant intra-site craniofacial differences at the Nubian sites of Mis Island, Kulubnarti, and Gabati?

The examination of each sample for differences between the location of burial demonstrated that the creation of multiple cemeteries at Mis Island as well as at Kulubnarti was not motivated by factors associated with any biological difference as seen in the craniofacial

146 variation in each cemetery population. Therefore, it cannot be the case that migrants were coming into the population at either of these sites. Or, to be more exact, such individuals were not buried in the cemeteries examined here. Additionally, over the time span from the Meroitic to the post-Meroitic to the medieval period, the individuals buried at Gabati do not show the amount of significant differences that would be expected if a large migration took place into the region. These first analyses demonstrate that each site population appears relatively cohesive and that a large migration event can not be supported by the evidence of craniofacial variation.

Technically, it could be argued that the Mis Island and Kulubnarti samples represent a completely foreign migration population that moved into the region at the start of the medieval period, but this argument can be refuted by the clustering of the Nubian populations with each other and the recorded biological distances.

Research Question 2

Are the three Nubian samples representative of three distinct populations based upon significant craniometric differences?

The three Nubian sites had statistically significant differences between almost all cranial measurements. The Mahalanobis’ distances between the three sites separate the groups parallel to the geographical distance between them, as Kulubnarti and Gabati are furthest apart with Mis

Island almost equally separating the distance between the other two sites.

Although the use of biological data to examine the population affinities of individuals at a

Nile Valley site is not a novel concept (Buzon, 2004), the examination of sites representing all three medieval Nubian kingdoms has never before been completed. This approach has offered a more cohesive understanding of the history of the three kingdoms in relation to one another and

147 serves as an example of how, in the future, the study of additional sites would help to further test the hypotheses that the Nubian kingdoms developed in situ.

Research Question 3a

Is there craniometric evidence of gene flow into each site? Alternatively, is there evidence of relative isolation of each site?

In addition to the development of each kingdom relatively little is known about the political and economic interactions the Nubians had with the neighboring kingdoms.

Archaeologists have pieced together some information based on the identification of material goods found at sites with whom Nubians were interacting. Again, the use of biological data can supplement the archaeological record to tease out the population history of the types of non-elites that were the focus of this project. Thus, this project has demonstrated that an examination of gene flow and biological distances within the Nubian samples as well as within the larger

African context is an important contribution to the study of Nubian history.

The borders that were believed to have bounded the Nubian kingdoms are not clearly defined in the historical record. The northern border of Nobadia, the northern kingdom, was known to be in constant flux based on the strength of the Egyptian Dynasties or other populations, such as the Blemmeyes who came in from the desert (Edwards, 2004; Welsby,

2002). By examining the amount of phenotypic variation within that population as well as a comparison to the Howells’ (1972, 1989, 1995) dataset, it was possible to show that this fluctuating boundary had little impact on the biological nature of those buried at Kulubnarti.

Overall, samples from this site showed a low amount of gene flow into the population and a large biological distance between the two samples.

148

Mis Island was located in the middle Nubian kingdom of Makuria which later united with the northern kingdom of Nobadia. In theory, the political boundary between the two kingdoms was dissolved and this would have allowed for an easy movement of people. However, the individuals at Mis Island were found to have less than average gene flow into the population. It is worth considering whether the agricultural nature of these settlements would have limited inhabitants’ mobility and may have reduced the draw for merchants to pass through as well.

The site of Gabati is in an area where significantly less is known about the kingdom to which it belonged than the other kingdoms. In part, this is due to the lack of archaeological excavation in this region, as large dam projects have dictated the heavy and intense salvage archaeological excavations in the more northern stretches. The historical documents, especially the Baqt treaty, have also excluded the southern kingdom of Alwa (Spaulding, 1995). Zarroug

(1991) believes that the kingdom had its own economic and trade ties that were completely separate from the relationships the northern united kingdoms had. Although the individuals at

Gabati were non-elites, they demonstrate a continual use of the cemetery and support the conclusion that there was biological continuity at the site. The increased amount of variation among individuals over time, should the archaeologically derived dates of the cemeteries be considered reliable, is explained through gene flow into the region from extra-regional sources that may have occurred due to the trade industry using trade routes along the Nile Valley.

Research Question 3b

Is there evidence for a mass migration or high levels of gene flow into Nubia based on cranial variation when compared to populations from other parts of Africa?

The three Nubian sites are biologically closest first to another Nubian site. Mis Island and

Kulubnarti are closest to each other. Gabati is closest to Mis Island. The closeness of these three

149 groups could be indicative of their geographic proximity, but could also be argued to demonstrate the in situ appearance of the three medieval kingdoms. This biological closeness also implies that a mass migration event was likely not the start of the Nubian kingdoms.

Both Mis Island and Kulubnarti are also biologically close to Gabati, Ashanti, and Teita.

The proximity to the Ashanti is a bit surprising as the population resides in Ghana on the west coast of Africa. However, Mis Island and Kulubnarti both had no evidence of extra-regional gene flow so this relationship with the two Nubian sites and the Ashanti is likely not explained by gene flow between the three sites.

Gabati is closest to Mis Island, followed by Egypt, the Teita, and then Kulubnatri. The close biological distance between Gabati and Egypt demonstrates that these relatively distant geographical populations are biologically close and insinuates that there may have been some biological interactions between the two where a long standing trade relationship was known to have existed. Although this could also be just because of the overall geographic proximity, but it is interesting that the Teita and Kulubnarti were geographically closer than Egypt.

Research Question 4

Is there genetic evidence of patrilocal or matrilocal practices at each site based on the levels craniometric variance between males and females?

For both males and females, Kulubnarti was found to have the most surplus variance, followed by Mis Island, and then Gabati. However, none of these levels of surplus variance were found to be significant. When males and females were compared within each sample, Kulubnarti and Mis Island males had more overall variance indicating that males may be more mobile coming into and out of the group. The comparison of males and females at Gabati illustrated that females had more overall variance and would be the more mobile of the two sexes. Again,

150 however, all of these results between males and females at each site were not statistically significant.

The current view of population history within the Nile Valley is not fully developed and there is room for important investigations to be completed. This project set out to understand the biological origins of the populations in the Nubian kingdoms, whether there was any evidence of large migrations into the region during the medieval period, and whether, once established, these populations were experiencing extra-regional gene flow. The in situ development of the kingdoms has been proposed on the basis of the archaeological evidence, but a test of this hypothesis with the skeletal remains is important as a form of independent confirmation. The archaeological record in Nubia, as well as anywhere else, is often incomplete and inherently difficult to interpret. The ability to examine the population history of Nubia directly through the skeletal remains removes some of the ambiguity of interpreting the interactions through the archaeological record, although these analyses come with their own limitations.

Future Studies

This work set out to begin to tease out the biological relationship within each site to as well as examine the biological distance between Nubian sites and a further contextualization within the African continent. Admittedly, this study is only the first step in understanding the complex story of the population history of the Nubian kingdoms. It will be imperative to examine additional sites from each kingdom in order to understand better the biological interactions or relative isolation each site throughout the kingdom may have experienced. This larger proposed study may allow for inferences to be drawn about the relative interactions at a kingdom level by considering several sites within each kingdom.

151

In addition to the analysis of more Nubian sites, a larger study should also include populations that the Nubians may have interacted with to look at the biological distances between the populations. The Egyptian sample from Howells’ dataset was not biologically close to the Nubian populations with the exception of Gabati. This may be in part due to the isolation of the more northern Nubians from Egypt or in part due to the temporal difference. After all,

Howells’ Egyptian samples were dated to the 26th-30th Dynasties (~600-200 BC) which is much earlier than the medieval Nubians examined here. More Egyptian samples from a closer time period would better address issues of biological distance between these populations during the same time frame. Beyond more temporally appropriate Egyptian samples, it would also be interesting to add in other populations, if possible, that are believed to have been part of the trade network across the Red Sea.

In addition to widening the scale and scope of this project, it would also be possible to do a finer scale study on the cemetery populations at each site. The examination of mortuary treatments and presence of grave goods at the Mis Island cemeteries has demonstrated that there may be spatial significance to some of the burials (Soler, 2012) which could be further investigated through craniometric data analyses. This type of analysis may show differences on an individual level as opposed to the general level of homogeneity of the larger cemetery populations. These nuanced types of studies have demonstrated the possibility of migrants at other archaeological sites in the Nile Valley (Buzon, 2006) and may help to address the population history at a different level than the current study.

152

LITERATURE CITED

153

LITERATURE CITED

Buzon, M. R. (2004). A Bioarchaeological Perspective on State Formation in the Nile Valley. University of California Santa Barbara.

Buzon, M. R. (2006). Biological and Ethnic Identity in New Kingdom Nubia: A Case Study from Tombos. Current Anthropology, 47(4), 683–695.

Edwards, D. N. (2004). The Nubian Past An Archaeology of the Sudan. New York, NY: Routledge.

Howells, W. W. (1972). Analysis of Patterns of Variation in Crania of Recent Man. The Functional and Evolutionary Biology of Primates, 123–151.

Howells, W. W. (1989). Skull shapes and the map: craniometric analyses in the dispersion of modern Homo. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University (Vol. 79). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University.

Howells, W. W. (1995). Who’s Who in Skulls. Ethnic Identification of Crania from Measurements. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Peabody Museum.

Spaulding, J. (1995). Medieval Christian Nubia and the Islamic World : A Reconsideration of the Baqt Treaty. The International Journal of African Historical Studies, 28(3), 577–594.

Welsby, D. A. (2002). The medieval kingdoms of Nubia: Pagans, Christians and Muslims along the Middle Nile. London: British Museum Press.

Zarroug, M. el-D. A. (1991). The Kingdom of Alwa. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.

154