Share this
Executive Summary
Schuenemann et al. (2017) Ancient Egyptian Mummy DNA Study — Full Critical Evaluation
Core Findings:
🔹 Severe limitations acknowledged by the authors: missing excavation records, loss of biographical context, analysis from a single Middle Egyptian Greco-Roman site, and nuclear genome data from only three individuals.
🔹 Heavy reliance on mitochondrial DNA (maternal lines), with survivorship bias favoring more recent individuals.
🔹 Sampling fails to represent the full geographic, social, and temporal diversity of ancient Egypt, excluding southern regions, royal tombs, early dynasties, and priestly elites.
🔹 Affinity with Near Eastern populations reflects Egypt’s geographical position and ancient contact networks—not evidence of foreign population replacement.
🔹 No masking analysis performed to separate ancient gene flow from medieval and Islamic-era admixture.
Historical Context:
🔹 Egypt’s demography was shaped by 23 major migrations, conquests, and collapses: Hyksos, Libyans, Kushites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Fatimids, Mamluks, Ottomans, and others.
🔹 Epidemics like the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death devastated Egypt’s population repeatedly, creating complex repopulation dynamics independent of slave trade influx.
🔹 Population mathematics shows multiple demographic shocks could reduce original population continuity to below 25%, favoring survival and replacement by neighboring African groups, not just Eurasian influx.
Genetic Evidence:
🔹 Wohlers et al. (2020): Modern Egyptians carry 27% Arabian, 24% Turkic/Circassian, 15% North African, and 9% East African ancestry—showing admixture but retention of African signals.
🔹 Pagani et al. (2015): Confirmed significant Eurasian admixture post-Roman and Islamic periods, but not erasure of deep African ancestry.
🔹 Ancient DNA of royals (e.g., Ramesses III, E-M2 lineage) and iconography support an African origin of Pharaonic Egypt.
Conclusion:
Schuenemann et al.’s narrow dataset and cautious caveats are overwhelmed by media misinterpretations. The study does not disprove African Egypt; it shows the danger of extrapolating from incomplete samples. Ancient Egypt was an African civilization whose genetic and cultural heart remained African even as layers of Eurasian contact accumulated over millennia.
Respecting Egypt’s legacy requires facing this full historical and scientific reality—not selectively rewriting it.
⸻
Below is the detailed breakdown:
1. Excavation Records Lost
Direct quote:
“a general issue concerning the site is that several details of the context of the individuals analysed in this study were lost over time. All of the material was excavated by Rubensohn in the early twentieth century… Rubensohn’s archaeological records are highly incomplete… many finds were removed undocumented from their contexts. Furthermore, many of his excavation diaries and notes were destroyed during the Second World War.”
Implications:
👑 No royals sampled
🙋🏾♀️ Biographical details (names, titles) lost
😝 Cannot distinguish natives from foreigners
⚡ Destroyed excavation records = no “thick description”
🕵🏽♂️ Cultural identity of individuals unverifiable
⸻
2. Single Site Bias
Direct quote:
“All ancient samples were obtained from a single site in Middle Egypt.”
Implications:
📍 Regional bias (only Middle Egypt)
🌍 No Upper Egypt or Nubian-border samples
🏺 No national geographic diversity
🛕 Religious centers (Thebes, Karnak) not represented
⸻
3. Minimal Genome-Wide Data
Direct quote:
“Genome-wide data could only be obtained from three individuals.”
Implications:
🧬 Tiny sample for nuclear DNA
📊 High statistical fragility
🧪 Results vulnerable to random sampling error
⚠️ No statistical robustness
⸻
4. Only Mitochondrial Lineages Predominantly Studied
Direct quote:
“Complete mitochondrial DNA sequences were obtained for 90 of the mummies.”
Implications:
🧬 Only maternal ancestry traced
🔍 Low small size of Y-DNA paternal ancestry
👪 Family trees incomplete
👑 STR from Amarna and Ramesses III studies not compared
⸻
5. DNA Survival Bias
Direct quote:
“Hot Egyptian climate, high humidity levels and mummification techniques… render the long-term survival of DNA improbable.”
Implications:
🔥 Survivorship bias toward recent, better-preserved individuals
❗ Missing populations that left no preserved samples
🧪 Deeper ancient genetic signatures lost
⏳ Degradation risks higher
❌ Ancient Egyptians not mummified and who died abroad not represented
⸻
6. Authentication Issues
Direct quote:
“Authentication of the retrieved DNA was assessed via characteristic nucleotide misincorporation patterns and statistical contamination tests.”
Implications:
⚙️ Relies on models, not direct observational certainty
⚡ Authentication not foolproof
⸻
7. Not Representative of Egypt’s Diversity
Direct quote:
“The examined ancient Egyptian specimens may not be representative of those of all ancient Egyptians.”
Implications:
🌍 No full ancient population portrait
🛡️ Urban burial biases possible
📍 Regional dynamics missed
🔱 Power shifted from Upper Egypt to Lower Egypt under Greek and Roman rule
⸻
8. Cultural Assimilation of Names
Direct quote:
“Markers of foreign identity, such as Greek or Latin names, quickly became status symbols and were adopted by natives and foreigners alike.”
Implications:
🎭 Names do not equal biological origin
🌐 Cultural adoption masked real ancestries
⸻
9. Genetic Entanglement Over Time
Direct quote:
“Movement of people, goods and ideas… has given rise to an intricate cultural and genetic exchange and entanglement.”
Implications:
🔄 Continuous migration prevents static “racial” categories
🧬 Complex ancestry mixtures expected
⸻
10. No Clear Roman Genetic Replacement
Direct quote:
“Comparative data from contemporary Anatolia did not reveal a closer relationship to Roman-period Egyptians.”
Implications:
🧬 90 samples assumed to represent 40 other nomes by study
⚡ Conquest ≠ mass migration conclusion not supported since masking analysis carried out
⸻
11. Pre-Existing Doubts about DNA Preservation
Direct quote:
“DNA preservation in Egyptian mummies was met with general scepticism…”
Implications:
🧪 Need for extreme caution interpreting ancient DNA
⚡ Risk of modern contamination
🔬 Fragility of conclusions based on ancient samples
⸻
12. Earlier Mummy DNA Studies Not Reliable
Direct quote:
“High-throughput sequences obtained from ancient Egyptian mummies were not supported by rigorous authenticity and contamination tests.”
Implications:
⚙️ Many previous studies flawed
🧪 Current results attempt correction but remain cautious
⸻
13. Modern Egyptians Incompletely Sampled
Direct quote:
“Sampling of contemporary Egyptians was geographically confined to northern and middle Egypt.”
Implications:
📍 Modern comparison population biased
🌍 Cannot reconstruct true past and present national admixture
❌ Modern Southern Egyptian variation ignored
❌ Modern Nubian-descended populations excluded
⸻
14. Subadults Underrepresented
Direct quote:
“For a first assessment, computer tomographic scans of 30 mummies with soft tissue preservation were produced to describe sex… It is notable that most of the individuals are early and late adults, and that subadult individuals are underrepresented.”
Implications:
👶 Underrepresentation of children and adolescents
🧬 Potential age-related biases in genetic data
📊 Limits insights into population demographics
⸻
15. Riverine Community Bias
Direct quote:
“The samples analysed… represent a single archaeological community located along the Nile.”
Implications:
🚤 Biased toward trading or river cultures
🏘️ Inland communities untested
⸻
16. Known Levantine Immigration Events
Direct quote:
“From the second millennium BCE onwards… large-scale immigration of Canaanite populations, known as the Hyksos, into Lower Egypt.”
Implications:
🌍 Ancient Levantine influence predates sampling
🧬 May blur genetic lines
⚡ Samples likely reflect foreign settlers too
🤨 New Kingdom may not be representative of Predynastic, Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom population components
⸻
17. Immigration from Middle East Acknowledged
Direct quote:
“Our data seem to indicate close admixture and affinity at a much earlier date, unsurprising given long-standing connections with the Middle East.”
Implications:
🧩 Genetic affinity between ancient Egyptian samples and modern Near Eastern populations does not necessarily indicate migration; genetic similarity can arise through proximity and historical contacts without population replacement.
🌍 The geographic closeness of Egypt and the modern Near East explains some shared ancestry signals without requiring the conclusion that ancient Egyptians were foreigners.
📜 Thousands of years of commerce, diplomacy, and small-scale movements between ancient Egyptians and neighboring regions likely contributed to observed genetic affinities without implying mass resettlement.
⸻
18. Social Incentives for Ethnic Endogamy
Direct quote:
“Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group…”
Implications:
⚖️ Ethnic barriers assumed but not tested
🚷 Reduced intermixing due to political domination assumed not tested
⸻
19. Pagani Comparison (Accurate)
Direct quote:
“Two modern-day populations from Egypt and Ethiopia, published by Pagani and colleagues, including 100 modern Egyptian and 125 modern Ethiopian samples.”
Implications:
🤴🏾 Ancient sub-Saharan DNA not fully represented
⛪️ Only 125 Ethiopian samples used to represent 2000+ African groups
❌ No full ancient autosomal reconstruction
⸻
20. Genetic Continuity Assumed Too Lightly
Direct quote:
“Genetic continuity between ancient and modern Egyptians cannot be ruled out by our formal test despite this sub-Saharan African influx.”
Implications:
⚠️ Continuity assumed without strong data
🧬 Lack of deep comparison to ancient African data (like Ramesses III STR)
⸻
21. J Haplogroup Interpretation Problem
Direct quote:
“Y-chromosome haplogroups… two of which could be assigned to the Middle-Eastern haplogroup J, and one to haplogroup E1b1b1.”
Implications:
❌ J found in Africa too (today) — modern distribution ≠ ancient origins
🏺 Finding J at one site ≠ entire Egypt’s ancestry
⸻
22. Incomplete Masking Compared to Pagani
Direct quote:
“Pagani estimated average non-African ancestry in Egyptians at 80% and dated admixture to ~750 years ago.”
Implications:
✅ Pagani used masking to adjust for known recent ancestry
🔍 Schuenemann did not mask — risked overinterpreting older connections
🧪 Masking helps separate ancient vs medieval admixture
⸻
23. Graphical mtDNA Trend Observed
Observation from figures:
African mtDNA (L lineages) decreased from Pre-Ptolemaic to Roman periods.
Implications:
📉 African maternal ancestry shrank during foreign rule
🧬 Roman conquest may have demographic effects
⸻
24. Sample Description Accuracy
Direct quote:
“We found the ancient Egyptian samples falling distinct from modern Egyptians, and closer towards Near Eastern and European samples.”
Better wording implication:
✅ Should specify: “90 contextless individuals from a single Middle Egyptian site settled by foreigners fell closer to Near Easterners.”
⸻
25. Direct quote:
“Especially in the Roman Period there may have been significant legal and social incentives to marry within one’s ethnic group, as individuals with Roman citizenship had to marry other Roman citizens to pass on their citizenship. Such policies are likely to have affected the intermarriage of Romans and non-Romans to a degree.”
Implications:
⚖️ Legal requirements for Roman citizens to marry only other Romans may have restricted intermarriage, limiting genetic integration between Roman settlers and the local ancient Egyptian population.
🚷 Social and legal pressures could have artificially preserved Roman genetic distinctiveness in some communities, making detected admixture levels lower than actual demographic presences.
☣️ The study does not address later demographic collapses such as the Plague of Justinian, which significantly reduced native populations and could have reshaped Egypt’s genetic landscape independently of Roman policies.
📉 The lack of L-lineages (African maternal haplogroups) during Roman times could reflect post-plague resettlement dynamics, not simply Roman-period marriage laws or admixture barriers.
🔍 Failing to incorporate major pandemics like the Justinian Plague leaves potential gaps in explaining later genetic shifts observed in Egyptian populations.
⸻
26. Criticism of headline “Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods”
🤦🏾♂️Criticism: The headline is an apodictic statement in contradiction to detailed caution against such statements when using a single site—lacking context and identity information—that didn’t represent all dynastic eras, social classes, and dynastic geographic regions. Schuenemann et al.’s attribution of the post-Roman increase in sub-Saharan ancestry primarily to the Islamic-era slave trade is an untested and reductive oversimplification that collapses thousands of years of documented African presence into a single medieval event . Their study, based on only three nuclear genomes from a single Greco-Roman cosmopolitan site (Abu El-Meleq), lacks geographic, social, and chronological representativeness . No southern Egyptian, royal, or predynastic samples were analyzed; no radiocarbon dating was conducted; and although L haplogroups were classified as “sub-Saharan,” crucial African lineages like E-M35 and haplogroups A and B were sidelined or miscategorized, artificially minimizing older African genetic signals .
The demographic history of Egypt is fully documented and profoundly shaped by identifiable historical forces. Egypt experienced repeated conquests and migrations: the Hyksos (1630–1530 BCE) seized Lower Egypt; the Libyans (943–716 BCE) established dynasties; the Kushites (747–656 BCE) restored African traditions; the Assyrians (671–667 BCE) sacked Thebes; the Persians (525–404 BCE and 343–332 BCE) governed Egypt twice; the Greeks (from 332 BCE) founded new cities and ruling classes; the Romans (from 30 BCE) made Egypt an imperial province; the Arabs (639–642 CE) imposed new language and religion; the Abbasid Caliphate (750–868 CE) installed governors; the Fatimids (969–1171 CE) imported Berber, Sudanese, and Turkish influences; the Ayyubids (1171–1250 CE) brought Kurdish leadership; the Mamluks (1250–1517 CE) infused Turkic and Circassian genes; the Ottomans (1517–1798 CE) ruled with Turkish elites; Napoleon’s armies (1798–1801) disrupted Egypt briefly; and the Muhammad Ali dynasty (1805–1952) introduced Albanian and Balkan elements. Each wave contributed ancestry layers, but none erased Egypt’s foundational African core .
Moreover, catastrophic epidemics fundamentally reshaped Egypt’s population. The Plague of Justinian (541–750 CE) and the Black Death (1347–1351 CE) devastated Egypt repeatedly . Population losses between 30% and 50% opened space for internal African repopulation and regional migrations. Population mathematics shows that even 10% declines across repeated events would leave only 25% of an original population intact (working: (1-0.1)^13 = 0.25 equivalent to 25%, where 13 = documented depopulation or external displacement driving events); actual declines were often much larger exceeding 40 according to an examination of 60 recorded similar events from all continents. Demographic continuity, therefore, involved survival, absorption, and cultural integration—not replacement solely through Arab or Islamic slave trades.
Genetic studies reinforce this complexity. Wohlers et al. (2020) demonstrated that modern Egyptians are approximately 27% Arabian (reflecting Islamic-era migrations), 24% Turkic/Circassian (tracing to the Mamluk and Ottoman periods), 15% North African (from Fatimid, Libyan, and earlier Amazigh inputs), and around 9% indigenous East African ancestry . Yet critically, the African genetic signal remains. Pagani et al. (2015) similarly showed Eurasian admixture intensified after the Greco-Roman and Islamic periods, but without erasing African roots. This aligns with archaeological, linguistic, and artistic evidence: ancient Egypt, from 5000 BCE to 1000 BCE, was built predominantly by Black Africans—bearers of E-M2 lineages like Ramses III, speakers of African-rooted Proto-Afroasiatic, and creators of a brown-skinned artistic tradition that consistently reflected African physiognomy .
Thus, Schuenemann et al.’s framework fails on three fronts: (1) it overgeneralizes from an unrepresentative and tiny sample, (2) it ignores the massive, cumulative demographic reshaping caused by migrations, invasions, and plagues across millennia, and (3) it suppresses the overwhelming archaeological, linguistic, and genetic evidence of Egypt’s African origin and continuity. To attribute sub-Saharan ancestry only to medieval slave imports is not just scientifically flawed—it is a historical erasure of the African civilization that birthed the Nile Valley legacy.
Respecting Egypt means respecting its African foundations—not rewriting them to fit colonial or modern biases.
⸻
Additional Crosscutting Limitations:
• ⛪️ No priesthood, no administrative elites sampled
• 🧠 No comparative analysis with ancient STR (like Amarna or Ramesses III profiles)
• ☣️ The Justinian Plague and the Bubonic Plague not considered in population turnovers
• 🧩 Affinity to Near East expected via geography, does not prove origins
• ⏳ Sampling postdates key Egyptian historical periods (Old, Middle Kingdoms)
⸻
Conclusion
The Schuenemann et al. (2017) study, often cited to claim a post-Roman increase in sub-Saharan ancestry in Egypt, when scrutinized fully and contextually, reveals itself to be a methodologically narrow, geographically restricted, and historically unrepresentative sample from a single Greco-Roman site. Direct admissions from the authors confirm severe limitations: missing excavation records, minimal nuclear DNA samples, regional bias confined to Middle Egypt, mitochondrial overreliance, survivorship bias, and neglected contextual events such as epidemic-driven population collapses.
The study’s framework incorrectly treats one community from a cosmopolitan Roman province as a proxy for all of ancient Egypt, overlooking profound historic events: Egypt’s long sequence of foreign conquests (Hyksos, Libyans, Kushites, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Ottomans, and Muhammad Ali dynasty) and catastrophic plagues that dramatically reconfigured populations long before and after the Roman period.
Crucially, the study fails to properly account for ancient African continuity already documented through archaeology, craniometrics, linguistics, and genetics—evidence that points unequivocally to an African origin of Egyptian civilization. Modern Egyptians’ genetic profile today reflects the cumulative layering of conquest, trade, migration, and plague survival across millennia—not a sudden demographic replacement through the Islamic slave trade alone.
Thus, while the Schuenemann et al. study provides technical advancements in ancient DNA recovery, its sweeping interpretations—especially when amplified in headlines—misrepresent the evidence. Ancient Egypt was not a Eurasian transplant with occasional African admixture; it was fundamentally an African civilization that, like all great societies, adapted to time without losing its roots.
Any historical reckoning worthy of Egypt’s legacy must begin there: at the source, in Africa.
