Share this
In 2020, Stuart Tyson Smith, professor of anthropology at UC Santa Barbara, offered a sharp critique of the 2017 Nature study by Schuenemann et al., which claimed that ancient Egyptian mummies showed stronger genetic ties to the Near East than to Sub-Saharan Africa. At first glance, this study seemed to confirm longstanding Eurocentric narratives that attempted to distance Egypt from its African origins. However, Smith pointed out a glaring oversight: the study’s sampled remains came from a region known to have hosted foreign populations, specifically at the mouth of the Faiyum Oasis, an area where Middle Eastern mercenaries and settlers were granted land as a reward for military service during the late New Kingdom (c. 1300–1070 BCE). By neglecting this crucial historical context, Schuenemann et al. misrepresented the broader genetic picture of ancient Egypt.
Context: The Military Settlement of Foreigners in Egypt
Egypt, as a powerful empire, frequently recruited foreign troops, especially during times of territorial expansion. One well-documented practice was granting land to mercenaries and auxiliaries as compensation for military service. During the New Kingdom, especially under rulers like Ramesses II, Egypt employed various foreign groups, including the Sherden (a subset of the Sea Peoples), Libyans, and Asiatic soldiers, offering them estates in return for their loyalty.
This practice is well-attested in historical sources. For instance, the Anastasi Papyrus (Papyrus Anastasi I, 13th century BCE), a military text, describes Egyptian officers recruiting mercenaries from Syria and Libya, rewarding them with provisions and land. Similarly, the Great Karnak Inscription (c. 1208 BCE) of Pharaoh Merneptah details how he settled defeated Libyans in Egyptian territories, integrating them into the state. These documented accounts of foreign mercenaries receiving land provide a compelling explanation for why Schuenemann et al.’s mummy sample—drawn from the Faiyum—showed elevated Middle Eastern affinities.
Cross-Cultural Comparisons: The Broader Tradition of Military Land Rewards
Egypt was not alone in integrating foreign warriors into its society through land grants. This practice spans cultures and continents, illustrating a common pattern in state formation and military strategy.
🇮🇹 Rome: The Roman Empire extensively rewarded its auxiliary troops—non-Roman soldiers enlisted from conquered territories—with land grants upon retirement. This policy helped to Romanize frontier regions while securing the loyalty of diverse ethnic groups.
🇨🇳 China: The Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) used a similar strategy, settling non-Han soldiers and tribal allies in frontier regions to serve as buffers against external threats.
👳♀️ Ottoman Empire: The Ottoman timar system allotted land to cavalrymen (sipahis) in return for military service, embedding them within the empire’s administrative structure.
These parallels reinforce that Egypt’s policy of settling Sherden and other mercenaries was neither unusual nor incidental. It was a deliberate strategy that shaped population genetics, especially in areas like the Faiyum, where Schuenemann et al.’s samples were drawn.
Vivid Evidence: What Ancient Egyptian Sources Actually Say
Egyptian records do not leave this phenomenon to speculation. Several stelae, inscriptions, and texts explicitly document foreign warrior settlements:
1. The Medinet Habu Reliefs (c. 1180 BCE) – These depict Ramesses III’s battles against the Sea Peoples, showing captured Sherden warriors being incorporated into the Egyptian military.
2. The Amarna Letters (14th century BCE) – Diplomatic correspondences between Egyptian pharaohs and Near Eastern rulers reveal extensive Egyptian recruitment of foreign troops, particularly from the Levant.
3. The Onomasticon of Amenemope (c. 1100 BCE) – A lexicon from the late New Kingdom that lists Sherden, Libyans, and Asiatics among Egypt’s military personnel and settlers.
By failing to consider this substantial body of evidence, Schuenemann et al. ignored the historical likelihood that their sample did not represent the broader Egyptian population but rather an enclave of foreign-descended individuals.
Critical Analysis: The Pitfalls of DNA Sampling Without Context
Schuenemann et al.’s study fell into a common trap: mistaking a regional, possibly anomalous sample for a representation of an entire civilization. Their findings have been misinterpreted in popular discourse to suggest that ancient Egyptians were primarily Near Eastern, disregarding the diversity and complexity of Egypt’s population history.
This error is equivalent to making sweeping conclusions about American demographics by sampling only a Scandinavian-majority town in Minnesota. Without acknowledging the location’s historical contingencies—such as migration patterns, military settlements, and trade connections—any genetic conclusions drawn from such a sample would be misleading.
Moreover, DNA degradation over millennia means that surviving genetic material is often partial and biased toward specific lineages, particularly those with ancestry from regions where DNA preservation conditions are more favorable (such as arid deserts). This makes it even more imperative for scholars to contextualize genetic data with archaeological, historical, and anthropological evidence.
Engagement and Conclusion: Restoring the African Narrative
Professor Stuart Tyson Smith’s critique is more than an academic quibble—it is a necessary intervention against the misuse of genetics to perpetuate outdated racial narratives. The misrepresentation of Egypt’s population history is not merely a matter of scholarly error but part of a long tradition of Eurocentric distortions designed to sever Egypt from its African context.
Why does this matter? Because the false narrative of a “Near Eastern” Egypt reinforces colonial-era myths that ancient civilizations could only emerge through external influence, dismissing indigenous African agency. The reality is that ancient Egypt was a cosmopolitan society, with genetic and cultural ties spanning the Nile Valley, Sahara, and broader African continent.
Modern scholarship, including linguistic, archaeological, biochemical and craniofacial studies, overwhelmingly affirms that Egypt’s foundational populations were African. The New Kingdom saw increased interactions with the Levant and Mediterranean, but these later connections do not override the civilization’s fundamentally African origins.
By calling out the ahistorical nature of Schuenemann et al.’s conclusions, Stuart Tyson Smith is doing more than correcting a scientific oversight—he is challenging a centuries-old erasure of Africa’s role in world history. And in an age where misinformation spreads quickly, that makes his critique not just relevant but vital.
