DNA Did Not Prove Ancient Egyptians Were European — The Max Planck Study Debunked

Learning Objectives

By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

• Identify the 2017 Schuenemann et al. study and describe its actual sample size and methodology.
• Explain what Abusir el-Meleq was and why it does not represent the population that built the pyramids.
• Describe the three time periods represented in the study's nuclear genome samples and which periods were under foreign rule.
• Explain why the study's findings about ancient Near Eastern affinities are geographically and historically limited.
• Describe what the study found about populations further south in Egypt and their connection to Nubia.
• Evaluate why a study of three genomes from one site cannot settle the broader question of ancient Egyptian population origins.

Key Vocabulary

• Abusir el-Meleq — An archaeological site and necropolis in Middle Egypt along the Nile, the source of all samples in the 2017 Schuenemann et al. mummy genome study; used as a burial site across the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate, Late, Ptolemaic, and Roman periods. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.
• Genome-wide data — Genetic information drawn from across an individual's full set of chromosomes, offering a broader picture of ancestry than mitochondrial DNA alone; the 2017 study recovered genome-wide data from only three of the 151 mummies sampled. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.
• Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) — Genetic material inherited only through the maternal line; the 2017 study recovered mtDNA from 90 of the 151 sampled mummies, in addition to the three full genomes. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.
• Pre-Ptolemaic Period — In the context of this study, the era spanning the New Kingdom, Third Intermediate Period, and Late Period, before Greek Ptolemaic rule began in 332 BCE; two of the study's three genome samples come from this period. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[3]Wikipedia. "Abusir el-Meleq."
• Ptolemaic Period — The era of Greek rule in Egypt from 332 to 30 BCE, following Alexander the Great's conquest; one of the study's three genome samples comes from this period. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[4]Novoscriptorium. "Ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history — What have we learned so far." novoscriptorium.com.
• Haplogroup E1b1a — A Y-chromosome genetic lineage identified in the mummy of Ramesses III, with its highest modern frequencies found in West and Central African populations. [5]Wikipedia. "Genetic history of Egypt."

The Full Lesson

Part 1 — The Study Behind the Claim

In 2017, a team led by Verena Schuenemann and colleagues, working with the University of Tübingen and the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, published a study in Nature Communications examining ancient Egyptian mummy DNA. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com. The team sampled 151 mummified individuals, but ancient DNA degrades badly over time, and only a fraction of the samples yielded usable results: mitochondrial genomes from 90 individuals, and full genome-wide data from just three. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.

"They said DNA proved ancient Egypt was European. That is a lie. It didn't. It proved how little they tested."

Part 2 — One Site, Not One Civilization

All 151 samples came from a single location: Abusir el-Meleq, a necropolis in Middle Egypt. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[3]Wikipedia. "Abusir el-Meleq." This was not a burial site exclusive to the pyramid-building era. The mummies recovered there date from the New Kingdom through the Roman Period, spanning roughly 1,300 years, and Abusir el-Meleq itself sat along a Nile corridor that saw Persian, then Greek, then Roman administration over the centuries. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[3]Wikipedia. "Abusir el-Meleq." A single necropolis, sampled this narrowly, cannot stand in for the genetic history of an entire ancient civilization.

"They tested only three genomes from a burial site at Abusir el-Meleq... They didn't test the pyramid builders."

Part 3 — What the Three Genomes Actually Represent

Of the three individuals whose full genomes were recovered, two date to the Pre-Ptolemaic period (New Kingdom through Late Period) and one dates to the Ptolemaic period, when Egypt was under Greek rule. [3]Wikipedia. "Abusir el-Meleq." The study's authors themselves noted the region's documented interactions with Near Eastern and Mediterranean populations across this timespan, consistent with the genetic affinities the study found. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[4]Novoscriptorium. "Ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history — What have we learned so far." novoscriptorium.com. Two of the three samples were not from a period of foreign occupation as sometimes claimed — but the sample remains small and geographically narrow regardless of which periods it spans.

"Limited geographic sampling may not represent all of ancient Egypt. But people still wave this study around like it's definitive proof of European Egyptians. It is not."

Part 4 — What the Study Found Further South

The Schuenemann study itself found that populations further south in Egypt carried higher sub-Saharan African ancestry than the northern Abusir el-Meleq samples. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[4]Novoscriptorium. "Ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history — What have we learned so far." novoscriptorium.com. This matters because Kemet's earliest dynasties are widely understood to have emerged from Upper Egypt and its connections to Nubia and the African interior, a region the study did not sample. [4]Novoscriptorium. "Ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history — What have we learned so far." novoscriptorium.com. Separately, genetic analysis of the mummy of Ramesses III identified the Y-chromosome haplogroup E1b1a, a lineage found today at its highest frequencies in West and Central African populations. [5]Wikipedia. "Genetic history of Egypt."

"The study itself notes that populations further south carried higher sub-Saharan ancestry. And that's where Kemet's earliest dynasties emerged — from Nubia and the African interior."

Part 5 — The Study's Own Conclusion

The Schuenemann et al. paper does not claim to have settled the question of ancient Egyptian population origins. Its authors frame their findings as limited by geography and sample size, and call for further research before broader conclusions can be drawn. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com. Despite this, the study is frequently cited in popular discussion as definitive proof that ancient Egyptians were genetically European — a claim its own authors do not make.

"They said it themselves — more studies are needed before any final conclusions can be drawn. They admitted it themselves."

Critical Thinking Discussion Questions

1. The 2017 study sampled 151 mummies but only recovered three full genomes. [1]Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History (Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology). "The First Genome Data from Ancient Egyptian Mummies." shh.mpg.de.[2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com. Why does this distinction between "samples collected" and "usable genetic data" matter when evaluating how strong a study's conclusions can be?
2. Abusir el-Meleq was used as a burial site across roughly 1,300 years, including periods of foreign rule. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[3]Wikipedia. "Abusir el-Meleq." Why might the location and time period of a burial site matter as much as the DNA results themselves?
3. Two of the three full genomes recovered came from the Pre-Ptolemaic period, not a period of foreign occupation. [3]Wikipedia. "Abusir el-Meleq." How does this complicate a simple claim that all three samples reflect a "foreign-occupied" population?
4. The study found that populations further south in Egypt carried higher sub-Saharan African ancestry. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com.[4]Novoscriptorium. "Ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history — What have we learned so far." novoscriptorium.com. Why might a study focused on one northern site fail to capture this regional variation?
5. Ramesses III's Y-chromosome haplogroup, E1b1a, is most common today in West and Central Africa. [5]Wikipedia. "Genetic history of Egypt." What does evidence like this add to a conversation that has focused mainly on the 2017 mummy study?
6. The study's own authors call for further research before final conclusions can be drawn. [2]Schuenemann, V.J. et al. "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods." Nature Communications 8, 15694 (2017). nature.com. Why might a study's stated limitations get left out when it's cited in public debate?

Quiz — DNA Did Not Prove Ancient Egypt Was European

Part A: Select the best answer and check your work instantly. Part B: Write in complete sentences.

Part A — Multiple Choice

Part B — Short Answer

Extension Activity

Read the Study's Own Limitations: Locate the original 2017 Schuenemann et al. paper, "Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods," published in Nature Communications. Find the section where the authors describe the limitations of their sample size and geographic scope, and write two to three sentences comparing those stated limitations to how the study is often cited in public discussion.