The study states it ran the mummy’s haplotype through Athey’s Haplogroup Predictor and the result was 93% E1b1a. The problem is that the haplotype unquestionably has erroneous STR values: 393=8, 19=19, 391=8, 392=17. These aren’t impossible values, but they’re close, and all 4 occuring simultaneously does indeed seem statistically almost impossible. I know that the exact same haplotype was found in another mummy, and I have no explanation for this second impossibility of obtaining the exact same erroneous results twice, but the STR values are unquestionably filled with erroneous results. I tried to see if they commited some conversion mistakes, but the study listed several reference haplotypes they used of modern people, and they were perfectly normal, so those bizarre results like 393=8 really do mean 393=8.
If we exclude the ridiculous STRs, the most likely haplotype is E1b1b, and probably specifically E1b1b-V22, which also happens to be centered in Egypt. In other words, the mummy would have a quintessentially Egyptian haplogroup, like finding an Irishman belong to R1b-M222.
390=21 is E1b1a, that’s true, E1b1b-V22 has 24.
385a/b=20/20 is a very rare high value, very unlikely for E1b1a or most E1b1b haplogroups, but in E1b1b-V22 it would be ok. This is the single STR value that allows to guess the specific E1b1b subcluster, since V22 has unusually very high values for 385, unlike other E1b1b haplogroups. To which we can add the circumstance that V22 also happens to be the most common variety of E1b1b in Egypt.
389a/b=13/33 is another very rare high value, specifically the second STR, the first one is normal. There’s no difference in these STRs in E1b1a, E1b1b, or E1b1b-V22. But by now we can see that even the values that aren’t flat out insane aren’t exactly normal, either, they tend to be extreme, just not as extreme.
437/448 = 14/20 is, for a change, an absolutely perfectly normal value, which is perfect for E1b1a or E1b1b.
H4=13 is a little high but not unusual. This high value is pretty common in E1b1b-V12,
somewhat rare in other E1b1b, and rare in E1b1a.
456=13 is a very rare low value. E1b1a and E1b1b-V22 tend to have lower values for this STR compared to other E1b1b haplogroups, but still the reported value is very rare in any of these haplogroups, and it looks like another suspicious STR value.
438=10 is a normal value. It’s typical of all E1b1b haplogroups, but E1b1a has instead
438=11 and only 2% of E1b1a samples have 438=10.
So… The haplotype has several guaranteed erroneous values, and several more that look suspicious of being so, too. Amongst the normal looking ones, 390=21 strongly favors E1b1a, 438=10 strongly favors E1b1b. To me the most likely haplogroup is E1b1b-V22, but it’s only a good guess. Also in favor of E1b1b-V22 is the fact that E1b1a occurs in 2% of Egyptians, while E1b1b-V22 occurs in 15% of north Egyptians, 5% in Egyptians from several oasis to the west of the Nile, and 4% in south Egyptians. It’s centered in Egypt, there’s nowhere else in the world with a higher frequency, and in fact the frequency gradually goes down in the 3 directions radiating out of Egypt: the second highest frequencies are in Northwest Africa, Ethiopia/Sudan, and the Levant.
Ancient Egypt 