New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Cleopatra's Eyeliner: Peeper Health Keeper

A study in the journal Analytical Chemistry finds that the black eyeliner worn by ancient Egyptians may have had properties that helped ward off eye-damaging bacterial infections. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

When you picture ancient Egyptian beauties such as Queen Nefertiti or Cleopatra, they’re probably wearing dramatic black eyeliner. Ancient Egyptians believed that eye makeup had properties bestowed by the gods protected the wearers from illness. Modern scientists determined that the makeup contains often-harmful lead, so they discounted any beneficial effects. But according to research published in the journal Analytical Chemistry, the eye makeup may indeed have prevented disease.

Scientists analyzed 52 different samples from ancient Egyptian makeup found at the Louvre. They identified four different lead-based substances, two of which were man-made, not natural. They then applied the substances to a culture of human cells. And the cells experienced a 240 percent increase in the production of nitric oxide, which is known to jump start the immune system.

The ancient marshy Nile would have hosted many eye disease–causing bacteria. Application of the makeup may have revved up cells’ immunity and protected against infection. The chemical compounds were no doubt used initially based on appearance. But then wearers noticed they weren’t getting eye infections. The gods got praised, but it was ancient chemists who deserved the credit.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe