King Tut's DNA

[Kaiser]

King Tut Was Disabled, Malarial, and Inbred, DNA Shows

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...d-tutankhamun/

That is all very well but what about the Y-DNA and mtDNA Haplogroups of Tut and his family? Anyone read the full text in the Journal of American Medical Association in which the study has been published?

[rainbow]

Wow. I haven't read it. What were his ydna and mtdna?

[rucksack]

When the information airs on The Discovery Channel, there may or may not be clues to the haplogroup information.

Then again, Zahi Hawass may not let the information be known if it would be "earth shattering".

Time will tell.

Oh, it airs on the 21st and 22nd of February 2010: http://dsc.discovery.com/egypt/tut-i...unwrapped.html

[Kaiser]

More Tut

Here is some more info on Tut DNA testing (but alas, no Haplogroups yet):
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/LivingL...9853119&page=3

Genetic testing of Y chromosomes and blood groups helped scientists identify which mummy was King Tut's father. Genetic testing of Y chromosome alleles showed identical allele patterns in Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, and a third mummy but not other unrelated mummies, a result that was replicated by a second laboratory. This, along with identical blood group results with Tutankhamun, further supported that the third mummy (KV55) is Akhenaten, the researchers said.

Using the genetic information on allele sharing among the mummies, the researchers put together the most plausible family tree as Yuya and Thuya as parents of the newly identified Tiye, who with Amenhotep III had Akhenaten and his sister, the as-yet unidentified mummy KV35YL.

The genetic information also showed Tutankhamun was the father of two mummified fetuses, and that his mother and father -- Akhenaten -- were also sister and brother.

The mother of the two stillbirths was suggested to be the mummy KV21A, although the little data available did not statistically significantly define her as Ankhensenamun.

Very keen to know the Y-STR, Y-SNP and mtDNA results.

PS: Awfully Incestuous Pharaohs

[Kaiser]

Turkish Tut?

The latest Discovery Channel video grab shows the STR values of two samples labelled KV55 (Ahenaten, Tut's father) and AmIII (Amenhotep III, Tut's grandfather) as can be clearly seen on the screen (Time - 1':53")

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/king...rnal-line.html

The STR values for 17 markers tested are a bombshell that is likely to turn Egyptology on its head:

DYS 19 - 14 (? not clear)
DYS 385a - 11
DYS 385b - 14
DYS 389i - 13
DYS 389ii - 30
DYS 390 - 24
DYS 391 - 11
DYS 392 - 13
DYS 393 - 13
DYS 437 - 14 (? not clear)
DYS 438 - 12
DYS 439 - 10
DYS 448 - 19
DYS 456 - 15
DYS 458 - 16
DYS 635 - 23
YGATAH4 - 11

When you run the Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor: http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/king...rnal-line.html ...you get this:
R1b with a 99.6% fit.

I think that 'Daktoor' Zahi Hawass is completely confounded and has withheld the results. West Asian Pharaohs?????? Maybe he is trying to buy time to pull off a face-saving PR job. It may be noted that R1b is not known to exist in Egypt at all (Scozzari 1999, Luis 2001, Hammer).

Frequency distribution maps of R1b indicate a Mid-Eastern/Eastern Turkish connection at least for for Tut's 18th Dynasty. Of course the mtDNA is not charted out yet. A Turkish Nefertiti may be the next Pharaonic surprise!

PS: I suspect that Discovery Channel purposely showed the computer screen shots for a few seconds, something that Hawass or his team failed to notice at the time of filming the programme.

[Kaiser]

Correction

Refer previous post. Please amend to read this:

"When you run the Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor: http://www.hprg.com/hapest5/hapest5b/hapest5.htm"

instead of this:

"When you run the Whit Athey's Haplogroup Predictor: http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/king...rnal-line.html"

[russellhathway]

R1b? Very Interesting! What's going on there then?!

[gtc]

R1b? Very Interesting! What's going on there then?!

Yeah, that's a bit unexpected. Possibly contamination by the investigators?

[Carolyn1955]

The video's at discovery.com show them taking samples of bone from different areas. They appeared to be lab tech's taking the samples so I can't imagine contamination as a factor with 13 or 14 samples. Just a thought

Yeah, that's a bit unexpected. Possibly contamination by the investigators?

[Daniel72]

HAve the mummies been ever unwrapped and touched, by British archeologists before? Maybe?

[Carolyn1955]

Not sure, but thats a good question. It just seems to me that given 13 different samples from different area's of the bone should have shown a contamination in comparison to the others. I'm recording the show on Discovery and am excited to watch it!

HAve the mummies been ever unwrapped and touched, by British archeologists before? Maybe?

[Daniel72]

Hmm yes.

Also, if one takes the material from INSIDE of bones or teeth, there shouldnt be too much contermination.

However I have read only about 1 year ago, that most of the "older" founds cannot be DNA tested simply because they have passed to many hands since they have been digged out.

And Tut is a quiet old found.

Hmmm

[rainbow]

I had wondered if Stonehenge was built by the people who built the Sphinx and pyramids. Not the exact same individual people, but people who were related. What if R1b Egyptians went to the British Isles? And their workers were the E3 or E1 that are common in North Africa, but also exist in the isles?

A Turkish or Armenian source is possible. Some R1b went to Egypt and some R1b kept going west until they got to the Isles? What about the tribe of Africans in Cameroon that are R1b? Maybe they are direct descendants of King Tut's paternal line?

An earlier thought of mine was that the pharoahs or sea peoples (some of them if not all) were Native American.

[Kaiser]

Why must the British/Irish lay exclusive claim to R1b? Yes it has much higher concentrations in Western Europe, but look at the clines towards West Asia. Turkey has upto 14%, while Syria, Iraq, Jordan/Palestine all have about 10% frequency distribution of different R1b clades.

Remember, Pharaohs have not always been indigenous. Look at some of the foreign dynasties: 15th Dynasty Hyksos (Syria/Iraq), 21st Dynasty Tanites (Libya), 22nd Dynasty Bubasites (Libya), 23rd Dynasty Tanites (Libya), 25th Dynasty Ku****es (Sudan), 27th Dynasty (Persian), 31st Dynasty (Greek) and the last 32nd Dynasty (Roman).

So this latest R1b find only hints at another foreign 18th Dynasty, possibly from West Asia, where R1b1b2 in particular is found at about 5.5%. R1b1a V-88 is also found in North Africa at 5.3%~, though it is suspected that it is linked to more recent Islamic movements.

Wonder if it is possible to chart out the sub-clade from the STR values given in my previous post?

[Kaiser]

Tut on ySearch

Tutankhamen's STR results are up on ySearch. His ID is ER7RQ. Results can be seen at: http://www.ysearch.org/haplosearch_v...wuid=ER7RQ&p=0

There are four guys who have a GD of zero on 10 markers; two of these show Haplogroup R1b1b2 while two others have an Unknown Haplogroup. Tut family has living descendants!