Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
kmt_sesh

Tutankhamun's DNA analysis

95 posts in this topic

The Supreme Council of Antiquities has finally published the results of its genetic analyses of Tutankhamun and numerous other mummies believed to have been in his family line. The results confirm some old suspicions, answer numerous questions, but, not surprisingly, raise new questions. Here's an excerpt from a JAMA article:

Results Genetic fingerprinting allowed the construction of a 5-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun's immediate lineage. The KV55 mummy and KV35YL were identified as the parents of Tutankhamun. No signs of gynecomastia and craniosynostoses (eg, Antley-Bixler syndrome) or Marfan syndrome were found, but an accumulation of malformations in Tutankhamun's family was evident. Several pathologies including Köhler disease II were diagnosed in Tutankhamun; none alone would have caused death. Genetic testing for STEVOR, AMA1, or MSP1 genes specific for Plasmodium falciparum revealed indications of malaria tropica in 4 mummies, including Tutankhamun’s. These results suggest avascular bone necrosis in conjunction with the malarial infection as the most likely cause of death in Tutankhamun. Walking impairment and malarial disease sustained by Tutankhamun is supported by the discovery of canes and an afterlife pharmacy in his tomb

Some of the technical stuff is over my head; I have never delved too deeply into the technical aspects of genetic research, so I'll leave it to posters more savvy than I to comment. However, other information is very surprising and interesting to those of us who study the history. For instance, most but not all researchers believe that Akhenaten was the father of Tutankhamun and that his mother was a secondary queen named Kiya. A tomb in the Valley of the Kings was discovered in 1907 by Theodore Davis and his archaeologist, Edward R. Ayrton. This tomb, KV55, has puzzled people ever since. It contained one badly decayed mummy (skeletonized) in a heavily damaged coffin that some argued was the body of Akhenaten; based on the examinations of more than one forensic anthropologist, however, the skeleton was that of a person no more than 25 years of age at death, which was too young for Akhenaten. Therefore, most of us have believed that the skeleton belonged to a very ephemeral and poorly understood king named Smenkhkare.

However, the SCA's genetic analysis has confirmed that this mummy was the father of Tutankhamun. Tut's dad, then, was this fellow (the skull of the skeleton in KV55). Because the genetic tests have confirmed that the mummy thought to be Amunhotep III was in fact him (long contested by some), we can now rule out that Amunhotep III was the father of the boy-king. This used to be a popular theory among some researchers.

KV35 is the tomb of Amunhotep II. It was discovered in 1898 by Victor Loret, and in the course of clearing the tomb Loret came upon a sealed side chamber containing mummies that had been moved in ancient history, some time following their original burials. Two of the mummies belong to regal-looking females and are known as Younger Lady and Elder Lady. So then, the genetic tests have confirmed that KV35YL, the Younger Lady, was both the full sister of Akhenaten and the mother of Tutankhamun. This presents a big mystery. It's unlikely that Kiya was Akhenaten's sister, so who is this woman? There are several possible candidates: Sitamen, Isis, Nebetah, or Baketaten, all royal ladies known from that time. There is also Nefertiti, of course, but as with Kiya, she was probably not Akhenaten's sister.

The tests have further confirmed that KV55 and KV35YL were the children of Amunhotep III and his principal queen, Tiye. At this point I may sound a little redundant, so please forgive me. This is all big news to those of us who study the history. Long suspected and also now confirmed is that KV35EL, the Elder Lady from that cache of mummies in KV35, is in fact the mummy of Queen Tiye. Some of you may remember the big fuss the British Egyptologist Joann Fletcher tried to make in identifying this mummy as Nefertiti, so now this officially sinks her theory. A theory she rushed to publish and which landed her in a heap of trouble.

Also confirmed is that KV35EL (Elder Lady) was the daughter of the nobles Yuya and Tjuya, who were buried in KV46 during the reign of Amunhotep III.

And yet more. A female mummy from KV21 (sorry, no photo) is quite possibly that of Ankhesenamun, queen of Tutankhamun. This is most likely going to be confirmed. Two stillborn mummified infant girls (photo of one here) were found in KV62, Tutankhamun's tomb, when it was being cleared in the 1920s. It has been verified that Tutankhamun was their father and the KV21 mummy their mother. Tutankhamun is not known to have another wife, so the KV21 mummy probably is in fact Ankhesenamun, long lost to history.

The genetic tests have clarified that there is no trace of Marfan's syndrome in Tut's family line. The odd appearance of Akhenaten and family in the early artwork of the Amarna Period most likely has nothing to do with disease, an idea most Egyptologists abandoned years ago but still popular among laypeople. However, other diseases were prevalent, malaria among them. It was a combination of weakening by malaria and the severe fracture to his left distal femur that most likely caused the death of Tutankhamun.

Here are some JAMA links (and one from National Geographic) where you can read more, including the one from which I quoted above:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/638?home

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/667?home

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/659?home

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100216-king-tut-malaria-bones-inbred-tutankhamun/

Of course I would like to write more and there's a lot more to be said--all of you know how addicted I am to the study of ancient Egypt. Still, I've written enough, and I hope some of you will comment and contribute. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some of the smarter folks in here can tell us why there was no sign of him having a club foot when they originally unwrapped the dude, but the scans show he had one, as well as a cleft pallet.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-king-tut17-2010feb17,0,7747129.story?track=rss

I can't get your link to work, Qoais. Do I need to know the secret handshake? :lol:

In the reports I've read I haven't seen anything about a club foot. Rather, that was found in one or more of other mummies examined. In my OP I mentioned only several of many mummies that were part of these tests. In this link it says:

The researchers also excluded Antley-Bixler syndrome, but detailed radiological examination of the king's feet revealed a low arch and deformed structure with areas of bone density indicating bone necrosis.

Köhler disease II or Freiberg-Köhler syndrome was apparently active at the time of death and may have caused walking disability for some time, given the 130 canes and walking sticks -- some with traces of wear -- found in the boy king's tomb and depictions of him seated for activities like hunting for which he normally should have been standing.

I had to look into these ailments but the gist of it is, pertaining to Tut, it's likely a particular bone in his foot (the navicular) lost blood supply for some time, which resulted in a weakening of the bone and subsequent disability to some degree or another.

The article in this link also says:

Among the 10 possibly or definitely closely related mummies examined, Pusch's group also found bone malformation -- including cleft palate, clubfeet, and flat feet -- along with indications of bone degeneration, neoplastic changes, and trauma.

So feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the club foot and cleft palette refer to other mummies. I'm still in the early stages of digesting this material and getting everything straight. What's interesting is that the CT scans performed on Tut several years ago revealed no disorder to his feet, and in fact the scientists who studied the scans felt he was a healthy young man at the time of his death.

This is really interesting stuff. It will cause us to rewrite some of our understanding of that particular time in Dynasty 18.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic news kmt_sesh,

For anyone interested, here is a comparison of the head of the mummy confirmed by genetic testing as the father of King Tutankhamen, and King Tut himself.

ComparisonofskullsofAkhenatentoTuta.jpg

Head of Tut's father..................................................................Tut's own x-ray..................................................................Actual head-shot of King Tut

Kmt_sesh, what information is know concerning Smenkhare, currently?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice piece of info Kmt, thanks for that. This sheds a whole new light on a lot of things and effectively cans a few theories as it goes, mainly Joann Fletcher's theory, but I'm sure there are a few others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King Tut's mundane death

Malaria and a broken leg, not murder, probably led to the demise of Egypt's famed boy king. New testing also shows that he had a cleft palate, clubfoot and degenerative bone disease.

Archaeologists have weaved elaborate tales of intrigue and deceit about the death at age 19 of Egypt's fabled boy king Tutankhamen, with theories that include poisoning by his regent, Aye, and a blow to the head by thugs hired by Aye, but new research indicates his cause of death was probably more mundane -- complications from a broken leg and malaria.

Using a new approach for analyzing mummies called molecular Egyptology, an international team of researchers found DNA traces of malaria parasites in the boy-king's brain, suggesting an infection was a major factor in his death.

Examination of Tut's body and his genes confirmed that he suffered from a cleft palate and clubfoot, and showed he had a degenerative bone condition called Kohler disease II.

But he did not suffer from Marfan syndrome or other diseases that would have feminized his appearance, as many researchers have speculated from observing busts from the period.

It now appears that those busts were simply a distinct artistic style chosen by the pharaohs of the 18th dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, who ruled from 1550 BC to about 1295 BC.

By matching Tut's DNA to samples from other mummies, the team was able to identify one -- previously known only as KV55 -- as the pharaoh Akhenaten and the probable father of Tut; another as Tiye, Akhenaten's mother and Tut's grandmother; and a third as a sister of Akhenaten who was probably Tut's mother.

The results, published in Wednesday's edition of the Journal of the American Medical Assn., show that DNA analysis of mummies can provide valuable insights, said archaeologist Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities and leader of the research team.

"It is very important to have more empirical data about this body," said archaeologist Emily Teeter of the University of Chicago's Oriental Institute, who was not involved in the research. "The period is well documented [with artifacts] but not well understood."

She said the demonstration that Akhenaten was probably Tut's father also had "ramifications for Egyptian chronology." Researchers had not known whether Tut's father was Amenhotep III or Amenhotep IV, who took the name Akhenaten.

Tut became pharaoh in 1333 BC at age 10 and ruled for only nine years, a period during which most of the governing was probably performed by his regent, the commoner Aye (pronounced "I"). It was common for millenniums for regents to rule when a new king was too young.

Tut was considered a minor king. Little was known about him until archaeologist Howard Carter found his riches-filled tomb in 1922, at which point he became an international celebrity.

The find also triggered much speculation. Busts showed a feminized face and gynecomastia, or feminized breasts, leading to the hotly contested speculation by a few that Tut and his family suffered from a disorder such as Marfan syndrome.

But the new study, performed at a specialized ancient-DNA laboratory at the University of Tubingen in Germany, showed no evidence of genetic conditions in Tut's family that would lead to such characteristics.

The first examinations of Tut's skull many years ago showed a fracture, and historians wove elaborate tales about it. In 1998, archaeologist Bob Brier of Long Island University published "The Murder of Tutankhamen," speculating that the killing was done by Aye's henchmen so he could continue to rule.

But CT scans performed in 2005 showed that the fracture actually occurred long after death, most likely during the embalming process. The scans also showed a cleft palate and a fracture in his left femur, or thighbone, that most likely occurred a few days before his death.

The new testing did show the presence of several genes from the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum in Tut and three other mummies, including his grandmother, suggesting the disease was a fairly common problem among the Egyptian royalty.

That infection, combined with necrosis, or death of bones, caused by Kohler disease could have weakened him severely, the authors speculated.

The broken leg, possibly from a fall, could then have been the final event that led to his death.

Perhaps the most unexpected aspect of the new findings was that Tut suffered from clubfoot, Teeter said. "Photographs of the mummy taken when it was unwrapped in 1925 don't show anything that would suggest a clubfoot, so this is a real surprise."

The team says that the presence of many canes in the tomb support the idea that he was disabled, but Teeter noted that the canes "were primarily decorative, and every well-dressed Egyptian man carried a cane -- just like a man in the 1940s with a pocket square."

Two one-hour documentaries about the researchers' studies will be presented on the Discovery Channel on Sunday and Monday.

thomas.maugh@latimes.com

Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-king-tut17-2010feb17,0,7747129.story?track=rss

The link won't work, and yet when I try it in the other forum, it works.

Edited by Qoais

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qoais, the link is not working because of the , in the URL. It only recognises this part http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-king-tut17-2010feb17 which inevitably leads to a Page Not Found message.

Try copying this entire link and paste it into your browser :

www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-king-tut17-2010feb17,0,7747129.story?track=rss

It should work fine then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fantastic thread!!!!!...thank you all for sharing your wealth of knowledge......i have researched and read on a lot of Egypt.......but you guys blow me away!!!!!........i have never seen the beautiful gold mask that was found with him.........i believe it is in a London museum????....and will 1 day travel to Egypt.....thanks again....ok....about the documentary.....i'm in Australia......so when would it be on for me???.....or should i just go to their website and see...blush.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty incredible stuff...based on the information they recently found, it certainly sheds light on the situation in a way we could have never done in times past. I can't fathom how they dealt with a femur fracture back then...Having dealt with many current day femur fractures I can tell you that they are extremely difficult to treat without advanced care; the muscles of the thigh(front and back) generally tighten up and pull the ends of the jagged bone together and into muscle tissue. Anyone who has seen a broken chicken bone knows how sharp the edges of the bone are; imagine that pulled into muscle tissue, or worse yet the large arteries and veins of the thigh...it is excruciating. We now have a device with a pulley system that attaches to the foot and allows us to pull traction on the broken femur, pulling the jagged edges out of the injured tissue, and back into some degree of alignment. The people having that traction applied actually give a sigh of relief when traction is applied...As advanced as the Egyptians were, I seriously doubt they had the ability to create such a system, so I can only imagine that Tut would have had to suffer in agony for some time(unless the jagged bones cut the femoral artery; which ends in a quick death). Compounded by the fact that he would have been weakened by malaria(to some degree anyway), it would have been miserable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fantastic thread!!!!!...thank you all for sharing your wealth of knowledge......i have researched and read on a lot of Egypt.......but you guys blow me away!!!!!........i have never seen the beautiful gold mask that was found with him.........i believe it is in a London museum????....and will 1 day travel to Egypt.....thanks again....ok....about the documentary.....i'm in Australia......so when would it be on for me???.....or should i just go to their website and see...blush.gif

If I'm not mistaken the burial mask is usually exhibited in and by the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. It's not in a London museum as far as I'm aware. You might want to check on their site so see if there is a traveling exhibition happening for the moment. I know that in 2009 it toured the US, but I'm unsure if it will go to the great down under.

Their web link is www.egyptianmuseum.gov.eg, although I need to warn that for the moment it's not working for me.

Edit : me bleeding spelling again of course.

Edited by TheSearcher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Searcher - it works. I couldn't figure out why it wouldn't work when I copied it right from the site, but would work from the other forum. Oh well, all's well that ends well. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush:

I need a chart. Family tree chart or something.

:( Some of us need visual aids.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of your wonderful input, everyone. I don't have time for detailed posting right now, and I'm waiting on an acquaintance who is supposed to be emailing me a PDF of the report listing the results and findings.

For the moment, however, a correction is in order. In my OP I mentioned that Joann Fletcher had tried to identify KV35EL as the mummy of Nefertiti, but I got my mummies confused. It was KV35YL, the Younger Lady, who Fletcher was using for her theory. The identity of this mummy remains unknown and I listed some potential candidates in my OP, including either Kiya or Nefertiti. So Fletcher's theory has not been definitively disproved as of yet and I must apologize to the group for misidentifying the mummy. LOL And I'm the one always criticizing Fletcher for rushing to publish. However, as I said earlier, it's extremely unlikely that either Kiya or Nefertiti was a full sister of Akhenaten.

I'll stop in later and read everyone's comments in more detail. Thanks again, folks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blush:

I need a chart. Family tree chart or something.

:( Some of us need visual aids.

Nibs

A perfectly reasonable request, HerNibs. I happen to have a chart pertaining to the relationships of the people in question:

image-9118_4B7B4DDF.gif

I hope this helps. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfectly reasonable request, HerNibs. I happen to have a chart pertaining to the relationships of the people in question:

image-9118_4B7B4DDF.gif

I hope this helps. ^_^

*HUGE HUG*

Yea!! Thank you.

Nibs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question, please.

Given the extremely close consanguinuity of many of this family - due to inbreeding - how is it possible to make a statement of certainty about the absolute relationship between the samples (i.e. that KV55 was Tut's dad) via y-chromosomal comparison?

I'm not overly familiar with the techniques of DNA analysis, but I was under the impression that it was simply the broader relationship that could be determined - i.e. two samples with a y-chromosomal match were of the same line of paternal parentage, rather than the absolute relationship between the samples?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose some kind of outline explaining these people might also be helpful. I have to remember that not everyone is as much of an Egyptoholic as I am. These people lived in late Dynasty 18, from the reign of Amunhotep III to the reign of Tutankhamun, so roughly 1391 to 1324 BCE.

Yuya and Tjuya: Great-grandparents of Tutankhamun. Parents-in-law of Amunhotep III and parents of Tiye. Mummies found in their tomb, KV46.

Amunhotep III: Ninth king of Dynasty 18. Son of Tuthmosis IV. The mummy long thought to be his, but contested by others, has now been established genetically to have been Amunhotep III.

Queen Tiye: Principal wife of Amunhotep III. Daughter of Yuya and Tjuya. Mummy now identified as KV35EL.

Akhenaten: Tenth king of Dynasty 18. Son of Amunhotep III. Mummy now identified as KV55, although I personally am not sure why. The KV55 mummy has been established genetically as the father of Tutankhamun, but this mummy could also be Smenkhkare. I'm awaiting clarification on this from sources.

Nefertiti: Principal wife of Akhenaten. Parentage unknown. Mummy KV35YL has been established genetically as the mother of Tutankhamun, but it is unlikely that Nefertiti was a full sister of Akhenaten, as the KV35YL mummy is now known genetically to have been.

Kiya: Secondary wife of Akhenaten. Parentage unknown, although many researchers have argued that "Kiya" is a shortened, Egyptianized version of either Gilukhipa or Tadukhipa, two Mitanni princesses (daughters of Tushratta) who were diplomatically wedded to Amunhotep III. Akhenaten inherited his father's harem and thus these two Mitanni princesses, but Gilukhipa would've been too old by that time to have borne children, so Tadukhipa is a possibility. As with Nefertiti, mummy KV35YL has been established genetically as the mother of Tutankhamun, but it is unlikely that Kiya was a full sister of Akhenaten, as the KV35YL mummy is now known genetically to have been.

Smenkhkare: Possibly the eleventh king of Dynasty 18, but the most poorly understood king of that dynasty. Possibly a son of Amunhotep III and brother to Akhenaten, or a son of Akhenaten and brother to Tutankhamun. Principal wife was Merytaten, daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. As I mentioned earlier, the KV55 mummy has now been identified as Akhenaten, but I am unclear on why this is because the mummy still might be Smenkhkare. I await more information on this issue. An old theory states that Smenkhkare and Neferiti were actually the same person but most researchers no longer believe this is plausible.

Tutankhamun: Possibly the eleventh or twelfth king of Dynasty 18. Probably the son of Akhenaten, although some have argued the father was Smenkhare, among others. Mother now has been established genetically as KV35YL (the Younger Lady), whose identity remains unknown. The longest-held theory was that his mother was the secondary queen Kiya (see entry above), but that theory might now need to be abandoned. Father of the two stillborn, mummified girls in his tomb, KV62.

Anhkesenamun: Principal wife of Tutankhamun. Daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. The female mummy KV21A, long thought to be a Dynasty 18 queen, might possibly be Ankhesenamun, although this has not been verified to my knowledge. However, KV21A has now been established genetically as the mother of the two stillborn, mummified girls found in KV62, so the identification is most likely correct. I have not seen this in the literature produced so far published, but if KV21A has been identified genetically as the daughter of the KV55 mummy, then this would clarify that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten and not Smenkhkare.

I hope this outline helps. Honestly, it all makes sense to me, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm just confusing people more. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question, please.

Given the extremely close consanguinuity of many of this family - due to inbreeding - how is it possible to make a statement of certainty about the absolute relationship between the samples (i.e. that KV55 was Tut's dad) via y-chromosomal comparison?

I'm not overly familiar with the techniques of DNA analysis, but I was under the impression that it was simply the broader relationship that could be determined - i.e. two samples with a y-chromosomal match were of the same line of paternal parentage, rather than the absolute relationship between the samples?

I'm not terribly familiar with this, either, Leonardo. I'm hoping people with a greater understanding will post on the subject.

Cormac, are you listening? Cormac? CORMAC! :w00t:

The same acquaintance who will be emailing me the PDF for which I've been waiting, has been reproducing parts of it on a forum where I'm a Moderator. He's posted a tremendous amount of material so far, and I've not yet had the time to pour through all of it without my eyes bleeding (it can get extremely technical). However, here's one recently posted excerpt:

RESULTS

Kinship Analyses

... The statistical analysis revealed that the mummy KV55 is most probably the father of Tutankhamun (probability of 99.99999981%) and KV35 Younger Lady could be identified as his mother (99.99999997%). The testing of Amenhotep III as father of Tutankhamun and KV35 Elder Lady as putative mother were both negative owing to mismatching alleles. Amenhotep III could clearly be identified as father of KV55, showing a paternal probability of 99.99999999%. The results demonstrate that the mummy in KV55 is the son of Amenhotep III and father of Tutankhamun, leading to the assumption (also supported by the radiological findings) that the mummy can be identified as Akhenaten. It could be further shown that Tutankhamun is the most likely father of the 2 fetuses found in KV62 (Fetus1: 99.97992885%, Fetus2: 99.99999299%). The degree of shared alleles between the female mummy KV21A and Fetus1 and Fetus2 points toward a possible identification of the mummy as Ankhensenamun, the mother of both fetuses and wife of Tutankhamun...

So there are other factors besides DNA, but the DNA is of course critical. Does this start to answer your question?

Incidentally, on that other forum, a number of posters are asking the same question I am: how do we know the mummy in KV55 is not Smenkhkare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Smenkhare is the brother of Akhenaten-he could be the KV55 mummy, then could the KV35YL be Meritaten?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A truly remarkable and fascinating thread. Very comprehensive and utterly enthralling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Smenkhare is the brother of Akhenaten-he could be the KV55 mummy, then could the KV35YL be Meritaten?

The big question to me is the KV55 mummy--Akhenaten or Smenkhare? One could speculate that KV35YL is Meritaten, and some researchers have suggested she was Tut's mother if in fact Smenkhkare was his father, so there is that possibility, too. Good call, Brown0422.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great stuff kmt_sesh. I am surprised his DNA was not tested sooner. If the same tests are done on all mummy remains a database could be built and lineage could be determined using hard science instead of guessing and interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question, please.

Given the extremely close consanguinuity of many of this family - due to inbreeding - how is it possible to make a statement of certainty about the absolute relationship between the samples (i.e. that KV55 was Tut's dad) via y-chromosomal comparison?

I'm not overly familiar with the techniques of DNA analysis, but I was under the impression that it was simply the broader relationship that could be determined - i.e. two samples with a y-chromosomal match were of the same line of paternal parentage, rather than the absolute relationship between the samples?

Single nucleotide polymorphisms, short tandem repeats, amplified fragment length polymorphisms and restriction fragment length polymorphisms. You can use them to determine absolute relationships.

Sorry I don't have time to elaborate right now Leo, you'll have to read up on them.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not terribly familiar with this, either, Leonardo. I'm hoping people with a greater understanding will post on the subject.

Cormac, are you listening? Cormac? CORMAC! :w00t:

The same acquaintance who will be emailing me the PDF for which I've been waiting, has been reproducing parts of it on a forum where I'm a Moderator. He's posted a tremendous amount of material so far, and I've not yet had the time to pour through all of it without my eyes bleeding (it can get extremely technical). However, here's one recently posted excerpt:

So there are other factors besides DNA, but the DNA is of course critical. Does this start to answer your question?

Incidentally, on that other forum, a number of posters are asking the same question I am: how do we know the mummy in KV55 is not Smenkhkare?

Sorry, I couldn't hear you, someone keeps yelling. :P:lol:

I think you've adequately handled this, but just to add from the Kinship Analyses:

MicrosatelliteDataofMummiesThoughtt.gif

To elucidate the genealogy in Tutankhamun's family, microsatellite markers were used to achieve genetic fingerprints of all mummies. All 8 females tested were negative for the examined polymorphic Y-chromosomal loci, underlining the specificity of the approach. The repeated search for hemizygous Y alleles in the males yielded few results, with differing success in the various markers contained in the multiplex PCR kit used. Markers DYS393 and Y-GATA-H4 showed identical allele constellations (repeat motif located in the microsatellite allele reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively) in Amenhotep III, KV55, and Tutankhamun but different allelotypes in the nonrelated CCG61065 sample from TT320 (9 and 9, respectively). Syngeneic Y-chromosomal DNA in the 3 former mummies indicates that they share the same paternal lineage.

These results were repeatedly obtained with DNA extracted from 2 to 4 different biopsies per mummy; moreover, they differed from the Y profiles of the male laboratory staff and were independently reproduced twice in a second laboratory physically isolated from the first, data-generating laboratory.

An up to 30-fold testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci via the combined use of the Identifiler and AmpF\STR Minifiler kits (Applied Biosystems) yielded complete data sets for all 8 markers in 7 mummies (Thuya, Yuya, Amenhotep III, Tutankhamun, KV55, and both female mummies from KV35) but only partial data for both KV62 fetuses and the KV21A and KV21B mummies (Figure 1). Repeated attempts to complete the profiles in the 4 latter mummies were not successful; however, we were able to replicate some of the results for the previous mummies more than 4 times in the second, independent laboratory (Figure 1). Moreover, because these profiles differed from those of the laboratory staff and were not identical to the ones established for the control group, the data were considered authentic.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.