Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

amazing DNA article on Tutankhamun
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 9:49 am    Post subject: amazing DNA article on Tutankhamun Reply with quote

i was searching the net for info on thumose IV's mummy. as in did they test it for the DNA tests on tutankhamun? i came across this awesome article about the jama report, and the testing. it is by a man named dylan bickerstaffe, he has written for kmt among others. the article makes a lot of sense, and even had an amazing paragraph (among many):

Quote:
There remains the troubling coincidence that the KV21 mummies seem to fit into the DNA of the Amarna royal family. Of course the DNA data on these two mummies is particularly incomplete, but they do seem to show some characteristics of Thuya and Amenhotep III. How might this be explained? Probably the most likely answer is that those two royal figures themselves share a common source. It has long been speculated that the royal family in the later Eighteenth dynasty intermarried with an Akhmim family with a rather characteristic set of names: Yey, Yuya, Ay, Thuya, Tiye, Tey etc.21 In this regard it is interesting that Amenhotep II’s wife Tiaa was the mother of Thutmose IV, whose wife, Mutemwia, the mother of Amenhotep III, was of obscure origins. Both of these women may have derived from the same Akhmim family, and it is perhaps not unlikely that wet-nurses in KV21 (and perhaps KV60) are from this same background. Indeed, Ay’s wife, Tey, is known to have been Nefertiti’s wet-nurse, and one wonders if the SCA hoped for a similar pairing from KV21 as they thought had been found with Sitre-In and Hatshepsut in KV60. Thus when two obscure females from KV21 were entered in the DNA study as ‘Putative Relatives of Tutankhamun’, the prize that was sought was Nefertiti herself!


it's so good i bookmarked it, and thought i'd share with you all!
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi kylejustin,
Can you please share the link as well?
Thanks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Fri May 06, 2011 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.dylanb.me.uk/wp/?p=463

i cant believe i forgot the link!!!
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It`s a very interesting article.

It is obvious that the ultimate goal of the DNA studies was to find Nefertiti`s mummy and to identify KV55 with Akhenaten.

Also interesting in this context might be some other information. Some time ago I searched the net for info about Carsten Pusch, a main contributor in the DNA studies, and came across an interview in which he told how he got this job.
He said he was contacted by someone from Cairo and asked if he wanted to do DNA-testing on the two foetuses from Tut`s tomb.
He said that he needed access to more mummies from this family in order to get a better picture.

This reveals that they were after Nefertiti in the first place.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4097
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An article on the subject in generally:

Jo Marchant : Ancient DNA - Curse of the Pharaoh's DNA. - In: Nature - 472, 2011, pp. 404-406.

With an extensive continuing collection of links to other articles, some still known, some not.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i wasn't sure what they were after exactly when they did the dna. i always assumed they were scared of proving something that may damage egypt's position on certain political matters. ancient or modern. but it makes sense to hope to find nefertiti's mummy, as zahi hawass would have had a field day if he could claim credit.

thanx for that link lutz, it is interesting that it seems easier to pull ancient dna from specimens preserved in the cold, than in the heat.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kylejustin wrote:
Quote:
i always assumed they were scared of proving something that may damage egypt's position on certain political matters. ancient or modern.

I think you're right.

The DNA you're looking for (Thutmose IV) was done by Scott Woodward; the results were never released. He made general statements about it that are somewhat skewed because he accepted the mummy formerly known as Thutmose I as that person (the mtDNA is different), although he shares a "particular" whatever that means allele with Amenhotep I. There used to be a link on wiki of all mummies tested, I can't find it or the longer article by Woodward where he goes into more detail.

Here's what Anneke said a while ago:
http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=330&view=previous&sid=7930ddeafdc35277899a00f0c76088e2
and here's the article itself:
http://egyptstudy.org/ostracon/vol12_1.pdf

Thanks, for the link, Lutz. I always enjoy your comments.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hi stephanie,

i had seen this man claiming he had tested the dna before 2010, and was skeptical. but since he has pulled dna from mummies tested in 2010, he must be telling the truth. i find it interesting thutmose IV doesn't match the male lineage? maybe thats why hawass was trying not to dna testing? i also found it weird they didn't do thutmose IV or the boy from amenhotep II's tomb. i would think they would be nice to confirm.

i guess thutmose IV may not be who the label says. but it would have confirmed amenhotep III in the dna studies i think.
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2011 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi kylejustin,
He did the boy, he's just not releasing the DNA. (*** Hawass.) The Thutmose IV comments were general and I'm not sure who else Woodward did, so it's hard to tell exactly how it didn't match. It's interesting that his hair is orange like one of the Ramesses, so maybe he has been mislabeled. Certainly in his portraits and line art in tomb his nose curves in, rather than being aquiline, I had thought maybe it drooped as an embalming/squashed in coffin feature. A rather interesting feature is his "diminutive genitals" which makes me wonder about his ability to procreate.

By now all the Ramesses should have been done as well, but DNA in Egypt has sunk like a stone in water, without even a ripple of complaint from anyone who might be interested in learning the truth. It's hard to equate red hair with hawass' vision of 100% Egyptian (whatever that means).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2011 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.***/2011/02/video-on-tutankhamun-dna-analysis.html

This is a link to a video which is very interesting for anyone who wants to know more about the testing carried out by Woodward.
It shows that he tested quite a lot of mummies from the 18th, 19. and even 20. dynasty (including Tutmose I-III, IV, a few Ramessides, Merenptah and Siptah). Woodward explains the overall impression he gains from the results (e.g. evident inbreeding at the beginning and the end of the 18th dynasty but not so much in between) but as Stephanie P already pointed out he does not show the exact results.
This is something he probably would have done in a proper publication had he had the opportunity to do so.
As Woodward started this work in 2000 I could well imagine that the publication of the results was prevented by Hawass who came to "power" shortly after and who might not have liked either the results themselves or the fact that a non-Egyptian did so important work.

Regarding the few red-haired mummies I am not sure if their hair colour compells one to assume they were foreign. I have seen their hair colour more often being called a reddish-brown which might not have been so alien to Egypt.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Sothis,
The video is blocked unfortunately in the US.

I'd be curious to know more about the red headed mummies. I know in Minya I've seen little kids with very curly lightish brown hair, which I thought harkened right back to Tiye & co.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sothis
Priest
Priest


Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 659

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stephaniep wrote:
Thanks Sothis,
The video is blocked unfortunately in the US.

I'd be curious to know more about the red headed mummies. I know in Minya I've seen little kids with very curly lightish brown hair, which I thought harkened right back to Tiye & co.


It`s probably not such a great loss even if you can`t see it as there is not much more information than in the article.

But still it is nice to watch and it makes Hawass` claim to have conducted DNA-testing for the first time even more enraging.

One or two things may be worth mentioning though.

First that the scientists had to search for the two foetuses like for a needle in a haystack as nobody had an idea where they were. After checking out the whole Egyptian Museum and looking elsewhere they were finally found in a storeroom of a university hospital. Is this a way of dealing with ancient remains??

Secondly they showed that the tissue samples were taken from the surface of the bodies in places which they thought were not likely to be contaminated.
At least with regards to contamination the samples which Hawass`s team took out of the bones are certainly more reliable.

But then it is probably not Woodward`s fault as I guess that at that time one would not have been allowed to drill into the mummies.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stephaniep
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 266
Location: RI

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 12:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Sothis,
Thanks for the information.
Quote:
But still it is nice to watch and it makes Hawass` claim to have conducted DNA-testing for the first time even more enraging.

He suppressed the Woodward findings because of "national security" so I guess he pretended it never existed. I wonder what it was about the DNA that caused that? (I can think of a few reasons.) And what made him think he could go ahead with more testing, unless he could suppress whatever details upset him so much. I wish someone with some power would press him for the truth.
Quote:
Secondly they showed that the tissue samples were taken from the surface of the bodies in places which they thought were not likely to be contaminated.

They were able to extract mtDNA from a tooth of the Denisova humanoid who lived 30,000 years ago. I wonder why they can't do Egyptian teeth?

That was an expensive amount of money the Discovery Channel blew on the DNA lab, but they're not complaining either (apparently).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kylejustin
Vizier
Vizier


Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Posts: 1231
Location: victoria, australia

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the qasr el aini university in cairo has the remains of many mummies, a lot royal, mostly the ones not found in the caches at thebes:

http://www.mummytombs.com/egypt/pharaohmummies.htm

mostly the pharoahs of tanis, and remains thought be of kings from the pyramid age.

i fail to see how modern dna can make an ancient king the son of another ancient king we know of from historical records?
_________________
heaven won't take me.......hell's afraid i'll take over.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dkessler
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 11 Aug 2010
Posts: 51
Location: London

PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:27 pm    Post subject: Tutankhamen DNA Reply with quote

There was just one problem with the DNA. It has been pointed out by Kate Phizackerley that the two foetuses in KV21 could not be the children of both Tutankhamen and Akhensenamun.

The reason for this is one of the foetuses has 10 and 13 at locus D7S820 and the other has 6 and 15. As Akhenaten (the presumed father of both Tut and his wife/half-sister) was a diploid at this locus (with both alleles being 15) this leaves one allele unaccounted for.

Kate Phizackerley offers a detailed alternative explanation for this. But in my thriller, The Moses Legacy (Link removed by admin. If you want to advertise a commercial product, contact me to discuss advertising rates.) I solve this problem by suggesting that Akhensenamun was not King Tut's half sister but the result of Nefertiti having a bit on the side. This would solve the problem very neatly.

Unfortunately, the mummy known as KV21A (the presumed "mommy" of the foetuses) was so badly decayed, they could not get a good enough DNA sample to get a result at the relevant locus or to determine if indeed she was the half-sister of King Tut.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group