posted
There was a thread last year on Tut in which I posted data from a couple sources which bring a shadow of doubt on the probability that Akhenaten was truly Tut's father at least biologically.
Unfortunately that thread was deleted along with a number of threads relevant to the topic of Egyptology. So I have gone out of my way to raise this issue in a thread of its own.
The above is an Egyptology blog but the author brings up rather interesting points in regards to the DNA findings. The STR analysis for locus D7S820 for Tut shows 10|15, yet his two children (fetuses) found in his tomb show 10|13 and 6|15. If these these two miscarried fetuses really belonged to his wife Ankhesenamun who is in turn his half sister by his father, then why does she presumably have 6|13 if she really is the daughter of his father?? This means either she was not the daughter of Akhenaten OR that her father Akhentaten is NOT Tut's father.
The STR findings can be seen below:
The author of the blog Ms. Phizackerley gives her following assessment:
Enter Smenkhare?
The contradiction in the D7S820 STR results, and the need to hypothecate either additional queen, can be resolved by instead identifying the KV55 mummy as an unknown prince. There is no way to name this prince but he would seem to fit what is known of Smenkhare and, for convenience at least, I’ll work with this attribution throughout the rest of this paper.
The mummy of Akhenaten would remain missing or unidentified. Indeed the question would remain whether either he or his wife, Nefertiti, was ever returned to the Valley of the Kings from Amarna, although science hopes they were and that their last resting place might be found. (Romantics might wish to find them interred together.)
Multi-inter-generational Allele Jumps
In Table 1 below I have repeated the STR findings for 6 loci reported in the JAMA paper: D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539 and D18S51. I have omitted the final two loci tested as the findings are materially incomplete in the latest generations so they add little to this discourse. (I have nonetheless checked that the reported alleles in those loci are consistent with my conclusions in this paper.) I have added my deduced assessment of the genetics of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (both mummies unknown) as I will explain later.Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is the constructed genealogical tree of Tut and his family based on DNA findings.
We know that both of Tut's parents were full siblings to each other and both were children of Amenhotep III and Tiye. Considering the discrepancy in STR data, we may then assume that Tut's father may very well have been a brother of Akhenaten instead of Akhenaten himself, perhaps the mysterious Smenkhkare who ruled very briefly (only one year) just after Akhenaten. The main problem with the study of the Amarna family is the scanty records which many Egyptologists believe was the result of the Amun priesthood and succeeding pharaohs destroying most of the records of this family to eradicate the memory of Akhenaten's 'heresy'. All we know is that a Smenkhkare arose to rule for one year during the end of Akhenaten's reign. Perhaps because the latter was ill. Right after Smenkhkare's one year reign came another mysterious pharaoh known as Neferneferuaten who bore feminine titles and was depicted in feminine ways. Many scholars assumed this person was non other than Nefertiti, and after her reign lasted several years did Tutankhamun assume the throne.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Nice made, but I don't understand the blue eyes.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
DJ
One alternative to consider that old state descent thing.
quote:
The STR analysis for locus D7S820 for Tut shows 10|15, yet his two children (fetuses) found in his tomb show 10|13 and 6|15. If these these two miscarried fetuses really belonged to his wife Ankhesenamun who is in turn his half sister by his father, then why does she presumably have 6|13 if she really is the daughter of his father?? This means either she was not the daughter of Akhenaten OR that her father Akhentaten is NOT Tut's father.
.
Hey ... did I just notice neither possible mother has D7 data ???
Posts: 8179 | From: the Tekrur straddling Senegal & Mauritania | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
CONCLUSION: Mutations of STR loci are relatively common in human genome. Therefore, retesting of additional relatively stable STR loci with lower mutation rates is necessary when one or two loci exclusions are encountered in paternity testing.
Fa Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2007 Aug;23(4):290-1, 294. [Mutations of short tandem repeat loci in Identifiler system]. [Article in Chinese]
posted
Here is some more evidence on why KV55 is not Akhenaten:
KV55 Mummy Not Akhenaten Says ASU Bioarchaeologist In the wake of the publication, and a related Discovery Channel special, several scientists have come forward to challenge the assumptions made by Hawass’ team. Among those questioning the findings is Arizona State University bioarchaeologist Brenda J. Baker, whose letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association appears in the June 23 edition.
A specialist in human osteology and paleopathology, Baker takes issue with the identification of the skeletonized mummy KV55 as Tutankhamun’s father, Akhenaten. The authors place this individual’s age at the time of death at 35 45, despite producing no evidence that repudiates well-known prior examinations citing the age in the 18-26 range.
These earlier analyses – documented with written descriptions, photographs and radiographs – show a pattern of fused and unfused epiphyses (caps on ends of growing bones) throughout the skeleton, indicating a man much younger than Akhenaten is believed to have been at the time of his death. Baker also uses a photograph of the pubic symphysis of the pelvis to narrow the age of KV55 to 18-23 based on recent techniques used in osteology and forensic anthropology.
In addition, Baker questions the supposed pathology shared between KV55 and King Tutankhamun, none of which are supported by previous studies. *Her conclusion is that KV55 are the remains of another son of Amenhotep III.*
Baker, an associate professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, is known for her ability to reconstruct the health conditions and lifeways of ancient people based on the examination of skeletal remains. She has done extensive work in Egypt as the senior physical anthropologist for the University of Pennsylvania Museum-Yale University-Institute of Fine Arts, New York University Expedition to Abydos since 1988 and directs an archaeological project investigating ancient Nubia in northern Sudan. Among the classes she teaches are Advanced Human Osteology and Life and Death in Ancient Egypt.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
So I have gone out of my way to raise this issue in a thread of its own.
Printer-friendly view of this topic