GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266516728
From: Steven Bird <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] King Tutankhamun's Y-DNA - Eureka!
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:12:08 -0500
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org><000c01cab08a$46984480$d3c8cd80$@org><4351D390-54FE-44EF-9281-2F14AA134DD1@vizachero.com>, ,<4B7D5028.email@example.com><001601cab0a8$65277740$2f7665c0$@org>, ,<SNT127-DS1868889B8CF5CC8B53A2278D470@phx.gbl>,<SNT115-W293600D81C9F5D26F6A1ADCC470@phx.gbl>,<4B7D80A3.firstname.lastname@example.org>
You're right. Contamination is very unlikely.
Let's assume for the moment that Tut is in fact R1b1b2. It could explain Hawass' apparent reluctance to publish the Y DNA STRs. Since the Amenhotep pharoahs were considered interlopers, it suggests that they might have come from elsewhere (outside of the Egyptian kingdom). Anatolia under the Hittites might appear to be a good candidate as a source for R1b1b2. Could the dynasty be related somehow to the Hittite kings? Whatever the source, if this haplogroup ID is correct, we all will have to rethink the history of Egypt.
I'm considering calling Tut's haplogroup "RA"-1b1b2 ;-) (he said facetiously)....
> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:02:11 -0800
> Subject: Re: [DNA] King Tutankhamun's Y-DNA - Eureka!
> But how likely is that from drilled bone samples?
> > On 2/18/2010 9:45 AM, Steven Bird wrote:
> > Larry and Dan,
> > I had also thought about the possibility of contamination from one of the British excavators many years ago having gotten into the samples extracted. That could conceivably affect both (or all) of the tested mummies.
> > Steve
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection.
|Re: [DNA] King Tutankhamun's Y-DNA - Eureka! by Steven Bird <>|