Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266546919

From: Robert Tarín <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Some more Tut DNA STR values from the video
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:35:19 -0600
References: <><SNT115-W45463D0E57A424FC088542CC480@phx.gbl><SNT115-W400377CF1A910C32AFA705CC480@phx.gbl><SNT115-W209B414EEFCD31E04B9B32CC470@phx.gbl><><BAY128-W350D54DBEB43EB1CFB9D5C8460@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BAY128-W350D54DBEB43EB1CFB9D5C8460@phx.gbl>

Here is what the published study says about the 393=9 results. They are for
a nonrelated sample.

Markers DYS393 and YGATA-
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).


On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:09 PM, argiedude <> wrote:

> Did the authors of the study say that the 2nd y-dna tested had 393=9?
> Because that would mean at least one of the images they showed in the video
> isn't stock footage, it's one of the 2 actual results, which would suggest
> the other image is probably also the real deal and not stock footage. I'm
> starting to become more amazed by Hawass' behavior then by the results,
> quite honestly.
> I looked at some 300 Egyptian samples from yhrd and Luis' 2004 study of
> East Africa, which included 150 Egyptian samples, and it seems that ht15 is
> about 1% to 2% of Egyptian y-dna, ht35 likewise, and R1b1* (technically
> R1b1* plus R1b1a) is around 2% to 3%, for an overall rate of R1b of about 5%
> to 7%.
> If this result is true, it could still arguably be an ht35 that mutated in
> 393 from 12 to 13, though ht15 is still the prime candidate. It would be
> extremely unlikely that the sample would be R1b1*, because of 19=14 and
> 385=11/14.
> What's the 393=9 sample from? That would really be pushing it, that 2
> Egyptian samples came out R1b.

This thread: