Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-02 > 1266599602

From: Steven Bird <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] re King Tut
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:13:22 -0500
References: <20100219095259.CB1H1.715188.root@mp08>
In-Reply-To: <20100219095259.CB1H1.715188.root@mp08>

The originator of the King Tut line was Thutmose I, who married into the royal family:

He was not the natural son of the previous Pharoah, Amenhotep I. The question that is pertinent is to determine the origins of Thutmose I if possible. Perhaps he was Hittite?

Hawass appears to have established that Tut was the grandson of Amenhotep III. The next step would be to compare AmenIII with Thutmose, I would think. It would also be worthwhile to learn the haplogroup of Amenhotep I, just for comparison.

John, I actually think that this could tell us a lot about the political dynamics of the region in 1500 BCE. Are Thutmose's predecessors also R1b1b2 or are they something less surprising, such as E1b1b1a-M78*? This is a rich vein of research that I hope might bear some useful nuggets concerning the ancient history of the region during the middle and late BA. I just hope that the Egyptian archaeologists are brave enough to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.


> Even if the DNA of Tut does turn out to be R1bxxx, it doesn't really say anything about the rise of Egypt. Egypt's ruling elite was up to some high number of lineage. I.E. Egypt's ruler was whoever happened to be the most recent strongman and frequently he was a mercenary from elsewhere. And then he would marry his sister and the result would be a physical defective like Tut.

Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft.

This thread: