GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-09 > 1283735687


From: peter spencer <>
Subject: Re: [DNA]King Tut’s DNA values revealed by Zahi Hawass- Thoughts on short STRs
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:14:47 -0500
References: <AANLkTi=k8cEwNGe5Z-TqqS-WsBN51=z3WvtnGMs6n+ge@mail.gmail.com><191720.51998.qm@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com><AANLkTinqNRU+NU_9qpqWwf2Aquo8TxY9J-Uf6Q2Hpm18@mail.gmail.com><563CA9DCB5324DB6B9BC33EBEBAA42D6@JohnPC>
In-Reply-To: <563CA9DCB5324DB6B9BC33EBEBAA42D6@JohnPC>


I dont for a sec. think the problem is a lack of reliable Y-DNA results that
match between the generations.

Thats been established. The autosomnal results are pretty transparently a
response to try to deflect criticism for the grand media rollout concerning
Tuts family DNA and the lavish media campaign to support that, with Zero
results released.

Either Hawass personally or his circle in collusion, is simply deliberately
withholding the Y (and Mt) results.

I saw a posting in a ARCE researchers blog only a day after the big
announcement that Tut was supposedly R1b, and that researcher described a
presentation he claimed to have attended with other foreign Egyptologists at
that time, during which Hawass told them that the DNA results linked Tut
Paternally, and his pharoah father, to a specific "Greek" non-egyptian
ancestor who was a court advisor to the previous pharoah, and that this DNA
line was not carried in prior pharoahs or later... and was not in fact of
egyptian origin.

All this sounds pretty implausible to truthfully 'establish' with such
certainty, but it does sound like the Hawass bunch was sounding-out possible
explanations to see how they could ''sell'' the results they are alleged to
have come up with, without damaging Tuts ''egyptian-ness'' to their liking.

The next day, the entire ''Tuts' Y-line was father by a greek advisor to his
grandfather'' description was scrubbed from the ARCE blog and the site
searched turned up no results to this page at all. It could be that it was
a inaccurate description of the briefing, or the briefing was 'confidential'
in nature for some reason, which caused them to remove or instruct the
archaeologist to remove the summary,
but it should also be noted that Hawass has the power to totally remove all
ARCE members or restrict them from working in Egypt.

so.. my guess is, they have repeatable Y- results that don't fit their
liking, and could not find a believable way to ''market'' these results that
did not conflict with what they could accept, and they have the power to
deter anyone from pursuing the matter too vigourously if they ever want to
work in egypt again.

So.. they cut loose with some autosomnal results that offer some results to
quite those they cant shut up, but don't disclose the Y-results that they
are eager to keep private.
Doesnt prove the earlier R1b assertions, but sure doesnt conflict with what
one would expect if a group of nationalist egyptians got caught with results
they didnt like and couldnt find a good way to dispose of the matter.


On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Alister John Marsh <>wrote:

> Just thinking out loud here..... contemplating attempts to sequence very
> old
> Y-DNA such as King Tut.
>
> It is often said that Y-DNA STRs are challenging in sequencing old DNA,
> because it is hard to find fragments of Y-DNA long enough to include
> multiple repeats which include both ends of the STRs. Sometimes when
> sequencing old DNA, as seems the case for king Tut, a standard STR testing
> panel is used, which may not be ideally suitable for ancient Y-DNA.
>
> Perhaps for ancient Y-DNA a panel could be standardized which included very
> short STRs, say 6 to 13 repeats. Generally the STRs with short repeats are
> slower mutating markers. I have for years been rambling on about slow
> markers being more honest. Perhaps the slow... short... markers would be
> more honest, and give more reliable diagnosis of haplogroup, if the list of
> slow markers was carefully selected to be most diagnostic.
>
> I think it would be interesting to put King Tut, or some other old Y-DNA,
> through the full bells and whistles Y-DNA wringer. Test him on 150 or 200
> or so Y-DNA markers, and see just what markers give best results on
> degraded
> ancient Y-DNA. If half a dozen really old Y-DNA samples were tested on
> all
> known Y STR markers, including on many of the known but not commercially
> tested markers with 6 to 10 repeats, it would soon become apparent which
> markers were more reliable for ancient Y-DNA.
>
> If using standard markers, there is say only 1% to 5% chance of results at
> any marker, it gives people the idea that it is a waste of time testing
> ancient Y-DNA. However, if an optimum panel of shorter markers were
> specifically selected for testing ancient Y-DNA, the results might be 5% to
> 20%, which would be more encouraging, and give more people an incentive to
> try getting Y-DNA for ancient Y-DNA.
>
> If a company (even FTDNA??) worked up a panel specifically suited to
> ancient
> Y-DNA, they could have special series of primers optimized for ancient
> degraded Y-DNA also.
>
> It there was a well know test kit optimized for testing ancient Y-DNA, it
> might encourage archeologists etc to consider ordering the "standard
> ancient
> specific Y-DNA test", and we would be comparing ancient Y-DNA on an
> equivalent basis, which might be more informative.
>
> Perhaps this could be a good university project for someone? Establish
> what
> markers and primers worked well on ancient Y-DNA?
>
> John.
>
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
>


This thread: