DNA Tribes - King Tut's DNA Matches With Central Africans (although NOT exclusively)

Let me try this one last time...



Some of you might remember a while back, during a Discovery Channel documentary, a few of King Tutankhamun's DNA markers were leaked on the show. iGENEA, a Swiss genetics company, took the opportunity to use the genetic markers revealed during the documentary (from a few screen captures) to reconstruct his Y-DNA profile. They claimed that more than half of Western European men are related to King Tut; but, here is the catch. In an article posted on Live Science, Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany's University of Tubingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut's DNA stated,

iGENEA's claims are simply impossible ... Pusch's team used snippets of Y-chromosome DNA to link Tut to his closest relatives, identifying his mom and dad. But they didn't publish the full genetic data that would allow genomics companies like iGENEA to link modern people to the Tutankhamen lineage ... But people hoping to prove that they've got an ancestor in common with the notoriously sickly boy king should take iGENEA's claims with a grain of salt, Pusch said: "It appears that they try to better sell their DNA testing kit by using the media attention connected to King Tut."

And Dr. Albert Zink stated,

Dr. Albert Zink from the EURAC [European Academy of Bolzano, an independent research center] in Bolzano and co-author of the 2010 JAMA publication screened the footage and confirmed that the company acts very unscientific," Pusch wrote in an email to LiveScience. "The Swiss company did not try to get into contact with us prior to launching their new Internet page."

It is possible that the DNA profile was in fact a calibrating or a control sample, rather than King Tut's actual DNA profile. Results on King Tut's Y chromosome have not been published, but apparently iGENEA managed to deduce this from a few screen captures, without directly testing King Tut's body; and nor has a peer-reviewed scientific report been published. iGENEA's results are solely based on a few screen captures and they do not correctly reflect King Tut's DNA profile - so frankly, it is improper methodology dripped in sensationalism to promote their new DNA testing kit.

Unfortunately (for those who intently follow everything ancient Egypt), a firestorm erupted with proponents from the "non-'black' ancient Egypt" side enthusiastically rejoicing because "'black' Afrocentric lies" were finally crushed. This new find was promulgated through various forms of mediums such as YouTube videos and Ancient Egypt/Anthropological forums.

_____________________________________________________________________________


Now, onto more salient and fruitful information (that somehow went relatively unnoticed).

DNA Tribes autosomal STR DNA article shows that King Tut's DNA matches closely to Central Africans, although not exclusively. The results:

Results indicated the autosomal STR profiles of the Amarna period mummies were most frequent in modern populations in several parts of Africa. These results are based on the 8 STR markers for which these pharaonic mummies have been tested, which allow a preliminary geographical analysis for these individuals who lived in Egypt during the Amarna period of the 14th century BCE. Although results do not necessarily suggest exclusively African ancestry, geographical analysis suggests ancestral links with neighboring populations in Africa for the studied pharaonic mummies. If new data become available in the future, it might become possible to further clarify results and shed new light on the relationships of ancient individuals to modern populations.

I am not surprised by this, considering ancient Egypt's connection with other Nile River Valley societies (i.e., those located in Sudan and Eritrea/Ethiopia) has been ongoing even prior to the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt (refer to this thread on the cultural connections between Nubia & Egypt - The Relationships Between The Nubians & Ancient Egyptians).

Some background information about DNA Tribes,

"DNA Tribes is a private firm specializing in genetic ancestry analysis, including both geographical analysis of world populations and the comparison of individuals to living populations and world regions."

They primarily use autosomal STR (short tandem repeats) genetic makers to figure out a person's genetic connections with populations.

The ethnic makeup of the ancient Egyptians is such a heated and emotionally charged subject, that you must approach it with the utmost delicacy. I tend to not subscribe to Afro-centric or Euro-centric view points and contend that the modern population of Egypt represents the ancient Egyptians (for the most part). We are talking about a civilization that lasted approximately 3,000 years and had ties with inhabitants in Sudan, Libya, the Levant, and Greece. Over the span of ~3,000 years gene flow, in-situ responses to environment and adaptation to certain selective pressures have resulted in the continuum of phenotypical diversity present in modern Egypt. Egypt has been, and still is to this day, a crossroads due to its close proximity to Europe and Asia.

The key difference between DNA Tribes and iGENEA, is that DNA Tribes referred to documented nuclear DNA. (I am not well-versed in genetics and phylogenetic history of populations; however, I am starting to familiarize myself with the terminology and concepts related to the aforementioned topics - hopefully a few members on ATS are.)

Thoughts on DNA Tribes' results?




Live Science - SOURCE
DNA Tribes - SOURCE

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9

They claimed that more than half of Western European men are related to King Tut

The way I read and understood it is that they were not "related" to King Tut but rather shared a common ancestor. Which makes for a completely different type of discussion.

I have heard theories that there may have been a few events that have cause population bottlenecks for the human species. If that is accurate, it would stand to reason that most people could be traced back to common ancestors through DNA or gene comparisons.

I have no problem at all believing that some genetics companies would play on this for advertisement purposes. I would probably expect to hear about this type of behavior regularly.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by IEtherianSoul9

 

They claimed that more than half of Western European men are related to King Tut

The way I read and understood it is that they were not "related" to King Tut but rather shared a common ancestor. Which makes for a completely different type of discussion.

edit on 22-9-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)

Your explanation is correct. They shared a common distant ancestor (same with the African claims.)

The skulls show that they looked like modern people from Egypt -- mostly Mediterranean type features.

reply to post by Byrd


It seems pretty obvious to me that Tut would have genetic material related to both continents. I'm still amazed about all the hoopla over nothing really.

reply to post by IEtherianSoul9


hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...hilarious
i remember discussing it here......

his dad was black
his mother was black.....but they claim he is white lolololololol

only white pharaohs were at the end - persians, greeks and romans

modern relatives are kanuzi nubians

peace

there is an ATS member, with tut as his avatar....hes a gold member.....i cant wait for him to see this lololol

The hoopla is the backflash from the euro vs afro-centric viewpoints. I hold that the AE should be respected as their own culture and civilization and not be assigned to either 'general' group.

Google searched it and found this vid, If I remember the data used by the Swiss genetics firm was 14 or 15 markers...why is this firm DNA Tribes only using 8 markers to arrive at any conclusion and how would using 8 markers result in higher accuracy then using 15 markers?

The whole king tut DNA thing is a tired old debate that is filled with 1/2 truths and misunderstandings. The fact is yes they did have some common ancestors that were black but the goes for everyone more or less. King tut would have looked like a modern Egyptian.
The afrocentrists have muddied the waters with their many claims and their constant switching of terms. They like to switch out "black" and "colored" and also switch out definitions for those words. Like black can sometimes mean black like Wesley Snipes black or black can mean any person of color which basically means non-white. They do the same exact thing with the word colored. Then they just change it up constantly to suit their argument. So when these people say tut was black they may mean he was non-white or that he may just be black.

reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk


Another thing the afrocentrists like to claim is that Herodotus said Egyptians were black people, he never said that!

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk

 

Another thing the afrocentrists like to claim is that Herodotus said Egyptians were black people, he never said that!

hahhahaaaa lololol haaaaaaaaaa

afrocentrics lolol...hahaha....funny ass...
the albinocentrics must be pee`d haha.....wasnt this your sole claim to pharaohs..hahah..
to think the nile valley, in hot africa had europeans there...im guessing they were in europe..lolol

this is sooo funny to me

LUXUS ahahaha...what happpened to your avatar...wasnt it you who had the tut one??

reply to post by thePharaoh


I don't think anyone educated on the subject has ever argued that the pharaohs were white. Another fallacy that is often put forward by the afrocentrists

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk

 

Another thing the afrocentrists like to claim is that Herodotus said Egyptians were black people, he never said that!

they were nubian kanuzi,,,,and heres the proof:

you know how all pharaohs had 5 names..well..tutankhamuns 4th name

Nesu bat name.= NUB-KHEPERU-RA......do you SEE the word NUB for NUBian

and

modern kanzui nubian village known as ABU-HOR = father of horus

haha face it dude...get with the times

and herodutus??
alexander the great said they are black....the persians, Darius & Cambyses said they were black, cleopatra said they were black....napoleon and king louis of france knew to secure egypt they had to address the south as thats where egypts powerhouse was

as for herodutus, he only went to alexandria and helipolis (cairo)....the REAL egypt was in Karnack, thebes, abydos...all in black land, the nile valley,,,,,modern nubian kanuzi....

the problem is you dont realise that there are many types of black people, well east africans are nothing like west africans...

reply to post by thePharaoh


Some were black but you are taking things out of context.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

Some were black but you are taking things out of context.
en.wikipedia.org...

no they were all black...the ku#es were a pure bread tribe, who grew strong and independant after the armana period, leading to them asending the throne,,,,its an isolated term for a tribal land....
many tribes took control....but all were black and all were from the nile valley

and as you can see..anywhere, all pharaohs are black from the south...going north to kick out asiatics:

1st paharoh- Narmer..black guy from south,,known for traveling north and,kicked out arabs from the delta (see narmer pallette]

nub-amun and the intermedite period.....amun cult from black upper egypt went north and kicked out foreigners

tuthmosis...black guy went north and kicked out foriegners

ramsees the great...kicked out foreigners...probably the king of the exodus

then you have "ku#es" going north and kicking out the foreigners

then you have the last real pharaoh...the last pharaoh from the nile valley..taharraqo..also black going north to keep out foreigners

the PHARONIC blood line was a maitrachy from upper egypt..a place called Nekhen.
the state had many races...but the maitrachy was a black one

the only time you had a king who was not from the nile valley is- 15th dynasty hykosis period...and all the pharaohs after Taharraqo - persians & greco-romans
the rest over 2000 years were black....

on a side note,.there is a modern famous nubian song they play at festivals...the chrous is "#if you dont know a nubian, then ask history who we are...im the child of menes and taharaq, and the maitrachy of nefertari"

menes was narmer or aha...the first pharaoh
and nefertari was the OFFICIAL wife of ramsees the great..and her sons took prime positions...bearing in mind he had many wives and 100`s of children.....apparently he outlived them all...deep ass dude died at 99

the nile valley population are dark golden, tall thin, sharp features, soft hair...and the infamous bean head lolol

peace


always fun

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by LUXUS
reply to post by Dnepropetrovsk

 

Another thing the afrocentrists like to claim is that Herodotus said Egyptians were black people, he never said that!

hahhahaaaa lololol haaaaaaaaaa

afrocentrics lolol...hahaha....funny ass...
the albinocentrics must be pee`d haha.....wasnt this your sole claim to pharaohs..hahah..
to think the nile valley, in hot africa had europeans there...im guessing they were in europe..lolol

this is sooo funny to me

LUXUS ahahaha...what happpened to your avatar...wasnt it you who had the tut one??

edit on 24-9-2012 by thePharaoh because: (no reason given)

No I never had a TUT avatar, and quit smoking that stuff....its bad for you!

Originally posted by LUXUS


No I never had a TUT avatar, and quit smoking that stuff....its bad for you!

hehe...best thread ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

im sure it was you...time to hit the search bar....its right next to the juice bar and the dispensary lol



it could be randyvs but im sure youve weighed in with the eurocentric hype...but dont let a little thing like the truth stop you lol

Originally posted by thePharaoh

Originally posted by Dnepropetrovsk
reply to post by thePharaoh

 

Some were black but you are taking things out of context.
en.wikipedia.org...

no they were all black...the ku#es were a pure bread tribe, who grew strong and independant after the armana period, leading to them asending the throne,,,,its an isolated term for a tribal land....
many tribes took control....but all were black and all were from the nile valley

So I guess this pharaoh is a black man according to you?

Originally posted by LUXUS

So I guess this pharaoh is a black man according to you?

YES....a nubian,,,,,i told your ignorant ass that they have sharp features, thin lips etc...but they have dark brown skin

also...they used granite, which is black! lol

King Tut has allegedly been shown to possess Y-DNA of haplogroup R1ba2. This is most commonly found in western Europe.

From Wikipedia The frequency is about 71% in Scotland, 70% in Spain and 60% in France. In south-eastern England the frequency of this clade is about 70%; in parts of the rest of north and western England, Spain, Portugal, Wales and Ireland, it is as high as 90%; and in parts of north-western Ireland it reaches 98%.

It's open and shut.

King Tut, as with all other pharaohs whose haplogroups have been delineated (all to haplogroup R to my knowledge), was not at all "black."

I don't expect to convince Afrocentrists of this, they seem distinctly determined to ignore all rational evidence whether empirical, historical, or scientific.