Amarna Interlude DNA Tests

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/02/16/world/AP-ML-Egypt-King-Tut.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=tut%20dna&st=cse

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/303/7/638?home

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=king-tut-dna

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/02/q--a-egypts-zawi-hawass-on-king-tut-findings/1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The long awaited finds from the DNA testing of the Amarna (and supposed Amarna mummies), discussed at the press conference at Cairo Museum this morning at 11AM (how many of you attended it?), have been published in JAMA. And, as expected, they prove to introduce many new questions.

For example, they say their research "proves" that the KV55 mummy is truly Akhenaten, because the DNA shows that the KV55 mummy was Tutankhamen's father. This is ignoring the fact that although Hawass claims to have proven that Tutankhamen was the son of Akhenaten (http://www.guardians.net/hawass/articles/tut_akhenaten.htm), their are still doubts about it. Their DNA proof:
 "(..) 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). Syngeneic Y-chromosomalDNA in the 3 former mummies indicates that they share the same paternal lineage. (...)"
However this mummy's age at death has been estimated at around 25 due to his skull maturation and dental state. Akhenaten would have been in his mid-thirties at death. Therefore, Smenkhare would probably be a much more possible identification of the KV55 mummy. Not surprisingly, the DNA evidence does not rule out that Tutankhamen and the KV55 mummy were actually brothers (as Tutankhamun and Smenkhare are often thought to be.)
Info on the KV55 mummy can be found on the Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KV55#The_identification_of_the_mummy
Info on the identification of the KV55 mummy as Smenkhare instead of Akhenaten can be found here:
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/tutdna/

So take a look at those links out at the top of the page and tell me what you think about the results of the studies: do you agree with them? Do you think they are wrong (like in the case of the KV55 mummy)? Do you think they are making too many assumptions?

For more information on the results, check out the Discovery Channel documentary which will air in Egypt in May, although it will air in America on Sunday (we might find it leaked on the internet:) )

Also on the topic of Ancient Egyptian human remains, there will be a conference starting January 28th at 6PM, "Conference on Human Remains in Ancient Egypt 2010: Possibilities, Problems and Priorities" down at the American University in Cairo. I'll be out of town, but I hope at least one of you guys will attend for me and tell me what they talked about.

Enjoy the rest of your Wednesday evening!
Setna

Relevant books to check out: