Genetic analysis of King Tut and family

[Kahotep]

The genomics company DNATribes, which specializes in analyzing individuals' genomes to determine their genetic relatedness to certain global populations, has done an analysis on Egyptian mummies from the 18th dynasty, including King Tut, and reported a predominantly sub-Saharan and especially southern African affinity for them:

Link to Report

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 admit that the particularly strong Southern African links surprised me, as I would expect a closer relationship with people from the Horn of Africa, but if DNATribes is legit (and to be fair, they're not an academic institution) then this is a really amazing result!

EDIT: For the benefit of those curious about DNATribes, here's their FAQ.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Wouldn't it be more likely to suggest Pharaonic descent than African ancestry??? I can imagine Pharaoahs having a fair few rich and powerful descendants, who might have moved south with the spread of Islam.

Incidentally, there is some recent interest in modern Africans including considerable post-Stone Age ancestry from Eurasia.

 

[Kahotep]

Wouldn't it be more likely to suggest Pharaonic descent than African ancestry???

Why so?

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

The DNA from the Pharaoh is older then the DNA from the modern populations, so we should assume descent from older to younger, before other factors kick in (as they clearly do here).

One such factor, as I said, is that Pharoahs were likely to leave behind a Genghis Khan-style lineage.

 

[mayor]

One such factor, as I said, is that Pharoahs were likely to leave behind a Genghis Khan-style lineage.

I hardly think so since the Pharoahs didn't spread out as much as Gengis Kahn and descendants.


But, IIRC, Egypt was conquered and ruled by Nubian kings for a pretty decent time. Isn't it possible that the Nubians also went south explaining these links?

 

[Lord Baal]

I hardly think so since the Pharoahs didn't spread out as much as Gengis Kahn and descendants.


But, IIRC, Egypt was conquered and ruled by Nubian kings for a pretty decent time. Isn't it possible that the Nubians also went south explaining these links?

The pharaohs would have had access to Tiger Woods levels of fine imported booty though, meaning that even though they were largely sedentary they would have also likely fathered numerous children. Those children would in turn father more children than the average, and so on and so forth. That's what happened with Genghis Khan's family, with the added bonus of Mongols liking them some rape as much as the Vikings did.

 

[mayor]

true, but still, how likely is it that a large enough portion of caputered slaves, or their descendents, make it all the way to South Africa to make a substantial genetic difference?

 

[Lord Baal]

true, but still, how likely is it that a large enough portion of caputered slaves, or their descendents, make it all the way to South Africa to make a substantial genetic difference?

Not as surprising as you'd think. Migrations over long distances take place fairly often in human history, and there was more than enough time for it to happen. Personally though, I tend to favour your idea that this particular pharaonic family was an offshoot from further south.

 

[Blue Emu]

One possibility is that the original stock was from somewhere around the Horn of Africa (the area that the Egyptians called Punt), and spread out both northward to Egypt and southward to southern Africa... and then later were driven out of their original homeland and reduced to two seperate pockets, one in the north and one in the south.

The Egyptian creation-myths can certainly be read in this manner.

Curiously, the Phoenecians (and thus, their decendants the Carthaginians as well) were also supposed to have originally come from Punt... hence the terms, "Phoenecian" and "Punic".

 

[mayor]

One possibility is that the original stock was from somewhere around the Horn of Africa (the area that the Egyptians called Punt), and spread out both northward to Egypt and southward to southern Africa... and then later were driven out of their original homeland and reduced to two seperate pockets, one in the north and one in the south.

well, at some point al of human kind is supposed to come from the Horn (more or less). But the Egyptians(and other North Africans) have a lighter skintone than the South Africans. This was already established in the time of the Pharaohs.

I'm not a expert of DNA but my guess would be that this difference in skincolour shows that at this time the DNA had changed significally.
However, the Nubian Pharaohs had a darker skincolour than the Egyptians themselves. Therefore there DNA might have been different, which is why my money is still on that theory

NB. I'm well aware that this reasoning is easily shot down by someone more knowledgeable in this area

Curiously, the Phoenecians (and thus, their decendants the Carthaginians as well) were also supposed to have originally come from Punt... hence the terms, "Phonecian" and "Punic".

Never heard of it, and I'm not saying it can't be true, but do you have some articles about this?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Did Carthage or Tyre inter their dead? If so, has anyone tried to see if there are genetic similarities with them compared to the Egyptians (especially with the Pharaohs)?

A more southerly origin of the Pharaohs would not necessarily imply the Egyptian people as a whole would be from that far south, especially given migration patterns, but it is interesting.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I don't know about the reliability of such stuff, but agriculture spread from the Nile valley south into Ethiopia and elsewhere; that would have allowed the population from Egypt to spread there in the same was Chinese populations spread throughout south-east Asia after their neolithic revolution. With Occam's razor, the pharaohs and people further south are both descended from neolithic hunter-gatherers turned farmers from Egypt.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The problem with this is the Bantu migration. The original populations of these regions were Bushmen (Khosians) and Pygmy people. They got replaced by Bantu cattle farmers from the Sahel region for the most part. So while your theory makes sense, you have the wrong people carrying out your theory.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Talking to me, Louis?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I was. I'm suggesting that, while your theory is right, it's being applied to the wrong people. It wasn't the Egyptians who migrated to these areas, it's the Bantu peoples.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Alright. Well, it's not peoples we are talking about, but genes. Particular lines could have spread from Egypt even to the Sahel, for instance ... agriculture was in Egypt first, though dunno the details of Sahel's domestication of livestock and crops.

 

[Louis XXIV]

It's often considered a separate origin point (different crops), but who knows. Although it did remind me of a related point. Through history, our best way to track people was linguistically. I kind of wonder how closely genetic testing has mirrored this (i.e., are language groups and genetic markers strongly correlated even over migratory patterns (e.g., Bantu peoples all being related)).

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

It's often considered a separate origin point (different crops), but who knows. Although it did remind me of a related point. Through history, our best way to track people was linguistically. I kind of wonder how closely genetic testing has mirrored this (i.e., are language groups and genetic markers strongly correlated even over migratory patterns (e.g., Bantu peoples all being related)).

I am not an expert, but I think that in many cases it has, especially the Austronesian migrations. I think the Bantu display more genetic diversity than language diversity.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It's often considered a separate origin point (different crops), but who knows. Although it did remind me of a related point. Through history, our best way to track people was linguistically. I kind of wonder how closely genetic testing has mirrored this (i.e., are language groups and genetic markers strongly correlated even over migratory patterns (e.g., Bantu peoples all being related)).

I don't think genetics and linguistics are generally as closely related as people once believed ... though this differs according to circumstances. People are generally closest to those next to them, rather than people with related languages far away. Conversely ... you mentioned the Pygmies before. They are not distinguishable by language, generally speaking that of their neighbors.