This weekend I received a link via email to a news story about how the King Tut DNA proved he was Western European. The sender is an erstwhile ancient astronaut (and especially Zecharia Sitchin) supporter. Somehow, he thought that this idea (if it were true) proved Sitchin was right. I know. You’re trying to connect those dots as you read. Good luck. Even if it were the case, such DNA distribution is easily explainable by things like human migration (i.e., people were migrating long before there was an ancient Egypt as we know it; no aliens needed).
But I was naturally suspicious of the report. I’m not versed in genetics, but I know people who are. And in this case, someone who has followed the King Tut material closely: Kate Phizackerley, who writes an excellent Egyptology blog. I’ve linked to her material before here at PaleoBabble, and I’ve also brought it to some of my students at WWU in my ancient Egypt class.
I sent Kate the story (beware that the some site filters grade it as dangerous; here’s an alternate version of the story) and asked her to look into it. She was quick on the draw. She posted her take on this topic today (Kate, we’ve never met, but if we do, I owe you lunch). Here is Kate’s response. It’s fair, it’s thorough and it’s technical in places. It’s also the best discussion of this you’ll find on the web. It shows once again that the three most potent antidotes in the world to ancient astronaut nonsense (and paleobabble of all kinds) are primary sources, peer-reviewed science, and logic.
Some pulled highlight quotations from her response:
- Observing the haplogroup of an individual tells us about the individual’s haplogroup but it doesn’t directly reveal the haplogroup of their ancestors. If somebody speaks perfect English, that doesn’t mean their parents also spoke perfect English: they might have spoken Spanish or Hindi. It’s dangerous to extrapolate from one individual.
- Even if Tutankhamun’s haplogroup is R1b that doesn’t mean his paternal ancestors were R1b as well. They might have been a different haplogroup but have diverged from it by genetic mutation. At the least, the analysis would need to show that Tutankhamun and his couldn’t be any other haplogroup, or at least that it would be statistically unlikely. Showing that R1b is possible is not the same as showing that other haplogroups are not possible.
- This though is the crux. Even if you believe that Tutankhamun and his ancestors had a haplogroup of R1b would that make him European. In short, not necessarily and, I believe once other factors are taken into account, almost certainly not.
- Rather than look to Europe for an explanation, I think it is significantly more likely to look to the Sahara. At the end of the Ice Age we know it was a fertile savannah. If you talk with Andie Byrnes or read her blog on the Western Desserts, you’ll learn that ancient petroglyphs are present all across the Libyan dessert as well as the Egyptian. We believe that the Sahara was well populated. As dessertification took place, the population would migrate in search of water. Inevitably many must have followed the great rivers like the Niger into Southwestern Subharan Africa. Other might have migrated eastwards into Egypt and settled around Egypt’s western oases – notably Siwa – and perhaps into the Nile Valley itself. Such an explanation could, I believe, easily account for a haplogroup of R1b in the New Kingdom royal male line and seems entirely more plausible, in the context of social anthropology, than reaching to Europe for an explanation.
Isn’t logic refreshing? Please read Kate’s entire post.
I would like you to do some more fact checking on this article. I got an idea that Kate Phizackerley is not completely versed in the world of haplogroups. Neither am I, but I think i am safe to say that she made some mistakes here.
First of all, news articles have gotten it just little bit wrong, news should say “Tut is of SAME descent as europeans”, not that he is european. And despite what Kate says, y-dna is very slow to mutate and very very unlikely that Tut’s haplogroup would have been different from his, let’s say 10 generation paternal ancestry. Even if it would change, it’s origins could still be seen. See http://www.isogg.org for haplogroup tree where it’s easier to visualize this.
Also, the true origin of first R1b-person is debated, it is not safe to say it’s origins are from Africa. I highly doubt it, as it has relatively little traces in Africa and because it varies very much genetically when comparing it to haplogroups that are more certain to be from Africa.
Please look into this more closely.
I would suggest you email her; I have found her very responsive. Incidentally, she did post something else on this today (from a mobile, so it’s not long, but had a relevant link in it; see: http://www.kv64.info/2010/07/haplogroups-in-egypt.html
King Tut had an elongated skull which is well known and practice today in sub Sahara Africa. Also R1b DNA is known in Sub Sahara Africa. The Kemites (Egyptian) roots are from the lower part of the Nile near Mt. Kilimanjaro which is not too far from Kenya, Ethiopia region. King Tut father was Akhenaten and Akhenaten mother was black. So don’t it make sense for Akhenaten to be black too? Which means King Tut would have been black African. Besides Africans just like African Americans come in different shades, they are not always jet black. Also Egypt was a tribe just like Nubia was a tribe and Kush. Africa was well known for having tribes which stayed in tact genetically.
I think we are giving comments on a televison program which displayed results that may not be King Tut’s DNA results. There should be comments or skepticism on actual reports and not a so called from a television program. For example, what if Dr. Hawass and associates decide to release Tut’s DNA reports and its not RB1 at all. They can they used those results displayed in the program to conceal Tut’s true DNA results. Dr. Hawass did state he would not release Tut’s racial identity. They can also say, The program had been editied and those were DNA results from someone else. This is what happens when one is skeptical or believe something that is not official or documented in a report. What we should do is demand the actual reports since their program displayed what seems to be King Tut’s DNA. Anything else is considered RUMORS and not Facts.