News from the Valley of the Kings

Dr Andrzej Ćwiek on Deir el Bahri

2010-03-10T18:00:00.000Z

Two fantastic posts from Jane Akshar on the work of Andrzej Ćwiek, head of the Polish Mission, at Deir el Bahri. In one Jane reports on a lecture at the Muumification Museum and in the other she describes a private guided tour of a visit to the temples.

UK TV: Repeat of Discovery Documentary

2010-03-08T14:03:00.000Z

With thanks to Paul Rymer who contacted Discovery to ask, the Tut documentary will repeat on Discovery Knowledge on Saturday 13th and Sunday 14th March at 9pm.

End of the Mut Season

2010-03-07T21:55:00.000Z

The Brooklyn team have finished for the season in the Mut Temple. It's been a fantastic season, the team have done great work as usual and their dig diary has been fantastic.

End of the Seti I Tunnel

2010-03-07T21:51:00.002Z

Heritage Key report that the end of the tunnel in tomb ~~KV35~~ KV17 in the Valley of the Kings has been reached and drop hints that a chamber may be discovered. It's confusing but it sounds as though they have found an opening and a stairway. The report is very sketchy but I can't find anything better.

(Those interested in the Great Pyramid will be interested that Hawass is now also a convert to what many people have been saying for 20 years - that there is a chamber undiscovered in the Great Pyramid.)

[Thanks to Len Solt and Chris for spotting my error. I had KV17 correctly in the tags but have KV35 in the text. That's now corrected.]

Questions Roundup and a Combative Zahi

2010-03-07T21:37:00.004Z

I promised to come back with a round of answers on the main questions from the
DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten post. As before, click here or on the title to read the full article.

Marfans

Dave H asked about Marfans. The paper indicates that Marfans was not diagnosed and so far I've seen no reason to question that. I am surprised, however, that no attempt was made to test for the gene known to be responsible for Marfans as that would have offered a definitive answer to the issue.

In answer to your specific question, the gene responsible for Marfans is dominant to Marfan Syndrome cannot skip a generation.

Relationships

Reading commentaries elsewhere there seems to be some confusion about what I am suggesting. I've also been working on making much clearer what assumptions I am making (over and above the accuracy of the findings reported by Hawass and colleagues). This may help clarify what other relationships are possible. Rather than talk of alleles which I know people find confusing, I'll use "gene". It's slightly imprecise but good enough for our purpose. We have 3 known mummies: Yuya, Thuya and Tutankhamun. All analysis spreads out from these fixed points.

Thuya is wonderfully genetically distinctive. Her rare traits are inherited by the foetuses and KV21A so there must be second line of descent. If these foetueses are Tutankhamun's then the rare genes must have been inherited from their mother's parents, whom history records as Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Nefertiti as a granddaughter of Yuya and Thuya can explain the rare genes but it's not possible for KV55 to meet the genetic profile required of Akhenaten in this scheme.

Specifically, if the foetuses are Tut's childen by Ankhesenamun, then KV55 cannot be Akhenaten because of the interplay between genetics and recorded history.

Because, to some degree, we can construct the genetic profile that Akhenaten and Nefertiti must have had, even though we don't have their mummies, we can also deduce that Tutankhamun could be the son of Akhenaten. That's not saying he is, but the Hawass deduction of KV55 as Tutankhamun's father has been made in the absence of the Akhenaten mummy and, with that present, both options would be seen as possible. It's almost certain KV55 and Akhenaten were brothers so, given the genetic narrowing, their DNA was probably very similar so determining which was the father of Tut requires more DNA than was tested.

So who was the KV55 mummy? If one believes it the burial of an Amarnan king then by deduction, it must be Smenkhare. The only viable alternative is an unknown prince.

Turning to the women, just as KV55 cannot be Akhenaten, none of the female mummies can be Nefertiti. It's impossible (based on our same assumption on the parents of the foetuses). Since DNA strongly suggest KV35EL was the daughter of Yuya and Thuya and she was obvioulsy a matriarch, the identification of KV35EL as Tiye is solid.

After than, in all honesty it rapidly descends into conjecture. It seems likely that the KV35 mummy is Amenhotep III. KV35 cannot be Akhenaten. However if you've not read this paper Professor Edward F Wente, I would suggest you do. There is considerable difficulty in the attribution of the cached royal mummies, and that includes Amenhotep III. The DNA study strongly suggests the KV35 mummy is Amenhotep III but until we know more about the DNA of his peers, it would be premature to say the attribution is proven.

Succession and the Hittite Letter

DNA doesn't help with determining the succession so we cannot say who succeeded Akhenaten, nor whether kings reigned alone or as co-regents. As I've indicated before, building a chronology using the age at death of the various mummies may help.

Little seems to have been written of the issue of how the diagnosis of malaria changes the likelihood that Ankhesenamun. If malaria was common, she surely would have recognised the symptoms. Had it been the cause of his death, there is no way she could have believed he had been murdered. We seem further from setting this letter in context than ever.

Zahi's Reaction

Carolin's comment is perhaps a reference to As If Tutankhamen is Alive written by Hawass for asharq alawsat. He says, " I told Dr. Abdel Halim Nureddin that now after the world has given all this attention to what we are doing, I expected those enemies of success and people who are obsessed with fame to come forward to try and stick their noses in the results of our research." As Carolin says, the academic process is that other people will try to build upon the published work and critique it. I don't know what the academic community feels, but I personally resent the accusation that I am "obsessed with fame" because I have critiqued the DNA data. I doubt I am alone in my reaction to that statement.

Hawass also says:

Dr. Abdel Halim Nureddin told me that someone keeps saying that he was the first to carry out DNA tests on mummies. All I could do was laugh because the project that I’m honoured to be presiding over is the first ever to use DNA testing on these mummies so we have exclusively set up the first two DNA laboratories to study mummies in Egypt.

If anybody wishes to understand the history, then this article by Charles Pope is a good springboard to the truth of the matter. It might also help you to understand why the topic is so political.

Yuya's Outer Coffin

2010-03-06T01:51:00.000Z

Since Yuya has been in the news, here's an (old) photo showing the sheer size of his outer coffin.

Old Photo of Avenue of Sphinxes

2010-03-03T21:33:00.000Z

Andie has found an article with an old black and white photo of the Avenue of Sphinxes. It's heartbreaking that they lasted thousands of years in near perfect condition but were built over in the last century. (The photo is probably out of copyright but I cannot find a dated version to be sure so I have linked the article rather than embedded the photo.)

Genetic Sudoko

2010-03-03T21:19:00.000Z

Comments suggest that a few people have found it hard to follow my reasoning on the genetics in my previous article DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten. I'm sorry. I was at full-stretch myself with the genetics and I let my explanation slide a little. I want everybody to understand the reasoning so here's a 30 second version for you.

Thuya had two "genes" which were rare. Only 1 in 100 people have each of them. Only 1 in 10,000 people have both of them. Tiye didn't inherit these genes but they re-appear in the foetuses. How? Do we go for the 1 in 10,000 option of blind chance, or do we think that the foetuses inherited the rare genes from Thuya by a line of descent other than Thuya -> Tiye -> KV55 -> Tutankhamun?
There are two even rarer genes (only 1 in 1,000 people have each of them) which make a similar jump: one jumps from Amenhotep III to the foetuses; the other jumps from either Yuya or Amenhotep III to the foetuses. Neither gene passes Amenhotep III -> KV55 -> Tutankhamun. It would be a 1 in a million chance that the foetuses didn't inherit these genes from Amenhotep III (or Yuya). Again how?

How might this be explained? History suggests that the first case is explained by Nefertiti (her father is thought by many to have been Ay, son of Yuya and Thuya) and the second by Akhenaten ... if the mummy in KV55 is not Akhenaten of course. And playing Sudoko with the genetic data suggests it's impossible for KV55 to be the father of both Tutankhamun and Ankhesenamun - the genetics of their children (the foetuses) is impossible to reconcile. (Of course, the foetuses might not be Ankhesenamun's - another queen anybody?)

Finally, I play Sudoko with the full family tree to show that it is possible to have KV55 as another prince (Smenkhare?) and add Akhenaten and Nefertiti in as parents of the mother of the foetuses. This also allows me to predict what future genetic tests (such as mitochondrial DNA) should show - a good, scientific theory should make testable predictions. I also show that all of KV21A, KV21B and Y35YL could be (not were, just could be), daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

That's a bit of a simplification and omits the caveats and assumptions, but it's my argument in a nutshell.

DNA Shows that KV55 Mummy Probably Not Akhenaten

2010-03-02T04:22:00.013Z

Abstract

The paper Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun's Family
by Hawass al. (Journal of American Medicine, 2010 - JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647), states that the mummy in KV55 is “probably” Akhenaten – hereafter “the JAMA paper”. The media has accepted the attribution as affirmed fact, although the attribution has attracted considerable comment and debate with a number of writers questioning the forensic data. I believe, however, that the correct focus of dissent to the attribution should be the STR analysis which shows that the KV55 mummy is highly unlikely to be Akhenaten and that an alternative family tree is a better fit to the genetic findings of the Hawass study.

(As this article is longer than normal, if you are reading this abstract on the front page of the blog then please click here or on the article title to display the full article below this point.)

Background

In the JAMA paper, Hawass et al. outline what they see as the most likely 5-generational family tree including the identification of the KV55 mummy and KV35YL as full siblings. I accept the family tree with the exception of the sibling identification which I believe should be questioned and the identification of Akhenaten.

The Hawass theory hypothecates KV35YL (“the Younger Lady”) as a previously unknown wife of Akhenaten. As his sister, the lady was of royal birth. As she gave birth to a son, who presumably was the heir apparent, by convention she was probably a queen. We are therefore asked to hypothecate an unknown queen who avoided mention in any of the surviving reliefs, although Kiya, known to be despised by Nefertiti, was mentioned on a number of occasions.

The paper also identifies that the Younger Lady was killed, probably murdered, by a sharp blow to the face. Throughout history the murder of a queen has been a serious matter. It is hard to envisage circumstances in which this queen, rather than the more prominent Kiya or Nefertiti would be a murder victim, especially since her son, Tutankhamun, remained alive.

Age at Death of the KV55 Mummy

The age at death of the KV55 mummy has attracted considerable debate. The forensic assessment of the age at death based upon skeletal and dental analysis remains contentious. Since this paper identifies that the KV55 mummy is not Akhenaten on genetic grounds, I don’t discuss the forensic assessment at the age of death in detail. However, I note in passing that once the identification of KV55 as Akhenaten is set aside, the this forensic data ceases to be problematic – at least for now – as so little is known of Smenkhare (if indeed the KV55 mummy is even he).

Ankhesenamun?

History records only a single wife for Tutankhamun – Ankhesenamun – whose image and name is prominent on a number of items found in KV62, Tutankhamun’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings. It is tempting to indentify the two foetuses from that tomb as Ankhesenamun’s daughters. History is clear that Ankhesenamun was the [third] daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. If the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten then as well as being the paternal grandfather of the foetuses (via Tutankhamun), then he must also be the maternal grandfather (via Ankhesenamun). However, this contradicts the genetic data. Examination of the STR analysis for locus D7S820 shows that Foetus 1 presented characteristics (alleles) 10 and 13 and Foetus 2 characteristics 6,15. Tutankhamun (the father), presented 10 and 15 so the other characteristics (alleles) must have been inherited from their mother (Ankhesenamun), who must therefore have presented characteristics 6 and 13.

Since one of each pair of alleles is inherited from the father and one from the mother, her father (Akhenaten) must have presented either 6 or 13. The KV55 mummy presents neither of these and is instead the diploid 15,15. The KV55 mummy cannot be the maternal grandfather of these mummies, ie it cannot be Akhenaten if Ankhesenamun is the mother of the foetuses.

This contradiction arises without consideration as to whether the KV21A mummy is Ankhesenamun or not, or indeed whether the KV21A mummy is the mother of the two foetuses (although it seems likely that she is the mother). The contradiction could be resolved by hypothecating that the foetuses had different mothers, or that their mother was not a daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. In either case, this would require us to believe that Tutankhamun had another wife who went without mention in his tomb. As his tomb was found almost intact we must conclude that no mention of this other wife was recorded when the tomb was closed. While an additional wife is far from impossible, hypothecating an unknown wife (and probably queen) for Tutankhamun whose foetuses were buried with Tutankhamun but who herself was unmentioned must surely be problematic.

In short the Hawass theory requires the hypothecating of unknown queens for both Akhenaten and Tutankhamun. While not impossible, it casts serious doubt upon the Hawass theory that KV55 is Akhenaten.

Enter Smenkhare?

The contradiction in the D7S820 STR results, and the need to hypothecate either additional queen, can be resolved by instead identifying the KV55 mummy as an unknown prince. There is no way to name this prince but he would seem to fit what is known of Smenkhare and, for convenience at least, I’ll work with this attribution throughout the rest of this paper.

The mummy of Akhenaten would remain missing or unidentified. Indeed the question would remain whether either he or his wife, Nefertiti, was ever returned to the Valley of the Kings from Amarna, although science hopes they were and that their last resting place might be found. (Romantics might wish to find them interred together.)

Multi-inter-generational Allele Jumps

In Table 1 below I have repeated the STR findings for 6 loci reported in the JAMA paper: D13S317, D7S820, D2S1338, D21S11, D16S539 and D18S51. I have omitted the final two loci tested as the findings are materially incomplete in the latest generations so they add little to this discourse. (I have nonetheless checked that the reported alleles in those loci are consistent with my conclusions in this paper.) I have added my deduced assessment of the genetics of Akhenaten and Nefertiti (both mummies unknown) as I will explain later.

[Author's note: if you are having trouble reading this table, my apologies. Please see the Typographical Note at the bottom of the paper which presents a bare copy without formatting. Alternatively click on the table to see the source image which is also much cleaner (and retains the formatting).]

For now, I would draw your attention again to the 13-characteristic in the D7S820 locus. This is present in the 1st generation (Thuya) and the 5th generation (Foetus 1). I have examined a number of papers to assess the frequency of the 13-allele:

Paper	Incidence
Population Data on the STR Loci D7S820, D8S1179, and D12S391 in a Sample Population of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Gomes et al, Forensic Science Communications, January 2004 - Volume 5 - Number 1)	3.09%
Allelic Frequency Distribution of Four STR Loci (FGA, D7S820, D1S533, D9S304) in the Argentinean Population (Raimondi, E, Toscanini, U, Haas, E.)	2.81%
Analysis of the three STR loci (D16S539, D7S820, D13S317) in a population sample of Marmara region of Turkey (A. Hadi Çak›r et al, Journal of Cell and Molecular Biology 1: 25-30, 2002)	2.00%
Table 2 - References for the D7S820 allele distribution

This locus has been extensively studied. The most comprehensive analysis I have found was published by the Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf which states an incidence for modern Egypt of 1.32%. (The university’s databank is best accessed via its front page.)

The possibility that the 13-allele has re-appeared spontaneously in the 5th generation (actually in the 4th generation as the mother [Ankhesenamun] must also have presented this allele) is therefore of the order of 1.3% - 2%.

There is a similar pattern with allele-35 at locus D21S11 Again this is allele is presented by Thuya but does not appear again until the 4th generation in the KV21A mummy, as well as in the 5th generation in Foetus 2. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf again has collected research into the distribution of this allele. In this case, this allele is undetectable in many populations but the incidence within the modern Egyptian population is shown as 1.1%, one of the highest incidences worldwide and a likely upper-bound for the incidence in the population of ancient Egypt. The chance of this allele being reintroduced into the 4th generation from the general population is therefore of the order of 1%.

In combination, the chance of both alleles being reintroduced from the general population is therefore of the order of 0.02%. Given the consanguinity of the royal family, it would be inappropriate to regard this as precise; however, it does give some sense that the re-introduction of both alleles from outside the royal family is extremely unlikely. (The incidence of these alleles within the ancient Egyptian nobility is unknown.) Put another way, there is a very high probability (about 99.98% ignoring the effects of consanguinity and the difficulty of relying on modern population statistics) of a secondary ancestral line from Thuya to the KV21A mummy. This is consistent with theories that Nefertiti was the grand-daughter of Thuya (potentially via Ay). (An alternative woud be an additional acestral line from one of Thuya's parents or grandparents which each successive remove in generations becoming less likely.)

Allele Jumps in the 3rd Generation

In addition to the allele jumps from Thuya to KV21A/foetuses examined in the previous section, allele 16 at the D13S317 locus, and allele 6 at the D7S820 locus jump from Amenhotep III to the foetuses. (Although the Younger Lady presents allele 6, there is no suggestion that she is an ancestor of the foetuses other than as their paternal grandmother via Tutankhamun who did not present this allele.) Referring again to the Heinrich-Heine-Universität databank, the frequencies of D13S17-16 and D7S820-6 in the general modern Egyptian population is immeasurable in a sample population (ie 0%) in both cases. Clearly the incidence within a population is non-zero: it is just immeasurably low in a study with a typical sample size. It may therefore be reasonable to state that the incidence of each allele is not expected to exceed 0.1% in the general population.

Again, the chance therefore that these rare alleles have re-appeared in the foetuses from the general population, rather than inherited via Amenhotep III (or Yuya in the case of D7S820) is extremely unlikely. That is, there is a 99.99%+ chance that the foetuses have inherited these alleles from these earlier generations rather than from an unknown progenitor from outside this familial group. In the case of D7S820-6, inheritance could have been from Amenhotep III or from Yuya via one of their children other than AmenhotepIII; however, neither Yuya nor Thuya presented D13S17-16 so there is a high (99%+) chance of a secondary ancestral pathway from Amenhotep III to the KV21A and Foetus 1.

Taken together with the allele jumps from Thuya's generation described in the previous section, then the probability of a secondary royal lineage for these foetuses is so high that we should regard it as proven, subject to our caveats about the paucity of DNA loci.

It is worth recapping at this point that if Ankhensenamun cannot be the mother of the LV62 foetuses if KV55 is her father. However, in order to resolve the secondary royal lineage we find ourselves drawing on historical evidence of Nefertiti and her daughters in explanation. The genetic evidence also favours a son of Amenhotep III as the foetuses' maternal grandfather. Taken together, the two lines of evidence make it exceedingly difficult to continue to attribute KV55 as Akhenaten as it directly contradicts the DNA evidence.

Caveat – Unkown Family Members

Before we reconstruct a family tree which can explain these additional ancestral pathways it is important to recognise my proposal is merely the simplest possible family tree which explains the findings of the STR analysis. It is possible, if unlikely, that these alleles were carried by other members of the earlier generations and passed via peripheral members of the royal family, one of whom was the mother or father of KV21A. It is difficult to reconcile this with what we know of the history of the royal family, although we cannot rule out the possibility entirely.

We should also remember that only a small number of loci were analysed and for this reason all conclusions are potentially invalid, that’s especially the case when inferring descent via an even smaller number of loci. This is a difficulty with the JAMA conclusions altogether that has been raised by other commentators. However, perhaps instead of worrying that we have only small amounts of DNA data to work with, given the antiquity (and in some case the poor state of preservation) of the mummies involve, we should perhaps consider ourselves fortunate to have as much data as the team did manage to resolve. It seems probable that the study of such ancient DNA, as the science evolves, might require different approaches to extracting mazimum value from limited DNA than is customary in contemporary forensic assessments.

For these reasons I have described my hypothesis merely as a theory. I regard nothing as proven.

Reconstructing the Amarnan Family Tree

We are therefore faced with 3 features not explained by the Hawass family tree:

KV55 cannot be Akhenaten if Ankhesenamun (or one of her sisters) is the mother of the two foetuses found in tomb KV62.
There is a very strong probability that Thuya is the ancestress of the foetuses (and KV21A) other than via Amenhotep III.
There is a strong probability that Amenhotep III is the great-grandfather of the foetuses (and grandfather of KV21A) not via Tutankhamun.

It should be noted again that we are working with limited data on only 8 alleles, two of which have revealed little information about the foetuses and their mother(s). To some degree any family tree must be tentative; however, I do not believe that the putative family tree presented in the JAMA paper is a good fit for the findings, and certainly not the best fit. Moreover, I propose that a classic chronology does fit the data and we could envisage a family tree as follows in Figure 1. (My apologies, Word is a terrible word processor when it comes to constructing family trees.)

Figure 1: Hypothethical Family Tree

If we identify the KV55 mummy as Smenkhare and assume that Akhenaten remains missing, we can add Akhenaten and Nefertiti into the family tree, while retaining KV55 (Smenkhare) as the father of Tutankhamun as shown by the Hawass team. It’s tempting to consider that KV21B and the Younger Lady are also daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. While not essential for my revised theory, this would neatly fit historical facts. In considering whether the DNA data would fit the revised family tree, it seems appropriate to consider that KV21B and the Younger Lady may also have been daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti as this represents the tightest constraint. That is, if the DNA data fits an assumption that these two queens/princesses were also daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti then if they aren’t daughters the theory wouldn’t be invalidated.

Table 1, above, shows that it is possible to build a family tree with all these constraints and predict the DNA of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. In the JAMA paper, the Younger Lady is shown as a daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye. Table 1 shows that it is equally possible for her to be a daughter of Akhenaten ie a niece of Amenhotep III. I have written before that the JAMA paper ignored how consanguinity can change the probability of relationships and could wrongly conclude that a particular relationship was proven, when other relationships were possible.

(Note, if any of these constraints are removed, a greater range of possibilities exist for the DNA of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Conversely, if their mummies are found and DNA extracted, then the findings might eliminate the Younger Lady and or KV21B from consideration as their daughters.)

Queen Meritaten?

Just as we cannot name the KV55 mummy, the identity of the Younger Lady must also remain unknown. However, it is tempting to consider that she is one of the daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Meketaten is known to have died in child birth, so Meritaten seems a strong candidate. It is known she was married to Smenkhare. Again, this is just conjecture, although it seems helpful - indeed essential - at all stages to check that the proposed family tree could fit known historical facts.

King Ay

It is also possible to consider that the Pharaoh Ay is the missing link between Yuya/Thuya and Nefertiti. It is possible within the context of the DNA data and I have shown this in the putative family tree, but it’s really impossible to do more than conjecture. Indeed, there is no reason from the DNA data to assume that Nefertiti’s ancestry from Yuya and Thuya was via her father rather than her mother. Nonetheless, if the DNA of Ay was tested, it would be possible to establish whether, within my theory, he could be the father of Nefertiti even without Nefertiti’s own mummy because we can predict Nefertiti’s DNA which such accuracy from her surrounding family. However, some commentators wonder whether Ay the son of Yuya and Thuya was the same Ay who succeeded Tutankhamun to the throne.

Mitochondrial DNA

The JAMA paper records that the team also established paternal lineage of the male mummies by sequencing 16 loci on the Y chromosome. Work has started on examining the hyper-variable regions of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) but no results have been published. It will be interesting what this reveals. In the Hawass theory, the Younger Lady is a daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye and therefore inherits mtDNA from Tiye and Thuya. In my theory, the Younger Lady could be a daughter of Nefertiti (although this is not central to my theory) and Nefertiti could be descended from Yuya and Thuya via her father and potentially therefore have different mtDNA - notwithstanding that we know nothing of her mother. While the Younger Lady and Tiye sharing the same mtDNA would not make any difference to my theory, if they have different mtDNA it would be damaging to the Hawass theory. Likewise, in my theory, if the Younger Lady is another daughter of Nefertiti, then she and the foetuses should share mtDNA which would not be explained by the Hawass theory within the context of the family tree shown in the JAMA paper.

An Alternative Theory on the Parentage of KV55

Some people have conjectured that Nefertiti might briefly have been the consort of Amenhotep III before marrying Akhenaten. I have therefore considered whether Amenhotep III and Nefertiti (as I have deduced her DNA) could be the parents on the KV55 mummy. I have reservations about whether this is chronologically possible, but it fits all but one of the loci in my analysis.

The difficulty lies with D7S820. As previously seen, the mother of the foetuses presented as 6,13, so she must have inherited one of this pair from each of her parents. As the son of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, Akhenaten could not have inherited allele 13 from either parent and therefore Nefertiti must have presented allele 13 at the D7S820 locus - and Akhenaten therefore allele 6. If the Younger Lady is another daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, then likewise her alleles of 6,10 must have been inherited one from each parent. Therefore Nefertiti’s alleles at this locus must either have been 6,13 or 10,13. It would therefore be impossible for Amenhotep III and Nefertiti to be the parents of the KV55 mummy whose alleles are a duplicated 15. Therefore, if the Younger Lady is a daughter of Akhenaten and Nefertiti she cannot be the mother of the KV55 mummy (Smenkhare), although nothing can be deduced about whether or not she was the consort of Amenhotep III. However, if it was assumed, or proven, that the Younger Lady was not the daughter of Nefertiti then I could not rule out that Nefertiti was the mother of the KV55 mummy: she can be the mother of either but not both. Personally I am inclined to follow the JAMA paper in accepting Amenhotep III and Tiye as the parents of the KV55 mummy (Smenkhare) but the alternative cannot be ruled out on the basis of the published STR analysis. Again, mtDNA analysis may be helpful in excluding the possibility of some alternative theories like this one.

Conclusions

Combining the DNA data with known historical facts shows that Akhenaten is probably not the KV55 mummy.
It is tempting to consider the KV55 mummy (Tutankhamun’s father) alternatively as Smenkhare although this can be no more than conjecture on the basis of the available data.
There is a very strong probability of a second line of descent from Yuya and Thuya to the KV62 foetuses.
This secondary line of descent is consistent with the historical Nefertiti.
There is a strong probability of second line of descent from Amenhotep III to the foetuses not via the KV55 mummy.
This second line of descent is consistent with the historical Akhenaten.
It is possible to construct a family tree along these lines which fully fits the STR analysis published in the JAMA paper and which assumes Nefertiti is a granddaughter of Yuya and Thuya.
It is possible, but not essential, to accommodate the Younger Lady and KV21B mummies in this revised family tree as further daughters of Akhenaten and Nefertiti.

Afterword

This paper has been a real stretch for me. I could be wrong. If I am, I won’t mind anybody telling me so – if you explain why! At least I will have learned something new. One advantage of being an amateur with no reputation or credentials is that a bit of embarrassment will not harm me.

On the other hand, if you think I may be right, then I would appreciate you cross-linking and promoting this article. I don’t often ask, but in this case I would like the widest possible circulation and critique to determine whether my theory is viable. If you are competent to assess what I have written, then writing in support would be very much appreciated.

It is also possible that there is unpublished data which the authors of the JAMA report used to inform their conclusions and which invalidates the theory I have presented in this paper. If so, then I look forward to seeing it.

Although I disagree with one or two detailed findings of the JAMA paper, the true legacy of Dr Hawass and his colleagues shouldn’t be seen as the specific conclusions drawn but that they have opened an entirely new window on Egyptology through the assessment of mummy DNA. I have disagreed with one minor aspect of their paper, which in the paper itself rates only a "probably" in the paper itself, and would like to pay testimony to the standard of their work and thank them for a considerable advancement in our knoweldge of the late 18th Dynasty.

Typographical Note

I apologise for adding Table 1 as a graphic. I wrote the paper in Word and there is no easy way of converting tables from Word into HTML - that I know of. Since there were links in Table 2 I hand-wrote the HTML for that table but that would have been too onerous for Table 1. If you find it hard to view, click in it so that it is displayed alone in your browser. For me it is then easy to read. Subsequently I have managed to grab it as an HTML table sans formatting, so I have also presented this below. I'll edit the post to add the key highlighting tomorrow.

As my regyular readers know, I get word blind when I write something so it will take me a few days to iron out all of the typos. Where these are just obvious typos and don't change the sense of the paper, I'll just make them inline without comment. I will highlight any revisions to the substance.

	D13S317	D7S820	D2S1338	D21S11	D16S539	D18S51
Thuya (KV46)	9,12	10,13	19,26	26,35	11,13	8,19
Yuya (KV46)	11,13	6,15	22,27	29,34	6,10	12,22
Tiye (KV35EL)	11,12	10,15	22,26	26,29	6,11	19,22
Amenhotep III (KV35)	10,16	6,15	16,27	25,34	8,13	16,22
Akhenaten (N/K)	12,16	6, {10,15}	16,26	25, {26,29}	8,11	16, {19,22}
Nefertiti (N/K)	10, {9,11, 12,13}	13, {6,10}	17,26	29,35	11,13	10,19
Smenkhare? (KV55)	10,12	15,15	16,26	29,34	11,13	16,19
Younger Lady (KV35YL)	10,12	6,10	16,26	25,29	8,11	16,19
Tutankhamun (KV62)	10,12	10,15	16,26	29,34	8,13	19,19
Ankhesenamun? (KV21A)	10,16	-	,26	,35	8,	10
? (KV21B)	10	-	17,26	-	11,13	-
Foetus 1 (KV62)	12,16	10,13	16,	29,	8,	,19
Foetus 2 (KV62)	10,	6,15	,26	29,35	8,13	10,19
Table 1 – Extended STR analysis interpolated to add Akhenaten and Nefertiti
XX alleles demonstrating KV55 mummy cannot be maternal grandfather of foetuses XX alleles which have “jumped” generations in the Hawass theory {} set of possible alleles deduced
Source: News from the Valley of the Kings, © Kate Phizackerley, 2009

8' Head from Amenhotep III Statue Found

2010-03-01T04:29:00.001Z

I had a German press report of this, but there's now an English report with a picture.

The giant, granite head comes from excavations of Amenhotep III's mortuary temple on Luxor's West Bank. The rest of the statue has already been recovered and will be reconstructed.

An example of my consanguinity concerns

2010-02-28T00:01:00.000Z

I've not yet waded through the full JAMA paper, let alone the genetics papers I need to read so that I can fully understand the detail, but I am still at the stage where what I am reading is increasing my concern. For instance the JAMA paper indicates that all of the tested mummies had either allele 26 or allele 27 at the D2S1338 locus. The paper Population Data on the STR Loci D2S1338 and D19S433 (Bruce Budowle et al, 2001) reports distributions for this locus. If you refer to Table 1 you'll notice that characteristic 27 was not observed in the African American, Caucasian, Hispanic or Filipino populations sampled and was rare in the Chamorro population. Characteristic 26 was the second rarest.

Yet in the JAMA paper every one of the tested mummies has one of these characteristics:

Mummy                          D2S1338
Thuya (LV46)                   19,26
Yuya (KV46)                   22,27
KV35EL                         22,26
Amenhotep III (KV35)           16,27
KV55                           16,26
KV35YL                         16,26
Tutankhamun (KV62)             16,26
KV21A                          N/K,26
KV21B                          17,26
Foetus 1 (KV62)                16,N/K
Foetus 2 (KV62)                N/K,26

The DNA sampling is incomplete where N/K is shown.

Now it would seem at least possible from this, perhaps even probable, that the allele distribution of the royal family has narrowed so much that all members possess either allele 26 or 27. Even the other distribution of the other characteristic is narrow. It is my contention that it is reasonable to use the normal general population distribution probabilities (unless it is subsequently shown that the genetic variance of the entire nobility is narrowed) when showing consanguinity, but when considering particular relationships within the population such as father son etc, then probabilties based on the allele distribution of this poulation should be used. I'm intending to dump the whole table into Excel and see what I can manage in terms of probabilities.

It's also interesting that, with the exception of the KV21A mummy, foetus one must have at least one parent other than those on this list - ie the source of the 17 variant. (It could be mummy KV21A because one allele for her is unknown.) That's just based on one allele, of course. (Impossibilties can be established by one allele - if we ignore the chance of genetic mutation.)

The Consanguinity Problem

2010-02-24T22:06:00.001Z

Perhaps because my masters is in maths and stats, one aspect of the JAMA paper worries me which is escaping mention elsewhere.

The probabilities of the relationships given in the paper as a result of the DNA testing are based, I believe, on the incidence of alleles in a typical [modern] population. The study has shown considerable consanguinity within the royal family which reinforces earlier studies like that by Scott Woodward. Full-sibling marriages seem to have been common. This would have caused genetic narrowing within the population (ie the royal family) - the probable cause of some of the birth defects identified in the study.

Genetic narrowing of the population obviously affects the allele distributon and reduces the confidence with which a particular relationship can be determined. For instance, take a case of genetic narrowing so extreme that no variation remained. In that case it would be impossible to determine whether two indviduals were uncle and nephew or father and son, for example - or even brothers - because all individuals would be genetically indentical and DNA tests would not be able to distinguish between them.

Clearly that is more extreme that the cirumstances of the 18th Dynasty Royal Family but genetic narrowing will have reduced the standard probabilities to some degree. So far I've only read the highlights but I don't believe an adjustment was made. In fact, I do not believe sufficient data was collected to assess the degree of genetic narrowing in mathemtatical terms and to rebuild population distribution functions. The paper quotes probabilties to several decimal places. Unless I have totally misunderstood genetic testing (which is possible), the accuracy quoted seems entirely spurious in this case. The broad thrust of the probablities may stand, but the statistician in me is very uncomfortable with the particular probabilities (confidence levels) which were apparently quoted.

It also suggests that a control group of highly consanguineous indviduals should have been used. It may be impossible to find a group which is as highly inbred as Tutankhamun's family, but there are a number of isolate populations which could have been used as a control reference.

(There may be a note on this buried somewhere in the fine detail of the report, but nobody else seems to be discussing it.)

A Thank You to My Readers

2010-02-23T22:57:00.000Z

I'd like to say a big thank you to my readers. I have been reading through the comments on some of the recent posts and the standard of debate is very high and adds considerably to my own modest efforts. (If anybody is only reading the newsfeed, I really would encourage you to stop by every now and again and see what people have been saying in the comments - or subscribe to the comments feed as some of you have done.) I'm also delighted how polite everybody is and how disagreement and debate is handled with grace and decorum. That makes this a very friendly place, I hope, for people who are just starting to venture thier opinions in public, knowing that everybody is very gentle.

To those who have been commenting, thank you. Do please keep it up! Recently more and more people have also been sending me information. Again a big thank you.

From that start I have tried to make this a community and to draw on the principles of crowdsourcing. It's the cumulative effect of all your efforts and contributions which have helped to make News from the Valley of the Kings successful, and I really appreciate it.

Thank you everybody

Meanwhile in the Western Valley

2010-02-23T21:59:00.000Z

I have a photo but in the current climate I am not sure I dare post it. I've agonised over it for 10 days now. I think it was legal to take it - just not to publish it. So thanks to Stewart.

But like court reporting, there's nothing stopping me from describing it. The photo was taken in the Western Valley of the Kings in early January.

There is a a square excavation about 12' x 12' dug up against the cliffs at the side of the path just beside the pile of rubble from last year's excavation. There was a short wooden ladder down, but the pit was only about 3' deep. It had all the look of an excavation that was focused on a specific target rather than clearing large areas of ground as we saw last year. I speculate it is digging a radar anomaly.

The first interesting thing is that stretching alongside the put down the side of the cliff is one of those concrete finds "trays" we have seen before and which are usally only put in when finds are expected from an excavation. Unfortunately that obscures the face of the excavation in shot which is really frustrating. What makes it really interesting is that sat in the finds tray are what look for all the world to be about 20 mud bricks. It's possible they are say there to shore up the excavation but at only 3' deep it shouldn't need it.

Stewart said that there was another excavation in the Western Valley they they were very unhappy about him going anywhere near.

New Photos of Valley of the Kings

2010-02-23T21:28:00.000Z

I'm not going to post these because the sequence includes some illicit photos inside tombs but Ronan Crowley has a number of shots from 10th February of the Valley of the Kings. Exterior shots of the Valley are from a distance so nothing obvious in them, although somebody may wish to try blowing them up to see whether there is anything in the fine detail.

Glass Found at Malqata

2010-02-23T21:12:00.000Z

The team excavating at Malqata have some new posts on thier blog including a rare find of a piece of glass. It continues to be a very high standard of reporting.

UK TV: Wed 9pm - Mummy Autopsy

2010-02-23T20:34:00.000Z

There's a program called Mummy Autopsy on Quest TV in the UK at 9pm on Wednesday.
(Thanks to Pete Missingham)

Amenhotep III + Akhenaten or Akhenaten + Smenkhare?

2010-02-22T20:11:00.000Z

This was a concept I was toying with last night while I was writing up the Discovery videos, but I shied away from it until I'd read the paper. However, Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, whom I respect has written about it over at the Hall of Ma'at. What if the attribution of the mummy in WV22 is wrong and instead of it being Amenhotep III, it is Akhenaten? The identification of the WV22 mummy is almost as problematic as that of KV55. Essentially these fit the facts:

WV22 = Akhenaten
KV55 = Smenkhare

If your follow the link I've given, Katherine has shown a family tree for this alternative. I don't think anybody is suggesting that this alternative attribution is fact, merely that it seems to fit the facts and therefore it shouldn't be discarded.

Chronology Issues Arising

2010-02-21T23:52:00.000Z

Reading what has been written in press reports, it's tempting to conclude that the DNA testing of Tutankhamun's family has resolved everything. I don't think that's the case. I want to spend some time on looking at the family tree and chronology because I think it turns up some questions. It also highlights why some margin of error may need to be read into some of the results.

For instance if we take what is being said then we would have:

Akhenaten reigned for 17 years (I've used his ascension as origin)
His daughter Ankhesenamun (KV21A) was born in year 4 and was aged 21 - 25 at death
His son Tutankhamun was born in year 12, ascended the throne at 9 and died aged 19.

As can be seen, that would give us two interesting things. There would be an inter-regnal gap between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun suggesting that there must have been another Pharaoh, possibly two. That's even if we discount co-regencies. But, if there was an intervening Pharaoh, why should be believe that the mummy in KV55 is Akhenaten rather than this other Pharaoh (Smenkhare?)? Indeed, since we now know that the KV55 mummy was the brother of Tutankhamun's mother, this would seem to conflict with the prevailing belief that Kiya was a foreign princess.

Secondly, Ankhesenamun would predecease Tutankhamun when we know she survived him and married his successor, Ay. I suspect that either the mummy from KV21 in the Valley of the Kings is not Ankhesenamun or the estimated age at death is wrong - and "her" mummy is in really quite poor condition to that is possible. I need to re-read various things, but I think it's also possible that Tutankhamun could have been born before Year 12 of Akhenaten's reign.

However, there is some evidence for two reigns between Akhenaten and Tutankhamun, one of 3+ years and one of perhaps only a year (although both could have been longer - the evidence is very thin). If Tutankhamun was born 3 years earlier so that he ascended the throne on the death of Akhenaten, then the estimated age of death of the KV21 mummy would fit what we know of Ankhesenamun. However, we would then probably be faced with co-regencies.

Yes, I know working in complete years is crude, but it's enough I think to illustrate the points I was wanting to make. The test results have advanced our knowledge, but they have not answered all of the key questions.

Tutankhamun Testing - Discovery Videos

2010-02-21T23:04:00.002Z

Discovery have a series of videos about the recent findings. Advert stuffed they won't play for me on FireFox but I did manage to get them to play on Google Chrome. (If having to watch crappy adverts is the future of Egyptology given the new Egyptian laws designed to maximise income from artefacts, then I may find myself a new hobby. These adverts are really very tacky and intrusive. They are up to 30 seconds long before you reach a 2 minute informative segment. Sorry. Just run them through in a background window while you do something constructive in another window. I do promise to boycott frugalista and Hunt's tomatoes in protest. I have a monthly bandwidth limit - which I know is common in some countries - and these adverts have eaten a significant portion of it. Not happy.)

If you persist though, there is some information in the videos which hasn't come out in the previous articles:

15 DNA samples were taken from Tutankhamun's femur. There are good scenes of his Valley of the Kings tomb as a bonus
Tutankhamun's age at death repeated as being 19.
In Pharaoh Forensics the scientists examine the unwapped mummy from KV55. You can see them display the bones which allow them to give an age assessment. The skull suggests an age in the 20s, but the spine and femur lead them to assess the age as about 40. (That's an earlier age than I have seen reported in some written articles.)
The parental relationship between KV55 and Tutankhamun is based on 10 sequences which they state would be sufficient to prove paternity in modern court cases.
In Royal Sister-Wife, the video identifies Ankhesenamun as Tutankhamun's sister. I'm not aware that the DNA has shown this (it's something I'll be looking for when I find time to read the paper itself as this is important confirmatory evidence) but they are suggesting this, I think, on the basis that they have "called" Ankhenaten as Tutankhamun's father. This should, in fact, make Ankhesenamun Tutankhamun's half-sister.
Mitochondrial DNA wasn't enough to prove more than a familial relationship between the Younger Lady and Tutankhamun. Maternity was proved by matching 8 DNA sequences. That is less than the paternity shown for KV55 but I would guess the mDNA evidence adds to the probabilty and may bring it up to legally accepted levels of significance.
Zahi believes that KV63 in the Valley of the Kings was intended for Kiya and that she is Tutankhamun's mother. He links the fact that she disappeared in Year 12 of Akhenaten's reign with the birth of Tutankhamun in the same year.
In King Tut Unwrapped, there are very nice shots of the golden throne in the Egyptian Museum. It is photographed outside the glass and the Tutankhaten cartouche is highlighted.
Killer Malaria is the weakest segment for me and seems to add relatively little to written published material.

My Personal Thoughts on Paternity / Maternity

As I understand the videos, they have shown that the mummies from KV55 (Akhenaten?) and KV62 (Tutankhamun) are paternally related. If I understand this correctly, it could be grandfather and grandson, or Tutankhamun could be the father of the KV55 mummy. I believe it's only contextual archaeological analysis which has led to KV55 being identified as "the father" of Tutankhamun rather than "paternally related". It's small point but I think in understanding these test results we must be careful to separate what they prove from what is being deduced by incorporating other archaeological evidence. (The combination of the paternal relationship between KV55 and Tutankhmun, the maternal relationship between the Younger Lady and Tutankhamun and the sibling relationship between KV55 and the Younger Lady may be sufficient to prove patnernight and maternity in the order claimed. My knowledge of genetic teasting is imperfect; however, I think on the basis of the DNA testing alone, it would also be possible for KV55 and the Younger Lady to be Tutankhamun's children. That's impossible in the archaeological record of course. It's also why the link back to Yuya and Thuya who, like Tutankhamun, were found in a secure archaeological context is vital.

I know I will be criticised by some and my remarks discarded because I am only an amateur Egyptologist, but fortunately I am as equally qualified when it comes to genetics as most Egypologists :-)

2010-02-21T20:10:00.000Z

Jane Akshar has a good write up of the Muumification Museum lecture about the work on the tomb of Djehuty at Dra Abu Naga. I see no point duplicating any of Jane's work, so please visit her blog to read it.

Hawass on Tutnkhamun's Club Foot

2010-02-19T22:20:00.000Z

I'm trying to bring my collection of Squidoo lenses up to date for this week's developments. While I am doing that I'll probably come up with some interesting videos. Here is one I found while repairing my Tutankhamun lens in which Dr Hawass talks of Tutankhamun's club foot. (Essentially the theme of the short news piece is that Tutankhamun was a very sickly youth.) The anchor has a very strange accent. I'd rate it about 3 out of 10 on the interest scale, but it holdss one's attention for the 2 minutes running time.

(I'd avoid my Squidoo lenses for several days. Making sure I run all the new information through them is a non-trivial task.)

Critique of Tutankhamun DNA Analysis

2010-02-19T19:00:00.000Z

This article by pling makes interesting reading. Pling looks at the methodology used to assess the genetic genealogy. She has read the full paper and also states clearly what has been scientifically proven and what hasn't. (Again, it's worth stressing that that the identification of Akhenaten from tomb KV55 has not been proven by this latest study. If progress can be made on the identification of the lineage of the Younger lady, we may be able to make a firm identification because we know KV35YL was the sister of the mummy from KV55.)

There are a couple of things which "puzzle" me. The mummies from KV21 in the Valley of the Kings are largely unknown, although including the mummies fromKV35 was an obvious move. Only 11 New Kingdom mummies from the time of Tutankhamun were tested. I am intrigued what prompted the SCA to select this particular group of 11 mummies and not any others. So far as I am aware, there was no prior speculation that the mummy "KV21A" mummy could be Ankhesenamun. I wonder if the ongoing investigations of Valley of the Kings tombs has revealed unpublished clues to the occupants some of the lesser known tombs. (The indentification of Aknhesenamun still has not been proven by the way.) Remember Dr Hawass said 6 months ago:

"The fetuses will help us determine whether [King Tut's wife and daughter of Nefertiti] Ankhesenamun was a half sister or a full sister," said Zahi Hawass, secretary general of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities. "If the fetus DNA matches King Tut's DNA and Ankhesenamun['s DNA], then they shared the same mother."

Although in 2008 Dr Hawass also said of the two foetuses from KV62, ""I personally feel they are not the sons of Tutankhamun".

Sadly the study has failed to answer these questions which brings me to the second thing that puzzles me: no mention is being made of the earlier DNA sampling of key New Kingdom mummies. As I reported in September 2009, Prof Scott Woodward harvested DNA from 27 New Kingdom mummies, 7 successfully. He also successfully recovered mitochondrial DNA from the elder KV62 foetus, although the sequencing has never been published. There are also reports that he successfully extracted DNA from Yuya, the father of Queen Tiye. Nothing I have read suggests that any attempt has been made to integrate these earlier DNA sequences. Undoubtedly methodologies have moved on since the 1990s, but nonetheless I worry whether the politics of "an all Egyptian investigation" may have come before maximising the scientific value of the DNA which has been gathered from New Kingdom mummies. That is particularly true of the foetuses from KV62 because, as I have reported previously, they have allegedly not been well kept and have deteriorated over the past decade making DNA extraction more difficult.

Tutankhamun - The New Findings

2010-02-17T01:01:00.001Z

I'll pop another post on News from the Valley of the Kings tomorrow following the press confernce but for now I'll just recap the findings as they are being reported in advance of the press conference. Refer to my earlier posts for links to articles in support of these.

The mummy in KV55 was Tutankhamun's father best on partial Y-chromosome matching.
There are reports that the KV55 mummy was the son of Amenhotep III (Amenophis III) but I've yet to see this backed by facts. That will have to wait for tomorrow.
There is speculative identification of the KV55 mummy as Akhenaten. That seems likely but I suspect it's an over-simplification for the press as I'm not yet aware of evidence which proves the identification.
The Younger Lady from the Valley of the Kings tomb KV35 is identified as Tutankhamun's mother. So far I have not seen the genetic basis on which this has been determined. (I am not doubting the conclusion, just saying the method isn't in the reports I have read.)
The Younger Lady was related to the mummy in KV55. Reports are suggesting a brother-sister relationship.
If the KV55 mummy was Akhenaten, the conclusion is that the Younger Lady was probably not Nefertiti as they are not believed to have been brother and sister. However, if the mummy in KV55 was Smenkhare instead of Akhenaten, then the Younger Lady could have been Nefertiti or one of her daughters like Meritaten.
It is confirmed that the foetuses in KV62 were no carried to term and were Tutankhamun's children.
Since (presumably), Ankhesenamun was the mother of these foetuses, their DNA should include mitochondrial DNA frim Nefertiti, their grandmother. It will therefore be interesting to read what has been found in the the DNA from these foetuses as it could speak further to the identity of the Younger Lady.
Tutankhamun's grandmother has been identified ... Queen Tiye?
In total the lineage of 5 generations has been shown. The 5th generation is not mentioned but is presumably Amenhotep III's father.
Tutankhamun had a cleft palate and club foot.
There are no signs of Marfans Syndrome nor feminising genetic disorders in either Tutankhamun's mummy or the KV55 mummy. Similarly there is no evidence of significant cranial elongation.
Tutankhamun was suffering from a serious form of malaria - malarial DNA was found in his mummy. (Note: I wish to read whether malaria can infect a corpse post mortem as so far I have not seen this possibility discounted.)

There are still a few gaps when the list is presented like that and I am really hoping the full study will be published but we do know a great deal more than we did before this study.

First Video Documentary of Tutankhamun DNA study

2010-02-17T00:34:00.000Z

This is a TV 90 second slot on the findings about Tutankhamun and the suggestion that his death was caused by malaria. Rather poor - only here because it's a first mover!

It's doubtful that malaria was the cause of death. Having read more it's more likely that it left his body weakened so that he passed 24 hours after breaking his leg.