News from the Valley of the Kings

In the end there was just one solution for this genetic data fitting into the family tree and this showed us this must really be Akhenaten and could not be any other.

That's what Albert Zink of the Insitiute of Muumies and a member of the Tutankhamun Family DNA Project team has to say in this report by Paul Schemm for Associated Press.  The article also goes on to reveal that since Akhenaten has now been firmly indentified, a new Akhenaten Museum is planned for Minya province in the hope of increasing the number of tourists who visit. The museum will house other mummies as Hawass reveals:

The museum in Minya will house the mummies of Akhenaten, his mother Queen Tiye and his ill-fated sister-consort and "tell the story about Akhenaten,"

With Hawass stating strongly in the media that the KV55 mummy is Akhenaten - and needing the mummy as the centrepiece of this new musuem, and with another member of the team (above) stating that the DNA data supports only one solution, it will be very difficult now for the team to admit any alternatives.  I have shown in earlier posts that the published DNA strongly suggests this mummy cannot be Akhenaten and proven that alternative interpretations are absolutely possible.  I lack the academic credentials to be taken seriously.  I can only hope that a doctor or professor will take up the baton and publish to show that the KV55 mummy has probably been misidentified by the Hawass team. Unless of course, there is something in the unpublished data which materially changes things, but I find it hard to envisage anything that could.

Over the years I have seen people claim to have witnessed discoveries which were publicly denied.  The latest was Andrew Collins with the Tomb of Birds on the Giza Plateau.  My experience with the Tutankhamun family DNA data is making me rather more open to believing what people have said.  Andrew Collins backed his claim with the publication of photos and video.  If the new law is used to suppress publication of such material discovering the truth is going to become very difficult. 

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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

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.)

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.

1. 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? 
   
2. 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. 

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.)

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.

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.)

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.)