Who’s your daddy? King Tut? Bwaa-haa-haa….

Aug 3rd, 2011 | By | Category: Ancestry

There’s buzz around the genomics community about some claims by a company that offers DNA testing to determine if you are related to King Tut. I know that a fraction of people who are into tracing their ancestry are counting on finding royalty of some sort. I heard one person claimed to be descended from the mother of Jesus’ lineage. Rilly.

Well, there are certainly a lot of family secrets in the genes. And some people may find out that they are related to the famous and infamous of history. And some who thought and/or claimed they were are going to find out they aren’t. But other people are just going to be out some cash for the testing.

According to researchers who actually worked on King Tut’s genome sequencing, a test to determine if you are descended from the boy king is, um, well–here’s what the quote is:

But Carsten Pusch, a geneticist at Germany’s University of Tubingen who was part of the team that unraveled Tut’s DNA from samples taken from his mummy and mummies of his family members, said that iGENEA’s claims are “simply impossible.”


Another take on this is provided by Dienekes Pontikos, on his blog:¬†iGENEA’s King Tut claims:

Now, they have done it again, pretending to be able to link men with a particular R1b1a2 haplotype with King Tut. Note that the Y-chromosome of King Tut has never been published, and speculation about it is based on some screencaps from a Discovery Channel documentary that may or may not belong to the Pharaoh….

There is controversy in the field about even if the mummy DNA is reliable. Dienekes touches on that further along in his post, be sure to check out the links he offers.

He has a great assessment of the role of the science community should take on claims like this as well. Read to the end.

So maybe you must know, it’s your money. But you have been informed.

But if you still want to claim him, consider this: King Tut Mysteries Solved: Was Disabled, Malarial, and Inbred

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments to “Who’s your daddy? King Tut? Bwaa-haa-haa….”

  1. The short statements of these scientists are very vague, they call our methods unscientific which i understand, but they have not yet clearly denied that the profile we found is correct.
    The historical interpretation of the data can of course be different, we do not claim to be the only ones to interpret the results. We want a discussion to start which is just complicated by statements lacking in content.

  2. MaryNo Gravatar says:

    The short segment on TV may have also been very vague. But generally in science we prefer peer-review to television clips. I don’t know if you have been associated with such productions before, but sometimes clips are done that don’t actually match the real data–just something nice for the camera.

    It may also be that there is a reason the data hasn’t been published, that it’s unclear or has not met some quality thresholds.

Leave a Comment