Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But IF they took mitochondrial DNA from Tut they
> would be able to find female ancestors of his with
> it. DNA has come a long way in the past few years,
> sadly because of 9/11 & the need to identify
> severly degraded specimens.

The biggest problem with creating the mtDNA line is a much larger amount of DNA sample is required - much more than simply determining gender (which is a PCR DNA test, and was theoretically the one used on the KV 35 mummy in 2001). Many of the mummies we have simply do not have enough uncontaminated DNA samples large enough to make such testing possible. I think that's going to remain a problem.

I have always wondered about the Scott Woodward samples, ostensibly taken in 2000 (though never published), as Woodward claimed he was able to establish 18th Dynasty lineage information, particularly when he stated that "...Thutmosis I introduces new mtDNA " (Greenfield review of Woodward lecture in April 2001 (PDF): 23).

As we seem to be told today that the "Thutmose I" mummy is in fact a prince, we are now faced with the fact that we probably don't have a father-son relationship between Amenhotep I and the "Thutmose I" mummy, but rather possibly a set of brothers or even uncle/nephew (they share a common allele, according to Woodward's research, which suggests perhaps a common father/forefather, but not mother). If so, while Seqenenra-Tao II could be the father, possibly uncle,* of this mummy, the mother would not have been Aahotep (I).

Thus, if the 'Thutmose I' mummy = Ahmose-Sipari, he is an Taosid/Ahmosid with a new mtDNA line from an unnamed mother. If, in theory, Tutankhamun matched this mummy's mtDNA strain, then the proposal that Ahmose-Sipari married Sensonb and produced Thutmose I (Bennett 1994) may have some validity. This would also mean there was a continual genetic line between the Taosid line of Seqenenra-Tao (II) ---> the so-called "Ahmosid" line of Amenhotep I and Ahmose Sipari --> Thutmosid lines, from which Tutankhamun is supposed to have originated. If truue, this would cause some rethinking about the nature of that period.

On the other hand, if the mtDNA did not match Tutankhamun's, this may means several things:

a) the 'Thutmose I' mummy is not Ahmose-Sipari, but simply a royal brother or cousin of Amenhotep I (there were several brothers to Ahmose I, according to Dodson's reconstruction of the Seqenenra-Tao line (Dodson and Hilton 2004: 126), or

b) the 'Thutmose I' mummy is not Ahmose-Sipari, but simply a royal son of Amenhotep I, who did not live to become his heir to the throne; or

c) the the 'Thutmose I' mummy is Ahmose-Sipari, but he did not marry Sensonb, who was mother of Thutmose I and again, the father of Thutmose I would remain unknown, or

d) Tutankhamun may not have been descended from the Thutmosid line at all. A pretty radical idea, but then again, we are not clear who either the mother or father of Tutankhamun really are.

The various permutations may go on from this, if you think about it.

Compounding the problem, according to the Greenfield review of Woodward's 2001 lecture, it was presumed that "Amenhotep I’s mtDNA would be different from Ahmose ’s, as his mother was probably not part of the lineage. This too was borne out by Woodward’s DNA findings...", with Woodward proposing that "...Ahmose Nefertari was mother to Amenhotep I." (Greenfield 2001: 23)

Now, I've always found the above statement somewhat confusing, since this means that Woodward appeared to be saying the Ahmose Nefertari was not a direct full sister to Ahmose I after all, but from another mother than Aahotep I (Ahmose I's mother). This tends to fly in the face of most lineage maps drawn up for the early 18th Dynasty, including Dodson and Hilton (2004: 126). As Seqenenra-Tao II appears to have had 3 wives (Aahotep (I), Inhapy, and Sitdjehuty), it is, of course, very possible, but such combinations are going to provide separate mtDNA lines within the Taosid lineage.

This multiple wives' situation within the Taosids, as well as a lack of verifiable information on the parentage of Tutankhamun, certainly isn't going to make any mtDNA test results easy to follow.

* Dodson and Hilton (2004: 124-125) have proposed that Kamose, rather than brother of Ahmose I, was in fact his uncle, and thus the similar allele could exist in uncle/nephew relationship, as Kamose and Seqenenra-Tao would have had the same allele. Hence, if Kamose is the father of the "Thutmose I" mummy, then Amenhotep I would have been the nephew of this prince, since the common allele could have come from the father of Kamose and Seqenenra-Tao, Senakhtenre Tao (I).

Reference:

Bennett, C. 1994. Thutmosis I and Ahmes-Sipaïr. Göttinger Miszellen 141: 35-37.

Dodson, A. and D. Hilton. 2004. The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt. London: Thames and Hudson.

Greenfield, J. (Review) Secrets of the Ancient World Revealed Through DNA: A lecture presented to the ESS by Dr. Scott Woodward, Professor of Microbiology, Brigham Young University, 20 April 2001. The Ostracon, Journal of the Egyptian Study Society 12/1 (Summer 2001): 21-23. (PDF available here.)

Now, doesn't your head hurt even more than before?

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Doctoral Candidate
Oriental Institute
Doctoral Programme in Oriental Studies [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2007 01:09AM by Katherine Griffis-Greenberg.