European Men: Are You an Egyptian Pharaoh?

3113

Hello Summer!
Joined
Nov 1, 2005
Posts
13,823
Up to 70 percent of British men and half of all Western European men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun, geneticists in Switzerland said. Scientists at Zurich-based DNA genealogy centre, iGENEA, reconstructed the DNA profile of the boy Pharaoh, who ascended the throne at the age of nine, his father Akhenaten and grandfather Amenhotep III, based on a film that was made for the Discovery Channel.

The results showed that King Tut belonged to a genetic profile group, known as haplogroup R1b1a2, to which more than 50 percent of all men in Western Europe belong, indicating that they share a common ancestor. Among modern-day Egyptians this haplogroup contingent is below 1 percent, according to iGENEA.

"It was very interesting to discover that he belonged to a genetic group in Europe -- there were many possible groups in Egypt that the DNA could have belonged to," said Roman Scholz, director of the iGENEA Centre. Around 70 percent of Spanish and 60 percent of French men also belong to the genetic group of the Pharaoh who ruled Egypt more than 3,000 years ago.
Full story here.

So, European gents, there's a good chance you're related to King Tut! What will you do with this knowledge? :confused: Become a Batman villain?

http://www.asitecalledfred.com/comics101/images/2004/feb4/kingtut.jpg

Write a song?

http://news.3yen.com/wp-content/images/Animated-Tut-Ando_350.gif

Demand a portion of your ancestor's considerable loot?

http://dossier22.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kingtutluxor2yn4.jpg
 
The question is flawed.

The Pharaohs of that time weren't Egyptian. They were Greek.
 
But it isn't surprising that the Pharoahs were linked to European bloodlines. They WERE European.

But that doesn't make good TV. :D

Og
 
The question is flawed.

The Pharaohs of that time weren't Egyptian. They were Greek.

Around 1350 BC? Didn't the Greek (Macedonian) Pharaohs came with Alexander's general Ptolemaios, about 1000 years later?
 
According to the theory of Six Degrees of Separation...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation

...we are all on average, only six degrees of separation away from everyone on the planet. I am connected to everyone through friend of friend steps and it takes only six such steps.

King Tut had more problems, health wise, than Kellogg's has corn flakes. I'll pass on any of my share.

However, if the theory is true, then I want my share of Bill Gates' money, Daniel Craig's "Bond Girls", Rory McIlroy's golf talent and Jay Leno's car collection.

Someone else can have my share of JBJ's criticism talent and ami's wisdom. :D
 
The Pharaohs of that time weren't Egyptian. They were Greek.

Around 1350 BC? Didn't the Greek (Macedonian) Pharaohs came with Alexander's general Ptolemaios, about 1000 years later?
Sorry, Ogg, you've got it wrong. THESE Egyptians (aka, King Tut and his ancestors) were not Greek. The Greeks (Macedonians), as Tarakin points out, came in later with Ptolemy and lasted till Cleopatra.

Tut's family was most certainly "Egyptian," from a long line of Egyptian rulers and people who lived in Egypt and likely came from Egypt, though, of course, there might have been mothers (princesses and concubines) who came from other parts of the world and passed on more exotic genetics. These might have been Greek, but they could have just as easily been Nubian. We just don't know. What we do know is that the ancestry doesn't go back to Greece as with Ptolemy's kids. There was no Greek conqueror who started the line that led down to King Tut.

So it's both good tv and TRUE to say that they were Egyptians
 
image.php

QUOTE 1313 Up to 70 percent of British men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun

YIKES!!!!!

No wonder INCEST stories are so popular with our British LITEROTICANS...

Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten (formerly Amenhotep IV) and one of Akhenaten's sisters. As a prince he was known as Tutankhaten. He ascended to the throne in 1333 BC, at the age of nine or ten, taking the reign name of Tutankhamun. His wet-nurse was a woman called Maia, known from her tomb at Saqqara.

When he became king, he married his half-sister, Ankhesenepatan, who later changed her name to Ankhesenamun.- WIKIPEDIA

 
Tut's family was most certainly "Egyptian," from a long line of Egyptian rulers and people who lived in Egypt and likely came from Egypt, though, of course, there might have been mothers (princesses and concubines) who came from other parts of the world and passed on more exotic genetics. These might have been Greek, but they could have just as easily been Nubian. We just don't know. What we do know is that the ancestry doesn't go back to Greece as with Ptolemy's kids. There was no Greek conqueror who started the line that led down to King Tut.

Just pointing out that, not so long ago, responding the the statement, "My ancestor fought in the Zulu war." With the question, "Which side?" could start a really nasty fight.
 
I'm Sicilian, we're related to everybody, basically because Sicily belonged to so many countries at one time or another. Either by being conquered or just given away "We make truce...errr just go ahead and take Sicily". :p

My dad claims our line has blue blood in it from eastern Europe as well.

What do I do with the knowledge? Hire servants to carry me around in palanquin to relieve my suffering from gout.
 
image.php

QUOTE 1313 Up to 70 percent of British men are related to the Egyptian Pharaoh Tutankhamun

YIKES!!!!!

No wonder INCEST stories are so popular with our British LITEROTICANS...

Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten (formerly Amenhotep IV) and one of Akhenaten's sisters. As a prince he was known as Tutankhaten. He ascended to the throne in 1333 BC, at the age of nine or ten, taking the reign name of Tutankhamun. His wet-nurse was a woman called Maia, known from her tomb at Saqqara.


When he became king, he married his half-sister, Ankhesenepatan, who later changed her name to Ankhesenamun.- WIKIPEDIA


We know that the Pharoahs practised incest because they couldn't find anyone else Royal enough except their sisters. They did have a few concubines. (Nowhere near as many as I had as King Og. Perhaps you are all descended from me? :D)

However, what proportion of US citizens are descended from Europeans and therefore from the same line as Tutankamun? And Neanderthals (from the other thread)? How many claim descent from the Pilgrim Fathers?

My wife and I are researching our respective family histories. In my tree, from one unusually named woman in the 1680s there are 2,500+ living descendants today. She had twelve children. Almost all survived into adulthood, married, had numerous children who survived, married...

As we go further back and explore the branches of our respective trees there are possible links between us even though our families lived far apart in England. Once we go back five or more generations the same surnames occur in both trees. OK, one of those common surnames is 'Smith', but there are other shared surnames that are more unusual.

There is no incest, however. We cannot find any marriage, not even between third cousins, that involve relations. The closest is two brothers marrying two sisters and becoming brothers-in-law as well as brothers. When the third brother wanted to marry the third sister, the girl's father said 'enough!'.

In the UK, as in the US, successive waves of immigration have brought many nationalities to the ancestral mix. Claiming 'pure' descent from any source more than five generations back is dubious, even assuming that all wives were virtuous.
 
talk about inbreeding!!!!!

And what about thoroughbred horses?

The Thoroughbred as it is known today was developed in 17th and 18th-century England, when native mares were crossbred with imported Oriental stallions of Arabian, Barb, and Turkoman breeding. All modern Thoroughbreds can trace their pedigrees to three stallions originally imported into England in the 17th century and 18th century, and to a larger number of foundation mares of mostly English breeding.

During the 18th and 19th centuries, the Thoroughbred breed spread throughout the world; they were imported into North America starting in 1730 and into Australia, Europe, Japan and South America during the 19th century. Millions of Thoroughbreds exist today, and more than 118,000 foals are registered each year worldwide.

Each of the three major foundation sires was, coincidentally, the ancestor of a grandson or great-great-grandson who was the only male descendant to perpetuate each respective horse's male line.

About 37,000 Thoroughbred foals are registered each year in North America, with the largest numbers being registered in the states of Kentucky, Florida and California. Australia is the second largest producer of Thoroughbreds in the world with almost 30,000 broodmares producing about 18,250 foals annually. Britain produces about 5,000 foals a year, and worldwide, there are more than 195,000 active broodmares, or females being used for breeding, and 118,000 newly registered foals in 2006 alone. The Thoroughbred industry is a large agribusiness, generating around $34 billion in revenue annually in the United States and providing about 470,000 jobs through a network of farms, training centers and race tracks.

Unlike a significant number of registered breeds today, a horse cannot be registered as a Thoroughbred (with The Jockey Club registry) unless conceived by live cover, the witnessed natural mating of a mare and a stallion. Artificial insemination (AI) and embryo transfer (ET), though commonly used and allowable in many other horse breed registries, cannot be used with Thoroughbreds. One reason is that a greater possibility of error exists in assigning parentage with AI, and although DNA and blood testing eliminate many of those concerns,

http://file.vustv.com/O8kZM852aC33s.jpg
live cover

AI still requires more detailed record keeping. The main reason, however, may be economic; a stallion has a limited number of mares who can be serviced by live cover. Thus the practice prevents an oversupply of Thoroughbreds, although modern management still allows a stallion to live cover more mares in a season than was once thought possible. As an example, in 2008, the Australian stallion Encosta De Lago covered 227 mares. By allowing a stallion to cover only a couple of hundred mares a year rather than the couple of thousand possible with AI, it also preserves the high prices paid for horses of the finest or most popular lineages.

Concern exists that the closed stud book and tightly regulated population of the Thoroughbred is at risk of loss of genetic diversity because of the level of inadvertent inbreeding inevitable in such a small population. According to one study, 78% of alleles in the current population can be traced to 30 foundation animals, 27 of which are male. Ten foundation mares account for 72% of maternal (tail-female) lineages, and, as noted above, one stallion appears in 95% of tail male lineages. -wikpedia
 
Back
Top