There are those who question the idea that King Tut was related to Britain's … that is, that his yDNA is Hg-R1b. Three paragraphs from the LiveScience report on Tut DNA are quoted below:
LIVE SCIENCE REPORTED:
“Pusch and his colleagues published part of their results, though not the Y-chromosome DNA, in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 2010. The Y chromosome is the sex chromosome found only in males, and looking at the genes in this chromosome would show Tut's male lineage.
Pusch's team used snippets of Y-chromosome DNA to link Tut to his closest relatives, identifying his mom and dad. But they didn't publish the full genetic data that would allow genomics companies like iGENEA to link modern people to the Tutankhamen lineage. According to Scholz, that crucial data is what appeared on the Discovery Channel.
"Dr. Albert Zink from the EURAC [European Academy of Bolzano, an independent research center] in Bolzano and co-author of the 2010 JAMA publication screened the footage and confirmed that the company acts very unscientific," Pusch wrote in an email to LiveScience. "The Swiss company did not try to get into contact with us prior to launching their new Internet page."”
NOTE: 1. The specific markers were NOT reported in the 2010 JAMA paper – though it is explicitly stated that those markers matched the paternal line (father & grandfather). 2. There are those who have asserted “contamination” of the Tut sample. However, this would mean there had to be similar sample contamination for the father and grandfather as well, or there would be no match (as was both demonstrated on the Discover broadcast, and asserted in the paper). 3. For three samples to be contaminated with the same DNA, they would all have had to have been exposed to the same source. 4. That means an incompetent lab tech who introduced his own DNA into all three samples; that means testing those who had access would reveal the idiot. 5. If nobody on the team, or who had appropriate access by which to contaminate the samples, exists, that would mean intentional contamination utilizing a British sample – intent means FRAUD.
Therefore, the paper is intentionally fraudulent, though the fraud was not reported in the form of actual yDNA results. SO! It follows that those who assert contamination are charging the team with willful fraud for the purpose of both academic deception, and international public deception (because the process was being filmed by Discovery as a documentary). This means those making the charge MUST, a. prove the charge, or, b. are subject to being sued for libel on an international scale and in every court of every nation in which the broadcast was aired – note that the broadcast appears on the internet, and therefore that means they are subject to individual actions in every nation with internet access.
I would note that both "Grandpa Was A Deity"(2011) and "Genesis of Genesis” (2012) provide a historical and genetic basis for the link between Egypt and Britain to exist. By inference, we might even assert that Tut, his father and grandfather were in the genetic line of Imhotep – it would be nice if the remains of Imhotep, or those of someone known to be in his direct line, could be located and tested. It is entirely possible that they were responsible for, or associated with, the construction of Stonehenge and the related monuments detailed, with associated graphics/architectural relationship, in the 2011 book, "Genesis of Genesis”.