Seti I Egyptian pharaoh Son of Ramesses and Sitre a son of Egypt 1294/1290 BC to 1279 BC

+11 votes
1.1k views

Hi Wikitreers,

Just for Fun

We have a notable Seti I the second pharaoh of the 19th Egyptian dynasty

Egyptian pharaoh see Wikipedia

Is it even fathomable to imagine genealogy taking us back to 1279 BC? The son of Ramesses I and Sitre and Egypt the cradle of civilization 

We have the latest in technology the most advanced education programs in the world but can they trace anyone living today to these ancient figures of history? Does Wikitree even have a profile in the B.C. annals of time? Is it archeology which uncovers the genealogy or maybe it’s even the unexplored unexplainable past life regressions which science has yet to understand. Let’s not forget AI is now possible to reach into the fabric of the past  

Next we have a document the Bible or maybe Josephus writings? Ancient writings that could show a Genealogy thread. See Pharaohs in the Bible

Any thoughts?

Thank you

Note: see Category: Ancient History

Also was Ptolemaic Queen of Egypt Berenice III related to Seti I?

WikiTree profile:
in The Tree House by Andrew Simpier G2G6 Pilot (828k points)
edited by Andrew Simpier

Sounds like a fascinating project, Andrew! But it's not one for WikiTree, which only allows profiles for people born in the AD/CE era.

Thank you. I have to admit the ancient egyptians of human history are very fascinating.

Simple logic would seem to say with no technology; etc., that someone who has genealogy from this region is likely more closer related and likely connected to ancient Egypt than someone whose dna test shows no regional match.

Imagine if they had a dna sample from the mummies of the pharaohs or is that even possible 

Edit: an interesting article https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-thought-ancient-egyptian-mummies-didn-t-have-any-dna-left-they-were-wrong

DNA testing of a number of Egyptian mummies has been done. See https://www.science.org/content/article/scientists-thought-ancient-egyptian-mummies-didn-t-have-any-dna-left-they-were-wrong

There is a mummy that is informally known as “The Younger Lady”. DNA testing has shown that she was the mother of Tutankhamun, as well as who her parents were. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady

Thank you George that is really amazing! Enjoyed the references links

5 Answers

+9 votes
 
Best answer
You may be interested to read about a Notable profile I recently created about a woman who channelled this Seti ...

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Eady-383

She was well known for her belief that in a previous life she had been a priestess in ancient Egypt who had a child by this Seti.

A 1979 "New York Times" article described Eady's life story as "one of the Western World's most intriguing and convincing modern case histories of reincarnation".
by N Gauthier G2G6 Pilot (342k points)
selected by Andrew Simpier

She is fascinating and incredible story! Great profile on the topic! Enjoyed reading about her life 

Thank you yes

+10 votes

Two thoughts on this:

1) What is consider genealogical proof varies depending on the time and the place we are researching. This is part of the reason WikiTree has different standards for working on pre-1700 or pre-1500 profiles. The "Genealogical Proof Standard" generally works well for the Western world over the past few centuries. It does not work so well for groups such as Native Americans, African-Americans trying to trace their roots back to Africa, or aboriginal groups from many other parts of the world. Likewise, the standards will be different for ancient groups such as the Greeks, Romans, or Egyptians. Archeologists and classical historians have their own methods for determining genealogical "proof" in their areas of expertise.    

2) While we might have a fairly well accepted genealogy of a pharaoh from 1223 BC, it is highly unlikely there will be an uninterrupted paper trail connecting them to anyone in 2023 AD. DNA might possibly show "a" connection, but it certainly wouldn't be able to identify the 120 or so generations in between. 

by David Randall G2G6 Pilot (474k points)
edited by David Randall

Very good insight. It is mind boggling the amount of generations to get back to the ancientslaugh

Actually, I feel the Genealogical Proof Standard is pretty agnostic (as it was designed to be by the BCG) toward any given period, peoples, or data types. It's really just five methodological steps intended to lay out a framework for formulating a conclusion.

But as someone who's worked with the ISO in the past, I'm a bit sensitive to the distinction between "framework" and "standard"; and my science background seizes up at the word "proof" unless it's associated with pure mathematics. I really wish they'd called it the Genealogical Conclusion Framework. frown

In conjunction with Elizabeth Shown Mills' Evidence Analysis Process map, though, I think it's equally suitable for traditional western documentary information, oral histories, and science-driven data like genetics and archeology. The real trick--which is up to us; it isn't specified in the GPS--is to ferret out as much data as possible from as many sources as practicable; evaluate all the information to determine its relevance and quality (another picked nit of mine: WikiTree uses the term "reliable sources" but, technically, no source is inherently reliable or unreliable--it's just a source of information--and it's the individual datum, the bits of information, that have to be separately and collectively evaluated for relevance and quality); and a determination made as to which information makes the grade to be elevated to the status of "evidence."

As for genetics and genealogy, we're really dealing with three separate elements that only partially overlap and are often confused: genealogical ancestry, genetic ancestry, and genetic similarity. At some point as we step back generation by generation, they will diverge and never be the same. A crucial point is that last one: genetic similarity. We're made up of just four nucleic acids. We are unique assemblies of 6.2 billion of those, but if considered in very small chunks we, ourselves, are not unique. Most of us still carry almost 2% of our genomes that can be attributed to the Neanderthals. If we--as continental, subcontinental, regional, tribal/clan, and even familial populations--didn't carry genetic similarities then the popular DNA testing "ethnicity estimates" would never be possible.

Bottom line is that for DNA to be genealogically relevant (as a form of information and evidence), it has to have a reasonable likelihood of being directly and accurately attributable to a specific ancestor or ancestral couple. Otherwise it's only genetic similarity.

With genealogical relevance as a parameter, we can't go back to Seti I, even if we could get good genomic coverage from his remains. Heck, we can't even go back to the period of the Danelaw in England in 886 AD or the Battle of Hastings in 1066. By the time we're 15 or 16 generations back, even sequencing exhumed remains can't be incontrovertible evidence of direct descendancy. Genetic similarity, yes. But not genetic ancestry or genealogical ancestry.

After all, 16 generations back would put you at about 1500. The Battle of Hastings would be around 34 generations back. The entire population of Europe (not including Russia or the Ottoman Empire) is estimated to have been roughly the same in 1066 and 1500: about 61 million. So in 1500 about 1 in every 930 people alive would have been a genetic ancestor of yours. In 1066 you would have had, supposedly, 17.2 billion ancestors...but there were only 390 million people alive in the world in circa 1066. surprise

Nope. Not gonna be able to figure out genealogical or genetic ancestors in that maze.

Wail, lament, and gnash your teeth oh fellow WikiTreers that Edison, the oracle of chromasomatic profundity, hath clicked the Reply instead of Answer. Woe unto us, that may not reward this answer with its deserving star...

No, Jonathan; I don't worry about the points. But thanks! Your lamenting and gnashing is more than enough to keep the loquacity fountain primed and spewing. laugh

And do not forget that all humans share 50% of their DNA with bananas![Citation needed]
+7 votes
19th Dynasty is pretty late in Ancient Egyptian history.

The genealogy of the Egyptian Pharaohs, with some notable gaps, is documented all the way back to Narmer, the first pharaoh of the First Dynasty, circa 3150 BC.

As noted above, it IS possible to extract DNA from mummies, and quite a lot of work has been done, especially with New Kingdom mummies, to establish (or disprove) the genealogy.  We do have royal mummies going back to the 4th Dynasty  (c. 2613 to 2492 BC, the builders of the great pyramids), in particular Ranofer, sun of Sneferu (builder of the bent pyramid, the red pyramid, and the  the Meidum pyramid). But without other 4th Dynasty royal mummies, it is difficult to draw any genealogical conclusions from his mummy.

But by the time we get to the 17th dynasty (approximately 1580 to 1550 BC), we have quite a lot of royal mummies which could be analyzed.
by Janet Gunn G2G6 Pilot (186k points)
+6 votes

"Also was Ptolemaic Queen of Egypt Berenice III related to Seti I?"

Unlikely.

The Ptolemaic Dynasty was founded by Ptolemy I  around 300 BC. He was a Macedonian Greek, and a general under  Alexander the Great.  The Ptolemaic Pharaonic family mostly married Greeks, Macedonians, Persian, and their own Ptolemaic relatives.  They do not seem to have intermarried with the original Egyptians. 

Also, the 21st through 25th Dynasty Pharaohs were Libyan and Nubian.  The 26th Dynasty was the last Dynasty with "native" Egyptian Pharaohs, but they did not claim descent from the 19th or 20th Dynasty Pharaohs.  From then, until the Ptolemies, the Pharaohs were mostly Persians,

 So it is unlikely that there is a direct genealogical connection between ANY of the Ptolemaic rulers and the 19th and 20th Dynasty Pharaohs, including  Seti I and II and Ramses I through XI.

by Janet Gunn G2G6 Pilot (186k points)
+6 votes

"Next we have a document the Bible or maybe Josephus writings? Ancient writings that could show a Genealogy thread."

Josephus is not generally considered a reliable source for the Egyptian Pharaohs.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pharaohs there are multiple ancient documents that document the genealogy of the Pharaohs -

"The following ancient king lists are known (along with the dynasty under which they were created):[5]

by Janet Gunn G2G6 Pilot (186k points)

That is neat! Thank youyes

Related questions

+6 votes
1 answer
537 views asked Mar 15, 2022 in Genealogy Help by M Ross G2G6 Pilot (960k points)
+10 votes
1 answer
846 views asked Jan 27, 2020 in Genealogy Help by Barry Smith G2G6 Pilot (348k points)
+17 votes
5 answers
+10 votes
2 answers
453 views asked Mar 12, 2023 in Policy and Style by Matthew Wilson G2G6 Mach 1 (19.8k points)
+3 votes
0 answers
+5 votes
1 answer
+3 votes
0 answers
413 views asked Oct 8, 2020 in Photos by Living Guthrie G2G6 Mach 8 (81.9k points)

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...