News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac... by sampo on Thursday March 22, 2018 @06:35PM (#16653354)
Just noting that the mummy is very recent, perhaps 50 years old. (Not a 50 years old person, but born and mummified about 50 years ago.)

"Ata was stillborn or died immediately after her birth, perhaps 40 years before her remains were discovered."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/22/genetic-test...

Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac... by flashman on Friday March 23, 2018 @08:51AM (#16657495)
The only thing I can find on the age is "younger than 500 years":

> the average DNA fragment size for Ata is ∼300 bp which, based on a DNA-decay model (Allentoft et al. 2012), is consistent with a sample younger than 500 yr.

https://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2018/03/21/gr.223693....

Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac... by gwern on Thursday March 22, 2018 @09:58PM (#16654479)
Carbon-dating and other forensic methods should be able to nail that down much more precisely. If nothing else, at some point, national DNA databases will pinpoint the fetus's relatives.
Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac... by sho_hn on Thursday March 22, 2018 @07:30PM (#16653707)
That contradicts this article.
Re:Genetic analysis of tiny mummified skeleton from the Atac... by tedmiston on Thursday March 22, 2018 @08:28PM (#16654028)
Not necessarily, on age at least. The article just states:

> After death, DNA disintegrates into fragments, which become smaller over the centuries. Ata’s DNA fragments are still large, another clue that she’s less than 500 years old.