Talk:The Younger Lady

Prior to Death, but which exam
Near the end of the section on the description of the mummy is the remark that, while undergoing the recent DNA tests, it had been determined that the facial damage was inflicted prior to death. However, this conclusion had been reach a few years earlier while this mummy and other Amarna era mummies were undergoing CT scan examinations (partly funded by Nat. Geo.). Bone and teeth fragments were found within the skull, over-layered with resin, and covered over by some of the cavity packing material (this would only occur if the injury was prior to death. Additionally, the facial tissue endured internal blood clotting (which would only occur while the person was still alive, if only briefly), and an unhealed laceration along the left torso was overlaid with embalming resin (so this injury, also, must have occurred prior to embalming-A technique of preserving human remains ). It was also during this CT exam that the first strong indication that this might have been TûtAnkhAmun's mother (due to some similarities, most importantly including an unusual extra piece of bone in the skull which has only elsewhere been seen in TûtAnkhAmun's skull). —  al-Shimoni  ( talk ) 05:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, she was killed by the priestal coup. Which means the hole family was killed at once and subsequently the tomb hasn't been robbed: It simply had no prescious gifts in it. Makes sense, the priests were too angry about them only proposing one single god named "Aton". It did work in Jerusalem and Rome, though... --81.6.59.42 (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification of Meritaten as KV35YL mummy
The uncertainty around the identification of the KV35YL is due to the failure to make clear the difference between patrilineal and matrilineal descent. The matter is complicated by the question as to whether relations between members of the royal family were incestuous. Kate Phizackerly initially posted an alternative ancestry that reconciled the historically unsupported conclusion by Zahi Hawass that the fetuses buried with King Tut were not his children with his consort, Ankhesenamun. However, by identifying the KV55 mummy as Smenkhare instead of Akhenaten, this problem was solved. But, it also succeeded in demonstrating that no parent/child incest ever took place amongst the ancestors of King Tutankamun through three successive generations of pharaohs, i.e. Amenhotep III, Ahkenaten and Tut.

Instead, there was the distinct possibility of a pattern of uncle/niece and aunt/nephew marriages in an apparent attempt to get around the prohibition on parent/child incest (sibling incest is, perhaps, an exception but still not a fact unless proven by DNA that the marriage was consummated). For example, if KV55 was Smenkhare, history tells us that his queen/consort was Meritaten, the eldest daughter of Akhenaten. Furthermore, Meritaten's sister, Ankhesenamun (the youngest daughter of Akhenaten), was the queen consort of King Tut. Consequently, Tut's marriage to Ankhesenamun was also a nephew to his aunt. Then the question is whether there were similar such marriages amongst the ancestors of King Tut.

Another possible aunt/nephew marriage could have been between Akhenaten and Nefertiti. Hawass made the assumption that KV35YL was Nefertiti because there was only one generation (a jump in the alleles) between KV35YL and KV35EL, The Elder Lady, whom he identified as Queen Tiye, mother of Akhenaten. Consequently, Meritaten could not be KV35YL because she was two generations apart, i.e. Tiye's grandmother. However, that is only true from the standpoint of patrilineal descent and not necessarily matrilineal descent. The identity of Nefertiti has always been a mystery, but Hawass concluded that she and Akhenaten were siblings for the simple reason that their patrilineal descent was one generation apart. He failed to take into account the distinct possibility that Nefertiti and Queen Tiye could have been sisters. In which case, KV35EL (Tiye) and KV35YL (Meritaten) would also be a matrilineal aunt/niece relation, i.e. one generation apart, in addition to a patrilineal grandmother/granddaughter. This matter has still yet to be resolved by mitochondrial DNA which was not included in the study.

Further uncertainty can be resolved by the likelihood that the parents of Tut are also of a similar relation. But instead of aunt/nephew, theirs would be uncle/niece. Like Nefertiti, Smenkhare's identity has also been a mystery. Nevertheless, Akhenaten was known to have had a younger brother, i.e. Ramose, vizier of Thebes. Ramose had an elaborate tomb developed, but no mummy was ever found in it. It's entirely possible that if Ramose succeeded Akhenaten he may have changed his name to Smenkhare just as Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaten. In which case, this would result in Smenkhare/Ramose (KV55) as the uncle of Meritaten (KV35YL).

FYI, the Herods of ancient Israel also practiced uncle/niece marriages, e.g. Herod Philip 1 to Herodias and Herod Philip 2 to Salome. In addition, scriptures also tell us that the parents of Moses were a nephew to his aunt. Furthermore, Sigmund Freud, Emmanuel Velikovsky, and Ahmed Osman all put Moses in the time and place of Akhenaten, the progenitor of monotheism. In which case, it's entirely possible that the Bible has simply confused Smenkhare/Ramose with Ramses the Great. Pvsalsedo (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Combining sections
I'm going to have a go at combining the 'CT scan findings' section into the 'description' section as currently there is a lot of repeated information. The CT scan section is also an almost word-for-word copy of the chapter in Scanning the Pharaohs. Merytat3n (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)