Go to the Egyptian Dreams shop
Egyptian Dreams
Ancient Egypt Discussion Board
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Nefertiti
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So that you may know what I'm talking about, following is what Dietrich Wildung said ~in writing~ about the Nefertiti bust, in French, but here translated in English:

Wildung said: the bust is : 1) an ice-cold perfection; 2) a lifeless work of art; 3) not one shred of the style ~of the period~ is perceptible in it, and 4) a fabricated work of art.


Will you, please, state the source for this letter?

I know it.

Are you willing to discuss it?
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edgard Mansoor
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Sep 2012
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please see 2nd paragraph, page 47 in Henri Stierlin's book titled: "Le buste de Nefertiti, Une imposture de l'egyptologie".

Of course I'm willing to discuss it. But what's there to discuss? Did Wildung tell Stierling what he mentioned in his book or didn't he? What's his excuse this time? Wasn't he worried to the point that he sent a delegation to convince Stierlin to stop his investigation about the bust, and didn't he tell him he was willing to write the "Preface" for his book.

Couldn't he have been able to convince Stierlin to stop his investigation about the bust in a letter by mail? Why spend money by sending a "whole" delegation to Geneva?

Before we start discussing Stierlin's statement, will you please ask Wildung a few questions!

Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I must agree with Lutz that subjective reactions to a work are not evidence. The fact is the bust STRONGLY resembles other three dimensional sculptures of Nefertiti.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz wrote:
Staatliche Museen zu Berlin - Neues Museum - Exhibition to mark the anniversary of the discovery of the bust of Nefertiti on 6 December 1912 :

In the Light of Amarna - 100 Years of the Find of Nefertiti

Fri 7 December 2012 - Sat 13 April 2013

The model bust of Akhenaton (which was apparently deliberately destroyed in ancient times) found by Borchardt in the same room as the bust of Nefertiti is currently being restored in the workshops of the Berlin Museum for this exhibition:

Lippen für Echnaton ("Lips for Akhenaten").

Some minutes ago I had the the latest edition of "aMun - Magazin für die Freunde der Ägyptischen Museen und Sammlungen" (45 / 2012) in my mailbox. On pages 14 - 17, Prof. Dr. Friederike Seyfried gives a short preliminary description of the planned exhibition. Here are a few excerpts in quotation:

Quote:
... Um der bevorstehenden Ausstellung neben den berühmten und immer präsenten „Highlights“ eine weitere Akzentuierung zu verschaffen, möchte sich die Konzeption insbesondere der Borchardtschen Grabung und den zahlreichen Funden widmen, die bislang nur vereinzelt oder noch gar nicht gezeigt werden konnten. Hierzu gehört die Präsentation sämtlicher noch vorhandener Objekte aus dem Bildhauerwerkstattbereich der Häuser P 47.1, P 47.2 und P 47.3 in den Raumkomplexen unmittelbar vor dem Nordkuppelsaal. Selbst die kleinsten geborgenen Funde, Materialproben, Scherben und Bruchstücke sollen hier mit den Grabungsunterlagen gezeigt werden, um den Gesamtkomplex des Grabungsbefundes dem Besucher zu vermitteln.
Weitere Einführungen in die Lebenswelten der Stadt Achet-Aton, mit der Darstellung der diversen Gewerke, den Siedlungen, den Tempeln und Palästen werden im davorliegenden großen Ausstellungsraum nach Themen gegliedert präsentiert, wobei zu Anfang der Wechsel des Lebensmittelpunktes von Theben nach Amarna, sowie die chronologische und dynastische Einordnung thematisiert werden.
Da die Ausstellung bewusst das Fundmaterial der Grabung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft in den Vordergrund stellt, wurden nur wenige ergänzende Leihgaben angefragt, die aus gesicherten Kontexten der Grabungen Flinders Petries und der Egypt Exploradon Society stammen und somit insbesondere die von Borchardt nicht gegrabenen Tempel- und Palastareale betreffen. ...

... Dagegen wird versucht, einen aktuellen Brückenschlag zwischen den Grabungen vor 100 Jahren und den aktuellen Ergebnissen des „Amarna-Projects“ unter Leitung von Barry Kemp bei den jeweiligen Themengebieten herzustellen, um auch Gegenwart und Zukunftsperspektiven dieses Ausgrabungsortes veranschaulichen zu können. ...

... ein zweiter wichtiger Themenbereich zum Fundjubiläum der Nofretete-Büste [wird] im Untergeschoss des Museums präsentiert werden. Hier wird die Grabung der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft unter Leitung Ludwig Borchardts und seiner Mitarbeiter sowie die herausragende Rolle des Mäzens James Simon, die Fundteilung von 1913, die ersten Ausstellungen und die Implikationen der Rückgabegesuche seit 1923 sowie die Kultur-, Inszenierungs- und Vermarktungsgeschichte der berühmten Büste während des 20. Jahrhunderts bis heute dokumentiert und dargestellt werden.
Mit dieser durch die räumlichen Bedingungen vorgegebenen „Zweiteilung“ der Ausstellung wird eine klare Trennung zwischen moderner Zeitgeschichte und antiker Kulturgeschichte ermöglicht, die beiden Anliegen der Ausstellung ihre notwendige Eigenständigkeit verleiht. ...


Bing - Translator :

Quote:
... To give a further accentuation of the upcoming exhibition in addition to the famous and always present "highlights", the design would like to focus in particular the Borchardt excavation and the numerous finds, which could be only sporadically or not yet shown. This presentation includes all still existing objects from the sculptor workshop area of the houses P 47.1, 47.2 P and P 47.3 in the rooms just before the North Dome Hall [Bust of Nefertiti]. Even the smallest recovered finds, material samples, splinters and fragments to are shown here with the excavation documentation, to give the visitors the total complex of excavation findings.

More introductions in the lifestyles of the city Achet-Aton, divided into the representation of the various trades, the settlements, the temples and palaces are presented, starting with the change of the living location from Thebes to Amarna, as well as the chronological and dynastic arrangement
is addressed.

Because the exhibition deliberately provides the material of the excavation of the German Orient Society to the fore, were asked only a few additional loans that come from safe contexts of the excavations of Flinders Petrie and the Egypt Exploradon society and are therefore in particular to give a look to the Temple and Palace areas, where Borchardt not dug.

... It is also planed to give a bridge from 100 years ago to the current results of the "Amarna Project" under direction of Barry Kemp on the respective topic areas, and to be able to demonstrate the future of this meticulously attempts. ...

... a second important subject area of the Nefertiti bust anniversary exhibition [will] be presented in the basement of the Museum. Here is documented and presented the excavation of the German Orient Society under conductor Ludwig Borchardt and its employees as well as the outstanding role of patron James Simon, the Fund Division of 1913, the first exhibitions and the implications of return of applications since 1923 and the cultural, presentation and marketing story of the famous bust in the 20th century until today.

This determined by the spatial conditions of the rooms for the exhibition gives a clear distinction between modern and contemporary ancient cultural history, the two concerns of the exhibition gives their necessary independence. ...

Furthermore, the systematic study and publication of the entire excavation material in close collaboration with Barry Kemp and the "Amarna Project" is announced.

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

khazarkhum wrote:
... I have asked to see the C14 tests, which apparently do not exist. ...

Almost forgot ... About the results from C 14 you have to ask Mr. Rolf Krauss (as far as I remember, following the posts on "Thot-Scribe", one of the good ones and no "Wildung-Slave"). See for that :

Pupille im Speicher - Der Spiegel (20, 1997, S. 111) vom 12.05.1997

But maybe also that is in his view now just a fake, like the other pieces he draws completely disappeared in doubt ... Surprisingly, after his dishonorable discharge by the Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz?

Lutz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I recall Stierlin quotes Wildung's letter and his article out of context. It isn't really possible to know exactly what Wildung's intent may have been, though it's easy enough to tell what Stierlin wants us to think.

In the end, letters and guesses don't mean a great deal. Mr Stierlin's book is not taken seriously in the museum community. The case Stierlin makes is convoluted and implausible and what evidence he offers is not enough to tip the balance in favor of his claim in the face of the evidence that supports the authenticity of the object.
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Lutz
Pharaoh
Pharaoh


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 4001
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ankhetmaatre wrote:
As I recall Stierlin quotes Wildung's letter and his article out of context. It isn't really possible to know exactly what Wildung's intent may have been, though it's easy enough to tell what Stierlin wants us to think. ...

I have ordered the book in my library, unfortunately it is up to 08.11.2012 loan. I can not read French but I'm interested only in the part with the Wildung quote. And there will be a translation program on the internet suffice?

Other than that it really does not speak for the person Stierlin from a private letter from a friend to quote without permission. Poor upbringing, expressed very polite...

He quotes also from an article? Do you know from what article?

Greetings, Lutz.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ankhetmaatre
Scribe
Scribe


Joined: 03 Apr 2012
Posts: 212
Location: District of Columbia, USA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it is a good idea to look at the Stierlin book for yourself. Although Stierlin has published many respected works (often co-authored by Wildung) that are of high quality this particular book is a 6x5 paperback with a rather unappealing, sensationalist cover. I looked it over briefly a couple of years ago and did not find it especially compelling. Even less so now after reading Borchardt's articles in the early Smithsonian magazine and seeing the photograph you linked to, Lutz. Stierlin did not do his homework all that well and the timing of his claims about Borchardt's "counterfeiting" of the bust are simply not possible given what we can prove about Borchardt's Amarna excavations.

I suspect that there is more goings on behind the scenes as well. Stierlin and Wildung co-authored a number of published works on ancient art and architecture. This working relationship lasted many years - suddenly that stops and in 2009 Stierlin writes this book...
_________________
Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured
~Samuel Langhorne Clemens
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edgard Mansoor
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Sep 2012
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 1:08 am    Post subject: Nefertiti bust, 0% chance of being authentic Reply with quote

Greetings to all members of Egyptian Dreams.

The following is a two parts postings. Part two, a little shorter but as meaningful as part one will be posted tomorrow, Tuesday, October 16.

Sir Winston Churchill said: ‘‘Truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it; ignorance may deride it; but in the end, there it is’’. So, why hide the truth?

Here, to the best of my knowledge, is "THE TRUTH" about THE BERLIN EGYPTIAN MUSEUM NEFERTITI BUST.

There are “SEVERAL REASON” why the Nefertiti Bust of the Berlin Egyptian Museum “IS NOT” and “CANNOT” be authentic. Suffice to mention but only a few of the most “incontestable reasons” why “it is a fake” and why “it does not have a chance” in being proven authentic.

In the “Historical-Stylistic Analysis of the Bust” that Mr. Dietrich Wildung sent Mr. Henri Stierlin {author of ~Le Buste de Nefertiti…~} on the letterhead of the “Direktion der Staatlichen Sammlung Agyptischer Kunst, Munchen”, Mr. Wildung listed “FOUR” of the most relevant reasons as to why the Bust is a forgery: He said the bust is 1} an ice-cold perfection; 2} a lifeless work of art; 3} NOT ONE SHRED OF THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD IS PERCEPTIBLE IN IT , and 4} a fabricated work of art, Hence “A FORGERY”.

Mr. Lutz claims that what Wildung told Stierlin ~was~ his own feelings about the bust. However, a Scholar does not describe his personal feelings as a “Historical/Stylistic Analyses”, nor does he express his personal feelings on the letterhead of the Institution that employs him; and besides, a feeling is the ability to react about something; it’s a judgment based on special knowledge given by an expert; it’s a view, a sentiment, a belief, a conviction, a persuasion. It’s “an opinion” held with complete assurance. I am not a dictionary, and I did not invent these words? Ask a Scholar of the English language.

One should think then that Mr. Wildung's “Historical-Stylistic Analysis of the Bust” should be “more than enough” in proving the bust to be a forgery without discussion. But there are “many more telling proofs” in sight that it is the clever work of a forger, like the one who made the “blue glass head of Tut-Ankh-Amon” and the “wood head of a harp” of Akhenaten of the Louvre Museum.

First we must ask ourselves one “important question”: Would a serious, “professional sculptor” in his right mind or “even an amateur sculptor” carve a large statue, the size of the Nefertiti bust, from a natural stone, then covers it entirely with plaster?

The most “logical answer” to this question, “if” we use “COMMEN SENSE”, is that one would think it would be hard to believe that such sculptor or amateur sculptor would carve a statue from a natural stone with the “ INTENTION” of covering it with plaster after the sculpture is completed, “ESPECIALLY” if it was to represent “a ROYAL PORTRAIT” that would “debase the entire royal family”, since plaster is a “cheap material” used in ancient Egypt “mainly” by masons to be spread evenly on walls and ceilings of rock tombs, temples and dwellings to provide a smooth and more suitable surface for painting (please see Alfred Lucas in "Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, pp.95, 403 & 404).

Plaster could have been used “occasionally” in ancient Egypt, by a master sculptor, to fashion a small to medium size portrait entirely in plaster but “NEVER”, and I repeat “NEVER” of a royal person, especially if it had to be copied as an exercise by inexperienced sculptors.

For this reason, in itself, the above question and answer should be more than enough in proving that the Nefertiti bust is a forgery. We must also consider the fact that during “the ENTIRE Pharaonic history” no Royal sculptures in “any kind of material”, in any size, and covered with plaster were ever discovered in Temples, tombs, or dwellings.

Therefore, it is out of question that a “ROYAL PORTRAIT” carved from a natural stone could have “ever” been covered with plaster, a degrading material that would devaluate the intrinsic aesthetic value and importance of a sculpture, and for proof, “NONE” have ever been discovered in excavations, or exhibited in Museums.

Some of the plaster masks found in the Tuthmose workshop are claimed to represent Royalties, but there is no proof to substantiate the claim; besides, they consist “entirely” of plaster and ARE NOT carved from a rock which in turn is covered with plaster. One must also consider the fact that a number of knowledgeable Egyptologists had condemned the bust ~ever since its first appearance~ and until today, on the basis of its “lack of Amarna style” as Mr. Wildung explained it well after scrutinizing it from its aesthetic point of view and said that “it does not have a shred of Amarna style”.
.
The above, plus Mr. Wildung's statement about the lack of Amarna Style in the bust, should be considered as being “more than enough” in proving that the bust is “a forgery beyond ANY AND ALL reasonable doubts”.

Why did Mr. Wildung seek the help of Scientists to prove the authenticity of the bust is beyond understanding? In any case, after he got hired as Director of the Berlin Egyptian Museum, his most important duty was to protect “the bust” by putting an end to the rumor that had been started since its discovery, and prove that he was wrong in his aesthetic assessment of the bust, thereby acting against his intellectual moral principles in hiding the truth from the “World of Arts and Sciences" and from the public, and in trying to prove the authenticity of the bust after he had condemned it viciously. In this respect and for this purpose he requested that “CT scans” be taken of “the bust”, in the hope that they would prove its authenticity.

Unfortunately for him, rather than proving the authenticity of the bust, the “CT scans” proved “EXACTLY” the contrary, and we shall be able to tell if the bust is authentic or not, “ONLY BY USING COMMON SENSE”.

In the question and answer we've considered above, it has been concluded that “it would be hard to believe” that a serious or even an amateur sculptor would carve a statue from a natural material with the intention of covering it with plaster after the sculpture is completed. To prove the point, we shall consider now “ONE CASE in which the sculptor “HAD THE INTENTION” to cover the bust with plaster after finishing carving it, and “A SECOND CASE” in which he “HAD NO INTENTION” to cover it with plaster as one would normally expect from a well-known ‘PROFESSIONAL”, and experienced sculptor; then we shall reach a conclusion after we consider both cases.

1} THE FIRST CASE in which the sculptor ~INTENDED~ to cover the bust with plaster: Since the “CT scans” showed that retouching had been made on Nefertiti's face, retouching that “Prof. Wildung” personally AND correctly called a “facelift”, and since the sculptor INTENDED to cover the bust with plaster, giving Nefertiti a “facelift” would NOT have been necessary since “ANYWAY”, the sculptor “intended” to cover it with plaster. This is pure common sense: Why would the sculptor lose his time giving “Nefertiti” a facelift if he intended to cover it with plaster? Therefore, there was no reason whatsoever for the sculptor to cover the bust with plaster.

2} THE SECOND CASE: If the sculptor “DID NOT INTEND” to cover the bust with plaster, WHY did he cover it at all if HE HAD NO SUCH INTENTION? Isn’t this also “pure common sense?” Here again the sculptor “had no reason whatsoever to cover the bust with plaster since he had no such intention.

Accordingly, the above two cases proved that it was “fallacious, unreasonable and legally unsound” for the Nefertiti bust to be covered with plaster, since in both cases it has been proven that the sculptor had no reason whatsoever in doing such thing, UNLESS OF COURSE he had a very good reason, or reasons to cover it. In fact, there are TWO IMPORTANT REASONS why he had to cover the bust with plaster.

The first reason: Not having lived during the Amarna period, and being completely stranger to the Amarna style, and not having seen Nefertiti “in person” but having seen only examples of her portraits in Museums and at Karnak, the forger was unable to reproduce her likeness to the point that he had to give her a “facelift” aimed at getting her to look more like what he saw in Museums and in Karnak.

But since an artist always “works in the style of his time” as Mr. Wildung wrote under the borrowed name of “D. Klemm” in his article titled “FALSCHE PHARAONEN”, the bust turned out to look more like that of 19th and 20th Century mannequins of “Beauty Salons” and “High Fashion Vitrines” of New York, London, Paris, Rome and Berlin.

The second and “most important reason” is that he didn't know what to do to conceal Nefertiti's facelift and “modern surface” of the sculptured bust, and not knowing how to apply to it a surface that would look like a naturally weathered surface that would fool an experienced scientist, he had no other choice but cover the entire bust with plaster so as not to leave any section of modern surface showing modern carving.

Furthermore, not only did the forger not carve the bust in the amarna style or reproduce Nefertiti's likeness, he also “did not hollow” the eyebrows. For some reason, being in a hurry to finish his masterpiece, he painted them, and also did not hollow “AT ALL” the right eye which is supposed to have been hollowed and inlaid.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090331-nefertiti-bust-picture.html

In the pictures of the CT scans, one can “clearly see” that Nefertiti's right eye is not hollowed. Then the forger applied a very thin layer of plaster inside the socket of the eye on which the iris was painted, then a thin concave piece of transparent white glass or crystal was artfully applied to the plaster, the contour of the eyelids painted like the rest of the bust, and to complete the scam, the left eye was slightly “hollowed” to give the impression that this is how the right eye had been hollowed in order to be inlaid, and finally the completed sculpture to serve as a model to show students how a hollowed eye looks like before and after it is inlaid.

Most importantly is the fact that if Tuthmose really wanted to show his students how to hollow an eye in a sculpture to get it ready for inlay, he would have certainly showed them how to do it on the “head of a commoner”, and “not use a portrait of Nefertiti” as a guinea pig to teach students an elementary sculpting lesson.

It is embarassing to think that Egyptologists such as Borchardt, Wildung and others could claim that an “accomplished sculptor” such as Tuthmose (assuming the bust had really been made by Tuthmose) could use the bust of Nefertiti rather than that of a commoner to show students how to hollow an eye in a sculpture.

If the “Bust” was meant to serve as a model for less experienced sculptors to fashion the likeness of the Queen, the master sculptor would have completed it and not leave one eye hollow that would distract the student sculptor from copying the features of the Queen. If he wanted to teach students how to hollow the eyes, he would have showed them how to do it on any head and definitely not on the head of a royal person.

And if the bust was authentic, "the least" the sculptor would have done would have been to inlay the eye better or at least as good as the eyes of the "Sheik el Balad", and the statues of "Rahotep and Nofret" of the Cairo Museum or the eyes of the "Seated Scribe" of the Louvre Museum.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lutz et al

I did indeed read the C14 report, albeit in translation. It raises far more questions than answers.

According to the story, a chemist from the museum, Schultz, decided to pry the pupil out of the inlaid eye to run tests on it. Some 70 years later, this adhesive wax was located in a bag, just in time for the C 14 tests.

There are so many problems with this, and none of the answers shed a very good light on the Museum.

Why would a chemist decide to dismantle a priceless work of art in secret? We won't even go into the 'what-ifs' on that one. Why do it? By the 1920-30s ancient Egyptian methods of adhesion were well known; nothing would be gained from this, and potentially a great deal lost.

That the wax then went into a bag, only to be located right when needed for a C14 test, demands some serious answers, not the least of which was how it survived WWII.

This flies in the face of good science and good custodial practice. Even assuming the eye is genuine (I do) the risks far outshadow the rewards. It makes us question why this was done, and only revealed now, when it is most expedient to do so.

At best it looks like gross incompetence by the Museum staff. At worst it looks like a desperate attempt to create a cover story if the adhesives on the eye were found to be modern. And since they conveniently didn't have to remove any part of that eye, this would not be an issue.

There is no way that this sort of story would be considered acceptable for any other artifact. It should not be for the bust, either.

Oh, Lutz: Cameras were commonly in use at excavations from at least the 1890s, when simple box cameras made by George Eastman were widely available. After all, Davis et al managed to photograph KV55, under very difficult circumstances.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meretseger
Priest
Priest


Joined: 02 Jan 2010
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My money's on gross incompetence. FAR more common than cunning plans!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Meretseger wrote:
My money's on gross incompetence. FAR more common than cunning plans!


Here's the big problem with the scenario.

Schultz somehow opened the case, removed the bust, carted it off to the lab, pried out the pupil, cleaned off the wax, replaced the pupil with some sort of adhesive, took the bust all the way back to the case, and no one noticed.

You are correct, of course, in that gross incompetence is hardly rare. No visitors, guards, personnel--no one missed the bust? And if you think that guards and whatnot are blase, you're generally right--but the hardest ones to fool are the cleaning staff. Somehow I doubt that the cleaning ladies would accept a 'removed from display' tag for Nefertiti.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edgard Mansoor
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Sep 2012
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My apologies for not posting yet "Part 2" completing "Part 1" that was posted the day before yesterday on "Egyptian Dreams", due to a computer's failure. The present posting however is in addition to the posting of "Part 2" that I intend to post as soon as possible if the present one passes the scrutiny of the Moderator. If it does not go through, I shall try it one more time.

Khazarkhum says that "Schultz", the Museum's Chemist decided to pry open the pupil of the eye to run test on it. I don't see how he could do that considering that the eye <had not been hollowed> as shown in the CT-scan pictures of "The National Geographic" that I posted in "Part 1", subject of the Nefertiti bust, but artfully painted by the forger who carved it.

It is my understanding that X-rays do not go through solid bodies. For example when one goes to the dentist, first thing is that X-rays are taken of the teeth and roots. The X-rays pass through the cheek and gum because flesh is soft and not as solid and as compact as teeth; then, whenever the X-rays cannot pas through an obstacle, it is then that pictures are taken of the teeth and roots.

Same thing goes for the <supposed-to-be inlaid eye> in the bust. The X-rays of the CT-scans went through the paint and plaster because they are soft and not as hard as limestone which consists of small compact crystallized particles of "calcium carbonate material" and others such as "foraminifera" which are sea shells that also consist of calcium carbonate
that did not allow the X-rays to pass through them. They were halted by the limestone whose texture is more dense and compact than paint and plaster; it is then that pictures of the core of the Nefertiti bust were taken.

If the "pupil and iris" consisted of a dense, hard material such as sard, basalt, onyx or the like, "THEY WOULD HAVE SHOWN" on the pictures of the CT-scans.

An experienced mineralogist from a reliable Geological Institution can examine the eye with sophisticated instruments connected with cameras and special microscopes with 50 to 60 magnification, and will tell you exactly the result based on the chemical composition of the iris and pupil of the eye, their transparency or opaqueness, absorption spectrum, and perhaps other chemical features and properties.

AND HE CAN DO THAT WITHOUT TAKING THE EYE OUT OF ITS ORBIT, SINCE IT HAD NOT BEEN HOLLOWED.

I'm neither a dentist or a gemologist. But why not ask at least a dentist? And preferably a Mineralogist too?

Wildung told "Der Spiegel": You can prove a "FAKE", but you can't prove an "ORIGINAL". He's plain wrong. Many Egyptologists have proved the authenticity of ancient works of art devoid of pedigrees (as one intelligent person once said that pedigrees are an introduction to a forgery), and were backed by Scientists who examined same objects.

Wildung is well informed about a collection of such works of art that have been authenticated by eminent Egyptologists and backed up by no less eminent Scientists who concluded, as the late Dr. Harold J. Plenderleith, formerly Director of the British Museum Laboratory for 35 years, then founder and first Director Emeritus of "ICCROM" under UNESCO stated that this collection "IS, AND CAN ONLY BE AUTHENTIC".

Why not ask Wildung if Dr. Plenderleith is right or wrong?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
khazarkhum
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 21 Mar 2012
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Schultz is the name given on the report.

As I have said, the 'report' is a very strange document. I can't believe that any other artifact or art object would be given that kind of 'pass' when it came to evidence. Surely if a Rembrandt or Leonardo were discovered, the sudden discovery of a 70 year old piece of what is purported to be evidence would never pass muster in the academic world. Especially since the chain of possession was so obviously violated that no one knew to look for this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edgard Mansoor
Citizen
Citizen


Joined: 29 Sep 2012
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles, California

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Part 2 of comments about the Berlin Museum fake Nefertiti bust.

Please, always keep in mind that Museums' Experts as well as "ALL EXPERTS IN THE WORLD ARE NOT INFALLIBLE". Prof. Dietrich Wildung forgets about that.

One of the most <irrefutable> evidence that proves the "Nefertiti Bust" to be an <undeniable forgery> is the weathering on the bust's surface, if it had really been found with Nefertiti's face laying against the ground for 3,350 years as Borchardt claimed, and had not been placed a day or a few hours before it was supposed to have been discovered.

In his book titled "Le buste de Nefertiti", Henri Stierlin, author of the book,
states that according to Borchardt, the bust had been discovered by a workman named "Ahmed el Senoussi" who was working <without supervision> in an area of the Tuthmose workshop, area that had <already been searched before and had been leveled>.

If the area had been searched before and the ground had been leveled, how could the bust had not been seen on the surface of the ground the first time around when this area had been searched, and had not been picked up? Could it have grown <overnight> out of the ground like a plant, after the ground had been leveled?

But what is more important is the weathering on the bust's surface. The late Dr. Harold J. Plenderleith, of the "British Museum Laboratory" and of "UNESCO", wrote that: "When a stone object (in this case, limestone) is buried in the ground, a grinding phenomenon operates through the years and can even result, in extreme cases, in the loss of shape of compact bone, and sometimes in its entire disappearance". In the present case we're talking about a limestone sculpture covered with plaster and painted that's supposed to have been lying on the surface of the ground for <35 centuries, NOT 35 years>.

Borchardt said that "the bust" had been discovered with Nefertiti's face <laying against the ground>. In this case, there should be a "demarcation line" distinguishing <AND> separating the portion of the bust (that is Nefertiti's face)that's supposed to have been laying against the ground, from the portion that's supposed to have been exposed to the atmosphere, since these two portions would have suffered "different types" of weathering. I said "supposed to have been" because the bust "had not" been found, but had been placed in the position that Borchardt described.

The Nefertiti bust is covered with plaster, a material much softer than
limestone. The plaster on the portion of the bust that's supposed to have been laying "against" the ground would have been eaten up like cheese caused by the grinding phenomenon of the <sharp sand> of the Egyptian desert. When it rains, ground absorbs water, and the pigments on Nefertiti's face would have been "DISSOLVED" and would have been mixed with the plaster that would have "also" been dissolved, and after 35 centuries, both would have literally disappeared, or at least would have gotten mixed with the sand.

As it is, the bust shows some losses of plaster, and the uncovered limestone areas, whether exposed to the atmosphere or in contact with the sand, would have definitely acquired some sort of patina that would have been detected by a good scientist. No effort was made by the scientists who have subjected the bust to CT-scans, and no suggestion had been made by Mr. Wildung to examine these areas where the plaster layers had fallen off. Why? Because Mr. Wildung believes in scientific evidence since he brought in scientists to examine the bust, and knowing that the scientists who examined the bust are intelligent and good scientists, he knew they would discover that it is a clever forgery.

Even if it had rained only one day every "FIVE YEARS", after 3,350 years
exposed to weathering, and 670 rainy days, with the bust buried half way with Nefertiti's face against the ground, not only <the pigments AND plaster> would have been dissolved and mixed with the sand, but the limestone core itself would have also been attacked and would have shown "at least" a granulated surface that would have been the result of natural weathering that the forger would have "never" known how to imitate. Neither Borchardt nor his accomplice ever thought about that.

As to the portion of the bust that had been exposed to atmospheric conditions, it would have been smoothed by the friction of the blowing sharp sand of the "Khamasin storm" of the Egyptian desert; and after the pigments disappeared due to the erosion caused by rain, humidity and heat, where thin, and even where thick, the plaster would have also disappeared and the uncovered limestone surface would have acquired a natural patina that would have been easily detected by an experienced Geo-chemist or Geologist. The lack of a demarcation line on the bust, distinguishing and separating the two different types of weathering, is an <INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF> that the bust "IS NOT, AND CANNOT be authentic".

Wildung did not request a scientific analysis of the patina. Instead, he showed the public the CT scans the public wanted to see, but did not show the CT scans of the back of the crown that would have shown its comical shape without the two inches thick layer of plaster that had been applied to the back of the crown, or the CT scan of the portion of the bust below Nefertiti's neck, that would have shown how narrow and unstable the bust would have been and could not have been used as a model in not being able to stand straight on its own, to the point that the Museum had two pegs inserted in the base of the bust in order that in turn these may be inserted in a wider stand so that the bust does not fall at the slightest movement and does not swivel.

http://www.itnonline.com/article/siemens-ct-scanner-reveals-mysteries-inside-egy\ptian-relic

Art Historian Henri Stierlin suspected the authenticity of the bust and was in the process of writing a book about it, in which he was pointing out the many reasons why it could not be authentic, reasons that <Prof. Wildung had agreed upon>, for which reasons he also had "accepted" to write the "Preface" of the book. Nevertheless, when he was made Director of the Museum, he realized he could no longer expose, devaluate and disgrace the bust by writing the "Preface" for Stierlin's book, and by the same token ruin the reputation of the Museum and put a deadly stop to a substantial income the bust was generating by attracting curious visitors who came to Germany to see and admire this eighth wonder of the Ancient World. (Please see posting No.33 in the following link)

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2009/05/05/is-famed-nefertiti-bust-a-fake/

In 1990, one year after Director Dr. Jurgen Settgast retired from the BerlinEgyptian Museum, he had showed the German(?) gentleman who, in September 12, 2010 had posted message No.33, in the "mercurynews website", photographs of the Nefertiti bust that had been taken "BEFORE 1940". These pictures disappeared when Wildung took over the Directorship of the Museum in 1989. What happened to these photographs? What did Wildung do with them? Wildung will probably say: "I don't know, I have no idea, I had nothing to do with them. Wildung never runs out of excuses. He's a master at it.

The German gentleman says the photographs are not to be found anymore after Dr. Settgast died, which means they have disappeared. And talking about the Nefertiti bust he says: "The original (who knows if it was a forgery too) was stolen (believed from U.S.A) at the end of WWII. In saying the story is well known but "not spread around from insiders because Nefertiti is the highlight from the Egyptian Museum, and a magnet for visitors", doesn't he mean to say that everybody knows that the bust exhibited in the Berlin Museum "IS A FAKE?", that it is hushed up because it is an attraction for tourists who go to Germany to see it and spend money all over the Country?

And in saying "the original (who knows if it was a forgery TOO), doesn't he mean to say "AGAIN" that the one exhibited in the Berlin Museum is "ALSO" a forgery? and was stolen (believed from U.S.A) at the end of WWII? The Metropolitan Museum of Art had acquired "in 1925" a Nefertiti bust identical to the one exhibited in the Berlin Museum. It must have cost a lot of money in order for it to be paid for from "the Roger fund". Did the Egyptologist of the Met at the time, think that it was the bust "supposedly excavated by Borchardt?" Does the bust have a good pedigree? What does Wildung know and hide? Did he encourage the
forthcoming exhibit of the bust regardless of whether it will ruin the good
reputation of Dr. Friederike Seyfried and that of the New Museum because he was let go? Doesn't he know that sooner or later the entire truth about him and about the bust will pop up?

Dr. Robert S. Bianchi, a former Curator at the Brooklyn Museum Dept. of
Egyptian Art, said that Borchardt may have been involved in a forgery ring. If Borchardt could have been involved in a forgery ring, (as he did in fact forge "a cuneiform tablet" that fooled the expert in cuneiform writing at the time), why with all his manipulations in the Nefertiti case, can't Wildung be involved in the "Nefertiti Bust Scam?

It is unlikely that Wildung had notified the Officials of the Museum that he had condemned the bust before becoming Director of the Museum, since he had kept a secret what he had written in his "Historical/Stylistic Analyses of the bust" that he had sent Stierlin, and that he may have told them that a gentleman friend of his was investigating the bust he thinks is a fake and that he may be able to convince him to stop his investigation if he occupied a higher position than that of Director of the Munich Museum, all this in order to get hired as Director of the Berlin Museum, and that's how he got the position.

Once he became Director of the Museum, he sent a letter to Stierlin informing him that he could no longer write the "Preface" for his book, and immediately sent a delegation headed by Dr. Rolf Krauss to Geneva to convince him to give up the idea of writing the book as if he couldn't have told him in the same letter what he sent Krauss to tell him. Unfortunately, the Krauss delegation failed to convince Stierlin, whereupon Wildung requested "CT scans" to be taken of the bust in order to prove its authenticity before Stierlin's book is published so that his story would be dismissed beforehand.

If Wildung "sincerely" believed the bust to be authentic, he would have told the Museum's "Board of Trustees" that he thought it was a fake, or that what he had told Stierlin was his personal feelings and not his opinion, or that he was just kidding when he had told him he would be happy to write the "preface" of the book, and he would have told them all these things "long, long before becoming Director of the Museum", and would have admitted having made a mistake. Had he done that, he would have proved to be an honest man, and the Administration of the Museum would have extended his stay in the Museum an additional six month
after his 20 years contract had expired in order for him to have the "honor and privilege" of being the "First Director" of the New Berlin Egyptian Museum. But "all Wildung wanted was the position of Director of the Museum" after which : "Apres moi le deluge" (After me the deluge, I got what I wanted). Of course he requested a 15 years contract after which he got another five years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/feb/19/science.sciencenews

In above link, you'll read about how in trying to reach for the "moon" faster than an intelligent person would, Prof. Dr. Reiner RR Protsch stumbled, got tempted and followed a crooked road that led him to shame and disgrace. The irony is that Protsch examined eighteen Princess heads and statuettes from the Mansoor amarna collection from their "anthropological-morphological point of view", and wrote a report that turned out to be an "excellent and correct report" highly favoring authenticity of the collection. If you care to look at his report in the link below, there is only one typing error. It is in the paragraph starting with "In both parents anatomical comparisons were restricted to the facial, etc…" At almost the end of this paragraph, it says "…a large shell on the right cheek <of> the Nefertiti head... when it actually should read: "... a large shell on the right cheek <and> the Nefertiti head, not <of> the Nefertiti head. A picture of the head with a large dark inclusion (possibly
a fish bone or piece of seashell) on the cheek is in the second link below.
Click on the picture to enlarge it and look at it preferably with a hand
magnifier. (In his book titled False Impressions, the late Dr. Thomas Hoving, aformer Director of the Metropolitan Museum of art, who "is not a Scientist", but an intelligent "scientifically-minded Scholar", is shown holding a magnifier <EIGHT TIMES> on the jacket of his book. What is he trying to tell us? Also, if you take a look at the book, see "first paragraph of page 184, in which he says "it has happened many times before…etc". his book sells now at amazon.com for about U.S. $6.00. I bought mine for $6.00 plus I think $2.50 for shipping.

I mentioned what happened to Reiner Protsch because what happened to him is bound to happen to Wildung once he is fully exposed

http://www.mansooramarnacollection.com/docs/protsch6.html

http://www.mansooramarnacollection.com/macgallery/largeimages/amarnano08-LG-01.j\pg

However, assuming that Protsch's report is incorrect and that it does not favor authenticity of the collection, or let us even assume that his report "AND" conclusion about the collection are as fallacious as the Boston Museum's scientific report by William J. Young, that does not necessarily affect the good standing of the collection, since a Scientist, like an Egyptologist, could also be wrong or a fool. (A foolish scientist is one who says that stone objects cannot be authenticated scientifically, which would mean that stone objects that had been authenticated or proven to be fakes by scientists like Harold Plenderleith or Alfred Lucas since almost 100 years, have not been proven to be authentic or fakes. In any case, the Mansoor collection has been authenticated by no less than 25 of the most eminent "Egyptologists" and "Scientists", and backed by the "distinguished late Dr. Harold J. Plenderleith.

The subject of the Mansoor collection is another case that I would like to
discuss in this Forum (if I am allowed to) in order to show the members how a number of (malicious Egyptologists, as much as I hate to say) headed by Mr. Wildung, succeeded in misleading some amateur Egyptologists, and even a few full-fledged Egyptologists in believing that the Mansoor collection is a fakewhen in reality it has been proven to be authentic "beyond ANY AND ALL reasonable doubts", and is more important than any amarna object in the Berlin, Cairo, or any other Museum. I wouldn't mind discussing it in this Forum as it has been discussed in Thoth-Scribe. But one thing I would like to mention for now, if I may, is that after looking at a couple of pieces from the collection,
and "ONLY" under the magnifier, the late Dr. Plenderleith said the following in his report about the Mansoor collection: "…as I have analyzed the evidence before me, the "inescapable conclusion" is that there is "over-riding agreement" as to their genuineness.

http://www.mansooramarnacollection.com/docs/plender.html

When Wildung had been hired by the Museum the first time around, the Museum's Officials had signed a fifteen years contract with him, and because of the continuing rumor that the bust was a fake, they had extended his stay by another five years to give him another chance of stopping the rumors. However, once the five years extension ended, the Museum's Board of Trustees felt that he did not deserve "the honor and privilege" of being the first Director of the new Museum. Therefore, the Board of Trustees did not extend his stay in the Museum, and since he was still capable of working, he got himself a job as Professor of
Egyptology at the "Freie Universitat Berlin". But what will happen when the
University finds out that he fooled the world? Will he suffer the same fate as Prof. Reiner RR Protsch?

To a qualified knowledgeable Egyptologist, for an object to be considered a masterpiece, it must be both beautiful AND authentic. In an interview with Mr. Jack Malcolm of "Heritage Key", Dr. Friederike Seifried said that the most famous pieces are the "Nefertiti Bust" and the "Berlin green head", but that her <favorite object> is the statue of Chertihotep. Had the Nefertiti bust been authentic, she would have been the first, last, and only Egyptologist not to consider it her "Number One favorite object".

The conclusion is that the authenticity of the Nefertiti bust is a deliberately
fabricated falsehood turned into a hoax by Borchardt to masquerade the truth and fool the World Public. Borchardt had forged a "cuneiform tablet " that had fooled the expert at the time.

It is thanks to the late Dr. Harold J. Plenderleith's theory about the lack of a demarcation line distinguishing the two different types of weathering thatshould have been in evidence on the bust, and also thanks to Mr. Stierlin and even to Prof. Dr. Wildung who asked for CT-scans to be taken, that the mystery of the Nefertiti bust has finally been solved.

The Officials of the Berlin Egyptian Museum can avoid a detrimental scandal by admitting that they had been misled about the authenticity of the bust. Exhibited it as a fake, will attract "AS MANY, IF NOT MORE" visitors to the Museum to see the only object in the World that has fooled so many experts, and Egypt would no longer have the right to claim it since it is not an authentic ancient work of art.

This would be far better than spreading chaos in the "World of Arts and
Sciences".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Egyptian Dreams Forum Index -> Evidence from Amarna All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 9 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group