tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575392107269084728.post2216688170980104376..comments2023-07-28T20:15:27.474-07:00Comments on Egyptians: Documenting NefertitiTimothy Reidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10027256238142330766noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575392107269084728.post-50664075893909518732011-09-11T18:30:26.384-07:002011-09-11T18:30:26.384-07:00Hi Stephen
That was a good edition of KMT and an ...Hi Stephen<br /><br />That was a good edition of KMT and an interesting article. <br /><br />If Monsieur Lefevbre had done a better assessment of the artifacts in that year of 1912 at Amarna this whole mess and the division of finds may look very different today?Timothy Reidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10027256238142330766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7575392107269084728.post-53583948777238462352011-09-10T20:08:30.812-07:002011-09-10T20:08:30.812-07:00Your latest post is an interesting coincidence, Ti...Your latest post is an interesting coincidence, Tim, because I just finished rereading Dr. Rolf Krauss's article "Why Nefertiti went to Berlin" in Kmt, 19:3, Fall 2008, page 44. He quotes from letters and diaries of the people involved.<br /><br />The gist of it: Borchardt learned that Lefebvre would generously let the Germans keep anything made of plaster, so Borchardt placed the bust of Nefertiti with the rest of the plaster studies they found. It was described to Lefebvre as painted plaster rather than limestone, and as depicting one of the princesses rather than Nefertiti. It is listed in the division protocol as "bust of painted plaster of a princess of the royal family" (original in French).<br /><br />Lefebvre was intentionally shown a picture that "disguised the true nature of the painted limestone" and when he inspected the actual objects to be divided, they were already packed in open crates and the bust of Nefertiti had been placed in "as unfavorable light as possible."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com