Iconic Egyptian Statue declared a Fake

[HavelockV]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...zRm3iHA9fAYdQg

As someone who has been enamoured with works of art from Ancient Egypt since I was a young child, the news today regarding the famous bust of Queen Nefertiti is somewhat devastating. An art historian has determined that the stunning, iconic bust of Nefertiti that is currently housed in Berlin's Neues Museum is not actually a work of that period at all. Rather, it is claimed that the piece was created around 1912 by an artist named Gerardt Marks at the behest of the German archaeologist Ludwig Borchardt. The statue was used for testing the types of pigments that were used by ancient Egyptian artisans. However, it seems that a visting German prince mistook it for an authentic work of art from the ancient past and Borchardt, out of respect, did not presume to correct his esteemed guest's misidentification.

Egypt and its Supreme Council of Antiquities, currently headed by Zahi Hawass, has been seeking the restitution of the sculpture for many decades. It will be interesting indeed to see if they will continue to pursue their claim to the work now that it has been exposed to be an alleged 'fake', as it were.

If the claim turns out to be true, it may have very far-reaching cultural ramifications. This particular work has become, along with the famous gold death mask of Tutankhamun, synonymous and symbolic of Egyptian culture. Its image has been reproduced countless times and even appears on Egyptian state documents. I don't believe that there is any disputing that it is still an astonishing and impressive piece. However, if it was indeed executed in the 20th century by Gerardt Marks and not during the time of the Pharaohs as previously thought, it will be worth watching whether or not its significance as a work of art will be signifcantly diminished.

[Nike]

I'm curious if they find out more about that.
Wouldn't be the first time that a museum's sensation turns out to be a fake. Sometimes it's really almost impossible to tell, exspecially since most of these fakes were created by people who had a very profound understanding of ancient crafts. Art Nouveau and the aera of the early big diggs... an interesting topic.

[HavelockV]

What is even more interesting is that there is practically no information on the sculptor Gerardt Marks to be found aside from his being attributed as the creator of the Nefertiti bust. I suppose that this revelelation makes him one of the most slighted artists in history. Perhaps now museums and collectors will go searching through their holdings for other as yet unrecognized examples of his work.

[Nike]

Well, I'm afraid that's because he's misspelled - you can find out a lot about Gerhard Marcks, even in the internet.

Now I've just read that Wildung from Berlin denies that the bust is a fake - and while it's only logical they would deny that, there obviously is a detailed diary from the excavation and they did CTs and some material analyses asides from the pigments, too, that don't support the fake theory.

Time might tell...

[HavelockV]

Ahh, well that butchered spelled would indeed explain the lack of information.

I, too, was thinking that with such a significant artifact, there must have been some scientific tests and diagnostics done that would have caused experts in the field to believe for so long that the sculpture was an authentic ancient Egyptian artifact. Something studied with such depth cannot be so lightly dismissed as a fake.

[Nike]

Things like that are a complicate matter. On the one hand, no museum announces joyfully that one of their most important ehibits is a fake. And analyses can be tricky, too. But it seems like they did several different analyses, so it doesn't seem completely unlikely to me that they indeed have an original.
Stierlin, on the other hand, the one who claims it's a fake isn't a specialized egyptologist. He's an arts and architecture historican and wrote several popular books about ancient cultures, but nothing really specialized and scientific. I haven't read his book about the Nefertiti bust, can't say much about it - it seems a bit strange, though, that he claims there is no documentation of the finding while Berlin says they have it.

Have you read about the Arthur Evans - Emile Gilliéron relationship? That's quite interesting, too.

[HavelockV]

All good points, Nike. In Sharon Waxman's book, Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World, there is a large exerpt from Ludwig Borchardt's journal detailing the conditions of the discovery of the statue in Thutmose's studio. I do not see why he would have recorded such an occurence at all if it is true that he only sought to be respectful of the prince's mistaken observation. Perhaps the instance to which Stierlin refers involves a different piece that may have actually been a replica of some sort, and not the authentic Nefertiti bust.

I confess I had not heard of the Evans-Gilliéron affair before you brought it to my attention. Some superficial inqueries a la Google provided some slight details. Very interesting about the Minoan Snake goddess and other related artifacts. A possible explanation for the inconcsistancies with the carbon dating of the chryselephantine figures that occurred to me was that Gilliéron might have utilized components and materials from authentic yet relatively unimportant relics of gold and ivory from later historical periods, such as the Middle Ages, to cobble together the allegedly Minoan figures. Of course, by no means am I an expert on the subject. I am merely thinking out loud, as it were.

[Nike]

Emile Gilliéron was Evan's conservator - he conservated and reconstructed the frescos of Knossos and a lot of other stuff, too. And together with his father, he made and sold replicas - really good ones, for quite immense prices. Since both of them were excellent conservators, they had a lot of experience with ancient findings, techniques, and materials. And they probably had a lot of material sources at their hands, too - they ivory of Boston's snake goddess is probably medieval, the C14 analysis suggests a date around 1450 AD.
Gilliéron knew exactly what Evans wanted, what he believed in - it's hardly possible to really prove that the snake goddess was indeed made by the Gilliérons, but it seems highly possible, since they knew ancient ivory work very well, and they knew what Evans believed the Minoan religion to be, and what he wanted to "find" - and be it on the arts market.

Pretty interesting time, also in concern of how archaeological science and methology started to develop out of "treasure hunting". I love to read old excavation diaries and notes. Sometimes it's amazing how well they worked at that time already, very often, of course, they're pretty scary/frustrating, too, when you read what they destroyed and threw away in order to find their sensations.