Portland , Oregon




Due to the length of this report, we have elected to publish only the comments, findings and conclusions of Dr. DeMent. Interested academics may obtain a copy of the full report

by contacting: The Secretary, Mansoor Amarna Corporation, 2212 Hillside Drive, Santa Rosa CA 95404 or

 In discussing the various reports, regarding the Mansoor Amarna Collection. Dr. DeMent writes : “ The foregoing reports are often complete and precise within the area of techniques employed, e.g. those of Drs. Arnal, Silver and Kirk………And the poorest of all, which lacks both objectivity and a rational basis for reaching conclusions, is that of W.J. Young”. 





“ It is interesting and perhaps significant to note that of the ten reports (cf. Section II), that of W.J. Young was the only one which was not favorable. So it is the aim of this section to deal with the Young Report as thoroughly as possible, and point up the many weaknesses of that report”.



“ At the outset, from a study of the Young Report, it is very clear that Mr. Young:


(a)                Did not fully understand the tool with which he was working, i.e. the ultraviolet lamp:

(b)               And compounded upon this lack of understanding did not properly and correctly interpret such results as he may have obtained “.


Dr. DeMent  continues :


“ In view of the foregoing remarks, and in the carefully considered opinion of the present investigator, the report of Mr. W.J. Young, dated 14 April 1949, wherein Mr. Young’s so-called ” purple fluorescence “ is alleged to “ clearly indicate that the pieces in question are of fairly modern origin,” is:


(a)                Weak, subjective, and without meaning as set  forth in its present form.

(b)               Fraught with erroneous conclusions based upon inadequate experience and understanding with and of the ultraviolet light and fluorescence compounded with a complete inability to interpret the results of visual fluorescence analysis:

(c)                 Indicative of lack of objectivity and lack of carefulness an otherwise competent scientist would rely upon:

(d)               To be completely disregarded in any serious appraisal of a body of evidence relating to the authenticity, or lack of same, of the Mansoor sculpturings.




In view of (a) what is felt to be a thorough study and collation of the gist of ten reports and letter-reports relating to the Mansoor Collection of Egyptian Sculpturings, and (b) the results obtained by the present investigator, the following conclusions are drawn by this write about the three Mansoor objects identified in Section I thereof :


(1)               The report of W.J. Young of the Boston Museum, including a purported fluorescence analysis, lacks factual and objective bases, for the reasons given in Section III(discussing the Young Report), and should be eliminated in any serious appraisal of a body of evidence regarding the authenticity, or lack of same, of the Mansoor objects.

(2)               Fluorescence analysis made in this laboratory of the three Mansoor objects  confirms the statement made under (1) supra.

(3)               Fluorescence analysis made in this laboratory of the Mansoor objects show that these objects have had a history of chemomechanical and/or biochemomechanical alterations consistent with authenticity and substantial age.

(4)               Visible, ultra violet, and infrared photographic investigations made in this laboratory on the three Mansoor objects show features consistent with authenticity and substantial age.

(5)               Spectrochemical analyses as well as microscopic studies, together with a close scrutiny of known facts regarding the nature of the patina, are all consistent with authenticity and substantial age.

(6)               It is therefore the considered opinion of the present writer that the three Mansoor sculpturings he has examined are genuine and correctly represented as defined by the limits of the investigational techniques (a) employed and reported herein and (b) employed and reported upon in previous reports substantiating authenticity.




Report Dated June 17,1959


Signed by Jack DeMent