Hans Wolfgang Muller, the Scientist


Many Egyptologists, beginning with John D. Cooney of the Brooklyn Museum, fell for the discredited report of William J. Young of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Others, like Hans Wolfgang Muller never believed in reputable scientific reports, unless it coincided with their own opinion! Instead they proclaimed themselves " scientists "and went from there. For example :On February 15, 1960 in his " Expert Opinion" re the Mansoor Amarna Collection, Muller writes: " The material of both objects submitted to me in the original ( relief head and small head of princess ) is a reddish lime-sandstone, which is supposed to have derived from Egypt, according to the expert opinion, but which is not known to me as coming from Egypt; this type of stone has during the entire pharaonic history of the valley of the Nile been used neither in its architecture, nor in its art production of reliefs, statues or small objects."

Dr. Muller is wrong! He should have left the scientific points to be debated by scientists. The stone is not a lime-sandstone as he claimed. It is a limestone, whose provenance is well established (see Alfred Lucas report and Philippe Blanc report

< http://www.mansooramarnacollection.com/docs/ >. Further, by claiming knowledge of the stone, he made a mistake repeated often by others. Consider the following: In the 1955 summer issue of KMT, there is an article on page 10 " Museum News and exhibits abroad", which states " While speaking at a recent meeting of a group called " American Friends of the British Museum " in New York City, keeper of that institutionís department of Egyptian antiquities, William Vivian Davies, reportedly stated that the famed Rosetta Stone- which everyone always thought to be carved from "basalt proved upon a recent cleaning by the Museumís conservation Dept. to actually be of Aswan pink granite !" So who discovered that? The Conservation Department! And who certified the Mansoor collection to be authentic? The late Harold J. Plenderleith, former Keeper of the Egyptian Antiquities Department of the British Museum.

Another major flaw in the Muller " Expert Opinion " is that he believes in authenticating artifacts from photographs! Discussing correspondence and photographs Edmond Mansoor sent him, he writes :" I have not answered his letter, because all objects from the photographs, gave me the impression of modern imitations, in spite of the technical examinations which concluded them to be authentic." This is a fallacy! No serious and honest scholar should authenticate artifacts from photographs. Besides, Dr. Muller decided after seeing black and white photographs taken in the 1950ís!


Posted April 2004





View My Stats

The Saga of the Louvre Princess