The box containing the bust of Nefertiti was opened on 12 August 1913, allowing inspector of antiquities Gustave Lefebvre to look inside it. German Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt himself, the discoverer of the bust, claimed in his diaries and museum correspondence that he had avoided cleaning it, leaving it caked in mud possibly to facilitate its removal.
Hans Gustav Güterbock, an eyewitness to the division of the finds, stated that the photographs the Egyptian authorities received of the objects were inadequate and did not show any details. Moreover, he stated that the room housing the box was poorly lit, preventing anyone from clearly seeing the unique artefact inside the box.
This leads to the suspicion that Borchardt did everything he could to conceal the bust, preventing Lefebvre from examining it correctly.
The main list of the division was subsequently written by Lefebvre in the presence of Borchardt. It contains the bust, but this was described as “a head made of painted gypsum of a princess of the royal family”.
There are two important mistakes in this description. First, the distinct long blue crown worn by the bust could only belong to Nefertiti and not a princess, as she was the only one in Egyptian history to have worn this crown and is almost always depicted with it. There is no question that Borchardt, as an Egyptologist, understood this clearly. In fact, he wrote the correct description in his excavation diary, which was available only for him to read.
Thus, we know that he recognised the head of Nefertiti but did not include her name on the division list. The sculpture was therefore listed as that of a princess to diminish its significance. The second issue is that the head is not made of gypsum but instead is made of limestone. This was surely clear to Borchardt as well.
Borchardt recorded in his diary that Lefebvre examined objects carved from solid stone and that the painted bust of the queen was among them. This raises a crucial question: if Lefebvre recognised these artefacts as being made of solid stone, why did he describe the bust as being made of gypsum on the list? And why refer to it as a princess? It is well established that royal statuary carved from limestone was not permitted to leave Egypt.
Some suggest that there was an arrangement allowing the Germans to take all gypsum objects from Thutmosis’ workshop to Berlin, and, indeed, Borchardt did transfer some gypsum masks there. In his diary, Borchardt noted that he and Lefebvre had exchanged a head depicting two princesses for half of the gypsum masks, and thus Borchardt took half of the pieces made from gypsum.
Whether the bust of Nefertiti was counted among these remains uncertain. It is possible that Lefebvre was led to believe that the head was made of gypsum because Borchardt explicitly described it that way in the list. This corroborates Güterbock’s assertion that Borchardt was fully aware of what he was doing. Güterbock objected to the bust being classified as gypsum, but Borchardt reassured him that the material would eventually be identified as limestone once it arrived in Germany, and his mistake would then be acknowledged.
He further explained to Güterbock that a thorough examination could not be performed at the time for fear that the painted surface of the bust might be damaged. For this reason, he preferred to transport the artefact to Berlin for a more detailed inspection. Years later, Güterbock stated his belief that Borchardt had acted deceptively. In due course, Borchardt himself admitted that he had made a mistake, only later discovering that the bust of Nefertiti was in fact composed of limestone.
But the evidence shows that Borchardt attempted to remove the bust illegally from Egypt, as parts of the limestone material are clearly visible on various parts of the head, making it almost impossible to mistake for gypsum. Limestone is heavy, while gypsum is notably lighter. Thus, Borchardt’s explanations cannot be trusted as evidence of innocence. In a diary entry from January 1912, Borchardt even wrote that the bust was made of stone. As a result, the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) has judged the original artefact division to be neither legal nor valid.
Information also comes from Ambrose Lansing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, who noted that Lefebvre claimed he had never seen the head at the excavation site. Therefore, Lefebvre could not have authorised the head’s export from Egypt.
Lansing stated that the Germans sent the head directly to Germany rather than to the Cairo Museum, as was customary. He believed that the bust left Egypt for Germany via a diplomatic bag, preventing inspection. This account is supported by the daughter of Pierre Lacau, a member of the Egyptian Antiquities Department, who stated that her father knew the head of Nefertiti was never presented to Lefebvre.
GERMANY: After the head was sent to Germany, Borchardt chose not to exhibit it with the other items he had retrieved; instead, he concealed it in the home of James Simon, who had financed the excavation.
The bust was not displayed until 10 years later in 1923, when Borchardt thought it was safe for public display. German museum records indicate that he feared the Egyptian Antiquities Service would demand the bust’s return.
Borchardt also failed to publish the bust in 1913 alongside the other objects he had discovered, as would typically be expected. When Nefertiti was revealed for the first time in 1923, the Egyptian authorities immediately protested and demanded its return, even denying excavation permissions to the German Society for Studying Eastern Antiquities and the Berlin Museum in 1925. It was evident that Borchardt intended to deceive both Egypt and Egyptology.
Subsequent efforts to reclaim the bust of Nefertiti, from early negotiations in the 1920s through secret meetings between heads of state, all failed. In early 1924, Heinrich Schäfer, Pierre Lacau, and Egyptian archaeologist Selim Hassan attempted to negotiate with the Germans for the return of the bust. In 1929, the Egyptian authorities sought to trade other pieces for it.
King Fouad I secretly met with the German authorities to negotiate the return of the bust. In spring 1930, they reached an agreement under which the Egyptian government would offer Germany two significant Pharaonic pieces and grant permission for German excavations in exchange for the bust of Nefertiti.
An article from the newspaper La Bourse Égyptienne on 13 December 1933, citing an article from La Libre Belgique on 28 November 1933, indicates that King Fouad announced after his meeting with the German authorities that the German government would return the bust of Nefertiti to Egypt. However, about a month later, the latter visited the king again and rescinded that statement, apologising that they could not return the bust to Egypt.
Adolf Hitler himself had become enamoured of Nefertiti, declaring to the Egyptians that “I will never relinquish the head of the queen.”
After World War II, Egypt again officially sought the bust’s return. This time, the request was directed to the Allied-controlled council responsible for preserving art in Germany. A report created by King Farouk I’s mission to Prague, dated 14 April 1946, was sent to the Allied authorities explaining the case. Following that, the Egyptian ambassador in the US relayed a request to the American secretary of state on 21 February 1947.
In March 1947, the head of the Allied-controlled council in Germany replied that they felt they lacked the authority to decide on this matter and suggested that the request should be made at a later date when a stable German government could make such decisions.
During this battle, which I call a fight for the truth, German newspapers published numerous articles claiming that the bust of Nefertiti was a forgery and that Borchardt had created it. This belief was based on the fact that the bust was not exhibited for the first 11 years after its arrival in Germany. Hitler himself denied the request to return the bust.
A Swiss historian named Henri Stierlin also tried to cast doubt on the bust’s authenticity, arguing that the missing left eye would have been seen as a sign of disrespect towards the beloved queen. He also asserted that the vertical style of the two shoulders was a 19th-century sculptural method rather than an ancient one.
German newspapers tried to muddy the issue with tales of a conspiracy. However, attempts to impugn the bust as a forgery found little traction, as the documentary evidence affirmed its authenticity. I have a black-and-white photograph of the bust taken shortly after its discovery, showing workmen holding it and carrying it from the site to a storehouse. Although the first scientific report about this discovery was published 11 years after it occurred, we have Borchardt’s daily diary, which mentions the painted bust of the queen as one of the most vibrant pieces of Egyptian art.
When the German authorities suggested that the bust was better off in Berlin due to the high standard of German museums, I countered that Egypt, with the advent of its Grand Egyptian Museum (GEM) and over 22 other institutions, could provide more than adequate care of the bust. The bust remains our heritage, and it must return to Egypt.
CAMPAIGN: In April 2006, I asked Dieter Wildung, then director of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, for a copy of the protocol regarding the 1913 division of the finds, but he refused.
This further supports the claim that the bust left Egypt illegally. If he had proof that it did not leave as a result of the division protocol, why not send it? He claimed this report was lost during World War II, yet I received a letter from Hermann Prazinger, then president of the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation, stating that the Berlin Museum indeed had the protocol.
I met Friederike Seyfried, the new director of the Berlin Museum. She is a sincere and admirable lady, quite different from Wildung. She provided me with a copy of the protocol and a copy of Borchardt’s diary. It is true that he never mentions Nefertiti by name; instead, he records a “life-size colourful bust of a queen.” Later, when discussing the discovery of the bust, he states that “we held the most vibrant piece of Egyptian art in our hands.”
The information we have gathered through the offices of volunteers shows that we have enough evidence to request the return of the bust of Nefertiti.
The evidence includes Borchardt’s diary, the protocol of the division from 20 January 1913, the report of the pieces found in the Amarna excavation in 1912, a letter from Güterbock and a brief report from a letter written in 1946-1947 requesting the return of Nefertiti’s bust after World War II and the newspaper records.
In 2009, the German ambassador in Cairo invited Wildung and myself to dinner to discuss matters. However, there was no productive outcome from the meeting.
As a result, I planned to write an official letter requesting the return of the bust. Before sending it, we discussed all the evidence with the National Committee for Stolen Artefacts, and I sent a copy to the minister of culture for his approval. I also received approval from the prime minister, and he requested that the letter be signed by me. On 1 January 2011, I sent the letter to Parzinger requesting the return of the bust of Nefertiti from the Prussian Cultural Heritage Foundation.
Writing on behalf of the Egyptian government, I formally requested the restitution of one of the world’s most iconic artefacts, the painted limestone bust of Nefertiti, currently housed in Berlin’s Neues Museum under inventory number AM 21300.
This request is a natural consequence of Egypt’s long-standing policy of seeking the restitution of all archaeological and historical artefacts that have been taken illicitly out of the country, especially those items that are considered unique. The painted bust of Nefertiti is universally recognised as a unique and irreplaceable artefact. Both contemporary and subsequent documentation recording the excavation and division of finds of the group of artefacts that included the bust of Nefertiti confirm that the bust was taken out of Egypt in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Egyptian laws in force at the time.
Since the first full publication of details of the Nefertiti bust, which did not appear until over a decade after its discovery, Egypt has made a number of attempts to recover this priceless sculpture and bring it home.
The government and people of Egypt are eager that this unique treasure be returned to the possession of its rightful owners, the Egyptian people. The government is confident that the German authorities will act in accordance with article 13(b) of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), which calls on all states parties to the convention to “ensure that their competent services cooperate in facilitating the earliest possible restitution of illicitly exported cultural property to its rightful owner.”
In this context it should be pointed out that in 1978 the then director-general of UNESCO issued a “Plea for the Return of Irreplaceable Cultural Heritage to those who Created it” and called upon “those responsible for preserving and restoring works of art to facilitate, by their advice and actions, the return of such works to the countries where they were created.”
Egypt recognised, and deeply appreciates, the care and efforts undertaken by the government of Germany to preserve and display the painted limestone bust of Nefertiti, I said in my letter. Inspired by the excellent relations between our two governments, the government of Egypt is confident that the German authorities will assist in facilitating its return.
I know that I need not underline the importance of this request, and the significance of the restitution of the painted limestone bust of Nefertiti to Egypt, I added. I sincerely hope that I will soon receive a positive response, which will be greatly appreciated by the government and people of Egypt.
The response to my letter came soon afterwards, asking for a signature from the minister of culture. By that time, I was serving as minister of antiquities, but the turmoil of 2011 and the urgent need to defend the Cairo Museum and protect Egypt’s archaeological sites from looting shifted my priorities.
Today, I remain a member of the committee led by the minister of antiquities for Nefertiti’s repatriation, but I doubt an official request by the Egyptian government will be made again soon. My efforts now focus on petitions, signed by thousands of people and intellectuals in Egypt and abroad, demanding Nefertiti’s return to Egypt.
Recent years have seen a new spirit of restitution, as French President Emmanuel Macron has recognised that many African artefacts in French museums were taken illegally and must be restored to their homelands. Such declarations reflect a growing global consciousness about repatriation.
A recent development in this story occurred last year. After an interview in which I asserted Egypt’s right to receive the bust of Nefertiti, Wildung resurfaced after years of silence to challenge me.
He e-mailed me, saying that “you are no longer in charge, and you have no right to say this.” I replied that while positions and titles change, the guardianship of Egypt’s monuments is not a matter of politics, and that I remained steadfast. I launched a petition for the return of Nefertiti on 7 September 2024, and my goal is now for one million signatures before we present our renewed demand for her return and her rightful display in the GEM.
The journey for her restitution therefore continues, gathering strength from every signature, every voice, every conviction that justice in heritage matters is not merely a function of law or possession, but of history, heart, and rightful belonging.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 7 May, 2026 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly.
Short link: