the article on the tomb of Nefertari ALYA AL HADDABI.docx

the article on the tomb of Nefertari
ALYA AL HADDABI
introduction
The article selected is “The stability of the tomb of Nefertari
1904-1987”.
Authors of the article are Wilson-Yand and George Burns.
The article aimed at explaining the importance of the tomb of
Nefertari as well as factors that led to deterioration of the tomb
of Nefertari .
introduction
The digging of the tomb of Nefertari began after Ramesses II
become the pharaoh of Egypt
Nefertari was the favorite queen of ramesses ii.
The tomb was discovered in 1904 in Egypt.
Currently is among the most elegant and most preserved tombS
(Habicht et al., 2016).
The tomb of queen Nefertari is of concern to most people
because of the valued artistic treasures found in the tomb.
Review of the article
There has been an international concern about the preservation
of the tomb of Nefertari because of the artistic value found in
the tomb.
The tomb has some of the best examples of the nineteenth-

dynasty wall
paintings.
Degradation and deterioration of the tomb of Nefertari happened
between the year 1904- 1987.
Most of the article did not cover the effects of the damages
caused on the tomb adequately.
However the article covered some of the causes attributed to
influence the degradation and deterioration of the tomb of
Nefertari.
Review of the article
The Article addresses the paint loss and some of the minor
losses that happened to the tomb before 1904.
Little has been covered about the massive damage that occurred
between 1904- 1971.
The aim of the Authors is to provide an in-depth understanding
of the damages that have occurred to the tomb of Nefertari.
History of the destruction
Destruction on the tomb occurred prior to its discovery in 1904
all the way up to 1971.
The information found through the study is useful to the
international objective of conserving the tomb of Nefertari as an
archeological site (Wilson-Yang, & Burns, 1989).
When preserved the tomb acted as the main source of tourist
attraction to the country
Causes of the destruction
The main issue responsible for the deterioration of the tomb of
Nefertari is loss of paint and plaster strata.
The article identifies the two factors as the main reason for the

damages and deterioration of the value of the tomb of Nefertari.
Causes of deterioration
One of the causes of deterioration of the tomb according to the
article is flood water.
It is thought that flood water entered the tomb through the
underground walls.
Absorption of water by the walls caused the paintings to fade.
The tomb is a major tourist attraction. Therefore, if the
government does not protect the tomb, it is risking collection of
revenue from the tomb.
Importance of the tomb
The tomb has some of the most valuable nineteenth-dynasty
wall paintings, An artistic treasure of Egypt
The walls are painted with attractive and vibrant colors
THE Attractiveness attracts tourist FROM across the world
It is One of the major indicators for economic development IN
EGYPT
Important archeological materials considered
The curved paintings on the wall of the tomb are important
factors that attract tourist to the tomb
The remains of the body found in the tomb
Calcium sulphate dehydrated part of the plaster that was eroding
which is another geographical feature that creates attention to

the tombs.
Important archeological materials considered
There was the loss of painting on the walls of the tomb over
time
The government after the discovery renovated the paintings and
tried to make them look new
This was To make the tomb more attractive as away of
promoting the tourism industry
Pictures on the right illustrate the walls before and after repairs
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
The method used to analyze the deterioration and destruction of
the tomb was use of artifact analysis method.
Trowels were used to scrap the dirt and soils on the paintings on
the wall. Trowels are the best tools to be used. (Kealhofer,
Torrence, & Fullagar, 1999).
The materials of interests which were the paintings and the
REMAINS OF THE BODY OF NEFERTARI were taken for
analysis.
Methods of analysis
Stratigraphy method was used on evidence obtained from the
tomb to determine the level of destruction and deterioration of
the tomb.
Layers of paintings on the walls of the tomb were used to
determine and date the artifacts obtained from the tomb.
It is believed that the lowest layer of the wall is the one that

was formed first.
Findings of the study
There is evidence of deterioration of paint and plaster on the
walls of the tomb after the discovery of the tomb in 1904
There was accelerated deterioration of paintings and plaster
between 1921-1942.
In the upper tomb levels there was progressive deterioration as
compared to the lower tomb levels.
Evidence of deterioration of paintings and plaster at the tomb.
The images were damaged through the loss of painting on the
wall.
The image is a sample painting found in the walls of the tomb
nefertari.
The tomb of Nefertari has been experiencing continuous loss of
paintings on the wall.
However, some parts of the tomb are still in stable conditions.
Since 1904 there has been human intervention at the tomb.
The government is aiming at conserving the value of the art in
the tomb.

Discussion of the findings
Flood water is the main contributing factor of paint loss in the
tomb, leading to its degradation and deterioration.
The flood water entered the tomb with force thus washing out
the paints on the walls causing the paintings of the wall of the
tomb to fade out.
Most of the paintings on the walls have been lost through the
flooding.
Absorbed water also contributed to the loss of painting on the
walls.
The walls of the tomb absorbs water from the ground thus
making the paintings that are on the wall fade out (Asperen de
Boer, 1967).
There is need for a protective mechanism to be put in place by
the government since the tomb bears artistic treasures of Egypt.
Sodium chloride has also contributed to the fading of paintings
on the wall of the tomb.
As water is absorbed by the wall it moves the chemical
composition of sodium chloride.
Sodium chloride reacts with the paint on the wall hence making
the paintings fade out.
conclusion
The tomb of Nefertari is a main tourist attraction in Egypt
because of the artistic value it has hence the paintings on the

wall.
There is need for protection so that the government can
continue benefiting from the revenue gotten from the tourists
who come to visit the place.
Since its discovery there has been progressive deterioration of
paintings on the wall.
Further conclusion
The main contributing factor to the destruction and
deterioration of the paintings are:
Floods,
Water absorbed by the wall
Deposition of sodium chloride on the wall
references
Asperen de Boer, J. V. (1967). Humidity in walls in relation to
the preservation of works of art. Studies in Conservation,
12(sup1), 109-117.References
Habicht, M. E., Bianucci, R., Buckley, S. A., Fletcher, J.,
Bouwman, A. S., Öhrström, L. M., ... & Böni, T. (2016).
Queen Nefertari, the royal spouse of Pharaoh Ramses II: a
multidisciplinary investigation of the mummified remains
found in her tomb (QV66). PloS one, 11(11).
Kealhofer, L., Torrence, R., & Fullagar, R. (1999). Integrating
phytoliths within use-wear/residue studies of stone tools.
Journal of archaeological Science, 26(5), 527-546.
Wilson-Yang, K. M., & Burns, G. (1989). The stability of the
tomb of Nefertari 1904–1987. Studies in conservation, 34(4),
153-170.

HOLMES INSTITUTE
FACULTY OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
HI5019 Strategic Information Systems for Business and
Enterprise Group Assignment
Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Trimester T1 2020
Unit Code HI5019
Unit Title Strategic Information Systems for Business and
Enterprise
Assessment Type Group assignment
Assessment Title Cyber Security Case Studies
Purpose of the
assessment (with ULO
Mapping)
Students are required to:

dologies and the role of
accountants in
system development projects (ULO 3)
-based systems/ERP,
including the role
of ethics and the various internal control processes that need to
be in place
(ULO 4)
cally evaluate the range of cultural, security, privacy and
ethical issues
facing individuals and organisations as a result of information
systems (ULO 5)
Weight 30% of the total assessments
Total Marks 30
Word limit Not more than 3,500 words
Due Date Week 11, Friday 5:00 pm (AEST)
Submission
Guidelines
- 4
students.
members to the
lecturer of their class by e-mail before the end of week 8.
along with a completed
Assignment Cover Page.

-
pt Arial font and 2 cm
margins on all four sides of your page with appropriate section
headings and page
numbers.
listed appropriately
at the end in a reference list using Harvard referencing style.
Page 2 of 6
Assignment Specifications
Purpose
This assignment aims at developing your group’s understanding
of latest cyber security issues and
their impacts on business operations. Your group is required to
critically evaluate three recent cyber
security case studies and their lessons to business organisations.
Required
Your group is required to conduct a literature search and select
three (3) cyber security case studies
that are published between 2014 – 2019. Based on the selected
case studies, your group is required
to prepare a written report to cover the following points:

o General information of the company
o Key business processes of the company
o Key cyber security issues identified in each case
o Risks associated with the issues
o Impacts of the issues on case company
o Actions reported in each case to address the identified issues
o Outcomes of the reported actions
o Proposed actions other than the reported ones that could be
taken to address the
issues
o Suggestions for preventing the issues in future
Assignment Structure
The report should include the following components:
number
and with appropriate section
headings

The report should be grounded on relevant literature and all
references must be properly cited and included
in the reference list.
Page 3 of 6
Group contribution
To ensure that all students participate equitably in the group
assignment and that students are
responsible for the academic integrity of all components of the
assignment. Your group needs to
complete the in a table similar to the following one which
identifies which student/students are
responsible for the various sections of the assignment.
Assignment Section Student/Students
The table needs to be completed and submitted with the
assignment as it is a compulsory component
required before any grading is undertaken.

Marks may be deducted if a student does not make sufficient
contribution to the assignment.
It is students' responsibility to provide evidence for their
contributions to the assignment in the event
of dispute.
Marking criteria
Marking criteria Weighting
General information of case companies 2%
Key business processes of case companies 2%
Key cyber security issues identified in each case 4%
Risks associated with the identified cyber security issues 3%
Impacts of the identified cyber security issues 3%
Actions reported to address the identified issues 4%
Outcomes of the reported actions 4%
Proposed actions other than the reported ones for addressing the
issues 2%
Suggestions for preventing the issues in future 2%
Presentation 2%
Research quality 2%
TOTAL Weight 30%

of 6
Marking Rubric
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
General
Information of
case companies
/2
Provide clear,
concise and
accurate
information of
case companies.
Provide
complete and
accurate
information of
case companies.
Provide accurate
information of
case companies.

Provide
information of
case companies
that is mostly
accurate.
Fail to provide
accurate
information of
case companies.
Key business
processes of
case companies
/2
Identify all key
business
processes of
case companies.
Identify most key
business process
of case
companies.
Identify most key
business
processes of
case companies
with minor
errors.
Identify some

business
processes of
case companies
with errors
and/or
omissions.
Fail to identify
any key business
process of case
companies.
Key cyber
security issues
identified in each
case
/4
Identify all key
cyber security
issues identified
in the cases.
Identify most key
cyber security
issues identified
in the cases.
Identify most key
cyber security
issues identified
in the cases with
minor errors.
Identify some

key cyber
security issues
identified in the
cases with errors
and/or
omissions.
Fail to identify
any key cyber
security issue
identified in the
cases.
Risks associated
with the
identified cyber
security issues
/3
Present an
excellent
discussion on
risks associated
with the
identified cyber
security issues.
Present a very
good discussion
on risks
associated with
the identified
cyber security
issues.

Present a good
discussion on
risks associated
with the
identified cyber
security issues
with minor
errors and/or
omissions.
Present a
reasonable
discussion on
risks associated
with the
identified cyber
security issues
with errors
and/or
omissions.
Fail to present a
proper
discussion on
risks associated
with the
identified cyber
security issues.
Impacts of the
identified cyber
security issues
/3
Present an

excellent
discussion on
impacts of the
identified cyber
security issues.
Present a very
good discussion
on impacts of
the identified
cyber security
issues.
Present a good
discussion on
impacts of the
identified cyber
security issues
minor errors
and/or
omissions.
Present a
reasonable
discussion on
impacts of the
identified cyber
security issues
with errors
and/or
omissions.
Fail to present a
proper
discussion on
impacts of the

identified cyber
security issues.
Actions reported
to address the
identified issues
/4
Identify all
reported actions
for addressing
the identified
issues.
Identify most
reported actions
for addressing
the identified
issues.
Identify most
reported actions
for addressing
the identified
issues with
minor errors.
Identify some
reported actions
for addressing
the identified
issues with
errors and/or
omissions.

Fail to identify
any reported
action for
addressing the
identified issues.
Page 5 of 6
Outcomes of the
reported actions
/4
Present an
excellent
discussion on
outcomes of the
reported actions.
Present a very
good discussion
on outcomes of
the reported
actions.
Present a good
discussion on
outcomes of the
reported actions

with minor
errors and/or
omissions.
Present a
reasonable
discussion on
outcomes of the
reported actions
with errors
and/or
omissions.
Fail to present a
proper
discussion on
outcomes of the
reported actions.
Proposed actions
other than the
reported ones
for addressing
the issues
/2
Propose
practical and
effective actions
based on strong
arguments.
Propose
practical and
effective actions

based on good
arguments.
Propose sound
actions based on
reasonably good
arguments.
Proposed sound
actions with
errors and
omissions based
on valid
arguments.
Fail to propose
proper actions
or back the
proposed
actions with
valid argument..
Suggestions for
preventing the
issues in future
/2
Present an
excellent
discussion on
suggestions for
preventing the
issues in future.
Present a very

good discussion
on suggestions
for preventing
the issues in
future.
Present a good
discussion on
suggestions for
preventing the
issues in future
with minor
errors and/or
omissions.
Present a
reasonable
discussion on
suggestions for
preventing the
issues in future
with errors
and/or
omissions.
Fail to present a
proper
discussion on
suggestions for
preventing the
issues in future.
Presentation
/2

Report included
all elements and
was very well
presented.
Writing flowed
clearly and
sections were
linked very
effectively.
Referencing was
exemplary.
English was used
very effectively
and was error-
free.
Report included
all elements and
was well
presented.
Writing flowed
clearly and
sections were
linked
effectively.
Referencing was
of a high
standard.
English was used
effectively with
very few errors
present.
Report included
all elements and
was generally

presented
appropriately.
Writing mostly
flowed well and
sections were
linked.
Referencing was
in accordance
with guidelines.
English was used
effectively with
few errors
present.
Report included
most elements
and was
adequately
presented.
Writing
sometimes did
not flow clearly
leaving the
paper to seem
disjointed in
areas.
Referencing was
somewhat in
accordance with
guidelines. Basic
English was used
with some
errors present.
Report lacked
some elements

and was poorly
presented.
Writing often
did not flow
clearly leaving
the paper to
seem somewhat
disjointed.
Referencing was
not entirely in
accordance with
relevant
guidelines. Basic
English was used
with errors
present.
Page 6 of 6
Research Quality
/2
An extensive
amount of high-
quality evidence
from peer-
reviewed journal
articles and

other sources
was included
and used
effectively to
support
discussion.
A broad range of
quality peer-
reviewed journal
references and
other sources
was included
and used
effectively to
support
discussion.
An adequate
range of peer-
reviewed journal
references was
included and
used to support
discussion.
An adequate
range of peer-
reviewed journal
references was
included and
used to a basic
extent to
support
discussion.

Little or no peer-
reviewed journal
references were
included and
these were
rarely used to
support
discussion
effectively.
The Stability of the Tomb of Nefertari 1904-1987
Author(s): K. M. Wilson-Yang and George Burns
Source: Studies in Conservation, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Nov., 1989),
pp. 153-170
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the
International Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1506283
Accessed: 14-05-2020 10:00 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1506283?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked
references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected]
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Taylor & Francis, Ltd., International Institute for Conservation
of Historic and
Artistic Works are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to
Studies in Conservation
This content downloaded from 131.252.96.10 on Thu, 14 May
2020 10:00:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE STABILITY OF THE TOMB OF NEFERTARI 1904-1987
K. M. Wilson-Yang and George Burns
Abstract-The conservation of the tomb of Nefertari
(No. 66, Valley of the Queens, Egypt) has attracted
international concern for many years. However, pre-
vious assessments of the stability of this complex
physicochemical system have been neither compre-

hensive in content nor unanimous in conclusions.
Here, using available photographic and diagrammatic
documentation from 1904, 1921, 1942, 1971 and 1987,
these assessments are examined and mechanisms of
deterioration are explored. It has been found that
although some paint and plaster loss had occurred in
the tomb of Nefertari prior to its discovery in 1904,
additional large losses appeared between 1904 and
1971. Degradation in the upper tomb levels is less
extensive than in the lower tomb levels. In the tomb as
a whole, loss of large areas of both paint and plaster
strata has slowed at least since 1971 and probably
earlier. However, paint layer deterioration in the form
of flaking has been continuous even when the tomb
was closed. The pattern and physical characteristics of
loss have shown that there are five interacting factors
which underlie the deterioration of the tomb of
Nefertari. Two intermittent but catastrophic factors
operate over a short period of time: direct entry of
flood-waters and the capillary absorption of trapped
flood-waters into the tomb walls. Flood-waters cause
immediate mechanical losses and absorbed waters
induce morphological changes in the wall paintings.
Absorbed waters contribute to the slower action of a
third deterioration factor, sodium chloride. Salt and
water movement and the eventual deposition of salt as
micro- and macrocrystals throughout the painting
substrate and surfaces undermine their structural sta-
bility. The chemical dehydration and associated
instability of the tomb plaster is a fourth factor. This
dehydration is suspected to be primarily the result of
a very dry pre- or post-flood environment within the
tomb. The mechanical damage caused by salt crystal

growth in the friable plasters is one way that sodium
chloride interacts with the plaster. Sodium chloride is
suspected also to have accelerated the process of loss
of chemically-bound water. The tomb materials, salt
and water interact in another, previously unrecog-
nized, slow process which is responsible for some
paint flaking. This flaking is consistent with the inter-
action of the painted layer with a fifth factor: air
humidity and its fluctuations. A four-stage, long-term
conservation scheme is suggested in this paper. It
involves the climatic and physical isolation of the orig-
inal, the consolidation of the walls, and the construc-
tion of a replica tomb.
1 Introduction
The kinetic investigation of slow deterioration
processes in archaeological systems in situ is
important in conservation science and archae-
ological chemistry [1]. This paper deals with one
such system, the tomb of Nefertari, Egypt, and
presents an assessment of the macroscopic
changes which have taken place in this tomb
from its discovery in 1904 [2] to 1987. Such an
assessment is necessary for the identification of
mechanisms of deterioration at this site as well as
for long-term conservation planning for the site
as a whole.
The tomb of Nefertari (No. 66, Valley of the
Queens, c. 1240 B.c.) has been recognized as one
of Egypt's most valued artistic treasures. Not
only is it the tomb of Ramesses II's favourite
queen, for whom the Temple of Hathor at Abu

Simbel was constructed, it also contains some of
the best examples of nineteenth-dynasty wall
paintings. This tomb and its Egyptological and
artistic content have been described elsewhere [2,
3].
The wall paintings in the tomb of Nefertari are
carved in relief and skilfully painted in colours
which still retain their remarkable brightness.
The tomb is constructed on two levels (Figure 1):
an upper set of chambers, and a lower set of
chambers at a depth of approximately 10m, con-
nected by a stairway. The lower chambers are
centred around the sarcophagus room, which is
supported by four columns. The Valley of the
Queens lies approximately 100m above the allu-
vial plain of the River Nile [4]. It is probable,
based on a geological survey of the Valley of the
Kings [4, 5], that the tomb of Nefertari was cut
in ancient limestone landslide deposits on top of
limestone interbedded with underlying expan-
sive Esna shale.
The tomb of Nefertari has been the subject of Received 4
October 1988
Studies in Conservation 34 (1989) 153-170 153
2020 10:00:04 UTC

B'
Fig 7
Fig 2
-Fig 3
Fig 8
Fig 5 0 m 5
Fig 6 / Fig 4 N
A B
B'
0 m 5
Figure 1 Plan of the tomb of Nefertari, after reference [3]. The
positions of the mural paintings which are
reproduced in this paper are marked with bold lines and
numbered according to the respective figures.
concern to the Egyptian Antiquities Organi-
zation (E.A.O.) and to the international com-
munity [1, 3, 6-10, 13] because of its structural
fragility. The plaster has, in many places, lost
both cohesion and adhesion. The plaster layer,
which in some places is as thick as 5cm, forms
the substrate on which the murals were carved,
coated with a thin white wall preparation [9] and
154 Studies in Conservation 34 (1989) 153-170

2020 10:00:04 UTC
The stability of the tomb of Nefertari 1904-1987
then painted. The calcium sulphate dihydrate
component of the plaster, which is its binding
agent, has completely dehydrated to anhydrous
calcium sulphate [1, 6, 9, 11] and the plaster as
a whole contains significant amounts of sodium
chloride dispersed at the submicroscopic level, as
found through a series of sensitive chemical
analyses [1, 11]. Furthermore, the plaster sub-
strate is riddled with sodium chloride crystals [1,
6, 12-15], from the microscopic to several cubic
centimetres in volume, and sodium chloride
efflorescence products appear on the painted
surfaces.
The limestone from which the tomb was cut is
highly jointed [12, 13] and contains geological
deposits of sodium chloride in the form of veins
and pockets [1, 6, 13]. Movement of sodium
chloride is possible in such a system and would
proceed either under the action of relatively rare
climatic events, e.g. sudden rainfalls or floods, or
by the more insidious and continuous action of
atmospheric moisture and, to a much smaller
degree, groundwater.
The problems of isolation, accessibility and
stability of the tomb of Nefertari have not been
well understood. However, it has been possible

to consider the tomb as a physicochemical sys-
tem [1, 6] in interaction with its geological [12,
13] and climatic [1] surroundings. Such an
approach has been useful when applied to the
Temples of Karnak [16], and is applicable
throughout'Egypt and elsewhere [1].
2 Descriptions, assessments and documentation
In 1904, at the time of excavation, the damage in
the tomb was described: 'because of the many
infiltrations of rain-water which had penetrated
in between the rock and the layer of stucco, the
latter had fallen in some parts and in others was
about to fall, making it necessary that our work
of consolidation be well devised and patient; this
work was directed by Professor Fabrizio
Lucarini, who was with our Mission' [2]. It was
said also that, despite their state of disrepair, the
scenes on the walls remained about two-thirds
intact [2]. It is significant that the appearance of
salt on the painted surfaces, which is prominent
now, was not reported in 1904.
The task of providing an assessment of the
stability of the tomb of Nefertari after 1904 was
complicated by its chemical, physical and geo-
logical diversity. Opinions on the extent and rate
of deterioration vary considerably from one
group to another. It was reported in 1942 [7] that
'the tomb of Queen Nefertari can be cited as an
example of (this) rapid destruction'. In
describing the damage it was asserted, but not
supported by direct evidence, that 'the coating

(plaster) soaked by humidity swells and becomes
detached from the wall... the swelling becomes
accentuated, the coating (plaster) caves in, frag-
ments after drying and falls' [7] and paintings
were seen to be 'extensively invaded by salt
which deposits as blackish-grey scabs on the col-
our' [7]. Shortly after 1942, access to the tomb
was restricted; it had previously been a well-
known attraction and was described in early
guidebooks [17, 18]. A UNESCO/ICCROM
committee visited the tomb in 1958 and 1969 [19]
and, in 1970, it reported that 'even in places
where the plaster is dangerously detached from
the rock wall, no important losses could be
found on comparing the original with the pic-
tures taken in 1904' and also '...the tomb does
not appear to have undergone any further deteri-
oration of significance. Its present condition
may therefore be regarded as stable' [8]. It was
stated in 1974 that 'on comparing the present
state of the ......paintings with these pictures
[Schiaparelli's, of 1904] they do not appear to
have undergone any significant deterioration
since their discovery' [9]. In 1982, it was reported
that the tomb had changed little between 1971
and 1977 and between 1977 and 1981 [6]. At the
other extreme, it has been said that 'since the
discovery of the tomb, its condition has suffered
considerably...' [3] and also 'the tomb has
suffered notably since its clearing eighty-three
years ago' [20]. This underlying dichotomy has
been recognized by the Egyptian Antiquities
Organization which has stressed that 'with
present facilities... this claim [of ref. 8] can be
quantified' [19]; subsequently, a record of the
1987 status of the visual deterioration of the

tomb of Nefertari has been compiled [21]. How-
ever, this 1987 status report appears to have been
prepared primarily as a guide for conservators
engaged in in situ protective consolidation and
does not deal explicitly with past rates of deteri-
oration.
In the present paper, the deterioration of the
tomb of Nefertari is examined using available
supporting photographs and diagrams from
2020 10:00:04 UTC
1904 [2], 1920-22, 1942 [7], 1971 [3] and 1987
[10].
In 1904, at the time of excavation, an incom-
plete set of photographs was made and repairs
were done [2]. The quality of the photographs is
variable but they are irreplaceable for the estab-
lishment of major post-1904 losses.
During the 1920-21 and 1921-22 seasons, the
Metropolitan Museum of Art Graphic Expedi-
tion made an extensive photographic record of
the tomb of Nefertari. The photographs
reproduced here are reprinted from contact
prints made from the original 8" by 14" glass

negatives from the archives of the Metropolitan
Museum of Art. Coloured copies of three scenes
from the upper chambers were painted at about
the same time [22]. However, a careful com-
parison of the 1921 photograph in Figure 6 and
the copy of the same scene [22] indicates that the
painting is based almost exactly on the 1920 pho-
tograph and therefore does not constitute a sep-
arate source. It is reasonable to assume that this
is also true for the other two painted scenes.
In 1942, photographs of extensively damaged
sections in the lower chambers were made, and
a set of diagrams was published which showed
areas of loss and potential loss of most of the
a
b
C
Figure 2 Nefertari adoring Hathor. (a) 1904 [2]. (b) 1921.
Photography by the Egyptian Expedition of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, all rights reserved. (c) 1971,
from [3].
2020 10:00:04 UTC

a
b
C
Figure 3 Nefertari before the First and Second Door
of the Domain of Osiris. (a) 1921. Photography by the
Egyptian Expedition of the Metropolitan Museum of
Art, all rights reserved. (b) 1942 [7]. (c) 1971, from
[3].
upper rooms and some of the stairwell [7]. The
areas of potential losses were investigated:
'... auscultation of these paintings and some
probing reveals large zones of coating (plaster)
detachment' [7] and these zones appear as the
hatched areas on the diagrams. Areas of loss
noted in the same diagrams were described as
'large fragments [which] already have fallen since
the opening of the tomb' [7]. We have found that
these diagrams are not exhaustive; many small,
unrepaired losses seen in the 1904 photos were
not noted. Inaccuracies exist in the diagrams:
some losses present in 1904 are erroneously
described as being post-discovery in the 1942
diagrams. Nevertheless, the 1942 diagrams are a
valuable source and represent the first use of
condition diagrams in the tomb of Nefertari.
Any true post-1904 losses have been verified
below by comparison with later photographs.
In 1971, the first colour documentation of the

tomb of Nefertari was made [3]. This publication
provides a photographic record coupled with the
architectural plan and documents the tomb
surface, excluding most of the ceiling.
Several colour photographs were reproduced
in 1987 [10]. These photographs are primarily
illustrative and were not meant as a complete
1987 documentation of the tomb.
It is perhaps surprising that a comparison of
all these sources has not been made before. The
reason for this appears to be that the documents
cited above do not represent a continuous body
of work. The 1904 excavation report [2] was con-
cerned primarily with the great Egyptological
significance of the site; photographs taken in
1920-22 were never published and the 1942
paper [7] was the first conservation-related docu-
ment to appear in the literature. The 1971 docu-
mentation followed a hiatus in published work
of approximately 31 years. However, this work
was not directed intrinsically toward conser-
vation. The most recent document, the 1987
report [10], is oriented specifically to conser-
vation studies in the tomb of Nefertari and not
to the rates of deterioration.
The tomb plan given in Figure 1 indicates the
location of the photographs and diagrams
reproduced here.
3 Comparisons
3.1 Evidence for general post-1904 deterioration

Paint and plaster losses occurred throughout the
tomb after 1904. A specific example is given in a
series of photographs of Nefertari adoring Hat-
hor (Figure 2). This panel is found on the north
2020 10:00:04 UTC
a
b
Figure 4 Isis and Re-Harakhty, seated. (a) 1904 [2].
(b) 1921. Photography by the Egyptian Expedition of
the Metropolitan Museum of Art, all rights reserved.
(c) 1942 [7]. (d) 1971, from [3].
wall of the lower small east chamber. The 1904,
1921 and 1971 photographs of this scene all
show areas of loss, especially in Hathor's body.
Although most of the losses occurred before
1904, by 1921 one can see the beginnings of
further losses of painted detail between the two
figures. There was some reinforcement of the
paint and plaster layers around the edges of the
losses: in the offertory flowers and in Nefertari's
abdomen, for example. By 1971, there had been
a steady loss of fragments in all regions of this
panel. Most of these subsequent losses were

replaced by blank infill repairs made after 1921.
3.2 Evidence for accelerated deterioration
1921-42
The photographs of the south-east wall of the
sarcophagus room (Figure 3) show that dra-
matic and extensive losses in all figures in this
panel had occurred between 1921 and 1942. The
lower right quadrant of this panel is especially
damaged. Losses which occurred between 1942
and 1971 in the panel of Figure 3 are difficult to
see because of the quality of the 1942 photo-
graph; they are minor in comparison with those
which had occurred in the years between 1921
and 1942. Initial repairs to this wall painting
were done before 1921; plaster drips can be seen
in the dado of Figure 3a. Additional repairs and
cleaning were performed before the 1942 photo-
graph was taken.
3.3 Evidence for progressive deterioration in the
upper tomb levels
It has been observed that the lower chambers of
the tomb have more losses than the upper cham-
bers [3, 6, 8, 12] and Figures 2 and 3 indicate that
these losses have been, in part, progressive since
1904. However, in the upper part of the tomb the
rate of deterioration has been progressive since
2020 10:00:04 UTC

Bilh it11IIJ UIII1 il] 111111 11111111 u
c.
? . -I~gBJ.~i4.o ..
J;
r1
d
discovery. This point is illustrated by Figures 4
and 5. Figure 4 shows Isis and Re-Harakhty
from the east wall of the hallway to the upper
east chamber. A clear pattern of damage and
repair from 1904 to 1971 emerges from the
photographs of this panel. In 1904, losses in the
headdress of Isis had already occurred. Losses
can also be seen in the plinths of Isis and Re-
Harakhty, in Re-Harakhty's thigh and chest by
his bent arm, and in the dado panel under the
plinths. By 1921, losses in the headdress had
grown. In 1942, this damage was not recorded;
it is possible that it had been repaired before
1942. However, the 1942 diagram does show
more extensive losses in the Re-Harakhty plinth,
in Re-Harakhty's elbow and chest and in the left
hand of Isis. It is likely that this 1942 diagram
was used to guide repairs: the 1971 photograph

shows where most of the damage noted in the
1942 diagram was infilled and repainted. From
1971 to 1987 there has been no apparent loss (see
reference [20], figure 4).
Figure 5 shows Isis and Nephthys (right) from
the large west panel in the upper part of the
stairway. It also shows a pattern of loss and
repair. A large patch of the headdress of Isis had
fallen between 1904 and 1921 and, as in Figure
4 above, was apparently repainted before 1942.
Figure 5 also provides evidence of continuous
deterioration which resulted in losses between
1942 and 1971. In 1904 and 1921, the feet of
Nephthys could be seen. In 1942 her feet were
recorded as part of an area of plaster detach-
ment. By 1971, the loss in this area had not only
occurred but had been repaired. In 1921 the face
of Nephthys had not lost its paint layer (the light
patch on the 1904 photograph is due to uneven
lighting), and no loss was noted in 1942. But by
1971 the paint layer had been damaged. No
additional losses to this panel were noted in a
1987 diagram [21].
None of the losses in Figures 4 and 5 has been
2020 10:00:04 UTC

a
i
Figure 5 Isis (left) and Nephthys, seated. (a) 1904
[2]. (b) 1921. Photography by the Egyptian Expedi-
tion of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, all rights
reserved. (c) 1942 [7]. (d) 1971, from [3].
b
as great as the pre-discovery losses and the losses
between 1921 and 1942 in the sarcophagus room
painting shown in Figure 3.
3.4 Evidence for continuous paint layer loss
A more subtle change which has occurred in the
tomb of Nefertari is paint layer loss not obvi-
ously associated with plaster loss. This change is
exemplified in Figures 6 and 7. Figure 6 com-
pares the 1921 and 1971 [3] photographs of a
detail of an upper chamber wall showing a phoe-
nix (also identified as a heron [22]) and the god-
dess Nephthys as a hawk (or kite [22]).
Enlargement of paint layer losses in the tail and
wing of Nephthys are seen in the black outline of
the feathers in the 1971 photograph. In Figure 7,
the face of Isis (right) from a column in the
sarcophagus chamber shows the enlargement of
paint layer loss, especially in the pupil of the eye,
which has occurred between 1921 and 1987.
Losses in the eyebrow and over the corner of the

mouth became enlarged between 1971 and 1987.
Although apparently unreported, these types of
losses were recognized: the paint loss seen in
1904 and 1921 on the face of Isis near her mouth
was repaired sometime prior to the 1971 photo-
graph.
3.5 Evidence for stable areas in the tomb
The two photographs in Figure 8 are of the god-
dess Ma'at in the lintel of the doorway leading to
the sarcophagus chamber. Although paint layer
losses had occurred in the centuries preceding
discovery, there is no evidence of change
between 1904 and 1971. Furthermore, no change
could be seen in a 1987 photograph (see refer-
ence [20], figure 3) of this panel.
3.6 Evidence for periodic human intervention
since 1904
In every group of photographs in this paper,
except Figure 8, there is evidence of some human
2020 10:00:04 UTC
C

A" 9 1iX
IWII
...4.W
|~~~~~~ ::'~
;' . . :.
e... ,. ; ... ,.
? ..= ..:;: . ' ...:
d
intervention. There were at least three sets of
repairs between 1904 and 1987. Schiaparelli
directed repairs [2] which may or may not be
identical to the pre-1921 repairs (Figures 2b, 3a
and 6a). Repairs were done before 1942 (Figures
3b, 4c and 5c). Some of these latter repairs may
be datable. For example, in 1977, in the lower
level of the tomb, a fragment of repaired painted
plaster was found by one of us (GB); it had been
backed with a piece of newspaper dated 1935.
Finally, Figures 4d and 5d provide evidence that
work was done in the tomb between 1942 and
1971.
4 Discussion
4.1 Effects offlood-waters
The lower level chambers of the tomb of
Nefertari have undergone the most damage, for
which groundwater, rain-water and flood-water
may be responsible. Groundwater is likely to
play a minor role at this site because of the great

depth of the water table in desert regions and the
shallowness of the tomb: the tomb is situated
approximately 2km from irrigated fields and is
only about 10m in depth (see Figure 1). Seepage
of rain-water solely in the lower levels is not
supported by observations. Although the tomb
ceiling has lost some paint and plaster in the
upper level as well as in the lower level, there is
little difference in the extent of losses between the
two levels. That the ceiling remains largely intact
suggests that seepage could not have been
important. However, direct entry of waters from
torrential rains is possible, especially if the door-
way is not sealed. The flow of water near the base
of the walls, and its entrapment in the lowest
levels of the tomb, may account for the large
losses in those areas. The painted dado panels on
the walls of the lower chambers and, to a lesser
extent, those of the upper walls, have suffered
losses; in the northernmost small chamber,
beyond the sarcophagus room (see Figure 1),
only approximately one quarter [3] of the wall
2020 10:00:04 UTC
a

Figure 6 Heron and Nephthys-as-a-bird. (a) 1921.
Photography by the Egyptian Expedition of the Met-
ropolitan Museum of Art, all rights reserved. (b) 1971,
from [3].
paintings remain. The upright sides of the
recessed floor of the sarcophagus chamber have
no decoration [3], so that flooding probably
occurred to a maximum depth of about two
thirds of a metre, that is, the height of these sides.
Flood damage in the tomb of Nefertari could
have resulted from one or a very few floodings.
The tomb of Seti I, in the Valley of the Kings,
was excavated in the 1816-17 season and by
1819 water had entered and caused damage in
the entire tomb [4]. The damage in the tomb of
Nefertari which was noted in 1904 suggested
that it was flooded before discovery [2], which is
possible only if water seeped through the rubble
in the entranceway.
The tomb was not adequately documented in
1904 [2] and a complete documentation was
made only in 1971 [3]; therefore any flooding
which resulted in the post-discovery damage in
the lower level probably occurred before 1942
(see section 3.2) and certainly before 1971. The
most recent reported flood in the Valley of the
Kings was in 1916. The Valley of the Queens has
a different drainage pattern than does the Valley
of the Kings, as assessed from aerial photo-
graphs [12] and topographical maps [4]. How-
ever, it is probable that the Valley of the Queens,
because of its proximity to the Valley of the

Kings, also experienced its most recent water
damage in 1916. It is known also that torrential
rainfalls occurred in the entire Theban Necropo-
lis yearly from 1906 to 1910 [4]. Thus flood-water
b
seems to be the most important factor
responsible for the major losses in the tomb.
4.2 Effects of absorbed water
In addition to any mechanical damage caused by
flowing waters, trapped water will rise by capil-
lary forces through the porous wall-painting
substrate and between the substrate and the
limestone walls. Therefore, murals above the
flood level in the lower chambers would have
been severely damaged. Some of these murals
have indeed collapsed, including those in the
northernmost chamber beyond the sarcophagus
room, while others needed immediate repair [8].
In 1942, the swelling and subsequent drying of
the plaster substrate was proposed as the mech-
anism responsible for large post-discovery losses
in the tomb [7]. Humidity was cited as the cause
of the swelling; it is more likely, given the proba-
bility of the direct entry of water as recently as
the first two decades of this century, that any
swelling or change in morphology was due to
2020 10:00:04 UTC

b ... . i .............. Ab
. ... ........?
...... .... ..
:9.,
I m j[ I j (
i::"~~Q 1'
.:.........?....... ..
Aik
i ie
~pc IL_~1OEIO~ tNO.s
""'M
TT"'::~''_''~? ''*A
7s~ II
~q ?, ?Pow
AJ?'
Figure 7 Nefertari and Isis (right). (a) 1904 [2]. (b) 1921.
Photography by the Egyptian Expedition of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, all rights reserved. (c) 1971,
from [3]. (d) 1987 [20]. Photo credit: Guillermo
Aldana, courtesy of the Getty Conservation Institute.

2020 10:00:04 UTC
a
Figure 8 Ma'at. (a) 1904 [2]. (b) 1971, from [3].
absorbed water. Thus, capillary action in the
flooded tomb appears to be the second most
important factor responsible for its deterio-
ration.
4.3 Effect of sodium chloride
As absorbed water moves to the drier surfaces of
the murals, it will carry with it the sodium chlo-
ride which is known to exist in the …
Question 3: I was sort of surprised to learn that the flood
waters contributed exponentially to the degradation of the
Nefertari tomb. Do you feel that pharaohs of that time period
were aware of the possible risk to tombs and burials posed by
the Nile River flooding? Do you feel that there are measures to
mitigate water related damages that archaeologist and Egyptian
officials could have taken or should take?
Question 4: I really enjoyed your presentation. I enjoyed the
way that it ended, with an almost call to action to help keep this
art in it's best condition. I wonder if there is a good way to

restore these paintings, as deterioration will still occur over
time and there is only so much we can do to prevent more loss
of the paintings?

the article on the tomb of Nefertari ALYA AL HADDABI.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to the article on the tomb of Nefertari ALYA AL HADDABI.docx

Similar to the article on the tomb of Nefertari ALYA AL HADDABI.docx (20)

More from rtodd17

More from rtodd17 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

the article on the tomb of Nefertari ALYA AL HADDABI.docx