Edgard described the problem in detail and gave Dr. Plenderleith the pieces of Amarna that he had brought, together with copies of all the scientific reports obtained in Cairo and the United States. From the very beginning, Plenderleith showed the greatest interest in the sculptures, as well as in the story of the Collection. He asked Edgard to leave the sculptures and all the documents with him and return in a week. I have been shown a number of scientific reports, summaries of these in a review by Professor C. O. Hutton, Stanford University, Calif. as well as photographs taken in day light, U.V. and I.R. illumination and after studying these I have read Dr. Stross in Analytical Chemistry, March 1960. My first impression of the great interest attaching to these specimens remains.
Interest lies rather in trying to understand and explain the discrepancies in the reports.
Granted that the conclusions in certain instances are incompatible. Thus, I have a strong impression that the objects seen by me had never been exposed to weathering in the normal sense, i.e. exposed in the open. I regard the degraded surfaces of the stone as having arisen from natural burial in sharp sand. In my considered opinion it would be as serious a mistake to underestimate the importance of scientific investigation as to consider that a lack of unanimity in the conclusions warrants a decision against the genuineness of the Egyptian antiquities, for as I have analyzed the evidence before me, the inescapable conclusion is that there is overriding agreement as to their genuineness. It is because of this conviction that I am taking the exceptional step of making this gratuitous statement in the hope that after twenty years of doubts, it may be a factor in restoring confidence.