See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317416490

Nefertiti's bust and Dynamical Geometry

Article · May 2017

CITATIONS READS
4 6,575

1 author:

Dimitrios S. Dendrinos
University of Kansas
131 PUBLICATIONS 995 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Greek and Roman mosaics View project

Astronomy in archeological artifacts View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dimitrios S. Dendrinos on 09 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Nefertiti’s Bust and Dynamical Geometry
Dimitrios S. Dendrinos
Emeritus Professor, School of Architecture and Urban Design, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
In Residence at Ormond Beach, Florida, USA.
Contact: cbf-jf@earthlink.net
May 14, 2017

Tomographic section from a 3-d scan of Nefertiti’s bust. Source: the author.

1
Nefertiti’s bust: static righthand side view of the sculpture. Berlin Neuer
Museum. Public domain photo.

2
Nefertiti’s bust: static backside view of the sculpture. Public domain photo.

3
 Table of Contents

Abstract
Brief Summary of Findings
Introduction
PART 1. Observing the Bust of Nefertiti and Dynamical Geometry
Brief introduction to the literature on the bust
Stereoscopic viewing of two Classical Greek sculptures, and Nefertiti’s bust

Spatial dynamics in a 360 viewing of a 3-d object, Entropy Index and Nefertiti’s bust
Prime numbers, their ratios, irrational numbers and Stages in the Evolution of Art and
Architecture; key measurements of Nefertiti’s bust

PART 2. The Basic Static Geometry of Nefertiti’s Bust

The bust’s inverted truncated cone-like structure
Key angles and shapes in Nefertiti’s bust
The two parabolas of the bust’s shoulders
The bust’s structurally weakest point
The modulus of Nefertiti’s bust: the palm (shesep)

Appendix A: Photos showing static views of Nefertiti’s bust

Appendix B: Snapshots from scanning and sections of Nefertiti’s bust
Conclusions and suggestions for further research
References
Author’s work
Other sources

Acknowledgements
Legal Notice on Copyrights

4
 Abstract
This is follow up work from a research post by the author in [1.7]. In that research post/note, the
author first suggested that the top part of Nefertiti’s bust is an inverted truncated cone-like
structure with some interesting Mathematics embedded in its Architecture. In closely analyzing
this iconic sculpture’s Architecture, and in making use of a 3-d scanning data set available in the
public domain, a Dynamical Geometry type methodological perspective has been uncovered and
utilized here to explore the design details of this exquisite piece of middle 14th century BC
Egyptian Art. Some major findings are reported for Thutmose’s Nefertiti sculpture. Furthermore,
the theory is advanced that, the Mathematics embedded in this statue are suggestive of the State
of the Art in Mathematics of 18th Dynasty Egypt. Moreover, an innovative perspective is
introduced into the study of Art and Architecture, involving Dynamical Geometry, based on a
dynamic formulation of Claude Shannon’s measure of Entropy in Information Theory.

A static perspective on Nefertiti’s bust; 18th Dynasty Egypt; Dynamics in viewing 3-d objects;
and Evolution of early Mathematics and Geometry. Source of photo: the author.

5
 Brief Summary of Findings
The paper is divided into two Parts. In the first Part, a new dynamical perspective is introduced
into the viewing of 3-d objects, including objects of Art and Architecture, as for example
Thutmose’s Nefertiti bust. In the second Part of the paper, the focus is on static views of the
statue. Either under a stereoscopic perspective or without perspective involving only projections
onto a plane, i.e., as in elevations and cross sections of architectural drawings and through
tomographic sections, a thorough inspection and analysis of Nefertiti’s bust is undertaken.
After a brief Introduction into the background and controversies surrounding Nefertiti’s bust, like
for instance whether the sculpture is authentic or a modern forgery, and some brief description
of the sculpture in Part 1’s first subsection, touching issues such as whether the bust was meant
to be a prototype for a bigger sculpture or act as model to a set of similar in size busts (issues to
which this paper does offer hints for answering them to the negative), the analysis proceeds
towards laying out the foundations of a dynamic spatial theory of observing 3-d objects.
A stereoscopic viewing model is suggested, whereby an observer could take a point of view
defined by a globally engulfing the 3-d object surface. Any particular position on this surface can
be identified by a coordinate system involving longitudes and latitudes (or their corresponding
angles). Proportions thus obtained of the 3-d object’s frame, as viewed from any specific point
on that globe. That view can be explicitly expressed as functions of the longitude and latitude
occupied by the observer at the time. By obtaining a sequence of locational-specific proportions
of various elements of the 3-d object, one can derive a spatially dynamic, positional Entropy
measure of the Information content of the object.

This is stated as an extension of both Claude Shannon’s Entropy measure in Information Theory;
and on the basis of standard theory of spatial and temporal dynamics. Position of an observer in
space-time can be stated as a function of the previous position of the observer and under some
driving (utility or attractivity) function(s). The sequence of positions by an observer viewing a 3-
d object isn’t of course a random walk. It could be stated in an unconstrained or subject to space-
time constraints fashion. In addition, although the overall shape of the object’s frame undergoes
geometrical transitions, tomographic surface derived proportions of various components within
it remain invariant. This dynamic formulation of viewing 3-d objects constitutes the major
theoretical and methodological advance of the paper.

Key proportions in the outline of 3-d objects are often telling signs of the maker’s mathematical
knowledge, as well as messengers of the prevailing state of the Art in Mathematics of the Cultural
milieu the artist belongs, at the time. This hypothesis is supported here by references to two well-
known and much later made sculptures, the Aphrodite of Milos by Alexander from Antioch, in
which the Golden Ratio has been embedded into its overall frame; and the Discovolus by Myron,
actually two of its Roman Era copies, in which the Silver Ratio is shown to have been implanted
by its original maker (Myron) in its frame. By contrast, the bust of Nefertiti by Thutmose is shown
to have been made by employing proportions of simpler ratios (in its frame and elsewhere in it).

6
To document these findings, the paper seeks to uncover the Mathematics embedded into
Nefertiti’s bust, by obtaining very accurate measures of key lengths in it. The paper, further,
attempts to measure the Shannon Entropy index, accounting for the information content of this
18th Dynasty sculpture. It is carried out on a preliminary basis, and as an example, utilizing a
dynamic model employing a limited number of views, from some nonetheless anchor observer
positions, obtained from a 3-d scanning of the bust available to the public.

Moreover, an attempt is made to classify the Evolution of Art and Architecture involving 3-d
objects and structures by the complexity of their Geometry and Mathematics, from the Neolithic
to the Bronze and Iron Ages down to Classical Greece. Four Stages (Elementary, Basic, Advanced,
and Complex Geometry) in that evolutionary path are identified, depending on the era’s
prevailing knowledge of fractions and the qualitative properties of their decimals, and the
presence of irrational numbers in the 3-d object’s Architecture. This analysis builds on prior work
by this author, in which evolution in both Art and Architecture was tied to the use of gradually
more complex geometric shapes and Mathematics.
Part 1 constitutes an attempt to derive the basic measurements of import found in Nefertiti’s
bust. These measurements are obtained, thanks to the publicly available 3-d scanning of the
sculpture, at the hundredth of a millimeter approximation. It is with some degree of confidence
concluded, on the grounds of the fundamental to the bust counts and the degree of
approximation attained on these counts, that the design tools employed by this bust seem to
indicate that it was made during a transition period, from what is defined in this paper as a “Stage
B Basic Geometry” to a “Stage C Advance Geometry”. This transition is based on the use of simple
but key rules governing fractions, and ratios involving certain elementary prime numbers.
In Part 2, a static approach to the Geometry of Nefertiti’s bust is pursued at some depth and in
some detail. In it, the basic geometric shapes embedded into the bust are analyzed. Specifically,
the inverted truncated cone-like structure is studied at length, and its basic measurements are
set forward. Tomographic sections of the bust are utilized to obtain the key measurements of
this structure, and its component trapezoid. Furthermore, a possible Primitive Pythagorean Triple
(28, 45, 53) right triangle is detected as possibly being purposefully built into this trapezoid.

Moreover, the three basic angles of the sculpture are measured; they are the 60 angle formed
by the axis of symmetry of the inverted truncated cone-like structure with the horizontal plane;
the 25 angle imprinted in the triangle of the statues façade; and the 5 angle, formed by the
truncating plane of the inverted cone-like structure formed by the “head cum crown” ensemble.
Lastly, and possibly of quite strong interest is the finding that Thutmose used as modulus for the
making of this exquisite 3-d structure the palm (hand, or “shesep”), an Egyptian unit of
measurement equal to about 7.5 centimeters. A number of research avenues have been opened
up by this research effort to further analyze the sculpture which has captivated Humanity since
its discovery at the beginning of the 20th century.

7
 Introduction
A marquee artifact of XVIII Dynasty Egypt, at par with Tutankhamun’s Mask (a circa 1323 BC
artifact, see the author’s work on it, in reference [1.1]), is Nefertiti’s bust. Discovered by German
archeologist Ludwig Borchardt in 1912 at the ancient City of Amarna, in what is believed to have
been Thutmose’s workshop, the iconic bust is thought to have been crafted circa 1345 BC. Some
doubts have been raised regarding the authenticity of the artifact, as some (for example, H.
Stierlin [2.1] and E. Ecrivan [2.2]) have raised doubts.
This paper is not in any way to act as an arbiter on this mild controversy. The debate on this issue
seems to have been well settled by 2009, in favor of an authentic artifact made about the time
claimed by most Egyptologists, see for instance references [2.3] and [2.4]. However, the
mathematical analysis to be carried out here may shed some additional light as to the question
of authenticity, and also on the question of whether it was a final product or rather a prototype
for the making of many similar or bigger in scale and size statues of Nefertiti Finding out the
Geometry employed in the bust’s morphology, and by comparing it to the Geometry known to
the Egyptian mathematicians of the time, may offer additional confirmation regarding the
artifact’s authenticity, at least.
A CT-scan in 2006 revealed that the bust consists of two faces; the base face is made out of
limestone, and has more rough and angular characteristics; whereas, a thin layer of plaster like
stucco covers the limestone core face (Nefertiti’s so-called “hidden face”). This finding more or
less confirmed the authenticity of the bust, although it may throw a wrench onto the originally
intended bust dimensions, which is the subject the analysis here will hone in, since one can’t
know for sure what were the originally intended dimensions for the bust by Thutmose. This will
be an angle that the study will look at while researching the bust’s originally intended dimensions.
Nefertiti’s bust, at its currently exhibited state in the Neues Museum in Berlin, is an artifact full
of history, since its discovery in the early 1910s, and it is surrounded by controversy regarding
ownership rights, and preservation conditions. Although these are serious and very important
matters, this paper will not delve on any of them. These subjects tangentially affect the subject
matter proper of this paper, which is basically a search into uncovering the underlying Geometry
of the well know bust of Nefertiti. In the exposition however, some of these issues will be touched
upon, to the extent that they directly bear on the topic under investigation here.

It is noted that the paper, although it deals with esoteric mathematical subjects to an extent, it
is addressed to the general public. The reader is required to just have basic College level
mathematical education to be able to follow the elementary exposition offered here. Topics in
advanced Geometry, Algebra, Differential Calculus, Theory of Optimization, Dynamical Analysis,
Information Theory and other branches of Mathematics (all used here) can be further explored
and advanced in future work by specialists in these fields, if judged of course to be of interest.
This paper must be viewed as a snapshot of an evolutionary trail, leading into the design
principles of Nefertiti’s sculpture and Thutmose’s thought processes in creating it.

8
 PART 1. Observing the Bust of Nefertiti and Dynamical Geometry
Brief introduction to the literature on the bust
A video presenting the bust of Nefertiti inside the domed room of the Neues Museum in Berlin
is found in [2.5]. The description given in [2.5] erroneously refers to a 2-d isosceles (symmetry
containing) triangle forming frontal space. This is not an exact representation of the bust. The
bust is a 3-d structure, part of an inverted truncated cone, containing a slight subtle asymmetry.
It is this cone which we will be discussing extensively in the next section of the paper. There is a
3-d scan available, see [2.6], which also describes the conditions under which the scanning of the
bust was undertaken and relative background. This 3-d scanning of Nefertiti’s bust raises a host
of issues, from an Art to Ethics to Museums’ rights on exhibited artifacts to Law (regarding
acquisition, ownership and use rights among other legal issues involving artifacts in Museums)
and many others point of views, which will not be addressed here. Another version of the bust’s
3-d scan is found in [2.7]. The downloadable file is in [2.8].
Was the bust intended to be a model? It is doubtful, for a simple reason: the neck, although of a
fine proportion at this scale, it would be impossible to sustain weights (from either limestone,
sandstone, granite, or any other stone material) emanating from the huge blue cap crown with
the golden diadem on it for a longtime period (say a century or so). Even though the center of
gravity falls comfortably within the base’s slightly irregular rectangle, the precarious link (neck)
of such disproportionally heavy upper part of the bust (largely due to the elongated crown) would
not withstand over time to material fatigue. Eventually it would result in a possibly abrupt
separation of the two main components of the bust at some point along the neck (and we shall
see in this paper exactly where). Such separation and sudden break could potentially be triggered
by some exogenous (human or natural) forces exerted on the upper part of the bust.
The considerable weight of a real human size bust, or of a larger than human size sculpture, would
exacerbate the statics related problems. if the crown were to be made from solid stone (and not
kept hollow inside) at the larger scale (a design problem, which has no easy solutions, mostly
because such a hollow crown would not have lasted long) it would either result in the collapse of
the statue due to the eccentricity of the bust relative to the bust’s barycenter projected onto the
base (something which we shall more carefully examine in the next section); or, it would result
in the fracturing of the bust at some point on the fragile, serpentine like, elongated neck (as
mentioned, we shall see exactly where in the next section) with relative ease and in short order.

If by the bust, and in allegory, a “flower” were to be alluded to by the maker Thutmose, (as
suggested by Gardner, see reference [2.9]), then one is led to believe that this delicate flower
forming rendition was supposed to exist at the small scale of the bust as it currently stands, and
not at a model of a much bigger scale. Of course, this doesn’t totally exclude the possibility that
this bust was made as a prototype for a limited number of copies of it to be made and placed at
highly selective locations of the Pharaonic domain, but at the same scale as this prototype.

9
The bust is generally described as being about 48 to 49 centimeters in height, and to weigh about
20 kilograms. We shall see in the next section of the paper that these height estimates are rough
approximations, largely inaccurate, static and inadequate to fully describe the sculpture’s real
dimensions. We shall make far more accurate measurements at a level of a hundredth of a
millimeter, and we shall expose more in depth and in a far more comprehensive manner the
bust’s apparent geometrical dynamics and the wealth of information they contain.

Many facets of this bust have been addressed and richly described in the current literature, and
not much of that will be repeated here, since the emphasis of this paper is on the bust’s
Geometry. For instance, a description of the material (limestone, stucco and paint used) along
with a description of the various components of the bust (like for instance the eye socket with
the missing eye, the damages to the ears, the Amarna style of the bust, her collar worn around
her neck, etc.) and many other aspects of the bust are found in references [2.10] and [2.11].

Stereoscopic viewing of two Classical Greek sculptures, and Nefertiti’s bust

It is actually of interest, that although much has been written and spoken about Nefertiti’s bust,
not much has been said about its pure Geometry. It is in fact astonishing that such a shortage
exists, when it is apparent that some important Geometry is at the base of the bust’s design. It is
also astonishing that all references to the bust are static in nature. As one is struck by the cone
type overall morphology of the bust, this morphology asks for a more detailed and a far closer
look than it has so far received. It is the main purpose of this paper to take that closer look into
this marvel of Art, an iconic artifact indeed and possibly the artistic pinnacle of the 18th Dynasty
Egypt. It was an era when Egypt found herself at the zenith of its cultural influences in the
Mediterranean World. And it isn’t simply the beauty of Nefertiti herself as portrayed by
Thutmose of Amarna and implanted on this extraordinary bust. It is the Art of the Geometry of
the bust which enhances Nefertiti’s aesthetic qualities and appeal, rendering her an icon of
female beauty. One might say, it is the same basic Geometry which makes other sculptures
aesthetically appealing due to their implanted ratios and their dynamics as one circumferentially
inspects them. In circumnavigating the sculptures, either horizontally, vertically, or in some
combination thereof, an extraordinary assembly of ratios are obtained – the Mathematics and
Geometry of which are of extreme interest. Either obtained in perspective or in architectural
projection, they are enchanting additions to the sculpture’s innate aesthetics and beauty.

To what extent, and which among the numerous snapshots one can obtain by globally viewing a
sculpture, the maker of the particular object of Art (the sculptor or his/her apprentices) meant
to be anchor type, i.e., dominant – and whether it was the architectural projection of a side and
façade or the perspective at an angle observed – are of course open questions and subject to
research. Some answers might be forthcoming as a result of the detailed analysis of the bust of
Nefertiti supplied here and the methodology used to obtain specific counts on it. It must be noted
that the snapshots utilized in this paper contain perspective, as a result of the 3-d scanning used.

10
Figure 1. Aphrodite of Milos by Alexander from Antioch (circa 100 BC): static frontal view. The
left-hand side part of the base, which survived, is indicative of the missing right-hand side and
quite possibly the extent to the right of her possibly upwardly bent left hand. Part of the base’s
front and back are also missing, see Figure 1.a. By the sideways and front-back symmetry implied,
and as the vertical projection of the statue’s outline onto the statue’s base must have been
contained within the base (as does the bust of Nefertiti) for engineering static (and aesthetic)
purposes, one can estimate the total extent, sideways, of the statue – thus obtain its frontal (and
side) frame dimensions. The height to width ratio might have been about 2.4, and close to the
Silver Ratio (2.4142135…) The transitioning from a maximum (or a minimum) ratio as one scans
all 360 angles of the sculpture, and the fluctuations one observes making the frame a function
of the angle of observation (that is the spatial dynamics of the statue) is an interesting aspect of
a sculpture’s design specifications, and subject to mathematical analysis. Public domain photo.

11
Figure 1.a. The missing parts of the Aphrodite of Milos statue’s base are evident in these two
front-back static view photos. Work on the statue’s frame (and certain of its parts) dimensions
and dynamical Geometry of the statue is underway by this author. Photos in the public domain.

Two examples will be shown here, one containing a Silver Ratio, the other the Golden Ratio
embedded in them. The circa 100 BC Aphrodite of Milos by Alexander from Antioch, see Figures
1, 1.a, and the discussion there, is a case of the Silver Ratio being embedded in the structure,
when observed face on. The circa 450 BC Myron’s Discobolus (ΔΙΣΚΟΒΟΛΟΣ), as copied by a
Roman in the 2nd century AD (see Figure 2), is the case of the Golden Ratio being inserted into
the design of the sculpture, when observed from the specific angle shown in the photo. Whereas
in the case of Figure 2.a – the case of a Roman marble copy of the Myron’s original - demonstrates
the presence of the Silver Ratio, when viewed from the specific side shown in the photo. Both of
these cases (Aphrodite of Milos, and the Disc Thrower) represent studies in the Art of Classical
Beauty. Although not made on ratios from Classical Geometry, the case with Tutankhamun’s
Mask, see [1.1], and this work on Nefertiti’s bust offer a new angle to analyzing their appeal.

12
Figure 2. A Roman bronze copy of Myron’s Disc Thrower; 2nd century AD, Glyptothek, Munich:
static side view. In absence of the base, the frame proportions of this particular statue from this
specific side/angle is close to 1.6 a (maximum) ratio very close to the Golden Ratio (1.6180…).
More detailed work on the dimensions and ratios embedded into the statue’s frame and
components, constituting the Dynamical Geometry of this statue, is underway by this author.
Photo credit: Matthias Kabel, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=547351

13
Figure 2.a. Roman marble copy of Myron’s Disc Thrower, circa 140 BC, Roman National Museum,
Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome. At this static view angle, this specific copy of Myron’s original
statue has (minimum) frame proportions close to the Silver Ratio.
Credit: http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1796

14
What is added here, is a new method to analyzing 3-d objects, adding to the existing stock in the
literature on these Classical works of Art. It leaves a lot to be desired in not having scans of these
pieces of Art available in the public domain, as is the 3-d scanning available from Nefertiti’s bust.
Circumferential global viewing of the sculpture (or any 3-d object and its detail) allows Dynamical
Geometry to be invoked. This is what this work is about, employing a 3-d object - the aesthetic
appeal of which could not be undervalued. Much of the work to be reported here derives from a
detailed examination of the 3-d scanning in references [2.7] and especially [2.8]. Measurements
involving approximations at the hundredth of the millimeter level are reported.

Spatial dynamics of a 360 viewing of a 3-d object, Entropy Index and Nefertiti’s bust
Dynamical Geometry. As an observer moves around a 3-d object, and that includes a sculpture,
at a constant plane of vision, through a sequence of snapshots, the observer obtains a
stereoscopic perspective of the object. A different set of snapshots one can also obtain by a
sequence of architectural, projected onto a plane without perspective, frontal, side or back
views of the object. Global stereoscopic viewing implies that the observer moves around some
origin O (assumed to be a point at the geometric or barycentric center of the object) by either
remaining at a constant latitude and changing longitude (in a standard coordinate system, as that
for instance used to locate position on the Earth’s surface - by using 0 to 360 longitudinal and
0 to 90 latitudinal coordinates); or remaining at the same longitude and changing latitude; or
by simultaneously changing both coordinates in the motion around the object under observation.
In so doing, an observer obtains varying ratios of the object’s perceived (with perspective) or
actual (through architectural projections) dimensions (i.e., height, to width, to length ratios).
Pairwise, these ratios vary from some maximum to a minimum, for a specific 360 circumferential
movement around the 3-d object, or the +/-90 motion up and down the object. Put it in more
exact terms, at each position of the observer (momentarily standing), and then continuously
moving along in a 360 azimuth plane (or, said differently, a longitudinal plane at a fixed level of
latitude of a sphere with center at point O), a series of static views or snapshots of the 3-d object
are obtained. Motion about the object hence, results in a set of snapshots forming a dynamically
changing viewpoint. This object’s frame dynamics are translated into a set of (changing) ratios.

In effect, thus stated, the ratios R become a function of the azimuth (longitude) angle , or the
corresponding coordinates for a fixed latitude, where: 360    0, so that at R(0)=R(360),
hence the dynamics return to an initial state (a starting point value, or ratio, identical to the final
or end point/state). A similar 360 latitudinal circumferential view of the object for a fixed
longitude can also be attained, as the latitudinal angle ω varies, 90  ω  0. A combination of
both motions, along both longitude and latitude coordinates that is, allows for a globally changing
viewpoint of the object (Thutmose’s sculpture of Nefertiti’s bust in this case). Under a 3-d
scanning of the object, as that available here, various tomographic sections can be obtained for
any coordinates and a tomographic plane slope in a 3-d Cartesian space, with origin at point O.

15
Spatial and temporal dynamics can be introduced into the viewing sequence, whereby the
position of the observer in viewing a 3-d object at time t can be considered to be a function of
the observer’s position at time period t-1, t-2, etc. and under an objective (or attractivity)
function, subject to location specific (and possibly time) constraints. Not all 3-d objects can be
viewed in full, stereoscopically, although under a 3-d scanning available to the public Nefertiti’s
bust can. However, most solids can’t be viewed holistically. Almost all statues afford locations
with “anchor views”, like for instance frontal (due North-South) and sideways (due East-West)
views, these locations constituting “prime” locations in a viewing sequence. In effect, the viewing
process can be stated in terms of a Dynamic Optimization Problem within the standard Theory
of Operations Research. For sure, sequences of viewing positions in 3-d Art or Architecture would
not in general constitute random walks. As viewing perspective (and thus, direction) changes, the
geometric form of the 3-d object undergoes changes, but the relative proportions of its various
elements (hence its general aesthetics) remain unchanged. For example, a cube may turn into a
cuboid or a trapezohedron, but it doesn’t lose its sides’ proportions in tomographic sections. Not
all positions of the global viewing of a 3-d object are always possible to reach or accessible.
Neither are all positions of viewing equally desirable. Obviously, some selection of viewing
positions is deemed either feasible or recommendable. This angle of the story will not be further
pursued here, since we are dealing with a sculpture (Nefertiti’s bust) that is small enough in scale
so that it can be observed with ease from any globally feasible position on the sphere of
observations; and, also because, 3-d scanning data are available for the entire sculpture.

In 3-d space, the R values obtained by the frame of a sculpture are expressed as functions of
both  and ω: R(,ω). Hence, one may seek also a maximum maximorum, a minimum
minimorum, and maximin or minimax values for R. Aesthetic appreciation of an object might be
correlated to such specific values or maybe tied to the entire functions, as in a bundle. For
simplicity, one-dimensional analysis will be carried out here. The 2-d (in angles of longitude and
latitude variations) will be left to the interested reader and future research. In the analysis which
follows, the author imported the 3-d scanning data from reference [2.8] into the 3-d Builder
Windows 10 program and obtained the graphs and information reported here on the sculpture’s
frame and on certain key components of it and tomography. A snapshot of the bust, the frame
of which has been obtained by a viewing angle off the equatorial plane is shown in Figure 3.1.
One is interested on both Rmax (a maximum in the range of the frame’s ratios R, corresponding
to a specific point in latitude, as the point of view moves circumferentially along the longitudinal
plane in the 3-d Cartesian space) and Rmin (a minimum in that range), as well as in an Rave (a
statistical average). It is these functions and values that we shall analyze in some detail in this
section of the paper. And in so doing, we shall uncover the fascinating Geometry Dynamics of the
Thutmose’s bust of Nefertiti. Parenthetically, similar method to that outlining the statue’s frame
can be employed to address a more focused and close up examination of the sculpture’s detailed
features. Snapshot Geometry of certain, among the numerous, features requiring more focused
analysis is provided here, in following subsections of the paper.

16
Figure 3.1. Nefertiti’s bust obtained from importing 3-d scanning data from [2.8] into the 3-d
Builder Windows 10 program. Origin O of the bust is set at the geometric center of the sculpture.
The above view, under perspective, results in a perceived height (46.388 centimeters) lower than
the height in Figure 3.2. The vertical axis goes through the geometric center. Source: the author.

17
Shannon’s Entropy Measure and Nefertiti’s bust. In a number of ways one may employ these
frame related ratios R, obtained from a global viewing of the sculpture. A fruitful way to process
these ratios is to transform them into relative numbers (i.e., normalizing them) dividing them by
their Rmax, or converting them into a probability stream. Of course, numerous other ways are
possible in carrying out this normalizing task. Since we are dealing with proportions distance of
observation from the object is immaterial. By utilizing a formula known as the Shannon Entropy
measure, an index can be derived that computes the amount of information contained within a
stream of probabilities, see reference [2.12]. The formula is as follows: H = - (1/I){Σi(PiLnPi)}
where: H is the measure of information contained within the stream of probabilities; Σ is a
summation symbol; i is an index designating a specific probability P measure (varying between 1
and I, where I is the total number of observations, so that: I  i  1), and Ln designates natural
logarithm. The higher the H count, the more information content and more the uncertainty built
into the probability stream. In our case, the higher the H, presumably the greater the aesthetic
appeal of the object under viewing.
As an example, one could consider two specific snapshots of the Nefertiti’s bust taken from two
anchor positions, the frontal ratio (possibly with a maximum height to width ratio) and the (right
or left, they are about the same in this instance) side ratio (possibly the minimum height to width
ratio) with perspective as observed from the level of a plane cutting the bust at its origin and
parallel to the ground (parallel that is to its almost rectangular base’s surface).
These two ratios are obtained from Figures 3.2 and 3.3, and they are as follows: frontal ratio is
48.69 cm height over 19.160 cm width Rmax=2.541. The side ratio is 48.69 cm height over 36.511
cm width Rmin=1.333. Dividing the two by the Rmax we have P1=1, and P2=.5248. Since the
height remains constant (as the object is observed from the equatorial plane) the ratios are
simply width ratios. The Entropy count, H, for this stream of two counts (they are not probabilities
in the strict sense of the definition, since their sum isn’t equal to one, but the method can easily
and trivially be made to derive probability counts without materially altering the result) is: H = -
{1Ln1 + .5248Ln.5248}/2 = - {0 + .5248x0.6447} = .3383522.
One of course may wish to obtain numerous other views (or probability counts P) from various
other angles than simply two. Since probabilities P obey spatial dynamics, being functions of the
R’s which are in turn functions of the spatially varying angles ω and , hence so is H. The
introduction of spatial dynamics into this method must then be considered an expansion of
Shannon’s Information Theory. This extension is the methodological contribution of this work.
It is expected that the Dynamic Entropy measure of Nefertiti’s bust by Thutmose to converge
towards and approximate the count .34. This constitutes a new finding from this analysis. That
these two ratios are indeed the maximum and minimum ones in a 360 scanning from the
vantage point of a plane going through the center O can be easily proved, the proof being left to
the interested reader. One could extend this analysis along numerous avenues, but since this
isn’t the main focus of the paper, these extensions will not be further elaborated or pursued here.

18
Figure 3.2. Nefertiti’s bust, frontal view under perspective. Certain among the slight asymmetries
of the bust are evident. The view is obtained from a vantage point at longitude 0 (i.e., from dead
center of the bust) on the equatorial plane (i.e., from a vantage point on the plane going through
the center of the sculpture, point O). Total perceived height from that angle is 49.456 cm (half of
that being 24.728 cm). Distance of observation from the object is immaterial. Source: the author.

19
Precise measurements of Nefertiti’s bust and their degree of approximations. In this
subsection, some detailed and as precise as possible measurements are reported on Nefertiti’s
bust. These measurements have been obtained by the 3-d Builder Windows program already
mentioned and by importing the 3-d scanning referred to in [2.8]. The reader must keep in mind
that these measurements are relative to the point of view, thus the perspective an observer has
attached to the longitude/latitude position at the sphere of observation. Thus, measurements of
the same quantity, for instance total height, is relative and changing depending on the point of
view of the observer and the associated perspective the observers has of the statue. These
measurements do not correspond to unchangeable (constant, fixed) architectural projection
(elevations and sections) onto a plane measurements (without involving perspective). This sort
of measurements is something which can only be obtained by directly accessing drawings,
obviously not available. They can also be obtained by tomographic sections of the 3-d scanned
version of the sculpture, and some of these tomographic sections’ dimensions will be supplied.

As already stressed earlier, it is doubtful that Thutmose wanted the observer to appreciate the
static, fixed, architectural/design drawings’ related measurements. Projections involving
drawings may be useful for construction purposes. Certainly, they do not contain in them the
type of measurements users of architectural structures or observers of 3-d sculptures enjoy by
using and/or observing them.
Dynamic, and changing perceptions of measurements by vantage point is what observers of 3-d
sculptures and users of 3-d structures experience. These varying set of impressions and
perceptions is what matters to both observers and users of 3-d objects. Proportions in some
instances remain unchanged as the observer angularly (again, the reader is reminded that
distance from the viewing object is immaterial when proportional ratios are used) changes
viewing position. This is not necessarily true in all instances, as for example when many layers
and surfaces (i.e., a high degree of complexity in form) are involved in the 3-d structure under
perspective (although distance from the object still remains immaterial to the essence of
viewing). In addition, and obviously or apparently, Thutmose didn’t have the benefit of
tomographic sections and architectural drawings, although we could not be absolutely certain
about this claim. We do know that even down to the Classical Greece Era, drawings and design
containing plans were not necessarily in use. Be that as it may, it is the author’s suggestion that
it is the latter (i.e., views with a perspective) that he, and any artist/maker at any time period of
a 3-d object (in Art or Architecture), strived to accomplish and achieve success from an aesthetic,
as well as utilitarian (functional that is), standpoint.

Thutmose, most likely, worked directly by improvising in situ and deriving the final dimensions of
the sculpture by incorporating global dynamically changing visual perspective alone, while
gradually building it, using some mentally preconceived notion of the final structure either as a
guiding rod, or a calibrating mechanism to complete the sculpture’s creation. It is quite
challenging for a research paper, to re-create the 3-d object’s Geometry, by utilizing 3-d
Dynamics. As an exercise, it is left to the interested reader and future work.

20
Figure 3.3. Righthand side view under perspective from a plane slightly above the equatorial
plane. The total perceived height is now 49.456 centimeters (2x24.728 cm). Source: the author.

21
Consequently, mostly (although not exclusively) a series of static sets of measurements, that is
snapshots, of the statue will be supplied. They were obtained from a sequence of particular
positions each with a perspective containing viewpoint, of Nefertiti’s bust from the publicly
available 3-d scanning of it from reference [2.8]. Again, they must be thought of as dynamically
changing counts, as one moves perimetrically around and about the object.

However, tomographic sections (also identifying statics) in the Geometry of the sculpture will be
discussed as well, in instances where they are deemed necessary to obtain a full appreciation of
the bust. Hence, both types of counts, of a Geometry involving Statics and Dynamics, will be
presented. Naturally, the methodologically innovative part of this paper is the Dynamics it
contains and the novel perspective that this innovative look brings onto the iconic bust of
Nefertiti. Consideration of these dynamic counts, not only does it allow one to answer questions
about the sculpture’s modulus, but it also enables one to obtain a dynamic view of it. More on
Nefertiti’s bust modulus in the last subsection of Part 2. Next, we take a look into the sculpture’s
basic counts.
From Figure 3.3, the following measurements are obtained: total height of a rectangle totally
enclosing the entire sculpture: 49.456 cm; total width of this rectangle:36.258 cm. Their ratio is:
Rmin=1.364. Although very roughly close to the Golden Ratio (1.618…), it can’t be claimed that
this is what Thutmose strived to attain. Most likely he was trying to get close to the ratio of
prime numbers 7/5=1.4. This ratio brings one closer to discovering the modulus of the bust, an
issue which will be addressed in a subsequent subsection of the paper.
In Figure 3.1, at the point where the vertical (longitudinal) axis intersects the drawn circle one
finds the geometric center of the statue, from this angle. Notice the degree of approximation in
these counts: a hundredth of a millimeter.

Prime Numbers, their ratios, irrational numbers and Stages in the Evolution of Art and
Architecture. Key measurements of Nefertiti’s bust

Prime numbers, ratios and irrational numbers in Architecture and the Arts. A fundamental
proposition, advanced by this author, in the theory of evolution of Art and Architecture from the
Neolithic to the period of Classical Greece, is that key phase transitions occurred in that
evolutionary trail. In the Art and Architecture of the Neolithic intentional use of prime number
ratios (and a fortiori irrational numbers) were absent. Fractions, and prime number ratios were
introduced in the Iron Age (circa 1300 BC), whereas irrational numbers were introduced and so
explicitly acknowledged as intentional design tools in the period of Classical Greece.
This fundamental proposition regarding evolution in the Architectural design and the Arts, does
not mean to exclude to possibility that isolated cases from the Neolithic and the Bronze and Iron
Ages exist where, in some monuments, presence of these ratios and numbers is observed. For
instance, this author has recorded the presence of the Golden Ratio in certain instances of design

22
in the River Boyne passage tombs of late 4th millennium BC and early 3rd millennium BC Neolithic
Ireland, see [1.8]. However, these cases must be considered as isolated and instances where the
architect/designer of these monuments opted to employ these ratios and numbers without a
having a deeper appreciation of the underlying Geometry and Mathematics, but solely because
of an instinctive attraction to them, due to the innate aesthetic qualities such numbers possess.

Some basic prime numbers (3, 5, 7, 11, 13) and their ratios were used in the design of Neolithic
megalithic monuments, and this practice continued till the period of the 18th Dynasty Egypt. The
contention that irrational numbers (the numbers: , the Golden Ratio , the Silver Ratio , and
the base of the natural logarithms e) were employed in the design of monuments prior to
Classical Greece this author finds it unsupported by empirical evidence. This is simply because
the written documentation available clearly suggest that the various Civilizations of that period
did not possess the necessary Mathematics to handle them.
This is a theme which this author has more fully addressed in his work on the Neolithic
monuments at Carnac, Brittany, see [1.3], and his work on Tutankhamun’s Mask in [1.1[. As to
the various suggestions that the Pyramids of the Giza Plateau (and especially Khufu’s funerary
chamber of the 26th century BC Great Pyramid) were employing irrational numbers (when 18th
century papyri from Egypt clearly demonstrate that the mathematicians of that era did not know
about the irrational number , and most importantly they didn’t derive a good enough
approximation to it) this author finds them unsupportable based on the evidence available. The
precise measurements these authors suggest as being present in Khufu’s Pyramid (interior
funeral chamber, as well as on its exterior total perimeter to height ratio) are simply gross
approximations and abundantly wishful thinking. Number  was simply unknown in any degree
of approximation greater than 3 at the time of Khufu’s Pyramid construction, circa 2500 BC.
Mathematical sophistication in the Architecture of a monument acts as a time marker for the
monument, this author suggested in [1.3]. Hence, it is extremely important to find the implanted
by Thutmose Mathematics in Nefertiti’s bust, in view of what recorded evidence suggests the
state of the art in Mathematics were in Dynastic Egypt at the time.
In [1.4] this author has extensively analyzed the behavior of ratios, including ratios of prime
numbers and the periodicity in their decimals. Of special interest here, are the ratios of the five
first prime numbers:
{3: 5/3=1.666…; 7/3=2.333…; 11/3=3.666…; 13/3=4.333…};
{5: 7/5=1.4; 11/5=3.2; 13/5=8.6};
{7: 11/7=1.5714…; 13/7=1.8571…};
{11: 13/11=1.181818…}

It is evident that dealing with ratios involving prime numbers requires a full understanding of the
qualitative features of their decimals’ sequences. These qualitative features vary according to

23
prime numbers’ ratios. In the case of prime numbers 3 and 5, their ratios to all other prime
numbers (their decimals’ behavior) is far simpler to perceive and record. Whereas, prime number
7 ratios are far more complex, and prime number 11’s sequence of decimals in their ratios with
higher prime numbers exhibit periodic behavior.
All these differences require differing degrees of mathematical appreciation and increasingly
higher sophistication in 3-d sculpture and architectonic construction to embed in them prime
numbers’ ratios. The mathematical properties of these ratios demand extraordinary ability in
construction detail and in precision to be able for the designer and maker of 3-d objects to
account for them. In the next subsection, we shall explore the way in which these qualitative
properties (in combination with the use of increasingly more sophisticated geometric shapes)
can be considered as the basis of a classification of periods schema, as Stages in the Evolution of
form in Art and Architecture, as well as in the Evolution of early Mathematics.
As one moves to considering ratios involving greater primes, these ratios’ sequence of decimals
get quickly more complicated and difficult to fully and accurately translate into concrete
architectural and other 3-dimensional morphologies. In the case of the ratio 13 over 11, we
observe for instance a 2-phase periodicity in the decimals, something which would had alerted
the careful mathematician of the day to recognize that a new phenomenon sets in the
representation of the fraction, as higher prime numbers are involved. Obviously, greater
complexity in the early stages of a proto Number Theory experience would had been transferred
to a more complex architectural and artistic, as in sculpture, design.

Stages in the Evolution of Art and Architecture, and the state of the Art in Mathematics at
Nefertiti’s time. From the above limited set of examples involving ratios of prime numbers, one
may be willing to identify four distinct Stages. These Stages are based on knowledge of fractions,
the degree of approximations capable of deriving in estimating ratios, and an appreciation of the
behavior of decimals in those ratios. Stage A, where the prime numbers 3 and 5 are involved as
the denominator of ratios (Stage of Elementary Geometry); Stage B, where prime number 7 is
involved, as the denominator (Stage of Basic Geometry); Stage C, where prime numbers 11 and
higher ones are involved (Stage of Advanced Geometry); finally, Stage D (Stage of Complex or
Classical Geometry) is the case involving irrational numbers, including at least: , , and  (and
possibly e). Obviously, different time period lengths must had marked these transitions from
Stage A to Stage D, at different points in space-time during the Neolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages,
down to Classical Greece. The study of these differing lengths still needs more evidence.
Evolution in mathematical complexity would had been reflected in the evolution of architectural
and Art forms in 3-d structures. Approximations requiring greater degree of precision in stones’
dressing and processing must had led (as obviously did) to a finer and more detailed carving in
masonry construction. Demands for a more sophisticated mathematical precision led to an

24
evolution in construction, so that the architect was now more capable of achieving aesthetic
results consistent with a greater understanding of the underlying Mathematics.
Elaboration along these lines is a subject of interest and for further future research, as one may
be willing to ask the question: what did the architects and astronomers know, when did they
know it, and how did they acquire that knowledge, be them the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or
any other society of the period and space under consideration. This would be an extension of this
author’s work in [1.1], [1.3] and [1.5], where an attempt is made to identify the state of
mathematical knowledge of various cultures at different time periods from the Neolithic to the
Iron Age, drawing from the existing literature (for instance the various papyri and Tablets
available to date) and from certain key case studies in the Architecture of their monuments.
Moreover, it ought to be noted that the transition into the non-periodic (indeed chaotic)
sequence of decimals encountered in dealing with the specific four irrational numbers listed
earlier, would require a far greater mathematical background than the one available at the time
of the Nefertiti’s bust creation or earlier. It is thus expected that the basic and up to a degree
advanced ratios of the key components in Nefertiti’s bust must be consistent with this
evolutionary development in Number Theory over the millennia. In combination with the use of
more complex geometric shapes (we will analyze this in Part 2 of the paper) one should conclude
that the embedded Mathematics and Geometry in Nefertiti’s bust represent a transition phase
from Stage B (Basic Geometry) to Stage C (Advanced Geometry) type.
It must be further noted that to statistically test this proposition one must be able to convincingly
demonstrate that such ratios appear regularly and constantly in an architectural or carved 3-d
artifact, and they do not occur randomly. This would supply evidence regarding the underlying
intent by the designer and document knowledge and conscious application of the design tool by
the maker, as well as knowledge of the state of the Art in Mathematics and Geometry at the time.

Some key measurements (lengths) in Nefertiti’s bust. Continuing the discussion on

measurements and following up from Figures 3.2 and 3.3, one can identify some relatively high
level of importance lengths in the bust. In addition, a host of additional, albeit secondary,
measurements it is also possible to derive. One might characterize the former as intentionally
set by the artist, whereas the latter can be thought of as derivative measurements, or incidental
to the making of the sculpture. Of course, which ones are the primary (key, main) lengths and
which fall under the second category can be subject to dispute and interpretation. No matter the
specifics, the method is applicable in all cases where such distinctions can be made.

In discussing these lengths, and consistent with the author’s general view regarding
measurements (in the Social Sciences and the Arts), see paper in reference [1.6], one must realize
that these measurements remain fuzzy – no matter the degree of approximation used. Different
observers from the same or slightly different position, using the same means of observation will
obtain slightly different (and never identical) results. It was put forward in [1.6] that this degree
25
of inherent fuzziness constitutes, as a method of approaching measurements in the Social
Sciences, a Quantum Mechanics view of the Social and Art Worlds.
From Figures 3.2 and 3.3, the Nefertiti’s bust right side and frontal view under perspective, one
obtains the following main, primary, intentionally set measurements (offered at the tenth of a
millimeter level of approximation): widthwise, base 18.92 cm; lower end of neck 9.82 cm; upper
end of neck and the beginning of the frontal triangle forming face/crown 8.91 cm; top of the
crown 23.42 cm. In terms of heights, base (pedestal) 7.56 cm; the neck (from upper end of base
to chin) 11.18 cm; face (at maximum point not covered by the crown) 16.96 cm; and the crown
(from the lowest point showing in the frontal view to the very top) 13.95 cm. These heights
correspond to a total of about 49.45 cm (in Figure 3.3 the total height was pegged to be about
49.456 cm).
From the above measurements, one can derive some obvious conclusions. For example, consider
the base’s width (18.92 cm) relative to the end of neck width (9.82 cm). Their ratio is very close
to 2 (in fact at the fourth decimal approximation, it is 1.9267). Can this be taken to be close
enough to a ratio of 2:1? Possibly yes, and possibly this is a key ratio in the bust’s construction.
Similarly, the length of the neck (counting it from the real base of it) is 12.27 cm, very close to a
fourth of the total height (49.45 cm), and precisely 4.03. This is another key feature in Nefertiti’s
bust. The frontal size of the “head cum crown” ensemble of the sculpture comes to about 30.9
cm (16.96 + 13.95), this sum representing a ratio of about 1.6 (to be exact, 1.6005) relative to the
total height of the sculpture. The ratio is close to the Golden Ratio (1.61803…) but its unique
appearance there might be thought of as a coincidence, since it isn’t met in any other of
Nefertiti’s bust ratios.
However, this evidence, taken in its totality, is a strong reason to suggest that the bust of Nefertiti
was made in that transition period (from Stage B to Stage C). The total height is about 6.5 times
the base’s frontal height. Finally, from Figure 3.3 it is derived that Nefertiti’s eyes are at about
where the equatorial plane lies, that is at about half the statue’s height. In summary, we have
ample confirmation of the type of mathematics implanted in the bust by Thutmose: transition
between mostly a Stage B Basic Geometry to Stage C Advanced Geometry. Thutmose was
clearly at the brink of significant advances by incorporating complex Geometric forms into his
creations, we can confidently deduce from his bust of Nefertiti.

Asymmetries in Nefertiti’s bust. There are a number of slight asymmetries built into the
sculpture by Thutmose. The facial asymmetry, the neck asymmetry, the torso and shoulders
asymmetry are some of them. These slight asymmetries are evident in all photos and diagrams
of the bust provided here. Whether these were intentional or incidental to the sculpture’s making
is still an open question. Given the degree of mathematical sophistication identified (mostly a
Stage B Geometry but towards or in a transition to Stage C Advanced Geometry, in the scale
suggested by the analysis above) it would be rather safe to assume that the slight asymmetries
were intentional. Perfect symmetry on a mostly Stage B Basic Geometry would be rather dull.

26
 Figure 4.1. Nefertiti’s bust slight frontal asymmetry. Source: the author.

In Figure 4.1, the slight frontal asymmetry of the bust is shown. It manifests itself at a number of
points. It shows up primarily at the face proper: the symmetry line (longitudinal axis at 0) has
the face intersected at its right (the viewer’s left) side. Moreover, a slight asymmetry is also
manifested in the statue’s base, which isn’t exactly a rectangle, measuring approximately
40x25cm along the longest and shortest axes. Asymmetries are also shown in Figure 4.2 at the
back side of the bust. There, along with the slight asymmetries of the base and neck (already
shown more in focus by Figure 4.1 which had a frontal view of the sculpture) the slight asymmetry
at the top of the crown (Figure 4.2) is indicated.

27
 Figure 4.2. Nefertiti’s bust back side view with level top of crown. The slight asymmetries at
both the base and the neck are evident. Source: the author.

Another focal point which contains a slight asymmetry is shown in Figure 4.3. The top of the cone-
like crown is depicted in this back side, from-the-top-looking-down diagram under perspective.
This diagram also reveals the shape of the top surface of the crown, an ellipse-like shape
embedded into a truncated cone-like structure, the Geometry of which will be further analyzed
in the next Part of the paper. The ellipse-like top surface has a symmetry axis (the major axis of
the ellipse) with a slight Northeastern angle to it. Along with the 3-d form of the truncated
inverted cone-like structure, this ellipse like shape will be more closely looked at in a Part 2.
In Part 2, an additional asymmetry will be pointed out in Figure 5.4. It concerns the marquee
perspective, and one of the anchor views, of this sculpture, the front of Nefertiti’s face.

28
Figure 4.3. Slight asymmetry at the top of the crown in Nefertiti’s bust. The morphology of the
crown’s top ellipse-like shape is discussed more extensively in tow subsections of the paper,
and in Figure 5.3. Source: the author.

A point which is made clear by these specific slight (intentional) asymmetries (or what one might
be erroneously tempted to refer to as “imperfections”, in fact that being the other side of the
coin) concerns the exquisite workmanship and attention to detail by Thutmose. The points these
diagrams drive home are that, firstly, the sculptor didn’t work out of a blueprint, but rather
under an improvising mode. And secondly, these fine details of asymmetry lend credence to the
suggestion that this was intended to be a unique sculpture, and not one to either be replicated,
or used as a model for a larger (single or for multiple copies) specimen.

29
 PART 2. The Basic Static Geometry of Nefertiti’s Bust
The bust’s inverted truncated cone-like structure
Structurally, the morphologically most appealing and indeed striking feature of the bust is the
formation at the Top Part of the sculpture, the inverted truncated cone-like “crown cum head”
component of it, placed at an approximately 60 angle relative to the bottom plane of the
sculpture’s base (and also the bust’s equatorial plane, as it was defined earlier in the paper).
Geometrically, and strictly speaking, the structure isn’t exactly a cone, as it subtly undergoes an
obvious (and functionally necessary) transition from the bottom up: from following the outline
of an ellipse-like cranium shape contour at its lowest level (the shape of Nefertiti’s head), to
almost a circle at the crown’s top. As we shall see shortly, and in reference to Figure 5.3, the top
isn’t exactly a circle but it has an ellipse-like shape. The outline of a tomographic section is shown
in Figure 5.1.
Inspecting the outline of this tomographic section of the bust, is informative. It intersects the top
of the crown along line (AB); it cuts at the center of the back side of Nefertiti’s base at point D.
The apex of the inverted truncated cone-like structure is located at point C. The outline of the
tomographic section offers a static view, without perspective, hence it is not observable. In the
sequence of Figures 5.1 – 5.2, we see that Thutmose’s objectives in the design of the inverted
cone-like structure were basically the following: to combine a number of elementary
fundamental geometric shapes, a parallelogram (AECD) which is in fact a rhombus, a trapezoid
(ABCD) and a right triangle (ABC) within (ABCD), Figure 5.1.

Points A and B are at the edge of the outer (upper) surface of the truncated cone. Point E is at
the top of Nefertiti’s nose. Point D is at the middle of the base’s back side (as already mentioned).
And point C, the apex of the inverted cone, is where the projection of the crown’s front side edge
meets the crown’s back side edge in the tomographic section outline of the bust. Lines AC and
DE are of course at 90, and the four sides of the parallelogram/rhombus (AECD) are of course
equal (AE=EC=CD=DA=34.667 cm). Angle ACE is exactly 25. Hence, angle CAB is 65.
Consequently, it is deduced that the cone-like structure is truncated through an intersection by
a plane at an angle of 5 in reference to its small, almost circular, surface (the surface that is,
which it defined by the circumferential attachment of the crown with Nefertiti’s head, and
indicated by the projection of line FG in Figure 5.1).
Right triangle (ABC) holds special interest. Side AB is exactly 26 cm. Since angle CAB was found to
be close to 60, this implies that the sides (BC) and (AC) are correspondingly 45.034 cm and 49.69
cm long. Keeping in mind that these are estimates from a tomographic section of the bust, there
could be some approximations involved that may hide the true (whatever that might mean) size
of the triangle (ABC). It is noted nonetheless, that this triangle is quite close to the Primitive
Pythagorean Triple right triangle with sides (28, 45, 53) under a modulus (unit) of 1cm.

30
Figure 5.1. The basic right trapezoid (ABCD) of Nefertiti’s bust in a tomographic section’s outline.
Within the right trapezoid, the possible Primitive Pythagorean Triple (28, 45, 53) is embedded
together with the rhombus (AECD). Source: the author.

31
It is of course impossible for Thutmose to have used such a modulus/unit in his bust of Nefertiti.
As we shall see, the modulus he employed in building this bust was close to 7.5 centimeters or
the size of a palm. Hence, it must be assumed that he approached the shape of this triangle
(whether by chance or design) on purely aesthetic reasons. Clearly, his priority was to obtain the
60 angle for the “head cum crown” ensemble relative to the equatorial plane of observation,
and the 5 angle at the intersection of the cone-like structure with the plane containing the
crown’s top surface. Obviously, these two angles were far above his possible desire to derive the
specific Triple, rather than the exact shape and dimensions of this particular Primitive
Pythagorean Triple right triangle.
This (28, 45, 53) Primitive Pythagorean Triple has an angle (corresponding to the CAB angle here)
of 58.1. It is not hence totally unreasonable to hypothesize (certainly the suggestion does not
warrant right off hand dismissal) that Thutmose may have been familiar with Primitive
Pythagorean Triples; and that he may had intended to implant a right triangle close in
morphology albeit not identical to the (28, 45, 53) triangle in the bust of Nefertiti.
The crown is attached to the perimeter of the cranium at an angle in reference to the equatorial
plane of about 30. Hence, it is vertically positioned relative to the 60 angle of the entire “head
cum crown” ensemble (Top Part of the sculpture). The outline (perimeter) of the crown becomes
almost circular (we shall discuss this more extensively in a bit), when viewed from the top, along
the axis of symmetry inside the cone-like solid, which is positioned as already mentioned at an
angle of about 60 from the equatorial plane.
In Figure 5.2, the inverted cone-like structure is more clearly shown, from a side view. Figure 5.2,
as it was the case with Figure 5.1, also offers the outline of a tomographic diagram of the statue,
thus it contains no perspective and distortions due to its nature – although the cost associated
with tomography is that it isn’t directly perceived by an observer of the object, although of
course, its effect are observables. Line S identifies the cone’s symmetry axis; line FG depicts the
cone’s smaller ellipse-like surface. Length (S2F) is half the ellipse’s major axis, about 8.884 cm
(the major axis there being thus, 17.77 cm). On the other end, at the point of intersection of the
cone by a plane at a 5 angle to the plane containing the smaller top ellipse-like surface of the
cone-like structure (actually, this is a bit more complex as we shall see shortly), the length (S1B),
half the major axis, is about 13.43 cm (hence the length of the major axis is 26.87 cm). As for
lengths, (AG) = 26.00 cm; (BF) = 19.93 cm; and (S1S2) = 22.53 cm.
Moreover, from the cone’s apex C, length (CS2) = 43.30 cm; and the angle ACB, as already pointed
out, is close to 25. Hence, the inverted cone is fully specified. We shall revisit these findings in a
short while, and when reviewing Figure 5.4 with a frontal view of the bust of Nefertiti shown with
perspective.

32
Figure 5.2. The axis of symmetry S of the inverted, truncated cone-like structure in Nefertiti’s
bust. The parabolic shape of the shoulders in the sculpture (defined by lines L, M) are discussed
in the text. Notice the straight-line N going through the top of the rhombus (at Nefertiti’s eye
level), tracing the length of Nefertiti’s neck, and intersecting the base of the statue at point P on
the axis of the shoulder’s parabola. Source: the author.

33
Figure 5.3. The top of Nefertiti’s crown seen along the axis of symmetry (going through point T)
of the inverted cone-like structure in the bust. An ellipse-like structure is detected, with major
(Q) and minor (R) axes very close in lengths. Source: the author.

A closer look at the top of the sculpture, see Figure 5.3, and at the intersection of the inverted
cone-like structure with the plane at a 5 angle to its (the cone’s) base, i.e., the plane where the
inverted cone touches Nefertiti’s head, containing line (FG), reveals that the intersection results
in a complex ellipse-like shape where two circles embed the ellipse-like form: an inner circle, the

34
diameter of which identifies the length of the ellipse-like structure’s minor axis (the R-axis in
Figure 5.3, with radius TR1); and an outer circle, the diameter of which (Q1Q2) defines the length
of the structure’s major axis Q. In Figure 5.3, a view from the top of the sculpture is shown, along
the axis of symmetry of the inverted cone, going through point T.
The Q-axis corresponds to a side view of Nefertiti’s bust, whereas the R-axis corresponds to a
frontal view. Specifically, (TQ1) = (TQ2) = (Q1Q2)/2 = 13.42 cm, the length (Q1Q2), which is equal
to the length (AB) of Figure 5.2, being, as shown above, about 26.87 cm long; and (TR1) = (TR2) =
(R1R2)/2 = 11.80 cm, such that (R1R2) = 23.60 cm. Thus, (TQ1) – (TR1) = 1.635 cm. Regardless of
this small difference in the two radii, the overall top structure offers ample justification to call
the structure an ellipse-like based, inverted truncated cone-like structure.
At this point, it must be remarked, inverted truncated cone structures were in abundance in the
Egyptian monumental Architecture of the 18th Dynasty, as well as in the broader Mediterranean
Region’s middle 2nd millennium BC monuments. From the lotus type columns found in the 18th
Dynasty’s Temples and monuments (the most glamorous of course being those of Karnak’s Great
Hypostyle Hall), to the Minoan columns of the Knossos Palace, to the Lions Gate at Mycenae
relief, see the author’s analysis of the monument in [1.9], inverted truncated cone structures
were ubiquitous.
But among all these truncated cones, with little doubt, the frontal snapshot of Nefertiti’s bust
under perspective offers the most iconic rendition of this interesting geometric form. In Figure
5.4, such a snapshot is shown. The perspective is taken from a position where the top surface of
the truncated cone-like structure is at the level of the observer (thus it projects as if it is a line
rather than a surface). Here, the isosceles triangle formed by the frontal snapshot of the inverted
cone-like structure (where now not only the crown is involved but also part of Nefertiti’s head
and face as an extension of the crown’s conic form), is quite (and strikingly) evident.
With Figure 5.4, we are now dealing with a diagram under perspective proportions and frame
ratios do change, consistently with the theoretical section of the paper, where dynamics of
viewing a 3-d structure were outlined and to a degree expanded. An application of this sort of
dynamics we observe in the frontal (and from an equatorial level perspective) view of Nefertiti’s
bust as that of in Figure 5.4. The approximately 25 angle of the ensemble highlights the ratio of
a recalibrated (C’S1’), originally about 43.293 cm, to the length of (R1’R2’), originally about 23.60
cm. In their new as perceived from that angle lengths, their ratio (proportionally about 11.25/5)
is very close to 2.25. It is noted that the apex of the cone, from this angle, is very close to the
level of the sculpture’s base.
Again, it is underlined, the ratio obtained here (2.25) is a Basic Geometry (non-complex) ratio. It
corresponds to a Stage B type evolution, as presented in an earlier section of the paper. However,
the elaborate Geometry and the possible presence of a Primitive Pythagorean Triple in the mix
requires (and largely justifies) the characterization that this sculpture was a transitional
specimen from Stage B to Stage C piece of Art.

35
Figure 5.4. The striking frontal view triangle with the 25 angle. By this view, a slight asymmetry
is depicted as the symmetry axis shown isn’t exactly vertical. Source of the diagram: the author.

36
 Key angles and shapes in Nefertiti’s bust

Obviously, the key angle on the bust and the basis of its design and structure is the 60 angle
formed by the Top Part of the sculpture, the inverted truncated cone-like “head cum crown”
ensemble’s axis of symmetry with the horizontal plane (the plane we call “equatorial” in this
paper) from which we obtained a number of viewing perspective of this 3-d object. This 60 angle
apparently must not have been a randomly picked angle to form the bust of Nefertiti by
Thutmose. It must had held symbolic and deeper cultural significance. It is also an angle
frequently encountered in the analysis of Basic geometry’s right angles – due to its properties.

A second major angle to the sculpture is the approximately 25 angle observed in Figure 5.4, from
the hypothetical apex of the inverted cone. This is an angle which dominates the façade of the
sculpture, and thus of primary import to the sculptor. Again, it is an angle with a significant visual
impact, from an anchor position to observe the sculpture.
In terms of 3-d forms, obviously, the inverted cone is the dominant feature of the statue made
by Thutmose. In terms of 2-d forms, the approximate ellipse at the “head cum crown” ensemble,
the trapezoid, and the two triangles, one being the isosceles frontal view triangle, and the
embedded into the tomography-derived trapezoid – triangle (ABC) of Figure 5.1, are the key 3-d
and 2-d features of Nefertiti’s bust. In addition, two parabolas are shown at the sides of the
sculpture, to be briefly discussed in the next subsection.
The proximity of the (ABC) triangle to the right Primitive Pythagorean Triple, triangle (28, 45, 53),
must have had special significance as well, for both Thutmose and Nefertiti, at this Era of Amarna
under Akhenaten. The associated implications for symbolism and cultural interpretation are left
to the interested reader to ponder.

The two parabolas of the bust’s shoulders

An interesting feature of the bust, and a quite informative from a Geometry view point is the pair
of parabolic shapes at the bust’s side views. Parabola is a geometric shape encountered also in
another iconic, but later made, artifact: Tutankhamun’s Mask and specifically on its back side,
see [1.1] with the work on it by this author. In Figure 5.2 earlier, the elementary components of
the parabola(s) were shown. It can be confidently asserted that the state of the art in the
mathematics of parabolas in the years of Nefertiti were not as advanced as at the years of
Tutankhamun, thus, some evolution apparently did occur inbetween. The mathematics of these
two Nefertiti bust parabolas, contained by the lines L and M in Figure 5.2 with its axis going
through point P, are left to future research and for the interested reader to pursue as a research
project. As it was the case with Tutankhamun’s Mask, which involved a parabola, one is led to
the conclusion that both artifacts, made approximately at the same time period, represented 18th
Dynasty Egyptian Art in transition from Stage B Basic Geometry to Stage C Advanced Geometry.

37
Figure 6. Nefertiti’s bust tomographic section at the sculpture’s weakest (narrowest neck
diameter) section. Noted is the almost elliptical shape of the section. The minor axis is slightly
less than nine centimeters, whereas the major axis is about ten centimeters thick. Source: the
author.

38
 The bust’s structurally weakest point
There are three main Parts to this bust. The Lowest Part, i.e., the base, which contains part of
the Nefertiti’s upper torso; the Middle Part, the neck of Nefertiti; and finally, the main part of
the sculpture, the Upper Part, the “head cum the great crown” ensemble containing section. In
terms of volume, and hence weight, since all three parts are made out of the same material
(limestone), by a long shot the heaviest section of the sculpture is the Top Part, the head with
the crown. Roughly, the (volume/weight) ratio of head to neck to base is as 4.5:1:1. Given these
ratios, it is evident that the sculpture’s static stability is to say the least precarious.

The fragile static stability of the bust is also evident from the proximity of the vertically projected
onto the base barycenter of the “head cum crown” ensemble to the edge of the base, the base
forming an approximate rectangle. It is also due to the quite thin neck (measured by the length
of its diameter) when compared to the length of the almost elliptical upper surface of the crown’s
major axis. The channeled loading force from the “crown cum head” ensemble, operating at an
angle almost vertically placed towards the neck’s axis, transmits onto the neck significantly strong
shearing forces.
About 10.867 centimeters below the geometric center (possibly also where the barycentric point
lurks, at a level of about 2.75 cm above the tip of the nose) of Nefertiti’s bust is where the weakest
section (the narrowest part of the neck) is found. This is where shearing forces are the greatest,
i.e., where the load from the head wearing the crown meets the support structure for the
sculpture. In Figure 6, the tomographic section at that point is shown, also about 10.867 cm
below the barycenter of the bust.

The modulus of Nefertiti’s bust: the palm (shesep)

As a result of the identification of key measurements (lengths) in Nefertiti’s bust, and their ratios,
one is inevitably led to seeking the sculpture’s underlying modulus. Key in this quest is the
aforementioned ratio 4.5:1:1. Given the total height of the sculpture from the vertical
tomographic section going through the sculpture’s central point (close to the sculpture’s
barycenter), of 48.69 cm, (noting that the total height under perspective computed from Figures
2, 3, was about 49.456 cm, and there’s a slight asymmetry at the crown’s top) the above ratio
implies a modulus of about 7.50 to 7.61 cm. Given the total width of the crown’s upper level (the
minor axis of the ellipse-like shape) stands at 23.42 cm, it implies that its ratio to the suggested
modulus is about 3:1, confirming the estimate of the sculpture’s modulus being close to 7.5 cm.
Of course, 7.5 centimeters was the length of the Egyptian unit of measurement referred to as the
“shesep” (or the length of a palm, or hand), see [2.13].
Under a modulus of about 7.5 cm, the right triangle (ABC) has dimensions: side (AB) is 3.5 units
(shesep); (BC) is 45/7.5=6 units; and (AC)=49.7/7.5=6.6 units. One can safely round these up to a
triangle expressed in shesep units of about 3:6:7.

39
A point to be kept in mind within this Dynamic Geometry framework of analysis is the following.
As perspective changes, by changing the observer’s position in viewing a 3-d object, so is the
modulus’s perceived length. In tomographic sections however, proportions remain invariant, and
the relative size of the modulus remains fixed. But under changing viewpoints, this dynamical
analysis, as stated here, allows for a dynamical consideration of the modulus as well.

As for the modulus derived, the length of 7.5 centimeters – the palm, whether a greater
maximum common denominator of critical measurements in Nefertiti’s bust can be found than
the shesep as identified here, is subject to further research.

Nefertiti’s statue by Thutmose: a landmark in the History of Art. Diagram by the author.

40
 Appendix A. Photos showing static views of Nefertiti’s bust

Photo A.1. Static view of Nefertiti’s bust; approximate left profile. Public domain photo

Photo A.2. Static view of Nefertiti’s bust; frontal view. Public domain photo (next page)

41
42
 Appendix B. Snapshots from scanning and sections of Nefertiti’s bust

The following collection of diagrams on Nefertiti’s bust were produced by the author running the
Windows program 3-d Builder, employing the 3-d scanning set of data on the bust available to
the public domain found in reference [2.8]. All diagrams, consequently do carry a copyright,
which belongs to the author.
Most, if not all, of these diagrams have been discussed in the paper’s main body. Some of these
diagrams are provided here as offering additional information on both the subject of the diagram
as well as on perspective.

Figure B.1. Nefertiti’s length of neck, 9.71 cm. Source: the author.

43
Figure B.2. Nefertiti’s bust top view. The ellipse-like form of the inverted truncated cone’s top
has been discussed in the text in reference to Figure 5.3. It holds one of the keys to
discovering the statue’s modulus. Source: the author.

44
Figure B.3. Bottom up view of the sculpture, showing base asymmetry. A slightly different
view of the bust has been discussed in the main text of the paper. Source: the author.

45
Figure B.4. Another section showing the weak link in Nefertiti’s bust: the narrow neck.
Source: the author.

46
Figure B.5. Nefertiti’s bust bottom view. The relative width of the base compared to the total
width of the sculpture is shown. The count (24.931 cm) indicates distance from the bust’s
middle point level. Source: the author.

47
 Conclusions and suggestions for further research
The purpose of this paper was to examine the Geometry and analyze the mathematical detail of
Nefertiti’s famous bust by Thutmose. Some background surrounding the history and archeology
of the bust was provided also, to frame the study. A number of central conclusions can be drawn
from this analysis.
On the methodological front, a dynamical theory of perceiving 3-d objects of Art and Architecture
has been outlined. Central in this new perspective on viewing 3-d structures, is the index of
Entropy they contain, obtained from a variation on C. Shannon’s Information Theory. Another
key part of the methodological basis of this study was the derivation of a classification scheme
involving four distinct Stages, for describing the evolution of Art and Architecture from the
Neolithic, through the Bronze and Irons Ages, down to the Era of Classical Greece, also associated
with an Evolution of early Mathematics.
On the subject in hand, Nefertiti’s bust by sculptor Thutmose of the Amarna Period of the 18th
Dynasty, a number of conclusions have been drawn. Foremost in them is the realization that this
piece of ancient Egyptian Art was made at a critical transition period in the Evolution of Art and
Architecture, a transition which saw the intentional utilization of Geometry’s fundamental
shapes in the making of artifacts and built structures. The iconic bust contains within it a complex
array of geometric shapes and proportions (ratios) in their various basic measurements that
reflect an awareness of Advanced Geometry. The sculpture heralds a transition from Basic
Geometry in the design of 3-d objects (artifacts and monuments) to an Advanced Geometry Stage
in Art and Architecture.

Two specific findings need special mentioning in concluding this study: first, the presence of a
possible Primitive Pythagorean Triple in the trapezoidal skeletal structure of Nefertiti’s bust
revealed by a tomographic section; and second, the modulus of the sculpture, which turned out
to be the palm (or shesep) – the equivalent of 7.5 centimeters. Hints were made on the modulus’
apparent dynamics. All results from the analysis reported in this paper tend to support the
currently prevailing view that this is an authentic sculpture and not a forgery, recent or old.
Nefertiti’s bust reflects the state of the Art and Mathematics in 18th Dynasty Egypt.
The paper, through the use of the publicly available 3-d scanning of reference [2.8], was able to
obtain accurate measurements of key features from the sculpture at the hundredth of the
millimeter level. Since the thickness of the plaster-like stucco with which the face was covered
by Thutmose, is not known, in combination with the fact that unknown is also the answer to the
question of whether it is uniformly thick, it is necessary to further pursue the findings reported
here with follow up CT-scans to determine the accuracy of the measurements and their implied
Mathematics.
A key question in reference to this plaster covering Nefertiti’s face issue is, whether Thutmose
was able to accomplish the interesting proportions we uncovered here while carving the

48
limestone core. Whether he had pre-calculated the impact the added plaster would have on
these proportions. It is the contention of this author that he did, and this claim adds significantly
to the masterpiece value and the craftmanship abilities of Thutmose. The astonishing attention
to detail exhibited by the sculpture depicting Nefertiti, was demonstrated in the slight (and
apparently purposeful) slight asymmetries built into the bust. The plaster cover and its impact on
the bust’s dimensions must be viewed and evaluated within this context as well.

It is noted in closing that work on the information content in 3-d objects of Art and Architecture
was the essence of the author’s Diploma Thesis in 1968 at the Department of Architecture of the
Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece, see [1.2]. Of course, back then the author did not
have the access to 3-d scans and computer software available today to demonstrate the validity
of his approach to Art and Architecture. It is with great deal of joy that finally, and after a period
of about half a century, his vision is finally materialized in the context of analyzing Nefertiti’s bust
by Thutmose.

References
Author’s work

[1.1] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, January 2016, “The Mathematics and Astronomy in Tutankhamun’s
Funerary Mask”, academia.edu. The paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/20392247/The_Mathematics_and_Astronomy_in_Tutankhamuns_
Mask._1st_update
[1.2] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, February 1968, “ΧΩΡΟΙ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΙΚΟΥ ΣΥΓΚΙΝΗΣΙΑΣΜΟΥ - Spaces of
Emotional Group Behavior” Diploma Thesis, Department of Architecture, Polytechnic School,
Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki, Greece. Published by the Department of Architecture.
[1.3] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 15 November 2016, “In the Shadows of Carnac’s Le Menec: a
Neolithic supercomputer”, academia.edu. The paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/30164088/In_the_Shadows_of_Carnacs_Le_Menec_Stones_A_Ne
olithic_proto_supercomputer
[1.4] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 2000, “Rationals, Periodicity and Chaos: a Pythagorean view and a
conjecture into Socio-spatial dynamics”, Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, Vol.4, No.2,
pp:133-143.
[1.5] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 21 November 2016, “A Carnac Conjecture: Neolithic
experimentation with Primitive Pythagorean Triples?”, academia.edu. The paper is found here:

49
https://www.academia.edu/30163918/A_Carnac_Conjecture_Neolithic_experimentation_with
_primitive_Pythagorean_triples
[1.6] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 1991, “Methods in Quantum Mechanics and the Socio-spatial
World”, Journal of Socio-spatial Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp: 81-108.
[1.7] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 19 April 2017, “On Nefertiti’s bust”, in the FB group site
‘Tutankhamun’s Mask and Tomb’ that the author has created and currently administering, found
here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1653790571576462/
[1.8] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 31 July 2016, “On Dowth North Passage Tomb and K51”,
academia.edu. The paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/27511804/On_Dowth_North_Passage_Tomb_and_K51_update_2
[1.9] Dimitrios S. Dendrinos, 19 April 2017, “On the Lions Gate at Mycenae: its Geometry and
roots”, academia.edu. The paper is found here:
https://www.academia.edu/32507447/On_the_Lions_Gate_at_Mycenae_its_Geometry_and_R
oots

Other sources
[2.1] Henri Stierlin, 2009, Le buste de Néfertiti : Une imposture de l'égyptologie?, Infolio,
Gollion.
[2.2] Edrogan Ercivan, 2009, Missing Link in Archeology,

[2.3] http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/272498
[2.4] Science News, April 27, 2009 “Nefertiti’s ‘hidden face’ proves Berlin bust is not Hitler’s fake”
https://web.archive.org/web/20120704110319/http://www.monstersandcritics.com:80/scienc
e/news/article_1473370.php/Nefertiti_s_hidden_face_proves_Berlin_bust_is_not_Hitler_s_fak
e

[2.5] https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ancient-art-civilizations/egypt-art/new-
kingdom/v/thutmose-bust-of-nefertiti-c-1340-bce
[2.6] https://hyperallergic.com/274635/artists-covertly-scan-bust-of-nefertiti-and-release-the-
data-for-free-online/
[2.7] https://www.myminifactory.com/object/bust-of-nefertiti-at-the-egyptian-museum-berlin-
2951
[2.8] http://nefertitihack.alloversky.com/

50
[2.9] Helen Gardner, 2006, “Art of Ancient Egypt” in Gardner’s Art through the Ages, Cengage
Learning, p. 64.
[2.10] H. W. Janson, A. F. Janson, 2003, History of Art: the Western Tradition, Prentice Hall, N.J.
The book is available here in its 6th revised edition:
https://books.google.com/books?id=MMYHuvhWBH4C&pg=PT66&dq=Nefertiti+bust+eye&hl=
en#v=onepage&q=Nefertiti%20bust%20eye&f=false
[2.11] D. O. Silverman, J. W. Wegner, J. H. Wegner, 2006, Akhenaten and Tutankhamun:
revolution and restauration, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology. The book is
accessible here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=W5-QCB_g-
DsC&pg=PA131&dq=nefertiti++Akhenaten+disappear&cd=1&hl=en#v=onepage&q=nefertiti%2
0%20Akhenaten%20disappear&f=false
[2.12] Claude Shannon, Warren Weaver, 1949, The Mathematical Theory of Communication,
The University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
[2.13] M. Clugget, 1999, Ancient Egyptian Science: A source book; Vol III, Ancient Egyptian
Mathematics, Volume 232, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.

Note: All Nefertiti’s bust related diagrams from the 3-d Builder Windows 10 program are the
author’s work, and thus the author retains full copyright protection over them, individually and
collectively. All unattributed photos of Nefertiti’s bust belong to the public domain.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions made to his work by all his Facebook friends,
and especially by the members of his eight groups the author has created and is administering.
Their posts and comments have inspired him in his research over the past two and one half years.

Further, the author wishes to acknowledge the contribution to Art and Science made by the
artists Nora Al-Badri and Jan Nikolai Nelles who scanned the Nefertiti bust and made their
scanning available in the public domain for all researchers to carry out the detailed work that it
deserves. Such scans provide an avenue that should had been afforded by all Museums for all
artifacts at their possession in this 21st Century AD. The author wishes to have had such a scan
available on Tutankhamun’s mask, while carrying out his work in reference [1.1].
But most important and dear to this author has been the more than 21 and one half years of
encouragement and support he has received from his wife Catherine and their daughters
Daphne-Iris and Alexia-Artemis. For their continuing support, assistance, encouragement and

51
 understanding for all those long hours he allotted doing research, when he could have shared his
time with them, this author will always be deeply appreciative.

Legal Notice on Copyrights

© The author, Dimitrios S. Dendrinos retains full legal copyrights to the contents
of this paper. Reproduction in any form, of parts or the whole of this paper, is
prohibited without the explicit and written permission and consent by the author,
Dimitrios S. Dendrinos. Copyrights on photos used not in the public domain belong
to the sources cited. All diagrams produced in this paper are individually and
collectively copyrighted by the author. No individual diagram can be reproduced
without the author’s explicit permission and consent.

52

View publication stats