> So therefore..
> During construction plaster was applied to fill the block joint.
> Some plaster was slopped onto the supporting wall and cleaned up.
Why would there also be plaster slop on the west wall block if there's no significant plaster on its corresponding ceiling block? I see no obvious place on the lower aspect of that ceiling block where plaster could have dripped onto that wall block.
> Some plaster was slopped onto the cartouche block and a small
> amount onto the right hand adjacent block. He was working right
> to left acrosss the joint.. right handed..
> The plasterer washed over the staining mostly onto the
> cartouche block.
> Notice the area of "not whitewashed block" to the left of the
> "G.Maclean" graffiti.
> It was a "clean up" rather than a "paint job".
> At some point later the block in the area of the cartouche was
> cleaned/wiped over. revealing the yellow patch
> At some point later the cartouche was painted.
Assuming that the yellow patch was cleaned off later, after the plaster coating was applied, this is pretty good evidence that the "chick'n'chisel" glyphs were painted AFTER all the plaster work was done, including that local wash-off that revealed the yellow patch. How do we know that patch wasn't simply avoided by plaster? Is there a well-defined brush boarder or is it smeared like we would expect in a "wash-off"?
> The cartouche was painted top to bottom.
> The reed was painted first, the cartouch frame loop was painted
> last , anti clockwise intersecting and over the just previously
> painted reed.
> The entire glyph, phyle name and cartouche was painted top to
> bottom and in situ.
It sure seems that way, but there seems to be a paradox here...
On one hand, the red "gang" glyphs appear to have been added AFTER the plaster since the plaster seems washed off around the "chick'n'chisel" and yet those glyphs are just as strong as the others on the plaster above and below the washed off area. But on the other hand, the red drip lines on the western wall block seems to be applied BEFORE the plaster since the plaster sits over the red paint drip in several places. We would need evidence that the yellow patch is a wash-off rather than deliberalted never coated with plaster. Alternatively, we need to ensure the plaster was applied in situ and not at the shop (I think the apparently washed-off plaster residue on the wall blocks certainly support that the plaster was applied in situ).
Of course, Scott might be interested in the possibility that the yellow patch at the chick'n'chisel could be an indication that the glyph forgers made a mistake at that location, and when when they went to erase their erroneous red paint, they also took off some plaster white wash too, thereby exposing the raw and clean underlying limestone...
That certainly reconciles the above paradox.