> What's funny is that I did look at all
> nine entries in his
> hreads=0]2nd link[/url]. A waste of time since
> other than him stating his personal opinion in
> each post of that search listing, there were only
> 2 relevant citations that he could have quickly
> cited in his reply instead of sending us on a
> silly goose chase to wade through all the chaff.
I looked at his two links, started to read through them and quickly came to same conclusions you did, pretty much. I didn't have all day to read the threads and try to figure out why he linked them. He could have linked directly to a particular post, but he must figure we've all got nothing better to do than hunt for clues to his point. I'm surprised you read them as much as you did, you've more patience than I. I didn't find the threads particularly informative. Most of us try to have consideration for others by linking to the exact page in a book, giving a page number, or quoting the relevant text. We don't just say - here, read this book because I say so. And then get pricky when someone brings up something else in a reference that wasn't what we intended them to find. If he has a point to make, it's up to him to explain why he's using a particular reference. I think it very inconsiderate.
> There was
> 3419,343457#msg-343457]one post[/url] that
> included a few additional links to other
> citations, one of them about the
> #ochre%3E]Khufu/Djedefre ochre quarry[/url] which,
> if anything, [i][u]confirms[/u][/i] the use of
> binders during Khufu/Djedefre, [i]"...red ochre
> from these quarries 'can be used for artistic and
> decorative purposes, for colouring plasters with
> many binders, such as water, oils and various
> 4757/pg3#pid18236050]Another entry[/url] in that
> search link looks like a reiteration of Frank D's
> 2002 post about the Lucas & Harris monograph
> claiming that 4D tempura painting didn't use
> binders. However, in Stower's link to the newer
> 2014 post at ATS, it's acknowledged that binders
> were indeed used in the 4th dynasty:
> [i]"...tempura painting involves organic matter,
> but this is reserved for the intricate paintings
> associated with tombs..."[/i] I'd like to know how
> many mason's marks in royal tombs were actually
I would bet none were tested. Egyptologists are not fond of testing.
> The authors say, [i]"For the mason marks
> of Khufu's era, they were likely red iron oxide
> (called by some texts red haematite), and red
> ocherous clays (some mixed with manganese in the
> 4th Dynasty)."[/i] Whoever want to take that a
> face value, be my guest. I see no mention
> specifically that mason marks do not contain
> organic binder.
> His characterization of "cherry-picking" is bogus.
> Even if
> ers.pdf]Ambers[/url] is the only report that
> describes such use of binders during Sneferu's
> reign, the report is there, and it's published by
> the British Museum.
"Cherry-picking" seems to be a way of saying - you didn't post what I think you should have. We go with the references we can find. If he has something other than Ambers, it's up to him to post it. Some of us appreciate when other sources are given, with a specific purpose. I did a brief search some time ago when the paint was being discussed, and it seemed to me the general consensus was that binders were used, specifically egg. But we'll never know about the paint in the chambers until chemical analysis is done. Which Egyptology doesn't need, because they think they have all the facts and science will not add anything to their facts.
It is curious how one could think they know the intentions of the painters. Especially when one knows nothing of paint, brushes or technique.