Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think it more important that we step back and
> see what we are actually looking at.
>
> The gangs bring the blocks from the quarry to the
> required level. From there they are refined and
> maneuvered into place by DIFFERENT crews and
> specialists.
>
> Roth may be guilty of overworking the problem,
> BUT, to suppose that her finite conclusions being
> wrong has any bearing on how the Vyse cartouche
> fits into all this is to propose a false dichotomy
>
> I think everyone is overworking this part of the problem
>
> Warwick

For one thing, it does speak to whether there was enough information on those blocks to allow someone to credibly defraud additional marks back in the 19th century such that it fits into a "pattern".

By the way, on what basis are we to believe the gabling truly is Tura limestone vs. local quarries for the wall blocks? Is there a credible report on that other than anecdotal observations by Romer, Schoch, or others who have made anecdotal visual assessments using various handheld lighting? (E.g., there is photographic evidence suggesting that at least parts of those gables are coated with plaster). Has there been any actual tests on density, porosity, mineral and fossil content, etc., to prove a Tura origin?