DUNE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Jon Ellison Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Hi Colette/Dune
> > > I agree.
> > > A large portion of the underside of the upper
> > > chamber ceiling blocks seems to be coated in
> > > plaster varying from large gobs applied into
> > and
> > > around the block joints down to a few mm to
> > zero
> > > on the block surfaces. It looks like the
> rafter
> > > blocks were placed unevenly and then rendered
> > to
> > > provide a smooth and even interior surface.
> > > The render could not have been applied to the
> > > blocks prior to their installation.
> > > The cartouche is on top of the render,
> > indicating
> > > that it was applied in situ.
> > > It's good that Colette confirms this.
> >
> > Which, of course, she doesn’t.
> >
> > Try reading again and properly this time—and
> not
> > misrepresenting, for all that this requires you
> to
> > shake off your Creighton clique habits.
> >
> > M.
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Yes your right in that she is not confirming the
> "in situ"application of the Khufu cartouche, but
> one might construed that its being implied by her
> statement of there being plaster on the ceiling
> blocks, ergo cartouche over plaster , to which the
> implications are obvious .
>
> As Colette went on to say .
>
> ".I later found out that I WAS CORRECT, that there
> was indeed plaster on the ceilings AND in THAT
> particular chamber.…"
>
> ___________________
>
> Me
>
> The only other possible way out of the cartouche
> being applied in situ is for the plaster to have
> been applied before the block got installed, would
> they have done that ?
>
>
> DPP


Hi Dune

I was primarily referring to Colette's reference to the plaster. However I agree with your comment on the cartouche which would suggest that it was applied post the plaster and therefore post block installation.

My primary interest is in the plaster.
The images of the lower flat ceiling chambers posted by yourself show runoff slop on the sidewalls.
How could this have been applied prior to flat ceiling block installation?
It was clearly not applied afterwards or for decorative purposes.
For me there are two possibilities.

The slop was a block sliding lubricant and had no aesthetic or post construction purpose. It was left where it ran.
Or
It's purpose was purely functional e.g. a sealant, a highly reflective surface, again aesthetics were of no concern. No cleanup operation!.

The upper chamber plaster seems to have been applied in varying thicknesses. A surface levelling render.
Which would make sense as precise alignment of the opposing pairs of rafter blocks would have been very difficult to achieve. Once in place adjustment would have been impossible, block installation alignment would not have been anywhere near as difficult in the lower flat ceiling chambers.

Again there's no for concern for aesthetics, little in the way of slop/runoff being cleaned up
All pointing to the plaster having been applied post block installation.

It's also interesting the Petrie states that the red lines were painted on top of the plaster, so therefore they could not have been intended as quarry datums.

So the sequence had to be...
Blocks positioned.
Blocks plastered
Red marks applied.

Why the plaster, why the red marks??

Any ideas?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05-Oct-16 17:48 by Jon Ellison.