> The second set of Glyphs to the lower right of the contentious
> glyph was clearly made using a short stiff brush. Which would
> suggest that it is ancient.
> I am not sure that the contentious cartouche could have been
> made with such a short stiff brush.
> I would suggest that based purely on the photographs, the
> contentious cartouche was made using a long, soft, round,
> sable, chinese, 1/4-1/2 inch paintbrush. It would have been
> about one foot long with a bristle length of about one, to one
> and a half inches.
> In fact, very similar to the brush that was used to make the
> Hill facsimile.
> In my "art world" reading a "brush mark" or "gesture" could be
> compared with determining an authentic signature. In that it is
> very difficult to quantify but nevertheless can be done.
> This is as much as can be done using internet photographs. The
> next stage would be direct observation using various
> wavelengths of light, followed by microscopic pigment and
> binder analyses.
Jon, great minds...
I've been wondering how much can be gleaned about the technique ever since Scott started his previous "fraud" discussion a few weeks ago. Someone pointed out that the contentious cartouche frame was started and stopped at the BOTTOM of the block where it meets the wall which is very obvious in Colette Dowell's photo here: [www.robertschoch.net]. VERY fishy when you consider that it's rotated to "imply" that it was drawn at the shop when the workers finished the block and packed it up for transport to the construction site. And this seemed strange to me because you would think if the cartouche was drawn at the shop (which accounts for it being rotated in situ), then they would have started/stopped it at the base (where the ligature is) and not midstream at the outer aspect of the oval.
At that time (when Scott's discussion was active) I tried to find other painted cartouches on the web that would indicate the "convention" for drawing that oval, but I could only find very well crafted "produced for public consumption" painted cartouches that did not reveal much about the technique, but no other "graffiti" versions!
Unfortunately, in her high resolution photography, Colette Dowell doesn't include any other painted cartouches! I know there are many other cartouches in those rafters that await verification about how they were drawn, but I CAN'T FIND ANY OF THEM!!!
One thing I did notice in her photos is that here and there, a short segment of a painted glyph shows a noticeably darker color and it's hard to tell what's causing that. I don't believe it can be a lighting effect. For example, on this image note the rear leg of the last chick in the cartouche which is darker than the rest, and also both upper legs of the chick in the "gang" glyphs behind that cartouche, and also a few "touchup" parts of the first glyph in that same "gang" string: [www.robertschoch.net]
It's hard to imagine what could cause such visibly different color within the same stroke using the same paint at the time those other strokes were made in ancient times...