Ahatmose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It has always been my belief that the alleged
> carvings into the outer walls and the colonnades
> were far too impressive to actually have been
> done with a hammer and chisel and as I have looked
> at more and more of these images I find that they
> seem to be almost too exact to each other. Can't
> call them exact until someone measures them. It
> has also been my belief that a paste of some kind
> was spread over the SMOOTH walls and the SMOOTH
> colonnades. As a proof of this I offer up just a
> couple of images .Please note how it looks like
> about 3 or 4 inches have fallen off and underneath
> is a smooth surface on both the walls and the
> colonnades. I have suggested maybe a stencil was
> used but I am pretty sure none have ever been
> found.
>
> Here are two images to ponder:
>
> [imagizer.imageshack.com]
>
> [imagizer.imageshack.com]
>
> If I am wrong could someone offer up an alternate
> explanation for what we see
>
> db
>
> .

What you are seeing are modern repairs.

The illusion of "thinness" is modern conservatorship action. They "fill in" the destroyed areas with a material that can be removed (with the right tools) but is close enough in tone to the block/remains that it doesn't look visually jarring to the visitor. The original pieces are slightly elevated from the fill material so that the student/researcher can quickly determine where a fragment begins and ends.

We also do this with dinosaur bone fossils. You can see it here on the T-Rex in the Smithsonian (which I've seen myself) where the bottom (hinge) area of the jaw is a reconstruction and not actual fossil. The color is slightly different and the "bone" is far smoother than the real material: [www.socialstudiesforkids.com]

-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at