 |
 |
medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture From: John Briggs <[log in to unmask]> > Christopher Crockett wrote: >> note that part of the simple (undecorated) molding of the impost block has been chiseled off as well. > It look to me more like stone decay - usually the result of damp. a bit. but very *selective* decay, if that, yet on virtually all the caps we can see --caps which have been indoors for all their life (from what little i can see of their style, i'm thinking that they are legitimately "romanesque", not "spolia" from some earlier monument). > If it really has been chiselled off, i can't think of another explanation. > that is usually associated with plastering, whether while removing the plaster, or before applying the plaster to smooth the surface, or rough it for 'keying'. yes, that was my first thought as well. but that just begs the question : why was the original foliate(?) sculpted decoration chiselled off of all (that we can see) the capitals, to be replaced by plaster and paint? plus, how do we explain the **selective** damage to only one side of the impost block here http://www.mondimedievali.net/Edifici/Puglia/tran20.jpg and the fact that only the top 2/3 of the capitals have been massaged with the chisel? i *think* i can see the patterns of the cisel marks in that .jpg, but it might just be an artifact of the technology. c ********************************************************************** To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME to: [log in to unmask] To send a message to the list, address it to: [log in to unmask] To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion to: [log in to unmask] In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to: [log in to unmask] For further information, visit our web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html