There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[J_B_]

Though I have a graduate history degree, I've largely given up on discussing history in this forum. I saw this thread when it was first posted, but didn't bother to watch the video. Now, because I was bored, I did. I'm not surprised by what he said. I'm not saying I agree with his specific conclusions, but at the same time neither have I ever agreed with the broader conclusions of ancient historians. Much too often people take the small details we do know and assume they represent the whole.

Anyway, though the video is somewhat sensationalized, if he gets people to take a second look, more power to him.

 

[sjastro]

Or that I mention it after the idea had been introduced. I have written an aweful lot of words so 12 times is not much. I think the idea has been mentioned by others way more.

But it doesn't matter. It was inevitable now it seems that such a thread like this would bring up such a word. I have to deal with that and that is what I am doing. Like I said in some ways this is actually redirecting things back to the point of the OP.

Which was about how we see the evidence and human history and the different worldviews where one is more orthodox and strictly by the rule book of material science and the other open to more transcedent knowledge. For which the orthodox and material worldview thinks conspiracy.

That we are debating the idea of conspiracy as opposed to 'real science' is philosophical.

Yes and this can be exactly the same for those who claim to be siding with the evidence. Case in point, precision vases must be made by orthodox tools because thats whats in the records. Yet orthodox tools don't match the signatures. Oh thats right lets appeal to elbow grease which can mimick the evidence of machining.

But this itself is based on whether the works he usurped from 200 years ealier were in fact works 200 years earlier. I am saying the whole 'whoever has his name on it' is the creator of the work is questionable. Some works have 2 or 3 nsames on it.

The basic premise is that apart from the pyramids all the works of the old kindom are in the hardest stones. Or at least the great ones that stand out with precision and quality. The issue is the orthodoxy of who is attributed the works along with the tools. The tools even if Ramesses II commissioned them don't match the signatures.

But we see this signature prevelent in the old kingdom where it seems to originate and maybe even earlier. They are the originators. The point is we could just about appreciate that some of these works came much later when the tools improved such as steel and the wheel. But the highest of quality and precision is coming from the old kingdom and maybe earlier. At a time not expected due to the primitive tools and knowledge.

Well I am not saying everything, I don't know. But this does not deny the quality and precision of the old kingdom works. I showed the precision vases, boxes and pillars to within 1,000th of an inch perfection. With machine marks on them.

We should be going by the highest quality for the level of knowledge and tech and I think the old kingdom is unsurpassed in that sense.

I don't know with some specific examples. Its not as if there was one quality for the old kingdom. The great works seem a specialised area among other less quality works. Its interesting that most of these old works almost belong to one family in a relative short time of around 200 years.

All I know is we see some of the best in the old kingdom and that this same signature is seen in works attributed to later dynasties. But it doesn't really matter as even what is claimed as new kingdom works don't match the knowledge and tech in the orthodox records.

Easy, the old kingdom works mostly had no glyphs on them for whatever reason. But we can definitely see how the later glyphs are of a completely different signature to the work itself.

Why would a new kingdom pharaoh and especially Ramesses who bragged out his great works create such amazing precision and quality finish only to virtually scribble like a child all over it with crooked and unfinished lines. Why create a beautiful finish only to destroy the quality with a poorly finished cartouche.

I gave this example of what looks like childs scribble on precision made boxes at Saqqara. !00 ton precision and polished to perfection to within a 1,000th of an inch in all points of reference made in Diorite. Spoilt by some vandel chiseling what looks like a kid did it.

Why would a pharoah commission such perfection only to have it spoilt by crooked lines and poor quality work. More like a latter addition. There are only 3 of 10 or so boxes with scribble on them and this is how they are dated.

View attachment 369656 View attachment 369647

Or this rough and inferior cartouche from Ramesses II on a beautifully polished piece. See how even the creases and every knook and cranny is polished to perfection. Then along comes another pharoah who is suppose to have made it with the same tech and wrecks it.

This is a Hyksos Sphinx. As you can see the fine lines in the ribs and its polished to the point the Diorite shines which is hard to do. But notice the later inferior cartouche that has a completely different signature to the work itself. Like someone actually did use a primitive chisel. You would think this would have the same level of quality so as to not deminish the work itself if the creator was the same person.

View attachment 369651 View attachment 369652

Thats apart from the obvious stamps where a later pharoah has actually changed the previous glyphs into his own or even stamped a cartouche over existing works and spoiling it. See this reused obelisk has the glyphs verticle rather than how obelisk use horizontal glyphs. Ramesses is reusing an older work he found as a wall.

View attachment 369653

Another example where he stamps his cartouche right over the preexisting work. In this case covering a belt, knife and the fine engraved lines of the skirt. In fact this example has two pharoahs stamped on it.

The interesting thing is these granite statues are suppose to be of Ramesses. Why would he go to all that trouble to finely shape the belt, knife and pattern on the skirt to then destroy this with a cartouche over work that would have taken weeks to finely craft.

They usually reserve a space or don't do any work under the cartouche. This seems an obvious later addition over work that was already in existence and Ramesses has usurped it.

The other a blantant stamp across a larger work covering the original fine work. Always usurping the finest hard stone works. There are many of these examples and along with the signatures matching so well the old kingdom I don;t think we should be assuming the named stamped is the creator.

View attachment 369654 View attachment 369655

The other piece of evidence is that this is not just restricted to Egypt but seen all over the world. Its the accumulation of these out of place works that question the orthodoxy that its just the primitive tools in the records.

I could show you though I know you won't like it of many examples that are hard to explain with the traditional tools. Where what is claimed by pounding, splitting, copper sawing in no way resembles the signatures and in fact the signatures reflect advanced knowledge and tech.

This 8300–7500 cal. B.C obsidian bracelet which is around 10,000 years old has evidence of sophisticated turning. When the wheel was not even suppose to have been invented or had very simple applications. Let alone controlled machine like signatures.

Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia)
Discussion
Our study produced evidence for skilled work of the obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük. This evidence is:
* The choice of high quality obsidian
* The use of different movements and abrasive materials for making the bracelet
* The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping
* The near absence of manufacturing errors and the ability to deal with defects

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440311002718

I don't know. Maybe they found the secret lol. I don't think it was laziness of lack of knowledge or tech. If the later dynasties could create works to the high level of the old kingdom then they had the same knowledge and tech.

But the question is as with the examples and evidence of widspread inherentence and reusing of older works and that the new kingdom sites once had oldkingdom sites and works on them. Its a question mark for at least some of these works being older. If you say the new kingdom actually usurped middle kingdom works then its a contradiction that the knowledge disappeared.

I just don't know but I am not going to assume that certain works belong to certain times because of a stamp on them. When the works that are stamped contain all the signatures of the old kingdom as shown already.

I don't think so. I think given the examples and evidence shown so far its clear there are out of place works and questions marks on their age. But basically forgetting all the times and who did what.

The fact is the very best of works is seen very, very early and possibly even pre dynastic that is on par if not better than later works. In a time when it should be a less quality and precision gradually improving to a higher level. Except we are seeing the complete opposite in these old kingdom works.

Your overlong rambling response simply reinforces again you are perpetrating a conspiracy theory.

When I stated Ramesses II main target for usurping monuments was Amenhotep III do you think I pulled this out of thin air like your conspiracy nonsense.
There many examples where Ramesses’s cartouche did not cut deep enough to obliterate Amenhotep’s original cartouche and archaeologists use a technique known as raking light. The light source is at a very low angle almost parallel to the surface so any relief in the form of cuts, scratches, erasures and chisel marks will cast shadows and when combined with other techniques such as RTI (Reflectance Transformation Imaging) and 3D scanning/photogrammetry Amenhotep’s cartouche is revealed.
If Ramesses cartouche was able to obliterate the original, identification came through the architectural and artistic style of the 18th dynasty which was distinctly different from the 19th dynasty.

It’s called evidence which leads to a conclusion, unlike your conspiracy nonsense where the conclusion is the starting point of the premise and the evidence is forced fit to meet the premise or your case does not exist at all.

Also your multiple examples of usurpation of monuments indicates it is impossible to completely remove evidence of erasure.
Given Old Kingdom obelisks were also inscribed with the pharaoh’s identity, you have unintentionally reinforced my point the obelisks attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II which show no such signs of erasure are therefore genuine New Kingdom constructions.
Once again its about evidence leading to the conclusion not your scatterbrained conspiracy theory.

Here is something else to consider Late Period obelisks are inferior to New Kingdom obelisks despite the technological superiority of using iron tools instead of bronze.
It points to a factor you have completely ignored its called craftmanship which can also vary like the artistic and architectural styles of the time.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually I disagree. Of the evidence I have linked or the reasoning used I have not seen you show how this is pseudoscience. I assume you think the link to precision vases is pseudoscience as you just dismissed it like it was. But there was zero engagement with the content as to whether it was actually pseudoscience.

I do think it is pseudoscience, and I dealt with it months ago:

For example this infestation of @sjastro 's AI drill core thread:

Using AI to further debunk ancient Egyptians used technologies to drill granite far beyond the current level.

These large flat and machine like finishes are from Egyptian sites. The bottom one is in basalt and is a leftover at Abu Ghorab of a paver being cut out of the block to make pavers that suuround places like the pyramid of Giza. The top one is from Abu Rawash and has what looks like a router or...

www.christianforums.com

The same with other links and actually if this is the case that you think all I am posting is pseudoscience then your proving my point that any attempt to support alternative and advanced knowledged is assumed as pseudoscience.

I've looked at so many of these links before. They are still not good.

You did this with Dunn on the his work with the Giza pyramid being some sort of energy generator. You said this was all whackery. Only to find that his idea has now been supported by several scientific papers.

It is whackery, and no it is not "supported" as I have noted several times before, including here:

Ancient tech and knowledge

If nothing else, it's still just the same old personal incredulity from the OP: "I can't envision it being done, therefore they couldn't have done it. Because of... reasons."

www.christianforums.com

 

[stevevw]

Your overlong rambling response simply reinforces again you are perpetrating a conspiracy theory.

When I stated Ramesses II main target for usurping monuments was Amenhotep III do you think I pulled this out of thin air like your conspiracy nonsense.
There many examples where Ramesses’s cartouche did not cut deep enough to obliterate Amenhotep’s original cartouche and archaeologists use a technique known as raking light. The light source is at a very low angle almost parallel to the surface so any relief in the form of cuts, scratches, erasures and chisel marks will cast shadows and when combined with other techniques such as RTI (Reflectance Transformation Imaging) and 3D scanning/photogrammetry Amenhotep’s cartouche is revealed. If Ramesses cartouche was able to obliterate the original, identification came through the architectural and artistic style of the 18th dynasty which was distinctly different from the 19th dynasty.

How do we know that Amenhotep’s original cartouche makes it his. Just like Ramesses who reused other pharoahs stuff.

Anyway you must have missed that I pointed out that even if it was from the middle kingdom it is still knowledge and tech beyond the capabilities of the tools on record. The whole Egyptian era has amazing works but especially early on is amazing.

But this is what I did not want which was to get bogged down in specific examples and lose track of the overall point. Which was on a global scale of knowledge and tech that we see very early and well advanced for what we consider for that time and the primitive tools. Along with other evidence such as exeperiences and the stories told by the very people.

It’s called evidence which leads to a conclusion, unlike your conspiracy nonsense where the conclusion is the starting point of the premise and the evidence is forced fit to meet the premise or your case does not exist at all.

If the evidence points to what you say and I have not checked then it is what it is. I am not trying to force any conspiracy or deny there was amazing works later. Just questioning the signatures that don't match the tools even if thats later dynasties.

Also your multiple examples of usurpation of monuments indicates it is impossible to completely remove evidence of erasure.
Given Old Kingdom obelisks were also inscribed with the pharaoh’s identity,

Actually there is little inscriptions on works from the old kingdom. Thats why it was like an open invitation to usurp these works I think.

you have unintentionally reinforced my point the obelisks attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II which show no such signs of erasure are therefore genuine New Kingdom constructions.

Not if there were no old kingdom inscriptions on the old kingdom works to begin with.

Once again its about evidence leading to the conclusion not your scatterbrained conspiracy theory.

OK fair enough. If its the evidence then you need to explain the out of place works. My whole point is that we see the same level if not better than the middle or new kingdom works in old kingdom ones. Its the time factor. It may be concievable that later works could be managed with later knowledge and tech such as the use of steel and the wheel.

But what we see in the old kingdom has none of this. It is more or less out of nowhere and even superior to the later works without any modern help.

We have not even begun to look at the entire evidence all over the world for out of place works. There are too many pointing to advanced knowledge an tech well beyond what we thought to be explained by chisels and pounders.

Here is something else to consider Late Period obelisks are inferior to New Kingdom obelisks despite the technological superiority of using iron tools instead of bronze.
It points to a factor you have completely ignored its called craftmanship which can also vary like the artistic and architectural styles of the time.

As I pointed out which is something you also have ignored that the tech involved in some of these works like the vases is beyond craftmanship. In some ways its almost a conspiracy to keep claiming its sheer freehand craft to explain this. Its actually saying that freehand craftsmen some how felt and by sight alone shaped in 3D what mtaches in signatures to what we call controlled machine precision tool making.

They happened to be able to blindly guess within microns all the relational angles to all points of the works, and match almost perfectly geoometry by luck.

Art and crafts is not techincal precision tool making. It would be like getting an artist to make a precision tool for NASA parts freehand and get it near perfect. Happening once maybe it was luck. But even then its impossible because it goes beyond luck getting so many relational points correct.

The signatures match some sort of advanced lathing with a fixed point cutter able to remain steady and produce such a 3D signature. That is well beyond what ancient Egyptians tools in the records.

You have to remember that I am not disputing that there were great works later. The whole Egytian period is amazing for that time. It stands out and anyone admits that.

My point is that we see a level of knowledge and tech in the earliest dynasties full stop, that are out of place, fullstop. That don't match the tools on record, fullstop. All the debate on individual pieces whether they are old, new or middle kingdom does not change this fact.

It doesn't mean that because later works are just as good that somehow this proves old kingdom works must have been made by the traditional tools. This is the arguement I think you are trying to make. That the old kingdom works are just everyday works all made by the same method which is the orthodox tools and methods on record. Therefore the old works are nothing out of the ordinary.

Let me ask. Do you think that the signatures in the old kingdom works can be explained by the orthodox methods claimed. I think it was yourself who even identified that cuts in the granite was made by a modern tool like a circular saw due to its signature.

Can you say that the other signatures that cause us to come to the same conclusion of modern signatures that these are all actually modern forgeries and that there are no actual signatures that cause you to question that they were done with the primitive toos on record.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This 8300–7500 cal. B.C obsidian bracelet which is around 10,000 years old has evidence of sophisticated turning. When the wheel was not even suppose to have been invented or had very simple applications. Let alone controlled machine like signatures.

Where in the summary and article below does it indicate that a turning wheel was used? I am not able to read the full article. Thanks.

Multi-scale tribological analysis of the technique of manufacture of an obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük (Aceramic Neolithic, Central Anatolia)
Discussion
Our study produced evidence for skilled work of the obsidian bracelet from Aşıklı Höyük. This evidence is:
* The choice of high quality obsidian
* The use of different movements and abrasive materials for making the bracelet
* The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping
* The near absence of manufacturing errors and the ability to deal with defects
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305440311002718

 

[sjastro]

How do we know that Amenhotep’s original cartouche makes it his. Just like Ramesses who reused other pharoahs stuff.

Anyway you must have missed that I pointed out that even if it was from the middle kingdom it is still knowledge and tech beyond the capabilities of the tools on record. The whole Egyptian era has amazing works but especially early on is amazing.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point of absurdity.
Ramesses II usurped over a 100 statues and numerous monuments of Amenhotep III and by an amazing coincidence all of these were from the Old Kingdom which Amenhotep had also usurped??
What the actual evidence tells us is Amenhotep may have usurped some Middle Kingdom statues and from his great-grandfather Thutmose III.

I will ask you again given you went into detail the act of usurpation leaves tell-tale signs, explain how obelisks attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II are from the Old Kingdom when there is no evidence of erasure of the original pharaoh’s identity?

But this is what I did not want which was to get bogged down in specific examples and lose track of the overall point. Which was on a global scale of knowledge and tech that we see very early and well advanced for what we consider for that time and the primitive tools. Along with other evidence such as exeperiences and the stories told by the very people.

You don't get make a ridiculous claim the New Kingdom accomplishments in granite is based on lying pharaohs and not expect a refutation of this nonsense.

If the evidence points to what you say and I have not checked then it is what it is. I am not trying to force any conspiracy or deny there was amazing works later. Just questioning the signatures that don't match the tools even if thats later dynasties.

Actually there is little inscriptions on works from the old kingdom. Thats why it was like an open invitation to usurp these works I think.

Not if there were no old kingdom inscriptions on the old kingdom works to begin with.

So now you are making things up or to put it less diplomatically being dishonest.
Do I need to remind in your very link the discovery of the 6th dynasty granite obelisk stated “There is an inscription on one side of the obelisk, with what seems to be the beginning of the titles and the name of Queen Ankhnespepy II.”
Queen Ankhnespepy II was a Queen of the 6th dynasty pharaoh Pepy I.

Once again how did Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II leave no tell-tale signs of erasing these Old Kingdom inscriptions on obelisks?

OK fair enough. If its the evidence then you need to explain the out of place works. My whole point is that we see the same level if not better than the middle or new kingdom works in old kingdom ones. Its the time factor. It may be concievable that later works could be managed with later knowledge and tech such as the use of steel and the wheel.

But what we see in the old kingdom has none of this. It is more or less out of nowhere and even superior to the later works without any modern help.

We have not even begun to look at the entire evidence all over the world for out of place works. There are too many pointing to advanced knowledge an tech well beyond what we thought to be explained by chisels and pounders.

By focussing on the subject of obelisks not only are 18th dynasty obelisks vastly superior to their Old Kingdom counterparts but equally telling are your counterarguments based on being contradicted by your own links and resorting to a grand conspiracy theory of New Kingdom pharaohs engaging in widespread fraud would make Apollo landing denialists proud.

As I pointed out which is something you also have ignored that the tech involved in some of these works like the vases is beyond craftmanship. In some ways its almost a conspiracy to keep claiming its sheer freehand craft to explain this. Its actually saying that freehand craftsmen some how felt and by sight alone shaped in 3D what mtaches in signatures to what we call controlled machine precision tool making.

They happened to be able to blindly guess within microns all the relational angles to all points of the works, and match almost perfectly geoometry by luck.

Art and crafts is not techincal precision tool making. It would be like getting an artist to make a precision tool for NASA parts freehand and get it near perfect. Happening once maybe it was luck. But even then its impossible because it goes beyond luck getting so many relational points correct.

The signatures match some sort of advanced lathing with a fixed point cutter able to remain steady and produce such a 3D signature. That is well beyond what ancient Egyptians tools in the records.

What a profoundly ignorant bigoted statement directly against craftsmen.
I suggest you go back to the relevant thread, not only is there is zero evidence of micron accuracy as nothing has been peer reviewed but there is also a provenance issue as there is no evidence the samples tested by your youtuber conspiracy theorists were even predynastic vases.

You have to remember that I am not disputing that there were great works later. The whole Egytian period is amazing for that time. It stands out and anyone admits that.

My point is that we see a level of knowledge and tech in the earliest dynasties full stop, that are out of place, fullstop. That don't match the tools on record, fullstop. All the debate on individual pieces whether they are old, new or middle kingdom does not change this fact.

It doesn't mean that because later works are just as good that somehow this proves old kingdom works must have been made by the traditional tools. This is the arguement I think you are trying to make. That the old kingdom works are just everyday works all made by the same method which is the orthodox tools and methods on record. Therefore the old works are nothing out of the ordinary.

Let me ask. Do you think that the signatures in the old kingdom works can be explained by the orthodox methods claimed. I think it was yourself who even identified that cuts in the granite was made by a modern tool like a circular saw due to its signature.

Can you say that the other signatures that cause us to come to the same conclusion of modern signatures that these are all actually modern forgeries and that there are no actual signatures that cause you to question that they were done with the primitive toos on record.

I can understand why you get up the noses of so many posters, the issues have been discussed and HAVE BEEN DONE TO DEATH.
If don’t understand the answers, have the memory of a goldfish or in pure denial node that’s your problem.
Your argument is based on personal incredulity, has no supportive evidence and ignores the evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theory.

 

[stevevw]

Where in the summary and article below does it indicate that a turning wheel was used? I am not able to read the full article. Thanks.

It mentions
* The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping
* The bracelet’s symmetry, the movements executed during the manufacture, as well as the probable use of mechanical devices for grinding and polishing.

The piece is circular and this implies some sort of mechanical device with fixed control that rotates at high speed to cut the stone so precise. As opposed to freehand that could not produce such symmetry.

The vases have a lot more detailed analysis.

Conclusions In Summary​

Based on the best understanding we currently have of the object, and on the knowledge of normal fundamental limits of physics and laws of nature, we have to conclude:

• That this object was fabricated on a highly sophisticated subtractive manufacturing system, from a solid piece of granite.
• That the manufacturing system would require, at the very least, sophisticated mechanical technology and high-precision components.
• That the manufacturing system would necessarily have been guided by an automated control system, which could read the design as input, and produce the required motions as output.
• That a turing machine, of considerable sophistication, would most likely have been employed to create and operate on the design, and to finally transfer it to the manufacturing system.

There is no way, in which we can attribute the production of this artefact, to anyone who do not possess, at minimum, the level of technological sophistication and capabilities mentioned above. This raises some very interesting questions regarding the origin of the object, which we hope to be able to explore in future work.

Abstractions Set In Granite

This article will describe the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis of the Granite Artefact scan data, our CAD reconstruction, and some remarkable insights into the design of the object.

unsigned.io

Initial Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Vase

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

 

[stevevw]

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to the point of absurdity.
Ramesses II usurped over a 100 statues and numerous monuments of Amenhotep III and by an amazing coincidence all of these were from the Old Kingdom which Amenhotep had also usurped??
What the actual evidence tells us is Amenhotep may have usurped some Middle Kingdom statues and from his great-grandfather Thutmose III.

I will ask you again given you went into detail the act of usurpation leaves tell-tale signs, explain how obelisks attributed to Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II are from the Old Kingdom when there is no evidence of erasure of the original pharaoh’s identity?

Once again I am not saying they all belong to the old kingdom. Only ones with a question mark like the examples in the images linked. I then gave logical arguements for the possibility that other works with similar signatures may be old kingdom. For which you have not replied to.

Anyway the whole issue of authenticity is dominating now. We could go on forever debating individual pieces. I mean Egypt is just one place where these out of place signatures are happening. We could be here for weeks just on determining the authenticity of all these works.

I am only making a general point about advanced knowledge and tech happening very early in our history. The fact that we see the same level if not better works at the earliest stage of dynastic Egyptians and even predynastics is the only point.

I mean we could look at the middle and new kingdom stuff for which some also defy the tools in the records. In fact its the new kingdom where we see all the wall paintings showing how they made stuff like vases. Yet for some of the works they also defy the tools on the walls. This is still 3,500 years ago and way early for producing some of the precision and megalith works, logistics ect.

The primitive methods on the wall paintings of the later dynasties actually explain how the softer vases were done in alabasta. They are completely inadequate according to evidence from science for making hard stone vases.

You don't get make a ridiculous claim the New Kingdom accomplishments in granite is based on lying pharaohs and not expect a refutation of this nonsense.

Your creating a strawman. I never said that all works belong to the old kingdom. I questioned specific examples I gave a logical arguement why we could argue for some of these pieces being older ie middle and new kingdom sites originally had old kingdom works.

Not that every granite works was old kingdom. Don't confuse questioning some of the works applies to all pieces.

I also asked a simple question as to your position overall on this. If there were old kingdom sites with works before the later dynasties where are all the Granite works, You did not answer. Or are you saying that there were no old kingdom pieces.

So now you are making things up or to put it less diplomatically being dishonest.
Do I need to remind in your very link the discovery of the 6th dynasty granite obelisk stated “There is an inscription on one side of the obelisk, with what seems to be the beginning of the titles and the name of Queen Ankhnespepy II.”
Queen Ankhnespepy II was a Queen of the 6th dynasty pharaoh Pepy I.

But this is attributing the obelisk to near old kingdom and certainly very early around 4,300 years ago compared to Ramesses !! new kingdom. This more or less supports my arguement that we see these advanced signatures in the earliest dynasties.

But then didn't you just say above that Ramesses II inhereted the obelisks from Hatshepsut and Thutmose III only 200 or so years before. If the obelisks are being usurped from the 6th dynasty then that makes it very early and almost old kingdom.

Once again how did Hatshepsut, Thutmose III and Ramesses II leave no tell-tale signs of erasing these Old Kingdom inscriptions on obelisks?

I don't know. Above you said that the obelisks were from the 6th dynasty which is actually the Old Kingdom. I am confused now.

By focussing on the subject of obelisks not only are 18th dynasty obelisks vastly superior to their Old Kingdom counterparts but equally telling are your counterarguments based on being contradicted by your own links and resorting to a grand conspiracy theory of New Kingdom pharaohs engaging in widespread fraud would make Apollo landing denialists proud.

Your creating a strawman. Like I said I am talking about 1) out of place advanced knowledge and tech beyond what the orthodox tools show in the records and 2) that the earliest works from the old kingdom show as good if not greater in some cases works that come later.

But its not just confined to the old kingdom. The arguement is about advanced knowledge and tech that is out of place and does not match the orthodox narrative of the tools and explanations on record. So any later works from the middle or new kingdom can be included. They are still very old (3,500 years ago) and still don't match the records and narratives.

Its just that because we see these advanced knowledge and tech so early is what is impressive. Is what makes these out of place works so much more amazing and contradictory to the narratives told.

What a profoundly ignorant bigoted statement directly against craftsmen.

Look I think you are getting to upset and personal over this. Its a debate not a moral lesson lol. The moral outrage is unnecessary lol.

How is it anything immoral. When you say craftsmen what do you mean. I thought you earlier or someone said that these were artists. That the works like statues and vases for example were like art pieces. Though art can be called a craft its not the same as say adhering to engineering principles and mathmatics which requires tech not art.

An artist can freehand a piece like a vase and it does not have to be geometrically perfect. In fact part of the art is not making it perfect. The engineering and logistics in any piece has nothing to do with art.

Stating craft as an art is like the craft involved in tech is like saying artists can use a stensil and claim they make freehand art. Its not art but manufactoring and precision guided tech. Not the freehand of an artist. Theres a big difference.

I suggest you go back to the relevant thread, not only is there is zero evidence of micron accuracy as nothing has been peer reviewed but there is also a provenance issue as there is no evidence the samples tested by your youtuber conspiracy theorists were even predynastic vases.

Lol you just went on about myself appealing to provenance. Now your doing the same when I provide evidence of the teachnical knowhow in some of these works.

Like I said in the other post there have been recent additional evidence that both verifies the provenance and the advanced tech and knowledge involved in some of these vases.

From memory I think you were also saying that the cuts in granite that look like modern tech were also modern forgeries. Yet you provided no evidence. They all can't be forgeries. Your more or less doing what you complained I was doing.

I can understand why you get up the noses of so many posters, the issues have been discussed and HAVE BEEN DONE TO DEATH.

Lol another ad hominem. Yet you jump in and love it. As far as I'm concerned these types of threads are not done enough. Already we have much conflation and still no explanation for the clear evidence of advanced tech and knowledge beyond the orthodoxy of primitive toold and manpower.

Everything is modern forgeries. You recognised the modern signatures in the fine saw cuts as being from a circular saw. But you could not bring yourself to admit it was before circular saws. Cuts impossible to make with hand held copper saws.

Why can't you also at least acknowledge the clear evidence for similar kinds of signatures in very early works well beyond the traditional primitive tools for that time.

If don’t understand the answers, have the memory of a goldfish or in pure denial node that’s your problem.
Your argument is based on personal incredulity, has no supportive evidence and ignores the evidence which contradicts your conspiracy theory.

It is you who is resorting to name calling, not me. If you have to resort to such tactics then you are not a very good debater. You make it personal too easy.

But this is a hallmark of the kind of responses some give to any suggestion of past alternative advanced knowlede and tech. Or even present alternative knowledge. We have no memory, are stupid, lack integrity, even liars. Logical fallacies and personal attacks on the messager and sources.

If you don't like it then simply don't reply rather than decend into name calling.

Do you even believe there is alternative knowledge beyond what we know in the past. That there is no transcedent knowledge such as spiritual knowledge and knowledge from conscious experiences of nature and reality. That which is beyond the empiricle science.

Or even technical knowledge of nature that is based in science but was somehow found through a different means that was associated with spirituality and nature. Just getting a gauge of your overall metaphysical beliefs on this.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It mentions
* The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping
* The bracelet’s symmetry, the movements executed during the manufacture, as well as the probable use of mechanical devices for grinding and polishing.

The piece is circular and this implies some sort of mechanical device with fixed control that rotates at high speed to cut the stone so precise. As opposed to freehand that could not produce such symmetry.

The vases have a lot more detailed analysis.

Conclusions In Summary​

Based on the best understanding we currently have of the object, and on the knowledge of normal fundamental limits of physics and laws of nature, we have to conclude:

• That this object was fabricated on a highly sophisticated subtractive manufacturing system, from a solid piece of granite.
• That the manufacturing system would require, at the very least, sophisticated mechanical technology and high-precision components.
• That the manufacturing system would necessarily have been guided by an automated control system, which could read the design as input, and produce the required motions as output.
• That a turing machine, of considerable sophistication, would most likely have been employed to create and operate on the design, and to finally transfer it to the manufacturing system.

There is no way, in which we can attribute the production of this artefact, to anyone who do not possess, at minimum, the level of technological sophistication and capabilities mentioned above. This raises some very interesting questions regarding the origin of the object, which we hope to be able to explore in future work.

Abstractions Set In Granite

This article will describe the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis of the Granite Artefact scan data, our CAD reconstruction, and some remarkable insights into the design of the object.

unsigned.io

Initial Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Vase

Geometric Analysis of The Pre-Dynastic Granite Artifact

An interesting geometrical analysis of an extremely precise and high-resolution mesh, obtained via structured light scanning of a granite artifact, that is purpoted to originate from pre-dynastic Egypt.

unsigned.io

Have you actually loked at the picture of bracelet fragment in the article? It doesn't appear to be made on a lathe. The central ridge moves in relation to intact side of the bracelet fragment. Or what do you mean with a turning wheel?

 

[sjastro]

Once again I am not saying they all belong to the old kingdom. Only ones with a question mark like the examples in the images linked. I then gave logical arguements for the possibility that other works with similar signatures may be old kingdom. For which you have not replied to.

Anyway the whole issue of authenticity is dominating now. We could go on forever debating individual pieces. I mean Egypt is just one place where these out of place signatures are happening. We could be here for weeks just on determining the authenticity of all these works.

I am only making a general point about advanced knowledge and tech happening very early in our history. The fact that we see the same level if not better works at the earliest stage of dynastic Egyptians and even predynastics is the only point.

I mean we could look at the middle and new kingdom stuff for which some also defy the tools in the records. In fact its the new kingdom where we see all the wall paintings showing how they made stuff like vases. Yet for some of the works they also defy the tools on the walls. This is still 3,500 years ago and way early for producing some of the precision and megalith works, logistics ect.

The primitive methods on the wall paintings of the later dynasties actually explain how the softer vases were done in alabasta. They are completely inadequate according to evidence from science for making hard stone vases.

Your creating a strawman. I never said that all works belong to the old kingdom. I questioned specific examples I gave a logical arguement why we could argue for some of these pieces being older ie middle and new kingdom sites originally had old kingdom works.

Not that every granite works was old kingdom. Don't confuse questioning some of the works applies to all pieces.

I also asked a simple question as to your position overall on this. If there were old kingdom sites with works before the later dynasties where are all the Granite works, You did not answer. Or are you saying that there were no old kingdom pieces.

But this is attributing the obelisk to near old kingdom and certainly very early around 4,300 years ago compared to Ramesses !! new kingdom. This more or less supports my arguement that we see these advanced signatures in the earliest dynasties.

But then didn't you just say above that Ramesses II inhereted the obelisks from Hatshepsut and Thutmose III only 200 or so years before. If the obelisks are being usurped from the 6th dynasty then that makes it very early and almost old kingdom.

I don't know. Above you said that the obelisks were from the 6th dynasty which is actually the Old Kingdom. I am confused now.

Your creating a strawman. Like I said I am talking about 1) out of place advanced knowledge and tech beyond what the orthodox tools show in the records and 2) that the earliest works from the old kingdom show as good if not greater in some cases works that come later.

But its not just confined to the old kingdom. The arguement is about advanced knowledge and tech that is out of place and does not match the orthodox narrative of the tools and explanations on record. So any later works from the middle or new kingdom can be included. They are still very old (3,500 years ago) and still don't match the records and narratives.

Its just that because we see these advanced knowledge and tech so early is what is impressive. Is what makes these out of place works so much more amazing and contradictory to the narratives told.

Look I think you are getting to upset and personal over this. Its a debate not a moral lesson lol. The moral outrage is unnecessary lol.

How is it anything immoral. When you say craftsmen what do you mean. I thought you earlier or someone said that these were artists. That the works like statues and vases for example were like art pieces. Though art can be called a craft its not the same as say adhering to engineering principles and mathmatics which requires tech not art.

An artist can freehand a piece like a vase and it does not have to be geometrically perfect. In fact part of the art is not making it perfect. The engineering and logistics in any piece has nothing to do with art.

Stating craft as an art is like the craft involved in tech is like saying artists can use a stensil and claim they make freehand art. Its not art but manufactoring and precision guided tech. Not the freehand of an artist. Theres a big difference.

Lol you just went on about myself appealing to provenance. Now your doing the same when I provide evidence of the teachnical knowhow in some of these works.

Like I said in the other post there have been recent additional evidence that both verifies the provenance and the advanced tech and knowledge involved in some of these vases.

From memory I think you were also saying that the cuts in granite that look like modern tech were also modern forgeries. Yet you provided no evidence. They all can't be forgeries. Your more or less doing what you complained I was doing.

Lol another ad hominem. Yet you jump in and love it. As far as I'm concerned these types of threads are not done enough. Already we have much conflation and still no explanation for the clear evidence of advanced tech and knowledge beyond the orthodoxy of primitive toold and manpower.

Everything is modern forgeries. You recognised the modern signatures in the fine saw cuts as being from a circular saw. But you could not bring yourself to admit it was before circular saws. Cuts impossible to make with hand held copper saws.

Why can't you also at least acknowledge the clear evidence for similar kinds of signatures in very early works well beyond the traditional primitive tools for that time.

It is you who is resorting to name calling, not me. If you have to resort to such tactics then you are not a very good debater. You make it personal too easy.

But this is a hallmark of the kind of responses some give to any suggestion of past alternative advanced knowlede and tech. Or even present alternative knowledge. We have no memory, are stupid, lack integrity, even liars. Logical fallacies and personal attacks on the messager and sources.

If you don't like it then simply don't reply rather than decend into name calling.

Do you even believe there is alternative knowledge beyond what we know in the past. That there is no transcedent knowledge such as spiritual knowledge and knowledge from conscious experiences of nature and reality. That which is beyond the empiricle science.

Or even technical knowledge of nature that is based in science but was somehow found through a different means that was associated with spirituality and nature. Just getting a gauge of your overall metaphysical beliefs on this.

Since your post has pulled out the victim card and includes gaslighting me, the solution is simple, stop posting incoherent rubbish.
I’m not the only poster in this thread who has stated words to the effect ‘I never said that…’, and I suggest you leave the analysis of my posts or of others to those that are capable of doing so.
This is not a personal attack but based on the evidence of your responses which includes ignoring ‘inconvenient’ facts, changing stories in midstream and contradicting yourself on a regular basis all of which I have gone into detail.

Since you are fond of using the term logical fallacies without understanding what the term actually means, this thread is a logical fallacy involving a false dichotomy where instead of presenting the case of the Old Kingdom using superior technologies it has become mainstream is wrong without proof or justification which makes your premise correct by default.

 

[sjastro]

Since predynastic granite vases has raised its head again here the comparisons between what youtubers do and professional scientists on the subject.

Here is a picture of granite.

The light areas are mainly feldspars, the dark regions are biotite. Biotite is highly reflective even on grounded surfaces such as predynastic Egyptian vases.

Firstly the youtubers. What type of scanning did they employ, if under visible or structured light the highly reflected light from biotite is like noise and can introduce errors. CT scanning using X-rays which are not reflected eliminates this potential problem.

Next is the model they used.
Since the Egyptians left no engineering drawings and therefore no tolerances, their model was to produce an idealized or perfectly symmetrical granite vase from which the ‘accuracy’ of the scanned vase could be calculated by how much it deviated from the perfect model.
They used an open source CAD tool where they had to manually manipulate scanned primitive data from circle/cylinder cross sections, wall thicknesses, diameters etc onto the model to see how well it fitted.

Here is an immediate red flag, you can’t rely on sub millimetre accuracy when alignment can vary from person to person. Then there is the bias risk, humans have a tendency of unconsciously getting results they at looking for, in this case of fitting the primitive data to match.

By comparison what would have professionals scientists have done?

To deal with reflectivity issues they would scan the vase using;

(1) Optical/Photogrammetry
(2) Laser
(3) Structured light
(4) CT (X-ray)

If the results are constant reflectivity is not an issue.

Next is to use metrology software approved by professional labs.
There is no manual alignment instead they use statistical best fit algorithms, full error analysis, quantified tolerances and cross validation with actual physical measurements. Conclusions are based on numbers not because the visual fit looks good.

So what do the professional results state for predynastic and early dynastic vases.
Given the relative dearth of predynastic and early dynastic granite vases which are certified, the vast majority of vases were made of schist, alabaster, greywacke and breccia. Being softer however one would expect the figuring of these vases to have been much easier making 'more perfect' vases possible.

There is no confirmation of micron level results for symmetry, variable wall thickness, axial deviation etc, on any of the vases claimed by the youtubers, which is further complicated on doubt whether the vase(s) they tested were even predynastic in origin.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I clipped these paragraphs from your response to @sjastro , but they are on the vases, so I will respond to these.

I mean we could look at the middle and new kingdom stuff for which some also defy the tools in the records. In fact its the new kingdom where we see all the wall paintings showing how they made stuff like vases. Yet for some of the works they also defy the tools on the walls. This is still 3,500 years ago and way early for producing some of the precision and megalith works, logistics ect.This "way too early" is merely an assertion.

The primitive methods on the wall paintings of the later dynasties actually explain how the softer vases were done in alabasta. They are completely inadequate according to evidence from science for making hard stone vases.

The problem with this claim is that vases of this type can be made from harder stones like biotite and granite as was shown in the video made by amateur experimental archeologists (as I recall they were artists by profession) that I linked in one of posts linked on Sunday. They made a pretty good vessel after just 3 attempts without any prior experience and only the drawings on the walls to suggest a method. They did not have quite the smooth polish of the vases you like to talk about, but they are certainly examples of the general method being useful for not just softer stones.

But its not just confined to the old kingdom. The arguement is about advanced knowledge and tech that is out of place and does not match the orthodox narrative of the tools and explanations on record. So any later works from the middle or new kingdom can be included. They are still very old (3,500 years ago) and still don't match the records and narratives.

I don't know how moving them earlier makes the method less "out of place".

When you say craftsmen what do you mean. I thought you earlier or someone said that these were artists.

(I shall presumptively answer for sjastro here..) Craftsman or artisan, as in someone skilled in working with the materials and applying some level of creativity to their output. The work with their hands to craft things. Like most artists, artisans, and craftsman they work to a requested general (and often quite specific) form. Most of this is about distinctions that don't really matter and depend on how you might define the differences related to creative freedom. These are vessels with specific usage (for holding some specific kind of thing) with a specific material made using hand tools in a workshop with many workers working simultaneously with masters and apprentices, etc. There are similar workshops making pottery, carving statutes, etc.

That the works like statues and vases for example were like art pieces. Though art can be called a craft its not the same as say adhering to engineering principles and mathmatics which requires tech not art.

No one has even demonstrated some sort of a standard form that is replicated over and over. The "mathematics embeded" are just numerology as I pointed out in one of those linked posts from the old threads.

An artist can freehand a piece like a vase and it does not have to be geometrically perfect. In fact part of the art is not making it perfect. The engineering and logistics in any piece has nothing to do with art.

The reproduced methods showed clearly how the vases had axisymmetry and slow changes in the curvature of the vessels.

Stating craft as an art is like the craft involved in tech is like saying artists can use a stensil and claim they make freehand art. Its not art but manufactoring and precision guided tech. Not the freehand of an artist. Theres a big difference.

A reference stencil might have been used to get the rough shape before the smooth grinding brings out the shape.

Have you watched this 6 minute video of a modern recreation attempt?

 

[stevevw]

Have you actually loked at the picture of bracelet fragment in the article? It doesn't appear to be made on a lathe. The central ridge moves in relation to intact side of the bracelet fragment. Or what do you mean with a turning wheel?

This is the problem we are going to have in that everyones going to have an opinion on what it looks like. Some items look obvious. The signatures look like a what is produced by modern tech such a a circular saw cut or rotation marks. Or have near perfect sysmetry that they could not have been done freehand.

All I am going by is the paper and the Tribological analysis. Which is basically examining the wear marks to determine how it was made. From what I understand they are suggesting "The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping".

In other works controlled rotation to grind or cut away material away. Rather than freehand which would leave different signatures which are less stable and inconsistent. Maybe because this is very early and well before the dynastic Egyptians that these were first attempts.

I don't really know. Do you think there was some sort of advanced way of producing some of these works that do seem to have near perfect symmetry and geometry as though made on some sort of wheel or lathe with a fixed point. Or these are freehand without any guides and by grinding with sticks and flint and then rubbing with abrasion..

Like we see on the wall paintings.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

This is the problem we are going to have in that everyones going to have an opinion on what it looks like. Some items look obvious. The signatures look like a what is produced by modern tech such a a circular saw cut or rotation marks. Or have near perfect sysmetry that they could not have been done freehand.

All I am going by is the paper and the Tribological analysis. Which is basically examining the wear marks to determine how it was made. From what I understand they are suggesting "The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping".

In other works controlled rotation to grind or cut away material away. Rather than freehand which would leave different signatures which are less stable and inconsistent. Maybe because this is very early and well before the dynastic Egyptians that these were first attempts.

I don't really know. Do you think there was some sort of advanced way of producing some of these works that do seem to have near perfect symmetry and geometry as though made on some sort of wheel or lathe with a fixed point. Or these are freehand without any guides and by grinding with sticks and flint and then rubbing with abrasion..

Like we see on the wall paintings.

I don't have the article in front of me right now, but I did search for both "lathe" (my contribution) and "turning wheel". I didn't find the expressions. I might have misspelled something. The article doesn't imply that it must mean in your words "rotation to grind or cut away material". What do you believe is the rotational axis? What do you mean when you say the bracelet have perfect symmetry? Have you looked at the pictures? The central ridge is not perfectly symmetrical nor is it perpendicular to the hole for the arm.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is the problem we are going to have in that everyones going to have an opinion on what it looks like. Some items look obvious. The signatures look like a what is produced by modern tech such a a circular saw cut or rotation marks. Or have near perfect sysmetry that they could not have been done freehand.

All I am going by is the paper and the Tribological analysis. Which is basically examining the wear marks to determine how it was made. From what I understand they are suggesting "The creation of a complex form and the control of symmetry during the shaping".

In other works controlled rotation to grind or cut away material away. Rather than freehand which would leave different signatures which are less stable and inconsistent. Maybe because this is very early and well before the dynastic Egyptians that these were first attempts.

I don't really know. Do you think there was some sort of advanced way of producing some of these works that do seem to have near perfect symmetry and geometry as though made on some sort of wheel or lathe with a fixed point. Or these are freehand without any guides and by grinding with sticks and flint and then rubbing with abrasion..

Like we see on the wall paintings.

Demonstrate that the symmetry is near perfect, after defining - quantitatively- what is near perfect. Further, produce authoritative studies that declare "primitive" techniques of working materials could not match that level of perfection. Absent such response the only thing that rings true in your post is the remark, "I don't really know".

 

[stevevw]

I clipped these paragraphs from your response to @sjastro , but they are on the vases, so I will respond to these.

The problem with this claim is that vases of this type can be made from harder stones like biotite and granite as was shown in the video made by amateur experimental archeologists (as I recall they were artists by profession) that I linked in one of posts linked on Sunday. They made a pretty good vessel after just 3 attempts without any prior experience and only the drawings on the walls to suggest a method. They did not have quite the smooth polish of the vases you like to talk about, but they are certainly examples of the general method being useful for not just softer stones.

The problem is the depictions on the wall actually do represent the making of the softer alabasta vases with that method. Such as these at the Seqarra museum.

The attempts to do this in granite have not replicated the precision. If you grind away at most things it will gradually wear. I think the attempt took something like 2 years for one medium vase and they still did not thin the inside. It was like 10% points less precise.

This is what I can't understand. These vases have the signatures of modern precision parts which we make with modern tech because its impossible and rediculous to make them by hand. But still some want to force everything into the primitive tools no matter what and some magical ability of an artist to feel their way to perfection.

They actually seperate the precision hard stone vases on the opposite wall in a seperate case to show they have two completely different signatures and from different times. You only have to look at them to see the start difference. That they come from the earliest dynasties and even predynasty as Djsor inhereted them from an earlier stage is amazing for that time.

I don't know how moving them earlier makes the method less "out of place".

I think its a massive difference when you consider the context of what we are talking about. Compared to say the new kingdom works this is over a 1,000 years earlier. If we are talking predynastics then it could be 7 or 8,000 years or earlier.

The logic being the earlier we go back the more primitive we were suppose to be. So showing a similar if not greater level of tech very early is back the front. Though the later works being still great hard to explain the more time that goes by the more we discover like the wheel and steel.

(I shall presumptively answer for sjastro here..) Craftsman or artisan, as in someone skilled in working with the materials and applying some level of creativity to their output. The work with their hands to craft things. Like most artists, artisans, and craftsman they work to a requested general (and often quite specific) form.

Yes and usually an artistic form with licence. Not technically restricted. That would defeat the purpose of art. Unless it was to actually make known geometric shapes. But even then it could be freehand and not perfect and still shoing those shapes as art. As opposed to technically conforming those shapes to the geometry for which you cannot do freehand. You can guess a 3D set shape within 1,000s of an inch in all relations.

Like I said it would be like an artists with no technical engineering or geometry shaping a precision part for NASA without any controlled output to ensure the specific lines fall within the shape.

Most of this is about distinctions that don't really matter and depend on how you might define the differences related to creative freedom. These are vessels with specific usage (for holding some specific kind of thing) with a specific material made using hand tools in a workshop with many workers working simultaneously with masters and apprentices, etc. There are similar workshops making pottery, carving statutes, etc.

It still doesn't account for the precision, the consistent precision. We are talking precision parts. I think a freehand artist could not make a precision tool without some sort of fixed guide to ensure the type of near perfect precision. Thats why we use CNC's for precision parts.

No one has even demonstrated some sort of a standard form that is replicated over and over. The "mathematics embeded" are just numerology as I pointed out in one of those linked posts from the old threads.

I am not sure what you mean , "mathematics embeded" are just numerology". Its not just maths, but also geometry where the 3D vase conforms to certain ratios like the Pi and the Golden ration (phi) and other geometric shapes. As well as near perfect horizontal and vertical axis to center all the way down the body and within 1,000s of an inch. Not just in 2D but 3D.

To be able to produce such output by blind freehand without any fixed guide to ensure math and geomtry would be like freehanding a precision tool for NASA I reckon.

The reproduced methods showed clearly how the vases had axisymmetry and slow changes in the curvature of the vessels.

They were no where near as good as the originals.

A reference stencil might have been used to get the rough shape before the smooth grinding brings out the shape.

Theres no way that the stencil is 3D or that the maker could replicate the exact stencil by freehand. But this shows that some sort of guidence was necessary. Its not just the stensil but producing that stensil in 3D with a crontrolled output that guides the shape to the stensil. Thats usually called a CNC system.

Have you watched this 6 minute video of a modern recreation attempt?

The problem is the ancient tools do work. They are behind the softer vases. They will eventually produce a vase. But even the best attempts are no where near the same. Humans cannot reproduce such precision without an external guide.

 

[stevevw]

I don't have the article in front of me right now, but I did search for both "lathe" (my contribution) and "turning wheel". I didn't find the expressions. I might have misspelled something. The article doesn't imply that it must mean in your words "rotation to grind or cut away material". What do you believe is the rotational axis? What do you mean when you say the bracelet have perfect symmetry? Have you looked at the pictures? The central ridge is not perfectly symmetrical nor is it perpendicular to the hole for the arm.

I am not sure the braclet had the perfect symmetry of the vases. But because the piece is round the symmetry implies the rotation of the cutting or grinding.

When the article says machine like and symmetry then this implies a mechanical rotating device. But I suppose something like a braclet could be made by hand as its less complicated then a vase. It more or less has one shape to conform to, a circle. Whereas the vases have many shapes to conform with including circles of different sizes, paralelles, angles, horizontals and verticle relations ect

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I am not sure the braclet had the perfect symmetry of the vases. But because the piece is round the symmetry implies the rotation of the cutting or grinding.

When the article says machine like and symmetry then this implies a mechanical rotating device. But I suppose something like a braclet could be made by hand as its less complicated then a vase. It more or less has one shape to conform to, a circle. Whereas the vases have many shapes to conform with including circles of different sizes, paralelles, angles, horizontals and verticle relations ect

Machine like? I took another look at the paper and couldn't find "machine" (except in the reference list). The bracelet fragment is approximately a quarter/fifth of the circle of the full bracelet. It has a central ridge, that would seemingly snake around if you put the rotational axis through the hole of he bracelet. Mechanical device, does not mean a rotating machine necessarily. It could be any device that allows the tools and the material to move in a controlled way in relation to each other, think a template.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem is the depictions on the wall actually do represent the making of the softer alabasta vases with that method. Such as these at the Seqarra museum.

You don't know that. Even if the illustration represents the use of the technique at a time where they were making vessels from softer stone, it tells you nothing about the undocumented techniques of earlier craftsman.

The attempts to do this in granite have not replicated the precision. If you grind away at most things it will gradually wear. I think the attempt took something like 2 years for one medium vase and they still did not thin the inside.

Oh, so you have seen the video I link at the end of this post. Your standards for "good enough" are ridiculous. Their goal wasn't to make some specific, stupid vase measured by a conman, it was to discover and demonstrate the techniques used.

It was like 10% points less precise.

Which is a meaningless sentence.

This is what I can't understand. These vases have the signatures of modern precision parts which we make with modern tech because its impossible and rediculous to make them by hand. But still some want to force everything into the primitive tools no matter what and some magical ability of an artist to feel their way to perfection.

I have seen and read a lot of content from the lost ancient advanced civilization crowd and I can't say I've ever seen a more condescending statement from a supporter of their stuff. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor and put into your favorite search engine "hand thrown pottery". You'll find all sorts of things made with nothing more than a pottery wheel and a few simple shaping tools that are just as axisymmetric as the vases and bowls you keep touting. All done by artists just "feeling their way to perfection". (We'll talk about this precision business further down.)

View attachment 369750 View attachment 369754
They actually seperate the precision hard stone vases on the opposite wall in a seperate case to show they have two completely different signatures and from different times. You only have to look at them to see the start difference. That they come from the earliest dynasties and even predynasty as Djsor inhereted them from an earlier stage is amazing for that time.

That's how museums work. They tend to sort objects by period and place of origin. What I see mostly is differences in style. The old ones look like well-crafted stone versions of pottery for storage. The newer ones are tall and thin and look more like decorative pieces such as those used to hold cut flowers. (We'll talk about this precision business further down.)

I think its a massive difference when you consider the context of what we are talking about. Compared to say the new kingdom works this is over a 1,000 years earlier. If we are talking predynastics then it could be 7 or 8,000 years or earlier.

The logic being the earlier we go back the more primitive we were suppose to be. So showing a similar if not greater level of tech very early is back the front. Though the later works being still great hard to explain the more time that goes by the more we discover like the wheel and steel.

You could go and learn about the actual history of Egyptian stone vessels. The development of technique, style, materials, function, etc. As you can see:

Stone vessels in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

Earlier bowls and vases have simpler, more geometric shapes. Some of the later ones on that page get quite "artistic" and fancy.

Yes and usually an artistic form with licence. Not technically restricted. That would defeat the purpose of art. Unless it was to actually make known geometric shapes. But even then it could be freehand and not perfect and still shoing those shapes as art. As opposed to technically conforming those shapes to the geometry for which you cannot do freehand. You can guess a 3D set shape within 1,000s of an inch in all relations.

As we have noted many times, high accuracy axisymmetry is quite achievable when you rotate the object during crafting even "freehand". As to the particular axisymmetric shape, no one has demonstrated that any of the "precise" shapes had special meanings or purposes beyond the basic functional needs for basic forms.

Like I said it would be like an artists with no technical engineering or geometry shaping a precision part for NASA without any controlled output to ensure the specific lines fall within the shape.

It still doesn't account for the precision, the consistent precision. We are talking precision parts. I think a freehand artist could not make a precision tool without some sort of fixed guide to ensure the type of near perfect precision. Thats why we use CNC's for precision parts.

Why would a vase be a "precision part". That whole claim makes no sense.

I am not sure what you mean , "mathematics embeded" are just numerology". Its not just maths, but also geometry where the 3D vase conforms to certain ratios like the Pi and the Golden ration (phi) and other geometric shapes.

Geometry *IS* math. As I discussed in those old threads the "special numbers and ratios" aren't actually meaningful. (And the ancient Egyptians aren't known to have found the "golden ratio" as it is Greek in origin.)

It is just numerology. They made a bunch of measurements of circles they drew on a picture of the vase and looked for combinations that they could assign meaning too. That's how numerology works. It is meaningless. Any "math" Dunn and his merry band of pranksters find are just illusions. There is no evidence that any of them were intentional.

As well as near perfect horizontal and vertical axis to center all the way down the body and within 1,000s of an inch. Not just in 2D but 3D.

The experimental vase linked in the YT video I posted earlier is almost that level. It is not some sort of spectacular achievement.

To be able to produce such output by blind freehand without any fixed guide to ensure math and geomtry would be like freehanding a precision tool for NASA I reckon.

It's a vase, not a part for a rocket motor. Why compare it to such a device?

They were no where near as good as the originals.

Good grief. It was an experiment to examine the techniques. Not to reproduce the product of a master artisan. Who cares if they didn't spend weeks polishing it to a fine sheen? (Well, you apparently.)

Theres no way that the stencil is 3D or that the maker could replicate the exact stencil by freehand. But this shows that some sort of guidence was necessary. Its not just the stensil but producing that stensil in 3D with a crontrolled output that guides the shape to the stensil.

Other than the alleged embedded math (and set that aside to answer this question), what evidence is there that the form of any of these objects were precisely designed? Are there two objects that match within this "1/1000 inch" tolerance anywhere? If this is some sort of manufacturing process of standard objects, where is a pair of identical objects?

Thats usually called a CNC system.

Well there we go... Chris Dunn's fantasy of computer controlled machining. What utter nonsense. You must know that is nuts, right?

The problem is the ancient tools do work. They are behind the softer vases. They will eventually produce a vase. But even the best attempts are no where near the same. Humans cannot reproduce such precision without an external guide.

This is getting pathetic. You didn't like the first one because it was a touch soft (marble) and not as smooth as one produced by a master craftsman with stone and copper tools. You want hardness? You want diorite? Well here it is, and no cheating with copper tools, only bone, stone, leather and wood. Yep, that's right they drilled holes into *harder* stone using bones from a cow. Here is the video of that project cued up to the "glamor shot" of the finished vase.

Record dismissal here --->

 

[sjastro]

This is what I can't understand. These vases have the signatures of modern precision parts which we make with modern tech because its impossible and rediculous to make them by hand. But still some want to force everything into the primitive tools no matter what and some magical ability of an artist to feel their way to perfection.

View attachment 369750 View attachment 369754
They actually seperate the precision hard stone vases on the opposite wall in a seperate case to show they have two completely different signatures and from different times. You only have to look at them to see the start difference. That they come from the earliest dynasties and even predynasty as Djsor inhereted them from an earlier stage is amazing for that time.

What nonsense are going on about now? All I see is a collection of vases of different sizes which is the stark difference.
Do you possess super vision and can discern micron level variations in an image??

This leads to my previous post.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Though I have a graduate history degree, I've largely given up on discussing history in this forum. I saw this thread when it was first posted, but didn't bother to watch the video. Now, because I was bored, I did. I'm not surprised by what he said. I'm not saying I agree with his specific...

www.christianforums.com

The naivety you display in blindly accepting the results from some youtuber's amateurish efforts when compared to mainstream science who have never been able to reproduce micron levels on their certified museum samples.