There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

As with predynastic vases, Petrie's measurements of Khufu's coffer are nowhere near the levels that can be delivered by CNC equipment.

I keep referring back to the plain words in the conclusions which clearly state the exact opposite. Here they are again for the 10th time.

11 out of 22 stone vessels in Matt Beall's collection fell into the ‘precise’ category, with several of these objects being 10 more precise than the contemporary objects made on a lathe. The vases ‘V4’ and ‘V18’ appear to be 10 times more precise (in terms of the quality metric M) compared to the three modern vases.

That is several vases which have good provedence and were actually displayed at the Petrie museum on loan were on par with modern CNC machining and two of them were 10 times greater on the quality metric than modern CNC vases.

This same precision was repeated in the guage metrology. We have two independent tests with different methods and in fact we have several methods now including X ray, Lazer, picographic scans and guage tests all repeating the same findings. Repeated independent science is good science.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The cylindricity and concentricity measurement is beyond its tolerance levels. But theres no context as to which vase you are referring to.

What are you trying to achieve with this. Are you saying there is no evidence in these vases of any sophisticated lathe work. Never mind complaining about individual measures. Some vases were less precise than others and no one is claiming that all vases are precise.

The point is that some are and they are on par with modern tech. I keep referring you to the conclusions of the tests. Specifically the predynastic vases which show high precision as stated in clear plain words by the testers. I have on one hand you complaining that these vases are nothing special and on the other experts saying the complete opposite.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study​

The method is based on the metrological analysis of the 3D scans of round objects where a scan is divided into a set of 2D slices that are evaluated for circularity and concentricity.

The method was tested on a set of 27 3D scans including 22 objects from Matt Beall’s predynastic Egyptian stone vessel collection, 3 scans of modern stone vases made on a lathe, and 2 scans of contemporary stone vessels purposefully made using only primitive hand tools consistent with our understanding of the ancient Egyptian stone works.

The analysis of the 27 scans revealed that all objects in the data set fall into two distinct categories: the ‘imprecise’ class, which is consistent with manual fashioning using primitive hand tools, and the ‘precise’ class, which is consistent with the use of precision machinery. It was surprising to see that 11 out of 22 stone vessels in Matt Beall's collection fell into the ‘precise’ category, with several of these objects being 10 more precise than the contemporary objects made on a lathe.

Class Averages

The ‘PRECISE’ class average errors are as follows:
● <> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm);
● <> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm).

Such surprising precision indicates a highly advanced manufacturing technique consistent with machining on a lathe as the modern lathe-made vases ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘M3’ fall into this class.

It is nothing short of astonishing to find that the most ‘precise’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection (e.g. ‘V18’ and ‘V4’) are characterized by the circularity error = 0.6 thousands of an inch (15 microns) and the centering error = 0.1 thousandths of an inch (2.5 microns). The centering error of the vase ‘V18’ is actually below the resolving ability of the analysis method used (which is 0.2 thousandths of an inch). The vases ‘V4’ and ‘V18’ appear to be 10 times more precise (in terms of the quality metric M) compared to the three modern vases.

Lathe Marks
Given these results (the quality metrics consistent with the modern objects), I conclude that the ‘precise’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection were machined using advanced tools.

https://maximus.energy/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Precision-and-Classification-of-Predynastic-Egyptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf

We get it Steve -- some of Beall's vases are fakes like V18.

 

[stevevw]

To produce the same patterns, take a rock of hard material and start rubbing back and forth. That's all. Dolerite balls have been found in Egyptian quarries, and while some think they might have been pounding tools and some think that they might be discarded angular pounding tools, they could simply be from rubbing them back and forth against the stone. Stay in one position and do that over and over and over again. Ridges are likely a feature, not a bug, because simply grinding over a larger area in a circular motion would prevent that. The thing about ridges are they are easier to break than a solid surface, so if you grind it down you can use a copper or bronze chisel to knock the ridges off and start all over again.

The use of dolerite may also have implications in other grinding techniques.

But would not you think that pounding is just that, pounding away at all the surface to pound it down. Why leave ridges if they are easily breakable.

It would take more effort to leave the ridges as you would have to make a concerted effort to leave the ridges. It would be like making an art work in itself. Rather than just pounding everything in sight and not having to worry about missing parts lol.

I don't know. Did you watch the video as it explains there are different types of scoop marks. But these types of scoops are all over the world and no pounders were found. They are also different sizes and some are long like someone used a trowel to smear the suface like when applying plaster. Very strange.

These images are from the video. I think the pic in the middle is from China which looks very similar to the marks are Aswan's unfinished obelisk. The first one is from Sacsayhuaman Peru.

But its the 3rd pic that is of most interest. See how the top layer of the wall has an imprint of the bottom of the stones that sat on them as though the stone was soft and they melded into each other and up between the gaps. Very strange witness mark.

As the commentator mentions why would stone workers bother to shape the layers to the shape of each other and smooth them when they would be covered. What do you think is happening.

 

[stevevw]

We get it Steve -- some of Beall's vases are fakes like V18.

Ah now the truth is coming out. You agreed all along that some of these vases do have modern signatures that could not have been made by predynastics. But now you say they are fakes.

I guess the Petrie museum has a case to answer because they were actually on loan to the Petrie museum who displayed them as genuine predynastic vases. You will also have to explain how another couple have provedence going back to 1960s and 1800s. I guess there was a market for precision vases in the 60s and 1800s.

They knew precision was the key selling point. They did not mind losing money in making such precision if they could even as these types of machines were not available. But even if they coul;d they were rare and expensive for some back street fake antiquities dealer to pay for and make a profit. Let alone have access to. Give me a break.

But its progress. At least your acknowledging that these vases have modern day signatures that could not have been produced by the predynastics or even the old kingdom as the potters wheel only came about in the middle kingdom. Thats whats on the wall afterall and we must go by whats on the wall. No matter what the witness marks say.

 

[BCP1928]

Ah now the truth is coming out. You agreed all along that some of these vases do have modern signatures that could not have been made by predynastics. But now you say they are fakes.

I guess the Petrie museum has a case to answer because they were actually on loan to the Petrie museum who displayed them as genuine predynastic vases. You will also have to explain how another couple have provedence going back to 1960s and 1800s. I guess there was a market for precision vases in the 60s and 1800s.

They knew precision was the key selling point. They did not mind losing money in making such precision if they could even as these types of machines were not available. But even if they coul;d they were rare and expensive for some back street fake antiquities dealer to pay for and make a profit. Let alone have access to. Give me a break.

But its progress. At least your acknowledging that these vases have modern day signatures that could not have been produced by the predynastics or even the old kingdom as the potters wheel only came about in the middle kingdom. Thats whats on the wall afterall and we must go by whats on the wall. No matter what the witness marks say.

As usual when trying to follow your arguments I have entirely lost track of your point. You are apparently trying to demonstrate that ancient Egyptian craftsmanship (as we presently understand it) was incompetent to produce some of the artifacts we have found. You are apparently trying to convince us that Egyptian craftsmen were using superior tools and techniques inherited from earlier craftsmen now lost to history, tools and techniques which the Egyptians subsequently abandoned, leaving no trace. Unfortunately, the proposition seems fanciful and unnecessary to most of us and you have pretty much bogged down trying to convince us of it. Nonetheless, you have put a lot of work in so it must be important to you. Why?

 

[stevevw]

As usual when trying to follow your arguments I have entirely lost track of your point. You are apparently trying to demonstrate that ancient Egyptian craftsmanship (as we presently understand it) was incompetent to produce some of the artifacts we have found. You are apparently trying to convince us that Egyptian craftsmen were using superior tools and techniques inherited from earlier craftsmen now lost to history, tools and techniques which the Egyptians subsequently abandoned, leaving no trace. Unfortunately, the proposition seems fanciful and unnecessary to most of us and you have pretty much bogged down trying to convince us of it. Nonetheless, you have put a lot of work in so it must be important to you. Why?

Its a topic that sparks my interest you could say and by the looks of how it took off it seems its the same for others. Whenever looking for something to investigate I like the past and history. I am also a bit OCD so I tend to get fixated and want to keep digging lol. Pardon the pun.

I don't think I have failed in showing that these ancients had pretty sophisticated tech and knowledge. Considering that we can clearly show as a general example that the ability to craft such precision works at a time when the potters wheel was not even about and the primitive methods on wall paintings some 2,000 years later were still inadequate to account for the signatures.

That tests show that at least some of these works require modern tech (not necessarily like todays) but something beyond the primitive methods claimed and look similar to modern tech. So much so that skeptics say the examples are fakes. Because they know that such levels could not have come from such early tiimes.

Yet at least some are proven to be genuine and in the Petrie museum or have Carbon dating and provedence going back to the 1800s before such tech could produce such precision and modern signatures.

I never said anything about what tech we should find. Like some modern cutting machine. I don't know. All I know is the signatures don't match the primitive methods. So much so that even skeptics admit some sort of sophisticated lathing was involved. Certainly more than whats been claimed on wall paintings.

Then it decends into the vase is fake, the tests are fake or false, the testers are psuedoscientists, its all conspiracy because we can't find the tech so we must believe in the primitive method ect ect. Because theres no other way to refute the clear evidence for advanced tech and knowledge.

But as usual you jump in not to engage but have a go at me lol.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ah now the truth is coming out. You agreed all along that some of these vases do have modern signatures that could not have been made by predynastics.

I did not.

But now you say they are fakes.

I've certainly been implying that for a while. Today I was explicit.

I guess the Petrie museum has a case to answer because they were actually on loan to the Petrie museum who displayed them as genuine predynastic vases.

10 Fake Artifacts That Were Accepted as Real for Decades - History Collection

Throughout history, the allure of ancient relics has inspired both fascination and deception. Whether driven by greed, ambition, or the thrill of discovery, forgers have crafted objects so convincing that even seasoned experts were fooled for decades. These fake artifacts didn’t just trick...

historycollection.com

Fake artifacts have been in museums for years and are certainly currently in museums undetected.

(There is also fake art in museums: Every Piece in This Exhibition Is a Fake )

You will also have to explain how another couple have provedence going back to 1960s and 1800s. I guess there was a market for precision vases in the 60s and 1800s.

Ah, yes, 1-200 years of provenance for 5000 year old objects. As I recall this provenance typically goes back to some European diplomat from 1-2 centuries ago who could have legitimately been given a gift from the foreign government (about the only legit way to get ancient artifacts in most countries, many genuine artifacts in private collections ultimately come from looting).

They knew precision was the key selling point. They did not mind losing money in making such precision if they could even as these types of machines were not available. But even if they coul;d they were rare and expensive for some back street fake antiquities dealer to pay for and make a profit. Let alone have access to. Give me a break.

Given how much time we've spent discussing how much effort it takes to make a vase in the ancient method and how much easier it is to make with a lathe. (The modern replicas that cost less than $100 are made on lathes in common workshops.) I don't know why you think a forger wouldn't have access to a lathe.

But its progress. At least your acknowledging that these vases have modern day signatures that could not have been produced by the predynastics or even the old kingdom as the potters wheel only came about in the middle kingdom. Thats whats on the wall afterall and we must go by whats on the wall. No matter what the witness marks say.

"witness marks"?

 

[BCP1928]

Its a topic that sparks my interest you could say and by the looks of how it took off it seems its the same for others. Whenever looking for something to investigate I like the past and history. I am also a bit OCD so I tend to get fixated and want to keep digging lol. Pardon the pun.

That's fine. Archaeologists are coming up with surprising new finds about ancient civilizations constantly, and it is amusing to speculate on them.

I don't think I have failed in showing that these ancients had pretty sophisticated tech and knowledge.

There is not doubt about that, yet you call it "primitive."

Considering that we can clearly chow for example as a general example that the ability to craft such precision works at a time when the potters wheel was not even about and the primitive methods on wall paintings some 2,000 years later were still inadequate to account for the precision.

Crafting symmetrical work using a rotating table is a technique which predates the period we are talking about by millennia. What the Egyptians are credited with is the development of the shaft and foot wheel which allowed the craftsman to use both hands on the work, thus increasing his productivity.

That tests show that at least some of these works require modern tech (not necessarily like todays) but something beyond the primitive methods claimed. So much so that skeptics say the examples are fakes. Because they know that such levels could not have come from such early tiimes.

Yet at least some are proven to be genuine and in the Petrie museum or have Carbon dating and provedence going back to the 1800s before such tech could produce such precision and modern signatures.

I never said anything about what tech we should find. Like some modern cutting machine. I don't know. All I know is the signatures don't match the primitive methods. So much so that even skeptics admit some sort of sophisticated lathing was involved.

But as usual you jump in not to engage but have a go at me lol.

Because you keep using that word "primitive." Working with hand tools is not more "primitive" than working with power tools, it just takes longer.

 

[stevevw]

That's fine. Archaeologists are coming up with surprising new finds about ancient civilizations constantly, and it is amusing to speculate on them.

Not sure what you mean by amusing lol. Seems like its a specticle. I just think its fun and interesting. All of it. It comes with the territory and I don't see spectulative and alternative ideas as an issue. Its all part of investigating and understanding. I'm open to whatever.

But the fun part is speculating and imagining. That is what I think helps discover. That you don't have fixed ideas about what is going on.

There is not doubt about that, yet you call it "primitive."

Actually I call the orthodox narrative primitive. The orthodox methods claimed. As opposed to what the witness marks say. I think you will find generally the position has changed and is changing because of these signatures and works.

It was only recently and still is the case that the methods on wall paintings was the method. Then as people studied these works its become a more sophisticated method. Such as pretty sophisticated lathing, potters wheels, stable cutters ect. I think its the same for a lot of these signatures. As we test them more we will find that there is more sophistication in the methods than thought.

Crafting symmetrical work using a rotating table is a technique which predates the period we are talking about by millennia. What the Egyptians are credited with is the development of the shaft and foot wheel which allowed the craftsman to use both hands on the work, thus increasing his productivity.

Yes and that comes almost 2000 years after these predynastic vases which are at least dating back to Djoser nearly 5,000 years ago. But they are actually inhereted from an earlier time. Some vases have provedence going back 3,500 BC found in digs. One carbon dated to around the same time.

Well before the potters wheel which really did not come until the middle kingdom and the paintings on the wall. The fact is the method on those walls in completely inadequate to produce such vase precision. Which has been tested to modern CNC level machining.

But lets say they did have some rudimentary proto wheel. It certainly would not have been up to the standard required for the witness marks found on these vases. Thats plain to see. But has also been tested and the method on the wall fell many magnitudes lower than the predynastic vases. The ancient vases were on par with modern CNC machining and even a couple surpassing.

But the ones made by the orthodox method on the wall and in the experiments were not even in the ball park as far as matching the signatures and precision.

Because you keep using that word "primitive." Working with hand tools is not more "primitive" than working with power tools, it just takes longer.

Lol, thats what I keep saying is hard to believe even more than aliens lol. That what we know for a fact can only be produced by the machine, not humans, but tech because it takes out human errors because they are not machines.

The idea that humans could do this and produce the same signatures but by the naked eye and freehand. It would be like getting someone today to make a precision part for NASA freehand. Getting all the precise tolerances blindly.

Sometimes though human ingenuity is great its beyond human capability. Or at least for that time. Its sort of almost attributing a degree of magic into the minds and hands of humans that they can create what we consider machine quality beyond human capability.

In that sense its every bit as conspiracy and magical thinking as the skeptics claim about those who dare to suggest ancient advanced knowledge.

I guess its a case of where people draw the line between what ability humans can achieve without the aid of outside tech or some sort of guide that helps achieve such precision or other feats for that time.

All I know is the more we look into this the more questions and out of place stuff keeps coming up. I don't think the picture is settled and I think theres more to learn and surprise us.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The idea that humans could do this and produce the same signatures but by the naked eye and freehand. It would be like getting someone today to make a precision part for NASA freehand. Getting all the precise tolerances blindly.

What do you mean by "freehand"?

 

[BCP1928]

Not sure what you mean by amusing lol. Seems like its a specticle. I just think its fun and interesting. All of it. It comes with the territory and I don't see spectulative and alternative ideas as an issue. Its all part of investigating and understanding. I'm open to whatever.

But the fun part is speculating and imagining. That is what I think helps discover. That you don't have fixed ideas about what is going on.

Actually I call the orthodox narrative primitive. The orthodox methods claimed. As opposed to what the witness marks say. I think you will find generally the position has changed and is changing because of these signatures and works.

It was only recently and still is the case that the methods on wall paintings was the method. Then as people studied these works its become a more sophisticated method. Such as pretty sophisticated lathing, potters wheels, stable cutters ect. I think its the same for a lot of these signatures. As we test them more we will find that there is more sophistication in the methods than thought.

Yes and that comes almost 2000 years after these predynastic vases which are at least dating back to Djoser nearly 5,000 years ago. But they are actually inhereted from an earlier time. Some vases have provedence going back 3,500 BC found in digs. One carbon dated to around the same time.

Well before the potters wheel which really did not come until the middle kingdom and the paintings on the wall. The fact is the method on those walls in completely inadequate to produce such vase precision. Which has been tested to modern CNC level machining.

But lets say they did have some rudimentary proto wheel. It certainly would not have been up to the standard required for the witness marks found on these vases. Thats plain to see. But has also been tested and the method on the wall fell many magnitudes lower than the predynastic vases. The ancient vases were on par with modern CNC machining and even a couple surpassing.

But the ones made by the orthodox method on the wall and in the experiments were not even in the ball park as far as matching the signatures and precision.

Lol, thats what I keep saying is hard to believe even more than aliens lol. That what we know for a fact can only be produced by the machine, not humans, but tech because it takes out human errors because they are not machines.

The idea that humans could do this and produce the same signatures but by the naked eye and freehand. It would be like getting someone today to make a precision part for NASA freehand. Getting all the precise tolerances blindly.

Sometimes though human ingenuity is great its beyond human capability. Or at least for that time. Its sort of almost attributing a degree of magic into the minds and hands of humans that they can create what we consider machine quality beyond human capability.

In that sense its every bit as conspiracy and magical thinking as the skeptics claim about those who dare to suggest ancient advanced knowledge.

I guess its a case of where people draw the line between what ability humans can achieve without the aid of outside tech or some sort of guide that helps achieve such precision or other feats for that time.

All I know is the more we look into this the more questions and out of place stuff keeps coming up. I don't think the picture is settled and I think theres more to learn and surprise us.

Again, I know very little about stonework, but I can speak authoritatively about metalworking. I dare say that there is no metal object that you can readily think of the cannot be made to the required degree of precision using hand tools. If you would rather use a power tool, I don't blame you, though I enjoy working with hand tools more, much as many woodworkers do. Still, if you use a power tool, keep in mind that the ways and surfaces in it which must be precisely flat are finished by hand. Your shiny gizmo CNC machine still relies on "primitive technology."

 

[sjastro]

The cylindricity and concentricity measurement is beyond its tolerance levels. But theres no context as to which vase you are referring to.

What are you trying to achieve with this. Are you saying there is no evidence in these vases of any sophisticated lathe work. Never mind complaining about individual measures. Some vases were less precise than others and no one is claiming that all vases are precise.

When I stated you are a confused poster it is based on evidence and not to be taken as a personal attack.
In this case the vase in question is from unchartedx who concluded on the basis of their measurements, it was produced by CNC machinery.
Now that you have stated the vase is not to CNC capabilities, you have contradicted unchartedx. So why did quote unchartedx as supportive evidence when you ultimately don't agree with their findings.

I rest my case.

The point is that some are and they are on par with modern tech. I keep referring you to the conclusions of the tests. Specifically the predynastic vases which show high precision as stated in clear plain words by the testers. I have on one hand you complaining that these vases are nothing special and on the other experts saying the complete opposite.

Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study​

The method is based on the metrological analysis of the 3D scans of round objects where a scan is divided into a set of 2D slices that are evaluated for circularity and concentricity.

The method was tested on a set of 27 3D scans including 22 objects from Matt Beall’s predynastic Egyptian stone vessel collection, 3 scans of modern stone vases made on a lathe, and 2 scans of contemporary stone vessels purposefully made using only primitive hand tools consistent with our understanding of the ancient Egyptian stone works.

The analysis of the 27 scans revealed that all objects in the data set fall into two distinct categories: the ‘imprecise’ class, which is consistent with manual fashioning using primitive hand tools, and the ‘precise’ class, which is consistent with the use of precision machinery. It was surprising to see that 11 out of 22 stone vessels in Matt Beall's collection fell into the ‘precise’ category, with several of these objects being 10 more precise than the contemporary objects made on a lathe.

Class Averages

The ‘PRECISE’ class average errors are as follows:
● <> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm);
● <> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm).

Such surprising precision indicates a highly advanced manufacturing technique consistent with machining on a lathe as the modern lathe-made vases ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘M3’ fall into this class.

It is nothing short of astonishing to find that the most ‘precise’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection (e.g. ‘V18’ and ‘V4’) are characterized by the circularity error = 0.6 thousands of an inch (15 microns) and the centering error = 0.1 thousandths of an inch (2.5 microns). The centering error of the vase ‘V18’ is actually below the resolving ability of the analysis method used (which is 0.2 thousandths of an inch). The vases ‘V4’ and ‘V18’ appear to be 10 times more precise (in terms of the quality metric M) compared to the three modern vases.

Lathe Marks
Given these results (the quality metrics consistent with the modern objects), I conclude that the ‘precise’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection were machined using advanced tools.

https://maximus.energy/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Precision-and-Classification-of-Predynastic-Egyptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf

The methodology is full of holes, the most obvious is the assumption the 22 vases are predynastic Egyptian in origin.

Then there is the sole reliance on circularity and centering errors. Low circularity and centering errors does not translate to low cylindricity and concentricity errors which was reported in the unchartedx data and found to be outside the capabilities of modern lathes let alone CNC equipment.

Reporting a centering error on vase V18 when it is supposedly below the resolution of the test method is patently ridiculous and brings into question the entire measuring process.

 

[sjastro]

I keep referring back to the plain words in the conclusions which clearly state the exact opposite. Here they are again for the 10th time.

11 out of 22 stone vessels in Matt Beall's collection fell into the ‘precise’ category, with several of these objects being 10 more precise than the contemporary objects made on a lathe. The vases ‘V4’ and ‘V18’ appear to be 10 times more precise (in terms of the quality metric M) compared to the three modern vases.

That is several vases which have good provedence and were actually displayed at the Petrie museum on loan were on par with modern CNC machining and two of them were 10 times greater on the quality metric than modern CNC vases.

This same precision was repeated in the guage metrology. We have two independent tests with different methods and in fact we have several methods now including X ray, Lazer, picographic scans and guage tests all repeating the same findings. Repeated independent science is good science.

Do you understand plain English?
I had switched the discussion to Khufu's coffer.
A coffer is not a vase.

 

[Tuur]

But would not you think that pounding is just that, pounding away at all the surface to pound it down. Why leave ridges if they are easily breakable.

For the same reason you can see ax marks in beams squared with a broadax: It's unfinished. The same with whipsaw marks and circular saw marks. For beams that were dressed, an adze was often used, followed by a plane. Sometimes the work was left unfinished because a job was incomplete. The Unfinished Obelisk is an example. Sometimes a portion is unfinished because it didn't need to be. I've seen house built in the early 19th Century out of hewn logs and whipsawn boards that had floor boards about two inches thick which were rough hewn on the bottom except where they sat on sills and joists, planed smooth on top, with tongue-and-grove planed by hand. The top of the board were all flush, the tongue-and-grove fitting perfectly. There was no reason to go to the effort of finishing the bottom of the boards; it wasn't needed.

I have worked with the modern equivalent: Rough sawn lumber for framing that was full dimensioned. Note: The old stuff, circa 1950s, had higher tolerance than the more modern stuff, circa late 1970s and into the 1980s.

Or you can simply examine the inside of your clothes, comparing the difference between it and the outside. Same principle.

 

[stevevw]

What do you mean by "freehand"?

I mean the rudimentary method comes no where near the precision on the vases and there are aspects than cannot be done by the rudimentary method such as the outside of the vase.

The bent stick bow drills can only do the inside. But even then it would need to be hand finished by grinding and rubbing which would require freehand and naked eye to bring the vase into precision.

Unless there was a lathe. For example the flat top of the lip could not not be achieved by a bow stick drill or cutter. But a lathe where the vase was exposed all around as in modern lathing machines would allow all these signatures of flat and straight surfaces and symmetry.

Thats why a lathe makes sense. This would bring the vase to precision with just a steady hand or some attachment that can be placed on the vase without moving. But a freehand without any guide to bring in to micro level precision is impossible. Even on a lathe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I mean the rudimentary method comes no where near the precision on the vases and there are aspects than cannot be done by the rudimentary method such as the outside of the vase.

You haven't defined freehand. This is only another denouncement of the "rudimentary methods" of the past. (Nor have you clarified in this statement what you mean by "precision." In an earlier post, I delineated 3 possible kinds of "precision", but your response there wasn't very enlightening either. A tooth you resist the pulling of.)

The bent stick bow drills can only do the inside. But even then it would need to be hand finished by grinding and rubbing which would require freehand and naked eye to bring the vase into precision.

Unless there was a lathe. For example the flat top of the lip could not not be achieved by a bow stick drill or cutter. But a lathe where the vase was exposed all around as in modern lathing machines would allow all these signatures of flat and straight surfaces and symmetry.

Thats why a lathe makes sense. This would bring the vase to precision with just a steady hand or some attachment that can be placed on the vase without moving. But a freehand without any guide to bring in to micro level precision is impossible. Even on a lathe.

Basically, your complaint is that the experimentalists didn't develop a high-quality stabilization mechanism. For crying out loud, at one point late in the manufacture, she holds the outside of the vase in place with her *feet* while grinding out the inside.

 

[stevevw]

For the same reason you can see ax marks in beams squared with a broadax: It's unfinished. The same with whipsaw marks and circular saw marks. For beams that were dressed, an adze was often used, followed by a plane.

Except an axe is completely different. Leaving square cut marks in a beam due to the swing of an axe does not take any effort to leave those marks. Apart from ensuring you hit the beam in the right general area. But comparing this to these scoop marks would be like an axeman purposely calving out squares in the wood as part of chopping the beam.

The pounding is not 12 chops of the wood and its cut. This is months and years of pounding away tiny chips of granite into dust. To leave such sharp uniform scoops would be like creating an artwork in itself to ensure the pounding created such a pattern. When you look under the obelisk some of these scoops go right in and there is no room to even move with a pounder.

Sometimes the work was left unfinished because a job was incomplete. The Unfinished Obelisk is an example. Sometimes a portion is unfinished because it didn't need to be.

Or the piece they are working on breaks like the unfinished obelisk. Imagine if they were pounding away for years and then they are almost finished to get it out of the bedrock and it cracks. The supervisor would be in big trouble lol he would be going off at the workers lol.

I've seen house built in the early 19th Century out of hewn logs and whipsawn boards that had floor boards about two inches thick which were rough hewn on the bottom except where they sat on sills and joists, planed smooth on top, with tongue-and-grove planed by hand. The top of the board were all flush, the tongue-and-grove fitting perfectly. There was no reason to go to the effort of finishing the bottom of the boards; it wasn't needed.

Ok but this is different to those stone walls. The bottoms and tops of what would be unseen was finished like the exposed faces being smooth and near perfectly shaped to every nook and cranny of opposing faces so that they fit together exactly. Like a 3D jigsaw puzzel. Why would someone go to such trouble on the inside faces that will never be seen.

Thats why some say these stones were softened somehow and the imprints and smoothness is just the softened stones settling onto the above and below layers as they harden.

I have worked with the modern equivalent: Rough sawn lumber for framing that was full dimensioned. Note: The old stuff, circa 1950s, had higher tolerance than the more modern stuff, circa late 1970s and into the 1980s.

Yes they don't make em like they use to.

Or you can simply examine the inside of your clothes, comparing the difference between it and the outside. Same principle.

I understand what you mean. But these walls would be like someone making the inside of your cloths just as finished as the outside. When no one will ever see this. Its a waste of time and unnecessary. I mean you could wear your cloths inside out and that has become a fashion. But you can't even do that with hard stone walls. Once up they are for good.

The only reason we see the inside layers is because they wall broke and exposed whats underneath.

 

[stevevw]

You haven't defined freehand. This is only another denouncement of the "rudimentary methods" of the past.

I think I have. It simply means without any guidance for the hands doing the work. Completely made by unaided or guided hands apart from the primitive tools such as chisels, pounders and abrasions. Which are still used by an unguided hand in the sense of some outside tech or machine guidance.

Art is well recognised for freehand and in fact is a big part of art. That lines are not precise and the art is free to follow whatever form. But to get precision of circles, lines, angles and geometry ect you need outside aids that guide the cutting.

I mean the bow drills will give a certain level of uniformity. But the vase itself would have to be finished in freehand grinding and rubbing without an aid. Or at least one that could measure down to the micro level.

(Nor have you clarified in this statement what you mean by "precision." In an earlier post, I delineated 3 possible kinds of "precision", but your response there wasn't very enlightening either. A tooth you resist the pulling of.)

Ok I will refer back to the article I linked. They determined the precise class: M < 25 thousandths of an inch. So any deviation past this. Whicc by the way could only be achieved by modern machining anyway.

The freehand or manually made vases such as Olgas ones from her experiments were up to 10 times less precise.

Basically, your complaint is that the experimentalists didn't develop a high-quality stabilization mechanism. For crying out loud, at one point late in the manufacture, she holds the outside of the vase in place with her *feet* while grinding out the inside.

No there was more than that. She actually employs a turning table and bearings to stablise the rotatry bow drill. Little aids that were not there when these vases were made. That is what I mean, the reality is its impossible. Even the best of experiments incorporate modern aids and still get nowhere near the level of precision.

So what is the problem of then extending the same idea. If Olga is slipping in little aids to get closer to the final result. Why not go all the way. Just make it more like a lathe. Put the bearings in, stablise it, get a good spin going. Oh look suddenly we begin to produce similar signatures.

Why resist the obvious that there was some sort of sophisticated lathing. Oh thats right because its way to early and even the middle kingdom never had such sophistication 1800 years later. So the vases are fake because this level of tech could not have been around so early and even better than the methods millenia later which we know can only produce vases that are 10 times less quality.

Its like a never ending cycle or avoiding the obvious. Anything but not acknowledge that this level of work happened at a time when the tech and knowledge should not have been there compared to later. Yet we keep getting examples.

A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases
The ‘replica’ vases ‘O1’ and ‘O2’ were made by Olga Vdovina in collaboration with the antropogenez.ru. The objective of the replication effort was to show that it was possible to make stone vases using stone, wood, and copper tools known to ancient Egyptians.

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy.
Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think I have. It simply means without any guidance for the hands doing the work. Completely made by unaided or guided hands apart from the primitive tools such as chisels, pounders and abrasions. Which are still used by an unguided hand in the sense of some outside tech or machine guidance.

That does not match the descriptions or recreations of the methods involved. From this definition, I can not refer to them as "freehand".

Art is well recognised for freehand and in fact is a big part of art. That lines are not precise and the art is free to follow whatever form. But to get precision of circles, lines, angles and geometry ect you need outside aids that guide the cutting.

And those guides have been demonstrated.

I mean the bow drills will give a certain level of uniformity. But the vase itself would have to be finished in freehand grinding and rubbing without an aid. Or at least one that could measure down to the micro level.

What part of the vase being turned against a fixed grinding stone have you not seen.

Ok I will refer back to the article I linked. They determined the precise class: M < 25 thousandths of an inch. So any deviation past this. Whicc by the way could only be achieved by modern machining anyway.

1/40" (0.025 inch) is not that small. My 25 foot tape measure has marks to 1/16". I have aluminum straight edge rulers that have 1/32" marks. I'm willing to claim that I have sanded fill in drywall repair to better than 0.025 of an inch *BY HAND*.

The freehand or manually made vases such as Olgas ones from her experiments were up to 10 times less precise.

The experiment wasn't about "precision". Do I need to repeat that?

OK...

The experiment wasn't about "precision".
The experiment wasn't about "precision".
The experiment wasn't about "precision".

No there was more than that. She actually employs a turning table and bearings to stablise the rotatry bow drill. Little aids that were not there when these vases were made. That is what I mean, the reality is its impossible. Even the best of experiments incorporate modern aids and still get nowhere near the level of precision.

No turntable in the video I have posted a couple times.

So what is the problem of then extending the same idea. If Olga is slipping in little aids to get closer to the final result. Why not go all the way. Just make it more like a lathe. Put the bearings in, stablise it, get a good spin going. Oh look suddenly we begin to produce similar signatures.

I really don't know what you are talking about, and...

The experiment wasn't about "precision".
The experiment wasn't about "precision".
The experiment wasn't about "precision".

Why resist the obvious that there was some sort of sophisticated lathing. Oh thats right because its way to early and even the middle kingdom never had such sophistication 1800 years later. So the vases are fake because this level of tech could not have been around so early and even better than the methods millenia later which we know can only produce vases that are 10 times less quality.

Everytime anyone suggets anything like a lathe or a turntable you claim such technology didn't exist and then turn right around an want a computer controlled machine running on pyramid power. Get serious.

Its like a never ending cycle or avoiding the obvious. Anything but not acknowledge that this level of work happened at a time when the tech and knowledge should not have been there compared to later. Yet we keep getting examples.

Et tu Stephanus.

A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases
The ‘replica’ vases ‘O1’ and ‘O2’ were made by Olga Vdovina in collaboration with the antropogenez.ru. The objective of the replication effort was to show that it was possible to make stone vases using stone, wood, and copper tools known to ancient Egyptians.

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy.
Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

 

[BCP1928]

I think I have. It simply means without any guidance for the hands doing the work. Completely made by unaided or guided hands apart from the primitive tools such as chisels, pounders and abrasions. Which are still used by an unguided hand in the sense of some outside tech or machine guidance.

It's called "skill."

Art is well recognised for freehand and in fact is a big part of art. That lines are not precise and the art is free to follow whatever form. But to get precision of circles, lines, angles and geometry ect you need outside aids that guide the cutting.

The lines are precisely what the artist or the craftsman wants, regardless of geometry. Now you denigrate artists as well as skilled craftsmen.

I mean the bow drills will give a certain level of uniformity. But the vase itself would have to be finished in freehand grinding and rubbing without an aid. Or at least one that could measure down to the micro level.

It's called "measurement" a subject well understood by the Egyptians.

Ok I will refer back to the article I linked. They determined the precise class: M < 25 thousandths of an inch. So any deviation past this. Whicc by the way could only be achieved by modern machining anyway.

That is is 100% pure weapons grade bolognium. Such a poorly informed assertion deserves no further response.

The freehand or manually made vases such as Olgas ones from her experiments were up to 10 times less precise.

No there was more than that. She actually employs a turning table and bearings to stablise the rotatry bow drill. Little aids that were not there when these vases were made. That is what I mean, the reality is its impossible. Even the best of experiments incorporate modern aids and still get nowhere near the level of precision.

So what is the problem of then extending the same idea. If Olga is slipping in little aids to get closer to the final result. Why not go all the way. Just make it more like a lathe. Put the bearings in, stablise it, get a good spin going. Oh look suddenly we begin to produce similar signatures.

Why resist the obvious that there was some sort of sophisticated lathing. Oh thats right because its way to early and even the middle kingdom never had such sophistication 1800 years later. So the vases are fake because this level of tech could not have been around so early and even better than the methods millenia later which we know can only produce vases that are 10 times less quality.

Its like a never ending cycle or avoiding the obvious. Anything but not acknowledge that this level of work happened at a time when the tech and knowledge should not have been there compared to later. Yet we keep getting examples.

Why is it so important for you to prove that?