There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[sjastro]

But Matt Beall's collection was housed at the Petrie museum and 11 of his 22 vases fell into the precise class and I think two were better than modern CNC machining.

You clearly live in a fantasy world, where do you come up with this drivel?
The strength of the Petrie collection is that there is no doubting provenance, introducing any private collection will contaminate it.

Furthermore when provenance is established and vases are analysed with recognised metrology software, not the amateur versions from your so called experts, vases are nowhere near the levels of 'precision' requiring a rethink of the technology used.

 

[stevevw]

OK, so you are finally out with it. We don't agree with your goofy and ill-informed conclusions about ancient Eguptian technology because we're atheists.

Do you believe that Christ performed miracles and can transform people in the spirit of God. Do you believe there is such knowledge in Christ. Or that ancients could gain deeper knowledge of the world through spirituality or some sort of transcedent knowledge like they claim.

The reason I ask is that this kind of knowledge even today with Indigneous knowledge makes up most of our history. You are more or less saying that most people for most of history were believing in goofy and unreal aspects of reality that had not meaning or substance as far as knowledge of the world and reality.

Is that right. When you say you only count methological naturalism or material science as real knowledge of the world you are relegating all other knowledge as unreal.

You don't know the full extent of ancient Egyptian technology. None of us does. In particular, we know almost nothing about their metrology, which would be key to determining their capacity to do precision work. You not only do not know the full extent of ancient Egyptian technology, you are almost entirely ignorant about how the technology we do know about was applied. Your assertions that it must have been such and such modern technology is goofy and ill-informed. One does not have to have a "materialist world view" to reject it on that basis.

Ok so then tell me how the ancient tech was applied. Do you even know that you are in a position to tell me I don't know lol.

 

[stevevw]

You clearly live in a fantasy world, where do you come up with this drivel?
The strength of the Petrie collection is that there is no doubting provenance, introducing any private collection will contaminate it.

Then I guess you will have to ask the Petrie museum because they deemed then authentic to house them in the first place. Some of Beall's collection come from Petries digs. I think it is you who "do not know".

At least in disputing these vases as authentic shows you agree with the findings that they are precise. Otherwise why worry about the provedence. Because thats all thats left. You can't dispute the findings so the next best is to attack the provedence.

Furthermore when provenance is established and vases are analysed with recognised metrology software, not the amateur versions from your so called experts, vases are nowhere near the levels of 'precision' requiring a rethink of the technology used.

Then write a paper and send it in. How come absolutely no one including skeptics has questioned the data. No one has sent in any science disputing the metrology and analysis. The findings are now being cited by many people. Are they all wrong and are the only one who holds the truth.

So be the first and point this red herring out.

 

[stevevw]

So where is the provenance of the OG vase detailed? The link I just gave you from unsigned.io seems to say that it is a modern replica or have been worked on in modern times.

The OG vase can be traced back to 1968.

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision/Consistent w/Machining)
The original vase was created from a single block of red granite (stone). It is extraordinarily precise and has incredibly thin walls. Light from a flashlight easily passes through the walls. Experts dated the original vase to Egypt in the predynastic period, 3500BC - 3100BC. Fayez Barakat, owner of Barakat Galleries, states that he purchased it from the private collection of Teddy Kollek in 1968.

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision/Consistent w/Machining)

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision) The original vase was created from a single block of red granite (stone). It is extraordinarily precise and has incredibly thin walls. Light from a flashlight easily passes through the walls. Experts dated the original vase to Egypt in the predynastic...

www.ancientstonevases.com

I've never seen the benefit of using anything more than methodological naturalism in order to describe the world. Adding a transcendental or supernatural layer just pushes the question back beyond what is observable, it doesn't provide actual information.

So what about consciousness, the experiential aspect of reality. Phenomenal beliefs. Does not this aspect give us knowledge of reality that material science cannot explain because this is a qualitative aspect of reality and not an objective and empiracle aspect. Yet it is as real as the physical.

I don't believe that the Naqada vases from the Petrie collection are connected to Matt Beall's vases, are they (especially V18)? From what I could read the Petrie vases are not in the precise class, they are in the same class as Olgas vases.

The metrology done by Maximus was also done on the Naqada vases and several fell in the precise class.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels
Abstract
I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology. The remarkable precision of the stone vessels, which starkly contrasts with the capabilities of late Neolithic societies, suggests these artifacts originate from a previously unrecognized, technologically advanced culture capable of rotational accuracy rivaling modern tools.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Abstract I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. Th…

maximus.energy

Positing more complex manufacturing methods than we can positively prove adds no extra information. I've never said that they are inherited from someone, I believe they were made during the Naqada period.

Ok so if they are made during the Naqada period then how do you explain the advanced machining signatures and precision in a Meolithic time before the potters wheel. Let alone sophisticated lathing.

How do you explain that everything about the Naqada culture is Neolithic and primitive. They made pottery by the coil method because there was no wheel. We find many of these vases also.

Was there two completely different levels of pottery and stone working in the same culture. Why was not this advanced tech reflected in anything else the Naqada people did. Their huts and structures are basic and simple as we would expect for a Neolithic people.

Vases of this quality being found in a Neolithic culture would be on par with finding a precision NASA part in 1800.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The OG vase can be traced back to 1968.

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision/Consistent w/Machining)
The original vase was created from a single block of red granite (stone). It is extraordinarily precise and has incredibly thin walls. Light from a flashlight easily passes through the walls. Experts dated the original vase to Egypt in the predynastic period, 3500BC - 3100BC. Fayez Barakat, owner of Barakat Galleries, states that he purchased it from the private collection of Teddy Kollek in 1968.

Which is utterly unimpressive. It is not traced to a dig, but a private collection.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The OG vase can be traced back to 1968.

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision/Consistent w/Machining)
The original vase was created from a single block of red granite (stone). It is extraordinarily precise and has incredibly thin walls. Light from a flashlight easily passes through the walls. Experts dated the original vase to Egypt in the predynastic period, 3500BC - 3100BC. Fayez Barakat, owner of Barakat Galleries, states that he purchased it from the private collection of Teddy Kollek in 1968.

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision/Consistent w/Machining)

Thin Walled Red Granite Vase (Precision) The original vase was created from a single block of red granite (stone). It is extraordinarily precise and has incredibly thin walls. Light from a flashlight easily passes through the walls. Experts dated the original vase to Egypt in the predynastic...

www.ancientstonevases.com

So the two best vases can be traced to 1979 and 1968, that's not impressive provenance.

So what about consciousness, the experiential aspect of reality. Phenomenal beliefs. Does not this aspect give us knowledge of reality that material science cannot explain because this is a qualitative aspect of reality and not an objective and empiracle aspect. Yet it is as real as the physical.

Mind is what the brain does. Electric activity in the brain is experienced as our mind and conciousness by the brain.

The metrology done by Maximus was also done on the Naqada vases and several fell in the precise class.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels
Abstract
I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology. The remarkable precision of the stone vessels, which starkly contrasts with the capabilities of late Neolithic societies, suggests these artifacts originate from a previously unrecognized, technologically advanced culture capable of rotational accuracy rivaling modern tools.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Abstract I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. Th…

maximus.energy

Matt Beall kluster 2 is the imprecise class, as you can see V18 is not included and all the modern vases are mostly better than kluster 2 (also observe that this figure is not plotted on logarithmic scale). They overlap with the Petrie and Olgas vase.

Here's a plot showing both kluster 1 and kluster 2 from here (Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED)

Ok so if they are made during the Naqada period then how do you explain the advanced machining signatures and precision in a Meolithic time before the potters wheel. Let alone sophisticated lathing.

Even if true, what does saying ancient technology and lost knowledge contribute?

How do you explain that everything about the Naqada culture is Neolithic and primitive. They made pottery by the coil method because there was no wheel. We find many of these vases also.

Was there two completely different levels of pottery and stone working in the same culture. Why was not this advanced tech reflected in anything else the Naqada people did. Their huts and structures are basic and simple as we would expect for a Neolithic people.

Vases of this quality being found in a Neolithic culture would be on par with finding a precision NASA part in 1800.

No, the vases with good provenance does not show that kind of precision.

 

[stevevw]

Which is utterly unimpressive. It is not traced to a dig, but a private collection.

Yes this is the one that Unsigned.io questioned and could not guarentee their results. But we just don't know. So its neither fake nor authentic at this stage. The numbers certainly add up.

What you don't realise with all yhis moral outrage of private and provedence is that a large percentage of works in museums are from private collections. Which shows your moral outrage is based on assumption.

Also due to your hard skepticism you completely dismiss the vase based on one piece of information. In other words you jump the gun in grabbing any little negative that will prop your skepticism and once again bias things.

There are a number of good reasons why the OG vase is authentic. As mentioned why would someone go to all the trouble of producing such a vase in the 1960s when this was a specialist machining which was rare and expensive.

This particular vase is so thin that light can reflect through its walls. Granite becomes super brittle when thinned and is a high specialist skill. In the 60's the idea of precision vases was not even on the radar as far as known like today or of any value. A vase made near enough would do. People did not worry about such precision.

Third the vase matches almost exact to other authentic vases and has the same signatures.

But you bypass all this as soon as you find one little chink lol. Its out the door. No further consideration or possibility it could be authentic. You quickly jump on the fake side.

 

[sjastro]

Then I guess you will have to ask the Petrie museum because they deemed then authentic to house them in the first place. Some of Beall's collection come from Petries digs. I think it is you who "do not know".

I did a name search on the Petrie museum website and found nothing under Beall.

Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology

The Petrie Museum is home to one of the world's largest and most important collections of Egyptian and Sudanese archaeology, telling the stories of people who lived in the Nile Valley in the past.

www.ucl.ac.uk

Once again it's up to you to show there was or is a Beall collection at the museum and if you behave the same way as previously by throwing up your hands and stating it's not your responsibility, we'll chalk this down as another one of your lies.

At least in disputing these vases as authentic shows you agree with the findings that they are precise. Otherwise why worry about the provedence. Because thats all thats left. You can't dispute the findings so the next best is to attack the provedence.

Not so fast not only will you have to prove there was a Beall collection at the Petrie museum but also scanned results using approved software.

Then write a paper and send it in. How come absolutely no one including skeptics has questioned the data. No one has sent in any science disputing the metrology and analysis. The findings are now being cited by many people. Are they all wrong and are the only one who holds the truth.

So be the first and point this red herring out.

I had already addressed your concerns about you being clueless with your indiscriminate use of the term expert.
Ironically it is the ancient Egyptian craftsman who deserve the title not your pseudo experts.

If you think their expertise extends to writing metrology code which was the point of my argument by all means provide evidence of their qualifications and work experience in the field.
The output of their code is limited because it only addresses the 2D geometry of circularity and concentricity. This is insufficient to support your theory that a modern lathe was used. Demonstrating that would require analysis of the 3D geometry of cylindricity, which measures not only roundness but also the degree to which the vase’s axis deviates from the ideal rotational axis that would be expected if it were manufactured on a lathe.

When you use the correct approved metrology software this is what happens.

​

This is analysis of your "OG vase" using Zeiss Inspect 2025 but according to the amateur software relying purely on circularity and concentricity it has near perfect symmetry when rotated around the z-axis.
The heat map which is a deviation from this perfect symmetry indicates nothing of the sort particularly at the top and bottom lips.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you believe that Christ performed miracles and can transform people in the spirit of God. Do you believe there is such knowledge in Christ. Or that ancients could gain deeper knowledge of the world through spirituality or some sort of transcedent knowledge like they claim.

Not pertinent to the topic at hand. The ability to use tools comes from training and experience. If you wait for Jesus to miraculously give you that skill you'll never get a job.

The reason I ask is that this kind of knowledge even today with Indigneous knowledge makes up most of our history. You are more or less saying that most people for most of history were believing in goofy and unreal aspects of reality that had not meaning or substance as far as knowledge of the world and reality.

No, it's your theory about modern machines in ancient Egypt which I think is goofy and ill-informed.

Is that right. When you say you only count methological naturalism or material science as real knowledge of the world you are relegating all other knowledge as unreal.

I didn't say that. However, I will say that I mostly rely on methodological naturalism and material science when using tools.

Ok so then tell me how the ancient tech was applied. Do you even know that you are in a position to tell me I don't know lol.

We 've been trying to. In particular, my comments to you have been restricted to the use of modern hand tools which are the same as those we know were used in ancient Egypt, tools I know how to use myself. What tools do you know how to use?

 

[Hans Blaster]

One line about the unimpressive provenance of one vase and I get a full page of vase apologetics and a picture. Let's go.

Yes this is the one that Unsigned.io questioned and could not guarentee their results. But we just don't know. So its neither fake nor authentic at this stage. The numbers certainly add up.

Add up to what? Fakery? (I would agree.)

What you don't realise with all yhis moral outrage of private and provedence is that a large percentage of works in museums are from private collections. Which shows your moral outrage is based on assumption.

At this point, most archeologists won't even *touch* objects from private collections. The private antiquities market is overwhelmed by fakes and looted objects.

No archeological context means no way to understand what the object is. This isn't about "moral outrage". It is about getting useful information from objects. If you don't know where an object is from how can you draw any useful conclusions about the past from it? That goes for the conclusions you are trying to make about ancient technology. If you can't demonstrate the vases come from actual pre-dynastic tombs, then how can they be used to demonstrate lost technology?

Also due to your hard skepticism you completely dismiss the vase based on one piece of information. In other words you jump the gun in grabbing any little negative that will prop your skepticism and once again bias things.

Signs of fakery should be a deal breaker for everyone. Why isn't it for you, Dunn, Beall, etc.?

There are a number of good reasons why the OG vase is authentic. As mentioned why would someone go to all the trouble of producing such a vase in the 1960s when this was a specialist machining which was rare and expensive.

Oh come on, Steve! What about "the dealer ran out of looted object so he sold a fake" do you not get? What about 20th century stone craftsmen do you think couldn't make such a vase? We see similar objects (style, "quality", etc.) from current stone artisans. These modern objects (sold as such) sell for a few hundred dollars or so. The "antiques" sell for tens of thousands. There is PLENTY of incentive to go the extra mile to make it appear "ancient". This might be your least compelling argument. (And you imply ancient supertechnology, so that is saying a lot.)

This particular vase is so thin that light can reflect through its walls.

No light ever reflected through anything. That's not what reflection is.

Granite becomes super brittle when thinned and is a high specialist skill. In the 60's the idea of precision vases was not even on the radar as far as known like today or of any value. A vase made near enough would do. People did not worry about such precision.

You don't think that a mid-century artisan who makes stone vessels of various types all the time couldn't handle that?

Third the vase matches almost exact to other authentic vases and has the same signatures.

View attachment 370945 View attachment 370947 View attachment 370948

The left one looks like the product of some dealer telling a craftsman "make me one like the middle object".

View attachment 370950

But you bypass all this as soon as you find one little chink lol. Its out the door. No further consideration or possibility it could be authentic. You quickly jump on the fake side.

Which ones of these have provenance to an actual dig? I'm willing to believe V22, V11, and V12 are authentic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do you believe that Christ performed miracles and can transform people in the spirit of God. Do you believe there is such knowledge in Christ. Or that ancients could gain deeper knowledge of the world through spirituality or some sort of transcedent knowledge like they claim.

Unless there is a "Miracle of the Stone Vases" that I missed in the gospels, this is entirely irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

So the two best vases can be traced to 1979 and 1968, that's not impressive provenance.

First its no just two vases. These were the most impressive. But many others fell within the precision class and on par with modern machining. Were well above the orthodox methods in being made that way.

I think some perspective needs to be made when we are talking about the so called lesser precise vases from the two mentioned. We are talking about what amounts to a human hair or two in the best ones in deviation and around 3 or 4 thicknesses of paper at worst of the ones below this within the precision class.

Thats at their worst which is usually the widest parts of the vase. Other measurements in places such as faltness and roundness of lips, necks alignments of handles ect are still within similar precision to the two best vases.

Second this is only one test. There are several others that add to the list of precision vases. The best one from the tests done by Karoyl from the Petrie museum coming in at 0.004 on the outside and amazingly 0.003 on an inch on the inside. But also several fell within the modern machining precision and certainly impossible by the orthodox method on the walls or tried in experiments.

Third we have machine marks. Forget about all the metrology. The fact that they have witness marks of modern machining and not the signatures of the orthodox method is direct evidence for the method.

So together the machining marks and the near precision this adds up to clear evidence that the tech and knowledge these ancients had is above what the orthodox narrative of bent sticks and bow saw methods. In fact there was no bow saws, bent stick cutters or even the potters wheel. This is the out of place evidence.

Mind is what the brain does. Electric activity in the brain is experienced as our mind and conciousness by the brain.

Yes just as I said, material science sees consciouness as an epiphenomena of the electrical signals in the brain which is the physical processes and causes. Everything can be explained by these physical/material processes. There is nothing real beyond this.

So all the religions, beliefs, and experiences had for the majority of human history by the majority of humans is all an epiphenomena and in one way of another it is unreal as far as giving any deeper knowledge of the world and reality. Its make belief, superstition, imagination, even illusion or delusion as far as giving any real knowledge of the world.

Apart from helping humans survive of course. Which is just another way of saying that its a by produce of evolutionary processes which have no regard for meaning, belief, gods ect as real by aids to survival such as coperation. Is that right.

Matt Beall kluster 2 is the imprecise class, as you can see V18 is not included and all the modern vases are mostly better than kluster 2 (also observe that this figure is not plotted on logarithmic scale). They overlap with the Petrie and Olgas vase.
View attachment 370944

Here's a plot showing both kluster 1 and kluster 2 from here (Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED)
View attachment 370949

Even if true, what does saying ancient technology and lost knowledge contribute?

A lot actually. First it recognises that there is advanced knowledge that may have been lost. I find this ironic in modern times because its been a big political issue about how Indigenous people have been losing their knowledge to western colonialisation and wesrern science imposing its parpadigms on Indigneous peoples.

If there is lost advanced knowledge that could produce such works and feats then it would be good to try and investigate what exactly this was. That skeptics think its nothing to discover in how they see it. BUt what if there are alternative ways of knowing the world and reality itself that may help in understanding reality.

Like I said its almost as though modern thinking and ideas are returning to something transcedent in possible ways of explaing reality because after a few hundred years of enlightened science and dispite coming up with all sorts of material explainations we are at a loss as far as unifying physics and many anomelies in the sciences.

These anomelies and contraditions in our theories are not for a lack of more research and material explanations. BUt are categorically the wrong kind of explanations and knowledge.

It reminds me of the antedote of how the worlds bests academics are climbing the mountain of information and explanations of find the truth to existence and reality. Only to find an ancient Monk meditating and saying "I've been waiting for you" lol.

No, the vases with good provenance does not show that kind of precision.

I think you losing sight of the forrest through the trees. The vases you think don't fall into the high precision of near perfect are still high precision as far as the times they were made. They still fall within modern machining tech method. They have witness marks of machining on them.

They could not have been made by the methods claimed and in fact there was no such methods in that time. So even if we say the vases are a fair way of perfect. They are still within the range of modern maching and there was not even a potters wheel around. If we drop the precision to (roughly precise) suddenly we have literally dozens with excellect provedence to contend with that clearly show could not have been made by the orthodox method as there was no such method in existence.

To add to this if you want to say that perhaps some fairly good potters wheel or advanced bent stick device may have made these. Then you have the same problem that skeptics are saying that because we have not found such devices that this is just spectulation.

 

[stevevw]

Unless there is a "Miracle of the Stone Vases" that I missed in the gospels, this is entirely irrelevant.

You missed the point. I am using the fact that for many, many people ideas like miracles or supernatural events in our past are real events.

So when you say that there is no possible alternative knowledge or feats (if you can call it that) which happened outside the empiricle and material explanations. You are also denying for the majority of people for the majority of time these alternative ways of knowing and experiencing rthe world and reality itself.

That is not to say that these vases were created by a miracle. But to point out that if miracles are seen as real or supernatural events in our past or transcedent forms of knowledge in our past such as Indigenous or religious knowledge had deeper knowledge in one way or another that has been lost.

It may not be miracles or seem like a miracle. Like ancients producing such modern looking works or works we consider impossible for that time. It may be a natural phenomena or a deeper knowledge of nature that allowed ancients to manipulate nature. That today we cannot understand through material science which tries to understand from the outside looking in.

If this deeper knowledge is along the lines of experiential knowledge. That is a closer connection to reality through conscious experiences. That this may give direct knowledge of reality that we have lost or detached ourselves from by the very paradigm of material science.

It seems logical to me that if conscious experience gives us deeper knowledge or a different kind of knowledge of the world, natural and reality that material science cannot give. Then if we now live in a material paradigm and in our past we lived in a more transcedent or spiritual or experiencial paradigm. Then we have lost that knowledge and it was not just make believe but just as important and perhaps even more real worldview than today.

Despite that we know more and have more accumulated knowledge. This is not the same kind of knowledge.

But it seems that modern science is itself now turning back or at least being more open to this transcedent or experiencial aspect of reality because the material paradigm lacks explanation and the experiencial and consciousness aspect offers more.

 

[Tuur]

You missed the point. I am using the fact that for many, many people ideas like miracles or supernatural events in our past are real events.

So when you say that there is no possible alternative knowledge or feats (if you can call it that) which happened outside the empiricle and material explanations. You are also denying for the majority of people for the majority of time these alternative ways of knowing and experiencing rthe world and reality itself.

I hate to tell you, but reality is reality. That doesn't change. Where models of how we understand natural phenomena can change in favor of the more accurate, when we're dealing with how people made stuff in the past, we're as much in the historical as the technical. We know the tool the Egyptians (and likely the entire region) used to make stone vases because they made a hieroglyphic based on it. They made drawings of it. The only mystery is how they actually used it. Someone can imagine the Mediterranean of the time had technology that didn't exist then, and it might make the basis for an entertaining story, but it's not reality.

 

[stevevw]

One line about the unimpressive provenance of one vase and I get a full page of vase apologetics and a picture. Let's go.

Add up to what? Fakery? (I would agree.)

No add up to being precise. You know precise circles, flat surfaces, spheres, paralels, and angles ect. In other words the vase stacks up in precision but not in provedence. If a vase like it proves good provedence then the skeptics cannot complain anymore.

Afterall they are turning to fakery because they acknowledge the precision. So they must be fakes.

At this point, most archeologists won't even *touch* objects from private collections. The private antiquities market is overwhelmed by fakes and looted objects.

So what happens when one is sold at one of the top auction houses like Sotherbys who will want to guarentee their reputation and avoid being sued. What happens when they are sold with certificates of authenticity. Is that enough.

Your really latching on to the 'fakery' now that you acknowledge that these vases could not have been made with wobbly bent sticks.

No archeological context means no way to understand what the object is. This isn't about "moral outrage". It is about getting useful information from objects. If you don't know where an object is from how can you draw any useful conclusions about the past from it? That goes for the conclusions you are trying to make about ancient technology. If you can't demonstrate the vases come from actual pre-dynastic tombs, then how can they be used to demonstrate lost technology?

Its quite obvious. It is well accepted that these vases come from predynastic times like the Naqada people who are a Neolithic culture. Many found under the Stepped pyramid are inscribed with king Menes (3150BC) on them. It may be that even Menes inherited them like Djoser.

But it doesn't matter as we know many come from the Naqada period and the potters wheel was not invented let alone a sophisticated lath. Or something at least better than the wobbly bent sitick method which comes along nearly a 1,000 years later.

We are suppose to believe that the Naqada who made potter by the coil method because they had no potters wheel. Somehow had a dual industry where they also had advanced machining to make the hard stone vases. Yeah sure thats are magical thinking as you say the whackos are lol.

Signs of fakery should be a deal breaker for everyone. Why isn't it for you, Dunn, Beall, etc.?

There you go proving my point again. More logical falacies ad hominems to add to the strawmen and red herrings lol. I have shown to you already how wrong you were about Dunns expertise in being the first to suggest the Giza pyramid was some sort of energy generator. Which is now being verfied by indpendent science.

Just like Dunn we will see who is right. You are more or less saying that all these scientists and experts have no qualifications or credibility. While offering absolutely no independent evidence of this. You are doing exactly what you accuse Dunn and others of doing. Making unreal and unsupported spectulation.

Oh come on, Steve! What about "the dealer ran out of looted object so he sold a fake" do you not get?

Oh come on Hans! lol. The part where they had to make the vase to micron precision in reproducing the looted stuff when it was completely unnecessary and no one was doing scans to know lol. How could the buyer even check and why would they bother lol. It was not an issue back then.

What about 20th century stone craftsmen do you think couldn't make such a vase? We see similar objects (style, "quality", etc.) from current stone artisans. These modern objects (sold as such) sell for a few hundred dollars or so. The "antiques" sell for tens of thousands. There is PLENTY of incentive to go the extra mile to make it appear "ancient". This might be your least compelling argument. (And you imply ancient supertechnology, so that is saying a lot.)

You have just jumped maybe 60 years of vase making. Not sure if your talking about the handmade ones or manufactured ones. The tech has changed. Heck you can 3D print one nowadays lol.

But if we are talking say the 60s then it was not easy for a small time operation in some back street. Getting access to the machinery is not easy. If there were 1,000s of fakes then maybe they were more so precise and could be done on some sort of home lathe. But they won't be as precise as the modern CNC vases which some of these vases match.

But it still comes back to why. Why bother getting such precision in some back shed operation.. Just make them near enough, make them look old, polish them up and presto. No one was getting the scanners out to check them. Not even Southerbys. It seems an unnecessary hassle and expense.

No light ever reflected through anything. That's not what reflection is.

YOu are perdantic lol. Did you know what I meant. I am sure I have shown you the vase. I did describe that the light was coming through the wall because it was so thin. I think you knew what I meant but just wanted to be perdantic lol. Anyway thats why I link pics as they speak a 1,000 words.

Now why would some 1960s fake vase dealer bother to make such a thing wall which would have been difficult to do at that time and a complete hassel and very expensive.

You don't think that a mid-century artisan who makes stone vessels of various types all the time couldn't handle that?

Are you talking by hand and without any aid from lathing or machine guiding ect. If your talking about say the ancient craft and how it is still practiced today and who are classed are great stone workers. They cannot get this precision because they are using the traditional methods still.

If you are talking about some back street mason with a workshop and a basic lathe and other aids then yes they could. But it would be some of the best work for that time. If some of these vases are on par with more advanced CNC like may in the 80s or 90s onwards then back then it would not be as precise for the simple fact we have developed better tech.

But if we find vases with precision and good provedence then this makes all thes vases with a ? more likely to be genuine as they look exactly the same.

The left one looks like the product of some dealer telling a craftsman "make me one like the middle object".

But then the dealers not going to say, "oh and make sure you get that precision in the vase". He won't have a clue and the forger won't care. Near enough will be good enough. A few magnitudes of less precision will never be found out because no one will be looking for it and as you say you can't tell be looking at them lol.

Which ones of these have provenance to an actual dig? I'm willing to believe V22, V11, and V12 are authentic.

I know V10 is as this was one as it was acknowledged even by skeptics. I think V2 and the two B13 and V14. Usually the rare stones like porphyry and diorite are genuine. They are also harder to work with.

But one of the most precise vases from the Petrie museum in another test from Karoyl was alabasta I think. They also arranged for a modern day company to CNC a couple of the predynastic vases and they could not do it. They said it was even too complex for their modern machines.

 

[stevevw]

I hate to tell you, but reality is reality. That doesn't change.

Lol what is reality. You are assuming a certain reality and then imposing it on others. That is exactly what I am talking about. You cannot even see that this is happening because you assume this worldview is how everyone thinks.

Where models of how we understand natural phenomena can change in favor of the more accurate, when we're dealing with how people made stuff in the past, we're as much in the historical as the technical. We know the tool the Egyptians (and likely the entire region) used to make stone vases because they made a hieroglyphic based on it. They made drawings of it.

This is not a good way to understand the past. By what someone wrote or put on a rock. This could mean anything and we know Egyptians usurped or inhereted stuff from the past and put their name on it.

But more important the depictions we do have in the records such as on wall reliefs with the bow saws and bent stick method does not match the precision vase method. The bent stick or bow dril cannot produce these vases. Whats more this bent stick and bow drill method became common like the potters wheel and we have evidence from all over the world that shows the vases made by this method and they are in softer stones and no where near as precise.

I agree that tech changes as we progress and becomes more technical and people are able to produce better works over time. But this is an out of place example in that timeline. This level of vase should not have been around if you want to use the gradual imporvement of tech such as with the potters wheel and lathes.

The only mystery is how they actually used it.

Used what. There is nothing to be found as to how they made these vases. At least we have the bent stick method on the walls in later middle and new kingdoms which shows us. We have the vases from that method we can measure which match that method and they are not as good.

So some prior method was able to produce higher quality and more precise vases on par with modern machining. That is an out of place artifact as far as I can see. You can rationalise they must have done it someway without modern type aids. Like they somehow got lucky over and over and were able to feel their way to such precision. I don't know,

Someone can imagine the Mediterranean of the time had technology that didn't exist then, and it might make the basis for an entertaining story, but it's not reality.

Neither is saying the orthodox method or getting lucky or guessing their way to such works is realistic.

I look at this whole topic of past knowledge as a paradigm difference rather than focusing on specific examples. Specific examples in isolation are are harder to see in the context of many out of place works or other pieces of evidence that all go into supporting the idea that the world or knowledge we attribute to past cultures is really projecting our own or a modern worldview on the past.

First we have to detach from this paradigm of thinking before you can begin to understand and appreciate alternative ways of knowing that may have been around in the past.

I think its a case of building more and more evidence and data and then the bigger picture will come out. Perhaps its because I have investigated this for some time and from a number of angles from a worldwide context.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You missed the point. I am using the fact that for many, many people ideas like miracles or supernatural events in our past are real events.

I used to believe in such things, but only those written in sacred scripture, no others. I don't believe any of those anymore either. If you want to invoke such a mechanism -- proof, evidence -- that's what we need. Not hand waving and implication.

So when you say that there is no possible alternative knowledge or feats (if you can call it that) which happened outside the empiricle and material explanations. You are also denying for the majority of people for the majority of time these alternative ways of knowing and experiencing rthe world and reality itself.

That is not to say that these vases were created by a miracle. But to point out that if miracles are seen as real or supernatural events in our past or transcedent forms of knowledge in our past such as Indigenous or religious knowledge had deeper knowledge in one way or another that has been lost.

I don't care about their transcendent ways of knowing. I want to know ways of doing. No speculations.

It may not be miracles or seem like a miracle. Like ancients producing such modern looking works or works we consider impossible for that time. It may be a natural phenomena or a deeper knowledge of nature that allowed ancients to manipulate nature. That today we cannot understand through material science which tries to understand from the outside looking in.

It's rock. We know the mechanical properties of rock. No one is claiming it to be anything other than cut and polished rock.

If this deeper knowledge is along the lines of experiential knowledge. That is a closer connection to reality through conscious experiences. That this may give direct knowledge of reality that we have lost or detached ourselves from by the very paradigm of material science.

It seems logical to me that if conscious experience gives us deeper knowledge or a different kind of knowledge of the world, natural and reality that material science cannot give. Then if we now live in a material paradigm and in our past we lived in a more transcedent or spiritual or experiencial paradigm. Then we have lost that knowledge and it was not just make believe but just as important and perhaps even more real worldview than today.

I don't care. We are talking about something on the hand artisanship to machine tools spectrum. None of those are dependent on the "spiritual."

Despite that we know more and have more accumulated knowledge. This is not the same kind of knowledge.

But it seems that modern science is itself now turning back or at least being more open to this transcedent or experiencial aspect of reality because the material paradigm lacks explanation and the experiencial and consciousness aspect offers more.

This is an irrelevant rant. It matters not in the slightest to the production of stone vases in ancient Egypt. I don't know how you fail to see this. It does not take a naturalist and atheist to see this as this thread makes clear. No one but you think this has anything to do with spiritual or transcendent things.

 

[stevevw]

I used to believe in such things, but only those written in sacred scripture, no others. I don't believe any of those anymore either. If you want to invoke such a mechanism -- proof, evidence -- that's what we need. Not hand waving and implication.

My point is that the insistence of knowledge being evidenced a certain way is itself part of the problem. Your worldview which is a belief and not science demands a certain kind of evidence. I am saying that there is other ways of knowing that cannot be determined by your worldview that you are discounting.

Not because of scientific facts but because of a belief. A metaphysical belief that reality is only within your worldview of methological naturalism. You use to believe and believed in what you believed as real. What are you saying that all that believe as you believed are deluded. How do we know its not the other way around.

I don't care about their transcendent ways of knowing. I want to know ways of doing. No speculations.

Thats part of the problem lol. I gave the example of how in recent times western sciences have come to understand better and appreciate Indigenous knowledge. This was discounted as superstition or myth and stories. But nothing substancial as far as knowing reality.

Now we have come to see that there was great knowledge and ways which we are trying to understand as they are better ways of knowing nature such as environmental issues. How do we know that there was some deep knowledge like Indigenous knowledge that has been lost.

It's rock. We know the mechanical properties of rock. No one is claiming it to be anything other than cut and polished rock.

Actually we are trying to work out how ancients worked with rock in many works. That was their thing at that time that they used to build and express themselves with.

We say the rocks were cut or polished according to how we understand by todays tech. But obviously if such great works reflect modern signatures yet we can't find modern tech to mach that.

Which then makes you think what other ways could this have been done. Stone softening has been suggested as one possibility. That would then make basic tools suitable for shaping and cutting. This is what I mean by thinking outside the modern day box of how things may have been achieved or known.

I don't care. We are talking about something on the hand artisanship to machine tools spectrum. None of those are dependent on the "spiritual."

I disagree. We know the ancients incoporated natural representations in everything they did whether that was the Golden Ratio, the gods, or atrological alignments. At the very least these natural aspects were as big a part of the craft as the individual ability of the artist and perhaps even more important.

So to dismiss all this as just superstition and having no contribution to the achievement of these great worls is unreal. What your not considering because of the gradualist and reductionist paradigm is that it doesn't allow for possibilities outside this. Like I said such as stone softening. Because we can't do it and therefore no one has ever been able to do it because modern science says you can't.

This is an irrelevant rant. It matters not in the slightest to the production of stone vases in ancient Egypt. I don't know how you fail to see this.

I must have said at least half a dozen times that the fixation on the vases sidetracks from the overal point of the thread. That if we accumulated all the out of place examples then the back and forth arguements about specific examples pales into insignificance.

If there is lost knowledge that allowed the Egyptians to achieve what we consider impossible today then the vases is one example that cannot be denied. When you add all the examples this is what begins to make the case and open people up to the possibility of lost knowledge that even perhaps rivals what we know. That the ancients knew stuff about how to manipulate nature and we are still trying to worl this out.

What we see in the signatures that looks like impossible modern signatures may actually have been achieved not by the methods we think today. Such as the gradualist and reductive processes of simple to complex through time. But that some completely different knowledge about nature itself, just as creatures are immersed in nature they know how it works.

This ancients being immersed in nature more by the fact that there was no enlightenment and thats all there was. More or less the ancients were at one with nature and thus came to know some of its secrets where they could manipulate nature, physics and chemistry ect. There is actually evidence comeing out for this by the way.

But I know you will once again call this a rant lol. Here I am attempting to speculate on a hypothesis that is becoming more mainstream in the sciences.

It does not take a naturalist and atheist to see this as this thread makes clear. No one but you think this has anything to do with spiritual or transcendent things.

Except the billions of ancients and Indigenous peoples and most religions. Who is in the minority then lol. Or is it that a few who possess true knowledge are helping the rest of us be enlightened.

I mean its a common philosophical debate even about the materialist and spiritual paradigms. I am sure there are others on this thread and certainly many on this Christian forum being the majority would be open to there being two completely opposing worldviews on what actually is reality and true knowledge. Don't you think.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

First its no just two vases. These were the most impressive. But many others fell within the precision class and on par with modern machining. Were well above the orthodox methods in being made that way.

Which vases with good provenance fell within the precise class?

I think some perspective needs to be made when we are talking about the so called lesser precise vases from the two mentioned. We are talking about what amounts to a human hair or two in the best ones in deviation and around 3 or 4 thicknesses of paper at worst of the ones below this within the precision class.

Thats at their worst which is usually the widest parts of the vase. Other measurements in places such as faltness and roundness of lips, necks alignments of handles ect are still within similar precision to the two best vases.

The Artifact Foundation table you presented detailed the median circularity, where can I read a table with maximum deviation.

Second this is only one test. There are several others that add to the list of precision vases. The best one from the tests done by Karoyl from the Petrie museum coming in at 0.004 on the outside and amazingly 0.003 on an inch on the inside. But also several fell within the modern machining precision and certainly impossible by the orthodox method on the walls or tried in experiments.

What measurement were those, was it the maximum, minimum, average, or median what (circularity, flatness)? Define modern machining precision then, from a quick google search tolerances today start 0.1 mm and can go down to hundreds of a mm.

Third we have machine marks. Forget about all the metrology. The fact that they have witness marks of modern machining and not the signatures of the orthodox method is direct evidence for the method.

So now it is the product of a lathe? How many of the Petrie vases have marks of lathing in them?

So together the machining marks and the near precision this adds up to clear evidence that the tech and knowledge these ancients had is above what the orthodox narrative of bent sticks and bow saw methods. In fact there was no bow saws, bent stick cutters or even the potters wheel. This is the out of place evidence.

I'm fine with saying we don't know exactly how they were produced, so far it seems that Olgas vases are in the same ball park so to me it is possible that it was done with known techniques and skilled artisans.

Yes just as I said, material science sees consciouness as an epiphenomena of the electrical signals in the brain which is the physical processes and causes. Everything can be explained by these physical/material processes. There is nothing real beyond this.

So all the religions, beliefs, and experiences had for the majority of human history by the majority of humans is all an epiphenomena and in one way of another it is unreal as far as giving any deeper knowledge of the world and reality. Its make belief, superstition, imagination, even illusion or delusion as far as giving any real knowledge of the world.

Apart from helping humans survive of course. Which is just another way of saying that its a by produce of evolutionary processes which have no regard for meaning, belief, gods ect as real by aids to survival such as coperation. Is that right.

Is this really relevant to how the vases were produced?

A lot actually. First it recognises that there is advanced knowledge that may have been lost. I find this ironic in modern times because its been a big political issue about how Indigenous people have been losing their knowledge to western colonialisation and wesrern science imposing its parpadigms on Indigneous peoples.

If there is lost advanced knowledge that could produce such works and feats then it would be good to try and investigate what exactly this was. That skeptics think its nothing to discover in how they see it. BUt what if there are alternative ways of knowing the world and reality itself that may help in understanding reality.

I have no problem with people investigating whatever tickles their fancy, do the dig or experimental archeology, present the findings, publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Rinse and repeat. To cite an older colleague, "doing science means doing work even morons would find boring".

Like I said its almost as though modern thinking and ideas are returning to something transcedent in possible ways of explaing reality because after a few hundred years of enlightened science and dispite coming up with all sorts of material explainations we are at a loss as far as unifying physics and many anomelies in the sciences.

These anomelies and contraditions in our theories are not for a lack of more research and material explanations. BUt are categorically the wrong kind of explanations and knowledge.

If they can use this right kind of knowledge and explanations to make testable predictions and try to falsify them, then they can publish it.

It reminds me of the antedote of how the worlds bests academics are climbing the mountain of information and explanations of find the truth to existence and reality. Only to find an ancient Monk meditating and saying "I've been waiting for you" lol.

I think you losing sight of the forrest through the trees. The vases you think don't fall into the high precision of near perfect are still high precision as far as the times they were made. They still fall within modern machining tech method. They have witness marks of machining on them.

Again, slightly rephrased, which vases from actual digs have these witness marks?

They could not have been made by the methods claimed and in fact there was no such methods in that time. So even if we say the vases are a fair way of perfect. They are still within the range of modern maching and there was not even a potters wheel around. If we drop the precision to (roughly precise) suddenly we have literally dozens with excellect provedence to contend with that clearly show could not have been made by the orthodox method as there was no such method in existence.

To add to this if you want to say that perhaps some fairly good potters wheel or advanced bent stick device may have made these. Then you have the same problem that skeptics are saying that because we have not found such devices that this is just spectulation.

Saying "I'm not sure, but it seems like Olga came pretty close" is not saying "It must have been ancient technology and lost knowledge."

 

[Hans Blaster]

No add up to being precise. You know precise circles, flat surfaces,

Very easily done by craftsmen of the time. Not a problem at all.

spheres, paralels, and angles ect.

Nothing more than the imaginings of vase phrenologists.

In other words the vase stacks up in precision but not in provedence. If a vase like it proves good provedence then the skeptics cannot complain anymore.

Afterall they are turning to fakery because they acknowledge the precision. So they must be fakes.

So what happens when one is sold at one of the top auction houses like Sotherbys who will want to guarentee their reputation and avoid being sued. What happens when they are sold with certificates of authenticity. Is that enough.

All the auction houses will care about is the quality of the certificates and their insurance. If they get burned repeatedly by a bad authenticator, their going to stop dealing with them. Which of these vases were sold through a "top auction house".

Your really latching on to the 'fakery' now that you acknowledge that these vases could not have been made with wobbly bent sticks.

I've given up trying to convince you that the techniques of ancient Egypt are good enough (with some development beyond the current experimental state of affairs) to make the finest vases. Do you accept they could make the "low precision" ancient vases with those techniques, or were those made by incompetent CNC users?

Its quite obvious. It is well accepted that these vases come from predynastic times like the Naqada people who are a Neolithic culture. Many found under the Stepped pyramid are inscribed with king Menes (3150BC) on them. It may be that even Menes inherited them like Djoser.

Menes ... LOL ... Menes. You can't be serious that they were inscribed by Menes. Oh wait you were?

The name king Menes first appears on teh Abydos King list 2000 years or so after he would have lived:

(And no I am not commenting that the Cartouche form of writing royal names didn't exist at the time of the first dynasty.) His name does not appear on *any* objects contemporary with his rule. Egyptologists think Menes is one of two first dynasty rules: Narmer or Hor-Aha, or some unknown king, perhaps before the first dynasty.

But it doesn't matter as we know many come from the Naqada period and the potters wheel was not invented let alone a sophisticated lath. Or something at least better than the wobbly bent sitick method which comes along nearly a 1,000 years later.

Nonsense. Clearly round stone objects were made with some kind of rotation. The experiments clearly demonstrate how even fairly simple tools of that kind result in round objects, even if they don't meet the "unchartedX standards" for circularity.

We are suppose to believe that the Naqada who made potter by the coil method because they had no potters wheel. Somehow had a dual industry where they also had advanced machining to make the hard stone vases. Yeah sure thats are magical thinking as you say the whackos are lol.

Gridinding and drilling tools, my friend, not "machining". (Again, I really don't understand how you can watch the experimental videos and not realize that objects of this basic kind can be made. The issue should be, and only be, the "high quality" not the general manufacturing possibility. You are now rejecting even the two-year vase made by Olga as makeable with "primitive" tools.

There you go proving my point again. More logical falacies ad hominems to add to the strawmen and red herrings lol. I have shown to you already how wrong you were about Dunns expertise in being the first to suggest the Giza pyramid was some sort of energy generator. Which is now being verfied by indpendent science.

Just like Dunn we will see who is right. You are more or less saying that all these scientists and experts have no qualifications or credibility. While offering absolutely no independent evidence of this. You are doing exactly what you accuse Dunn and others of doing. Making unreal and unsupported spectulation.

Not a ad hom, or strawman or red herring or any fallacy in the slightest. My question was simple: Why isn't the possibility of the objects being fake a dealbreaker for you or Dunn or any of these other "vase enthusiasts"?

Do you seriously think a fake object can tell us anything meaningful about the past? (Think about your answer carefully. This conversation rests on it.)

If I handed you an unknown DaVinci painting and claimed it was evidence that DaVinci had access to 20th century writing technology because when it is X-rayed you can read words under the paint written in felt tip, would you:

A. Think Davinci had access to felt tip markers from the distant past
B. Think the painting I handed you was a fake DaVinci.

Now, does your answer change if my provenance tracks it back to the estate of a Parisian count in 1979?

Oh come on Hans! lol. The part where they had to make the vase to micron precision in reproducing the looted stuff when it was completely unnecessary and no one was doing scans to know lol. How could the buyer even check and why would they bother lol. It was not an issue back then.

This precision you speak of comes in two forms: one, the smooth circular form rotated about the axis which is very doable with mid-century tools, and two, the mathematical forms that certain vaseologist have "found" in their own minds. They have not demonstrated that the latter are real and not their imaginations.

You have just jumped maybe 60 years of vase making. Not sure if your talking about the handmade ones or manufactured ones. The tech has changed. Heck you can 3D print one nowadays lol.

But if we are talking say the 60s then it was not easy for a small time operation in some back street. Getting access to the machinery is not easy. If there were 1,000s of fakes then maybe they were more so precise and could be done on some sort of home lathe. But they won't be as precise as the modern CNC vases which some of these vases match.

This whole CNC this in a distraction. I'm not sure that even today you would use a programmable cutter instead of a lathe set up for cutting stone in the hands of a skilled stone vessel maker. CNC machines seem like they are intended for use in material that is less brittle than stone. (No sane person should claim that granite can be 3D printed. 3D printed copies, like injection molded copies or oak copies are irrelevant to our discussion.)

But it still comes back to why. Why bother getting such precision in some back shed operation.. Just make them near enough, make them look old, polish them up and presto.

Yep, that's my point. These vases fit that pattern. The "embeded math" parts are fits of their imagination until demonstrated otherwise.

No one was getting the scanners out to check them. Not even Southerbys. It seems an unnecessary hassle and expense.

Auction houses rely on experts and provenance they trust. No one would think to "scan" the vases.

YOu are perdantic lol.

Don't use physics wrong and you won't get this "feedback".

Did you know what I meant. I am sure I have shown you the vase. I did describe that the light was coming through the wall because it was so thin. I think you knew what I meant but just wanted to be perdantic lol. Anyway thats why I link pics as they speak a 1,000 words.

View attachment 370977

So what?

Now why would some 1960s fake vase dealer bother to make such a thing wall which would have been difficult to do at that time and a complete hassel and very expensive.

Artisan: "Sorry the walls are a bit thin. Is that OK?" Dealer: "Looks delicate and finely crafted. I like it. This will do very well."

IOW: Don't assume that the details of the design are part of some plan. Such a request would be for a small vase of granite about 4 inches high and x inches wide with handles that look like some example picture.

Are you talking by hand and without any aid from lathing or machine guiding ect. If your talking about say the ancient craft and how it is still practiced today and who are classed are great stone workers. They cannot get this precision because they are using the traditional methods still.

If you are talking about some back street mason with a workshop and a basic lathe and other aids then yes they could. But it would be some of the best work for that time. If some of these vases are on par with more advanced CNC like may in the 80s or 90s onwards then back then it would not be as precise for the simple fact we have developed better tech.

I was talking about mid-20th century artisans making fakes. The actual technology of the ancients aren't relevant.

But if we find vases with precision and good provedence then this makes all thes vases with a ? more likely to be genuine as they look exactly the same.

First you have to find *one* vase with "high precision" and good provenance. I've seen no demonstration that any have yet been demonstrated. The only provenance we've seen on "high precision" is lousy.

But then the dealers not going to say, "oh and make sure you get that precision in the vase". He won't have a clue and the forger won't care. Near enough will be good enough. A few magnitudes of less precision will never be found out because no one will be looking for it and as you say you can't tell be looking at them lol.

I know V10 is as this was one as it was acknowledged even by skeptics. I think V2 and the two B13 and V14. Usually the rare stones like porphyry and diorite are genuine. They are also harder to work with.

What is the provenance on V2, B12, V10, and V14?

But one of the most precise vases from the Petrie museum in another test from Karoyl was alabasta I think. They also arranged for a modern day company to CNC a couple of the predynastic vases and they could not do it. They said it was even too complex for their modern machines.

Aren't the alabaster vases from later when the drilling and turning techniques are clearly depicted? How does this impact pre-dynastic hard stone vase claims?

LOL, such a tiny vase.