There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

If you want to discuss the theology of ancient Egyptian vases go to a theology section. If you want to discuss the philosophy, then off to the philosophy section. If you just want complain about philosphical naturalists and non-believers in the supernatural please send all inquiries to /dev/null

 

[stevevw]

Which vases with good provenance fell within the precise class?

Several from the Petrie museum. Also from private collections including these.

As mentioned the bases tested dirtectly from the Petrie museum. Literally taken off the shelves. Around half the vases of the 20 vases tested fell within the precision class and low digit single 1,000s of an inch. The small one cream vase at the back was the best having a medium precision of 0.004 on the outside and astonishingly super precision on the inside at 0.003 inches. The interior being much harder to achieve.

This short video contains the vases but I have linked longer versions of this earlier. They are due to go back and test another 20 as you are only allow so many at a time. As they mention the ultimate goal is to get into all museums or as many as possible to test more vases.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeHistory/comments/1j0o6ba

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

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean on specifric vases that were less precise. The precision is based on a level of precision. A medium score based on the overall circularity. Are you looking for how precise or what is the level for which the vases circularity can be made by hand as opposed to lathe.

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.

Does it really matter when it comes to even basic circularity and symmetry. Even if we say its not so precise there is a certain point where lathing comes in. When there pretty good circularity and symmetry we know that some sort of lathe or compass was used.

But even if its not a lathe. Lets say a very good bent stick device that was more stable. Its still something that was not available. The Naqada people made pots by the coil method because they did not have the potters wheel or any device that could create symetry or circularity at all.

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

What do you mean now its a product of the lathe. Its always been a produce of the lathe and most people on this thread including skeptics agree.

The first thing said to me to explain the symmetry and circularity was a lathe. That the ancients could achieve this signature with a lathe. Thats because we can alkl recognise the signature of lathing.

Several precision vases have machining marks like a lathe on them. I linked a fragment of a vase bottom under the pyramid on site that had these machining marks. They are usually found because some of the vases are not completely polished or finished on the inside.

There are literally 1,000s of vases and fragments under Mastaba 17 and the Stepped pyramids. One of the videos shows these fragments were even used and others smashed into pieces for some reason. Maybe a cave in.

But even one or two is enough to show the machine marks and we can see the type of vase they come from. They are usually hard stone and have very uniform thickness and tapering as opposed to uneven thickness and off center softer fragments. There are literally 1,000s.

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.

But Olgas vases are not in the same ball part. Even to the naked eye.

The tall one looks closer on the outside to precision because Olga cheated. She used a modern wheel with ball bearings to stablise the vase to get good circularity. Still not as good as the bests predynastics.

But the point is she only proved that to achieve that next level precision some sort of lathe is needed. Without it she would not have achieved such precision as she would not have that tech like the ancients. Also the inside of the vase is nowhere near as precise. Which is the hard part.

Is this really relevant to how the vases were produced?

I don't know, you tell me. But if supernatural or transcedent knowledge claimed by ancients was real in the past then who are we to say. Is not that epistemic superiority.

Like I said these ancients may have understood how nature works and could mess around with the physical makeup of stone, soften or weaken it to be able to work it. We know they held secrets of medicines and healing throughc plants. Understood how animals behaved and the patterns in nature. Who knows what knowledge that brought.

We marvel at discovering the medicinal properties of plants. They had known this 1,000s of years ago. We are discovering how these ancients worked with nature. Why could they not have gained knowledge which enabled them to manipulate nature as Indigenous peoples have shown to be able to do. But just in deeper ways the further we go back that has been gradually lost.

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".

Yes thats right. I think more and more data is needed. Build up a catelogue and this will establish whether these vases are common and from an early period. That can only be done with more vases especially from museums.

As it seems now that people are acknowledging the precision but not the vases authenticity.

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.

Thats the point. For some knowledge we cannot make scientific tests because the knowledge is not based on physical brain signals or processes. Like conscious experiences of the world and phenomenal beliefs. A belief is something that persists and is processed as though like empiricle but not empiricle.

For example experiences of colors, sunsets and beauty or love and hate for that matter and even pain. Physical non consciousness matter can in no way explain experiencial phenomena. Yet it can be just as real as far as knowledge about reality.

Therefore as a general rule using material sciences to determine what past knowledge is real or qualifies as evidence is but only one aspect of knowledge.

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

I listed some above. I really think this is something people should do for themselves instead of asking for bits and peieces out of context and without the background. As with the video above this explains how the whole provedence objection can be used as a red herring to dismiss the strong case of why these vases despite a lack of provedence are genuine.

So understanding the context and neuances of these out of place works and within the context of all out of place works and other evidence for lost tech and knowledge needs to be investigated and understood to appreciate this topic. The OP touched on this but you can see other videos or articles that go into more detail.

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."

No I was just expressing apathy lol. Giving up because its never going to end. You and others believe one thing and many others like myself are open to other possibilities. People see the evidence differently.

People see what they want to see and nothing will change that as its more about a worldview belief.

 

[stevevw]

If you want to discuss the theology of ancient Egyptian vases go to a theology section. If you want to discuss the philosophy, then off to the philosophy section. If you just want complain about philosphical naturalists and non-believers in the supernatural please send all inquiries to /dev/null

Once again dictating what is allowed as evidence. Who said that belief and theology is not part of ancient knowledge. You only think its not part today due to the worldview you have today.

But it is well acknowledged and accepted that belief for example is a big part of ancient knowledge. Everything the ancients did was immersed in belief, spiritual and transcedence. Are you saying none of this gave them any knowledge of the world and reality.

For example a big reason why some of these works are so great or made so great is because they were made for the gods or as they say by the gods or men from the gods.

Just this simple aspect even if there is no supernaturalism is a powerful reason why works are made so perfect. Because it was for the gods. So we have a religious and spiritual aspect causing a physical manifestation expressed in these amzing works and megaliths. Something perhaps not achievable without gods or a transcedent basis that allowed these ancients to extend their ability beyond the norm of human ability.

This is often the case in the bible lol. But of course materialist atheists will claim its just story telling and nothing special or even made up stories due to evolutionary forces that are geared towards coperation and survival.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Several from the Petrie museum.

Which ones? Give me UC number and where it is tabulated. The precise and imprecise classes are classifications according to Maximus Energy. Has he investigated more vases from the Petrie museum than he present on his webpage?

Also from private collections including these.

View attachment 370988 View attachment 370989 View attachment 370990

Where can I read about the provenance of the vases out of private collections? That picture is unreadable by the way.

As mentioned the bases tested dirtectly from the Petrie museum. Literally taken off the shelves. Around half the vases of the 20 vases tested fell within the precision class and low digit single 1,000s of an inch. The small one cream vase at the back was the best having a medium precision of 0.004 on the outside and astonishingly super precision on the inside at 0.003 inches. The interior being much harder to achieve.


View attachment 370991

View attachment 370992

This short video contains the vases but I have linked longer versions of this earlier. They are due to go back and test another 20 as you are only allow so many at a time. As they mention the ultimate goal is to get into all museums or as many as possible to test more vases.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeHistory/comments/1j0o6ba

This is tests by the Artifact Foundation, I believe. What does this have to do with the precise and imprecise class? Beside, do the longer version have any tables detailing the data?

I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean on specifric vases that were less precise. The precision is based on a level of precision. A medium score based on the overall circularity. Are you looking for how precise or what is the level for which the vases circularity can be made by hand as opposed to lathe.

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.

You said it was the worst case scenario, but the only data you have presented is for the median circularity. So where is the data for the worst case, what is the maximum deviation from circularity for each vase?

Does it really matter when it comes to even basic circularity and symmetry. Even if we say its not so precise there is a certain point where lathing comes in. When there pretty good circularity and symmetry we know that some sort of lathe or compass was used.

But even if its not a lathe. Lets say a very good bent stick device that was more stable. Its still something that was not available. The Naqada people made pots by the coil method because they did not have the potters wheel or any device that could create symetry or circularity at all.

What do you mean now its a product of the lathe. Its always been a produce of the lathe and most people on this thread including skeptics agree.

Lathe or pottery wheels are not unknown ancient technology or lost knowledge.

The potter’s wheel is now generally considered to have originated in Mesopotamia in the 5th millennium BC and subsequently its use spread to the Levant and Egypt (Baldi and Roux, 2016; Freestone and Gaimster, 1997, p.15; Kuhrt, 1995, p.22; Pollock, 1999, p.5; Simpson, 1997, pp.50–55). The potter’s wheel came to Egypt before Sudan, during Egypt’s 4th dynasty c. 2600 BC, with the invention of the wheel originating in the Near East c. 4500–3800 BC (Doherty, 2015). Recent research by Baldi and Roux (2016, pp.236253) postulated two independent centres of potter’s wheel invention in northern Mesopotamia and southern Levant, resulting from a mutual demand for ceremonial vessels.

from https://iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2021-02-doherty.pdf

Pushing back the first known use of it in Egypt would be a huge success for the scientists involved but not completely unexpected. It is a possible explanation for good circularity, yes.

The first thing said to me to explain the symmetry and circularity was a lathe. That the ancients could achieve this signature with a lathe. Thats because we can alkl recognise the signature of lathing.

I thought they were witness marks for some yet unknown ancient technmology.

Several precision vases have machining marks like a lathe on them. I linked a fragment of a vase bottom under the pyramid on site that had these machining marks. They are usually found because some of the vases are not completely polished or finished on the inside.

There are literally 1,000s of vases and fragments under Mastaba 17 and the Stepped pyramids. One of the videos shows these fragments were even used and others smashed into pieces for some reason. Maybe a cave in.

Several precision vases not from private collections? Are they contemporary to the Naqada vases? Have they been dated to before the known use of pottery wheels in Egypt?

But even one or two is enough to show the machine marks and we can see the type of vase they come from. They are usually hard stone and have very uniform thickness and tapering as opposed to uneven thickness and off center softer fragments. There are literally 1,000s.

But Olgas vases are not in the same ball part. Even to the naked eye.

View attachment 370995 View attachment 370993 View attachment 370994

The tall one looks closer on the outside to precision because Olga cheated. She used a modern wheel with ball bearings to stablise the vase to get good circularity. Still not as good as the bests predynastics.

If you had 100s of skilled artisans that have worked during their whole life doing vases and stone objects, some are going to be very good. And the provenance of the predynastics that are better is detailed where?

But the point is she only proved that to achieve that next level precision some sort of lathe is needed. Without it she would not have achieved such precision as she would not have that tech like the ancients. Also the inside of the vase is nowhere near as precise. Which is the hard part.

I don't know, you tell me. But if supernatural or transcedent knowledge claimed by ancients was real in the past then who are we to say. Is not that epistemic superiority.

Like I said these ancients may have understood how nature works and could mess around with the physical makeup of stone, soften or weaken it to be able to work it. We know they held secrets of medicines and healing throughc plants. Understood how animals behaved and the patterns in nature. Who knows what knowledge that brought.

How is this connected to the manufacturing of vases?

We marvel at discovering the medicinal properties of plants. They had known this 1,000s of years ago. We are discovering how these ancients worked with nature. Why could they not have gained knowledge which enabled them to manipulate nature as Indigenous peoples have shown to be able to do. But just in deeper ways the further we go back that has been gradually lost.

Yes thats right. I think more and more data is needed. Build up a catelogue and this will establish whether these vases are common and from an early period. That can only be done with more vases especially from museums.

As it seems now that people are acknowledging the precision but not the vases authenticity.

Thats the point. For some knowledge we cannot make scientific tests because the knowledge is not based on physical brain signals or processes. Like conscious experiences of the world and phenomenal beliefs. A belief is something that persists and is processed as though like empiricle but not empiricle.

For example experiences of colors, sunsets and beauty or love and hate for that matter and even pain. Physical non consciousness matter can in no way explain experiencial phenomena. Yet it can be just as real as far as knowledge about reality.

Therefore as a general rule using material sciences to determine what past knowledge is real or qualifies as evidence is but only one aspect of knowledge.

I listed some above. I really think this is something people should do for themselves instead of asking for bits and peieces out of context and without the background. As with the video above this explains how the whole provedence objection can be used as a red herring to dismiss the strong case of why these vases despite a lack of provedence are genuine.

The video does no such thing, it shows how Ben van Kerkwyk tries to handwave the objection away.

So understanding the context and neuances of these out of place works and within the context of all out of place works and other evidence for lost tech and knowledge needs to be investigated and understood to appreciate this topic. The OP touched on this but you can see other videos or articles that go into more detail.

No I was just expressing apathy lol. Giving up because its never going to end. You and others believe one thing and many others like myself are open to other possibilities. People see the evidence differently.

People see what they want to see and nothing will change that as its more about a worldview belief.

This is just as applicable to yourself.

 

[Tuur]

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.

I assume nothing. I know that if you step off the top of a tall skyscraper into thin air, you'll go splat. I know that if you divide the circumference of a circle by it's diameter, you'll end up with an irrational number beginning with 3.14 . I know that Watts = volts x amps. I know that the square of a hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of both sides. These and a great many things are based on what is. If it wasn't consistent from person to person, nothing would work.

There's really no point in continuing this discussion, is there? If we can't even agree that reality is, then any sort of discussion is a waste of time.

 

[stevevw]

Which ones? Give me UC number and where it is tabulated. The precise and imprecise classes are classifications according to Maximus Energy. Has he investigated more vases from the Petrie museum than he present on his webpage?

Yes I think Max has and I linked them earlier. Let me find them. In the mean time here are the results from another test done at the Petrie museum. This is from another team of researchers. The analysis starts at around 33.45 minutes. Its important to watch this as it explains how the metrology is done and explains the tolerances and difference between the average or mean and the median scores for each vase.

The results follow and start with a test on a alabasta vase from the 26th dynasty as well as dynastic pottery, handmade vases including Olgas. a CNC replica of a predynastic vase, a modern CNC marbel cup for comparison. So its good to watch the results of these to compare.

If you want to skip all that then the scan results on the predynastic vases begins around 43.50 minutes. Starting with the OG vase and then 21 of the vases from the museum. This is the tests that has the vase (first vase below) with median score of 0.138mm or 138 microns where not only is the outside on par with modern maching but the inside is even more precise. Which is harder.

The first 5 vases fall in the modern machining precise class. While the next 6 either fall in the modern machining class but less precise or the higher end handmade less precise class. Like Maximus the threshold for precise class was around a median score of 200 microns and under.

Where can I read about the provenance of the vases out of private collections? That picture is unreadable by the way.

Actually as mentioned apart from the museum vases its hard to find private vasesthat have been tested with good provedence. I linked a couple on previous pages. If you look at the bottom of Maximus article it mentions the provedence of the vases tested and gives an example with certificate of authenticity on one of the vases dating back to (3600 to 3200BC). It mentions each vase has certificate of authenticity.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

You said it was the worst case scenario, but the only data you have presented is for the median circularity. So where is the data for the worst case, what is the maximum deviation from circularity for each vase?

THis is contained in the link above. But I am pretty sure from memory Maximus also listed the data on the imprecise vases for comparison such as the hand made ones. There were also some Petrie vases that fell in the imprecise class.

Lathe or pottery wheels are not unknown ancient technology or lost knowledge.

They would be if we find lathe signatures on artifacts before the lathe or potters wheel lol. It would be like finding a sim card from a mobile phone in the 1900s without the mobile phone lol.

from https://iansa.eu/papers/IANSA-2021-02-doherty.pdf

Pushing back the first known use of it in Egypt would be a huge success for the scientists involved but not completely unexpected. It is a possible explanation for good circularity, yes.

Well yes, if they found evidence of lathing then this would explain a lot. But it would have to be even better than what came nearly a 1,000 years later with the bent stick and bow saw methods. This seems the only method ever within Egypt and they still use it today.

This method is way to wobbly and cannot produce such precision. Never did in 4000 plus years. The tech for these predynastic vases would have to be better than anything the Egyptians made in all their history.

I thought they were witness marks for some yet unknown ancient technmology.

The reason being that if the potters wheel was not even around let along a pretty stable lathe then it must be something else. Not because they may have had a lathe and we cannot find it. But because the potters wheel and lathe were not around at that time anywhere.

The rudimentary potters wheel did not come to Egypt until around 2600BC. But I think even later like around 1800BC as it mentions the potters wheel being introduced from the Lavant. This was the time the Asiatics or proto Hebrews were coming into Egypt bringing their ideas and culture.

But these vases belong to the Naqada Neolithic culture near on a 1,000 years earlier or more back to 3,600BC or earlier. The first wheels were slow so more advanced wheels let along laths did not come until later.

Several precision vases not from private collections? Are they contemporary to the Naqada vases? Have they been dated to before the known use of pottery wheels in Egypt?

Yes, yes and yes. Many of the vases come from the Naqada culture. The ones found under the Stepped pyramid are predynastic and many would be from the Naqada culture.

If you had 100s of skilled artisans that have worked during their whole life doing vases and stone objects, some are going to be very good. And the provenance of the predynastics that are better is detailed where?

In the vases in the museums or in private collections that have certificates of authenticity. I give up lol. I don't want to do the vases anymore. We have been on this for pages and I have given ample links for others to investigate. I shou;ld not have to do this. I know if I do that it will still be dismissed as it is now.

How is this connected to the manufacturing of vases?

Do you think there is anything such as say Indigenous knowledge. A knowledge Indigenous or ancient peoples had that is different to how modern western science works.

As I mentioned if ancients had some deeper knowledge of nature and how it works they may have been able to manipulate it. Soften stone for example which would make it easier to work with.

This is just as applicable to yourself.

If your human it applies to everyone. Everyone has their own worldview beliefs about metphysics. Depending on your prior assumptions and beliefs about what constitutes reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Once again dictating what is allowed as evidence. Who said that belief and theology is not part of ancient knowledge. You only think its not part today due to the worldview you have today.

But it is well acknowledged and accepted that belief for example is a big part of ancient knowledge. Everything the ancients did was immersed in belief, spiritual and transcedence. Are you saying none of this gave them any knowledge of the world and reality.

For example a big reason why some of these works are so great or made so great is because they were made for the gods or as they say by the gods or men from the gods.

Just this simple aspect even if there is no supernaturalism is a powerful reason why works are made so perfect. Because it was for the gods. So we have a religious and spiritual aspect causing a physical manifestation expressed in these amzing works and megaliths. Something perhaps not achievable without gods or a transcedent basis that allowed these ancients to extend their ability beyond the norm of human ability.

This is often the case in the bible lol. But of course materialist atheists will claim its just story telling and nothing special or even made up stories due to evolutionary forces that are geared towards coperation and survival.

Text ignored.

I'm just not going to respond to (or read) anything that is that far off topic.

 

[BCP1928]

Once again dictating what is allowed as evidence. Who said that belief and theology is not part of ancient knowledge. You only think its not part today due to the worldview you have today.

Nobody said that. It just does not effect the day-to-day work of the skilled trades very much

But it is well acknowledged and accepted that belief for example is a big part of ancient knowledge. Everything the ancients did was immersed in belief, spiritual and transcedence. Are you saying none of this gave them any knowledge of the world and reality.

For example a big reason why some of these works are so great or made so great is because they were made for the gods or as they say by the gods or men from the gods.

I expect that has been true for much of human history.

Just this simple aspect even if there is no supernaturalism is a powerful reason why works are made so perfect. Because it was for the gods. So we have a religious and spiritual aspect causing a physical manifestation expressed in these amzing works and megaliths. Something perhaps not achievable without gods or a transcedent basis that allowed these ancients to extend their ability beyond the norm of human ability.

Religious belief is a great motivator. but there is no evidence it increases the routine manual skills of a trade.

This is often the case in the bible lol. But of course materialist atheists will claim its just story telling and nothing special or even made up stories due to evolutionary forces that are geared towards coperation and survival.

The stories are geared toward cooperation and survival whether they are made up or not.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes I think Max has and I linked them earlier. Let me find them. In the mean time here are the results from another test done at the Petrie museum. This is from another team of researchers. The analysis starts at around 33.45 minutes. Its important to watch this as it explains how the metrology is done and explains the tolerances and difference between the average or mean and the median scores for each vase.

The results follow and start with a test on a alabasta vase from the 26th dynasty as well as dynastic pottery, handmade vases including Olgas. a CNC replica of a predynastic vase, a modern CNC marbel cup for comparison. So its good to watch the results of these to compare.

If you want to skip all that then the scan results on the predynastic vases begins around 43.50 minutes. Starting with the OG vase and then 21 of the vases from the museum. This is the tests that has the vase (first vase below) with median score of 0.138mm or 138 microns where not only is the outside on par with modern maching but the inside is even more precise. Which is harder.

The first 5 vases fall in the modern machining precise class. While the next 6 either fall in the modern machining class but less precise or the higher end handmade less precise class. Like Maximus the threshold for precise class was around a median score of 200 microns and under.

This is the best vase they describe and the surface deviation that they report ( https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf ).

The max difference of the surface deviation is on the order of 2 mm, I don't think that is close to what is achievable with modern technology.

Where did you find Maximus threshold between imprecise and precise at 200 microns? This is the reason one publish in actual peer-reviewed journals.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Where can I read about the provenance of the vases out of private collections? That picture is unreadable by the way.

From what I can tell, it is a "Certificate of Authenticity" issued by a DC antiquities dealer. I looked at their site and a few of the objects (from various cultures and regions) and all of them track back to some private collection or acquisition in the 70s or 60s. I get the feeling that some day some wealthy politician is going to get caught with a bunch of looted objects in their collection from this place...

 

[Stopped_lurking]

View attachment 371001

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. Download Paper For complete details, download my paper: Pr…

maximus.energy

Why would you cut it there, it clearly shows it only goes back to 1979. This borders on explicitly trying to misdirect the reader, peer-review is what is needed as this point.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to discuss the theology of ancient Egyptian vases go to a theology section. If you want to discuss the philosophy, then off to the philosophy section.

And if you want to discuss history ...

... from AI Overview:

The existence of the Hittite Empire was "denied" in the sense that it was a forgotten civilization for millennia, with many 19th-century scholars believing the biblical references to the Hittites were mythical, until archaeological discoveries in the late 19th century confirmed their existence as a major ancient power comparable to Egypt and Assyria.

 

[sjastro]

I decided to do an experiment to get GPT-5 to calculate the circularity/concentricity and compare the values based on Steve’s Post #506 video on the OG vase.
GPT-5 did the heavy work, I made suggestions on how to deal with outliers, to correctly seat the scanned vase so its rotation axis is perpendicular to a horizontal surface and how to calibrate the code.
No corrections due to cylindricity were made, I wanted a direct comparison to the video.

For those that are interested here is the GPT-5's Python code.

import os
import numpy as np
import trimesh
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd

# ------------------------------
# STL path
# ------------------------------
stl_path = r"C:\vase\Thinwall STL.stl"
if not os.path.exists(stl_path):
raise FileNotFoundError(f"STL file not found at: {stl_path}")

# ------------------------------
# Load mesh
# ------------------------------
mesh = trimesh.load(stl_path, force='mesh')
if not isinstance(mesh, trimesh.Trimesh):
raise RuntimeError("STL did not load as a valid Trimesh object.")

# ------------------------------
# Repair mesh
# ------------------------------
mesh.fill_holes()
mesh.update_faces(mesh.nondegenerate_faces())
mesh.remove_unreferenced_vertices()
mesh.update_faces(mesh.unique_faces())
mesh.merge_vertices()

# ------------------------------
# Scale to physical height
# ------------------------------
physical_height_mm = 125.48
zmin, zmax = mesh.bounds[:,2]
current_height = zmax - zmin
scale_factor = physical_height_mm / current_height
mesh.vertices *= scale_factor

# ------------------------------
# Align principal axis to Z (ensures perpendicular to horizontal plane)
# ------------------------------
verts = mesh.vertices - mesh.vertices.mean(axis=0)
cov = np.cov(verts.T)
eigvals, eigvecs = np.linalg.eigh(cov)
principal_axis = eigvecs[:, np.argmax(eigvals)]
if principal_axis[2] < 0:
principal_axis = -principal_axis
mesh.apply_transform(trimesh.geometry.align_vectors(principal_axis, [0,0,1]))

# ------------------------------
# Slice mesh (2000 slices)
# ------------------------------
num_slices = 2000
zmin, zmax = mesh.bounds[:,2]
heights = np.linspace(zmin, zmax, num_slices)
sections = mesh.section_multiplane(
plane_origin=[0,0,zmin],
plane_normal=[0,0,1],
heights=heights
)

# ------------------------------
# Helper: distance from points to line
# ------------------------------
def distance_to_line(points, p0, v):
w = points - p0
d = np.linalg.norm(np.cross(w, v), axis=1) / np.linalg.norm(v)
return d

# ------------------------------
# Gather slice data
# ------------------------------
slice_centers = []
circ_rms_values = []
slice_z_vals = []

for idx, path in enumerate(sections):
if path is None:
continue
polygons = path.polygons_full
if not polygons:
continue
poly = max(polygons, key=lambda p: p.area)
coords = np.array(poly.exterior.coords)
if coords.shape[0] < 3:
continue

xc, yc = np.mean(coords[:,0]), np.mean(coords[:,1])
slice_center = np.array([xc, yc, heights[idx]])
slice_centers.append(slice_center)
slice_z_vals.append(heights[idx])

r = np.sqrt((coords[:,0]-xc)**2 + (coords[:,1]-yc)**2)
rms_circ = np.sqrt(np.mean((r - np.mean(r))**2))
circ_rms_values.append(rms_circ)

slice_centers = np.array(slice_centers)
circ_rms_values = np.array(circ_rms_values)
slice_z_vals = np.array(slice_z_vals)

if len(slice_centers) < 5:
raise RuntimeError("Not enough valid slices for analysis")

# ------------------------------
# Fit best-fit 3D axis using PCA
# ------------------------------
mean_point = slice_centers.mean(axis=0)
centered_points = slice_centers - mean_point
cov_matrix = np.cov(centered_points.T)
eigvals, eigvecs = np.linalg.eigh(cov_matrix)
axis_dir = eigvecs[:, np.argmax(eigvals)]
if axis_dir[2] < 0:
axis_dir = -axis_dir

# ------------------------------
# Concentricity = RMS distance from slice centers to axis
# ------------------------------
conc_rms_values = np.sqrt(np.mean(distance_to_line(slice_centers, mean_point, axis_dir)**2))

# ------------------------------
# Exclude outliers using 5–95 percentile for circularity
# ------------------------------
lower, upper = np.percentile(circ_rms_values, [5, 95])
mask = (circ_rms_values >= lower) & (circ_rms_values <= upper)
circ_rms_values_filtered = circ_rms_values[mask]
slice_centers_filtered = slice_centers[mask]

# Recompute concentricity RMS with filtered slices
conc_rms_values_filtered = np.sqrt(np.mean(distance_to_line(slice_centers_filtered, mean_point, axis_dir)**2))

# Median values
median_circ_rms = np.median(circ_rms_values_filtered)
median_conc_rms = np.median(conc_rms_values_filtered)
parameter_P = np.sqrt(median_circ_rms * median_conc_rms)

# ------------------------------
# Output results
# ------------------------------
print(f"Valid slices analyzed (after filtering): {len(circ_rms_values_filtered)}")
print(f"Median circularity RMS (mm): {median_circ_rms:.6f}")
print(f"Median concentricity RMS (mm): {median_conc_rms:.6f}")
print(f"(Circularity × Concentricity)^0.5 (mm): {parameter_P:.6f}")

# ------------------------------
# Export CSV
# ------------------------------
df = pd.DataFrame({
'z_mm': slice_z_vals[mask],
'circularity_rms_mm': circ_rms_values_filtered,
})
csv_path = r"C:\vase\vase_metrology_2000_slices_rms_filtered.csv"
df.to_csv(csv_path, index=False)
print(f"CSV saved to {csv_path}")

# ------------------------------
# Plot
# ------------------------------
plt.figure(figsize=(12,5))
plt.plot(slice_z_vals[mask], circ_rms_values_filtered, marker='.', markersize=2, label='Circularity RMS (mm)')
plt.xlabel('Z position (mm)')
plt.ylabel('RMS deviation (mm)')
plt.title('Vase Metrology (Filtered, 2000 slices)')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.savefig(r"C:\vase\vase_metrology_plot_rms_filtered.png", dpi=150)
plt.show()

The Python code, Steve's video and Maximus.energy method of calculating the concentricity and circularity are not recognized as being ISO 1011 compliant which is the series of standards for Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS). These standards ensure that measurements of form errors are consistent, reproducible, and traceable in industrial metrology.
It gets back to my point only approved professional metrology software should be used for analysis.

To make sure the Python code would give sensible results, an artificial STL file of a perfect tube using the same mesh resolution as the highest resolution scan of the OG vase was run.
In a perfect world the median values for concentricity, circularity and the parameter √(concentricity x circularity) should all equal zero.

After running the Python code:

Given the mesh is not composed of infinitesimally small elements, in the real world the extremely small values are acceptable.

The next step was to run the code against the high resolution scan of the OG vase.

√(concentricity x circularity) = 0.650 mm compared to √(concentricity x circularity) = 0.027 mm in the video which is nearly 25X greater.

It would be very easy for @stevevw to state the Python code is wrong but since the word expert has been thrown around in this thread, AI is now considered to be on par with the very best human Python coders.
When the OG vase was scanned and analysed using Zeiss Inspector in post #548 indicating a far from perfect symmetry around an axis of revolution, the Python result is most probably far closer to the truth.

 

[sjastro]

I decided to do an experiment to get GPT-5 to calculate the circularity/concentricity and compare the values based on Steve’s Post #506 video on the OG vase.
GPT-5 did the heavy work, I made suggestions on how to deal with outliers, to correctly seat the scanned vase so its rotation axis is perpendicular to a horizontal surface and how to calibrate the code.
No corrections due to cylindricity were made, I wanted a direct comparison to the video.

For those that are interested here is the GPT-5's Python code.


The Python code, Steve's video and Maximus.energy method of calculating the concentricity and circularity are not recognized as being ISO 1011 compliant which is the series of standards for Geometrical Product Specifications (GPS). These standards ensure that measurements of form errors are consistent, reproducible, and traceable in industrial metrology.
It gets back to my point only approved professional metrology software should be used for analysis.

To make sure the Python code would give sensible results, an artificial STL file of a perfect tube using the same mesh resolution as the highest resolution scan of the OG vase was run.
In a perfect world the median values for concentricity, circularity and the parameter √(concentricity x circularity) should all equal zero.

After running the Python code:

View attachment 371056

Given the mesh is not composed of infinitesimally small elements, in the real world the extremely small values are acceptable.

The next step was to run the code against the high resolution scan of the OG vase.

View attachment 371057

√(concentricity x circularity) = 0.650 mm compared to √(concentricity x circularity) = 0.027 mm in the video which is nearly 25X greater.

It would be very easy for @stevevw to state the Python code is wrong but since the word expert has been thrown around in this thread, AI is now considered to be on par with the very best human Python coders.
When the OG vase was scanned and analysed using Zeiss Inspector in post #548 indicating a far from perfect symmetry around an axis of revolution, the Python result is most probably far closer to the truth.

Here is GPT-5's explanation of the calibration (the code was not included in my previous post.)
It claims it was my code, I take no credit I only made broad suggestions.

Here’s a detailed explanation of how you would set up a calibration using perfect_tube_dense.stl for your vase metrology workflow:

---

1. Purpose of Calibration​

The goal of calibration is to determine the baseline measurement error and validate that your code correctly calculates circularity, concentricity, and related parameters. Using a perfect geometry allows you to check:

• Slice extraction accuracy.
• Circularity calculations.
• Axis alignment (PCA for best-fit axis).
• RMS or other statistical measures.

If the code reports non-zero deviations on a perfect geometry, you know the mesh resolution or slicing approach is introducing artifacts.

---

2. Generating perfect_tube_dense.stl​

• Dimensions:
  • Height = 125 mm
  • Inner diameter = 20 mm
  • Outer diameter = 40 mm
• Mesh density:
  • Use high-resolution polygon tessellation, targeting roughly the same vertex/face density as your Thinwall STL:
    • Thinwall: ~4.7 million faces, 2.3 million vertices.
    • perfect_tube_dense: match this to ensure similar numerical behavior.
• Polygon approximation:
  • Circular cross-sections should be approximated with many points per circle (e.g., 2048 or more) to avoid discretization errors.

---

3. Loading and Scaling​

• Load the STL into trimesh:

mesh = trimesh.load("perfect_tube_dense.stl")

• Scale to a known physical height, e.g., 125 mm:

physical_height_mm = 125
current_height = mesh.bounds[1,2] - mesh.bounds[0,2]
scale_factor = physical_height_mm / current_height
mesh.vertices *= scale_factor

• At this stage, the mesh is already perfect, so no repair or hole-filling is strictly necessary.

---

4. Axis Alignment​

• Use PCA to align the tube axis with the Z-axis:

verts = mesh.vertices - mesh.vertices.mean(axis=0)
cov = np.cov(verts.T)
eigvals, eigvecs = np.linalg.eigh(cov)
principal_axis = eigvecs[:, np.argmax(eigvals)]
if principal_axis[2] < 0:
principal_axis = -principal_axis
mesh.apply_transform(trimesh.geometry.align_vectors(principal_axis, [0,0,1]))

• This ensures that any tilt is removed, giving a truly vertical axis.

---

5. Slice Extraction​

• Slice the tube along its height, matching your analysis code:

num_slices = 2000
zmin, zmax = mesh.bounds[:,2]
heights = np.linspace(zmin, zmax, num_slices)
sections = mesh.section_multiplane(
plane_origin=[0,0,zmin],
plane_normal=[0,0,1],
heights=heights
)

• Using dense slicing ensures that cross-sectional circularity is accurately captured.

---

6. Circularity and Concentricity Checks​

• For each slice:
  • Extract points on the outer cross-section.
  • Compute slice center.
  • Measure radial deviations from the center.
• Since the tube is perfectly concentric, all deviations should be near 0:

r = np.sqrt((coords[:,0]-xc)**2 + (coords[:,1]-yc)**2)
circ_values.append(np.max(np.abs(r - np.mean(r))))

• Concentricity is the distance of the slice center from the PCA axis. With a perfect tube, this should also be near 0.

---

7. Calibration Output​

• Once you run your metrology script:

Valid slices analyzed: 1999
Median circularity RMS (mm): ~0.0001
Median concentricity RMS (mm): ~0.00001

• These small numbers represent mesh discretization and numerical noise.
• Any larger deviations observed in Thinwall STL are thus real geometric errors in the scanned mesh, not the algorithm.

---

8. Why This Calibration Works​

• By matching the mesh resolutionof the real object (Thinwall STL) and running the same code:
  • You quantify the minimum measurable circularity/concentricity for your pipeline.
  • Any measurement from the real vase that exceeds this baseline is a true geometric deviation.

---

If you want, I can write a ready-to-run calibration block that automatically:

1. Loads perfect_tube_dense.stl.
2. Slices it like your vase.
3. Calculates median RMS circularity and concentricity.
4. Reports baseline measurement noise for your pipeline.

This would make it plug-and-play for every future scan.


Do you want me to do that?

An explanation of its code in my previous post.

Sure! Let’s go through this script step by step and explain what each part does. This will clarify how your vase metrology workflow is implemented.

---

1. Imports and STL path​

import os
import numpy as np
import trimesh
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd

stl_path = r"C:\vase\Thinwall STL.stl"
if not os.path.exists(stl_path):
raise FileNotFoundError(f"STL file not found at: {stl_path}")

• Imports required Python libraries:
  • trimesh for 3D mesh operations.
  • numpy for numerical computations.
  • matplotlib for plotting.
  • pandas for CSV export.
• Checks that the STL file exists before proceeding.

---

2. Load the mesh​

mesh = trimesh.load(stl_path, force='mesh')
if not isinstance(mesh, trimesh.Trimesh):
raise RuntimeError("STL did not load as a valid Trimesh object.")

• Loads the 3D mesh from STL.
• Ensures the object is a valid Trimesh object.

---

3. Mesh repair​

mesh.fill_holes()
mesh.update_faces(mesh.nondegenerate_faces())
mesh.remove_unreferenced_vertices()
mesh.update_faces(mesh.unique_faces())
mesh.merge_vertices()

• Fixes common STL mesh issues:
  • Fills holes.
  • Removes degenerate or unreferenced faces/vertices.
  • Ensures all faces are unique.
  • Merges duplicate vertices.

---

4. Scale mesh to physical height​

physical_height_mm = 125.48
zmin, zmax = mesh.bounds[:,2]
current_height = zmax - zmin
scale_factor = physical_height_mm / current_height
mesh.vertices *= scale_factor

• Computes the current height of the mesh.
• Scales the mesh so its height matches the physical target (125.48 mm).

---

5. Align principal axis to Z​

verts = mesh.vertices - mesh.vertices.mean(axis=0)
cov = np.cov(verts.T)
eigvals, eigvecs = np.linalg.eigh(cov)
principal_axis = eigvecs[:, np.argmax(eigvals)]
if principal_axis[2] < 0:
principal_axis = -principal_axis
mesh.apply_transform(trimesh.geometry.align_vectors(principal_axis, [0,0,1]))

• Computes the principal axis of the mesh using PCA.
• Rotates the mesh so its main axis is vertical (Z-axis), ensuring the vase is perpendicular to the horizontal plane.

---

6. Slice the mesh​

num_slices = 2000
zmin, zmax = mesh.bounds[:,2]
heights = np.linspace(zmin, zmax, num_slices)
sections = mesh.section_multiplane(
plane_origin=[0,0,zmin],
plane_normal=[0,0,1],
heights=heights
)

• Generates 2000 evenly spaced horizontal slices along the Z-axis.
• Each slice is a cross-section of the vase.

---

7. Helper function: distance from points to a line​

def distance_to_line(points, p0, v):
w = points - p0
d = np.linalg.norm(np.cross(w, v), axis=1) / np.linalg.norm(v)
return d

• Calculates the perpendicular distance of points to a line.
• p0 is a point on the line, v is the direction vector (the vase axis).

---

8. Gather slice data​

slice_centers = []
circ_rms_values = []
slice_z_vals = []

for idx, path in enumerate(sections):
if path is None:
continue
polygons = path.polygons_full
if not polygons:
continue
poly = max(polygons, key=lambda p: p.area)
coords = np.array(poly.exterior.coords)
if coords.shape[0] < 3:
continue

xc, yc = np.mean(coords[:,0]), np.mean(coords[:,1])
slice_center = np.array([xc, yc, heights[idx]])
slice_centers.append(slice_center)
slice_z_vals.append(heights[idx])

r = np.sqrt((coords[:,0]-xc)**2 + (coords[:,1]-yc)**2)
rms_circ = np.sqrt(np.mean((r - np.mean(r))**2))
circ_rms_values.append(rms_circ)

• For each slice:
  • Extracts the largest polygon (the main cross-section).
  • Computes the center of the slice.
  • Calculates RMS circularity (deviation of points from the mean radius).

---

9. Convert lists to arrays​

slice_centers = np.array(slice_centers)
circ_rms_values = np.array(circ_rms_values)
slice_z_vals = np.array(slice_z_vals)

if len(slice_centers) < 5:
raise RuntimeError("Not enough valid slices for analysis")

• Converts Python lists to NumPy arrays for efficient computation.
• Ensures enough slices exist for meaningful analysis.

---

10. Fit best-fit 3D axis (PCA)​

mean_point = slice_centers.mean(axis=0)
centered_points = slice_centers - mean_point
cov_matrix = np.cov(centered_points.T)
eigvals, eigvecs = np.linalg.eigh(cov_matrix)
axis_dir = eigvecs[:, np.argmax(eigvals)]
if axis_dir[2] < 0:
axis_dir = -axis_dir

• Performs PCA on slice centers to find the best-fit axis of the vase.
• Ensures the axis points upward (positive Z).

---

11. Compute RMS concentricity​

conc_rms_values = np.sqrt(np.mean(distance_to_line(slice_centers, mean_point, axis_dir)**2))

• Measures how far each slice center deviates from the best-fit axis.
• Uses RMS (root mean square) to summarize deviations.

---

12. Exclude outliers​

lower, upper = np.percentile(circ_rms_values, [5, 95])
mask = (circ_rms_values >= lower) & (circ_rms_values <= upper)
circ_rms_values_filtered = circ_rms_values[mask]
slice_centers_filtered = slice_centers[mask]

conc_rms_values_filtered = np.sqrt(np.mean(distance_to_line(slice_centers_filtered, mean_point, axis_dir)**2))

• Removes the top and bottom 5% of circularity values to ignore outliers.
• Recomputes RMS concentricity using only filtered slices.

---

13. Median values and combined parameter​

median_circ_rms = np.median(circ_rms_values_filtered)
median_conc_rms = np.median(conc_rms_values_filtered)
parameter_P = np.sqrt(median_circ_rms * median_conc_rms)

• Computes median RMS circularity and median RMS concentricity.
• Computes P = sqrt(circularity × concentricity) as a combined metric.

---

14. Output​

print(f"Valid slices analyzed (after filtering): {len(circ_rms_values_filtered)}")
print(f"Median circularity RMS (mm): {median_circ_rms:.6f}")
print(f"Median concentricity RMS (mm): {median_conc_rms:.6f}")
print(f"(Circularity × Concentricity)^0.5 (mm): {parameter_P:.6f}")

• Prints the final metrology results.

---

15. Export CSV​

df = pd.DataFrame({
'z_mm': slice_z_vals[mask],
'circularity_rms_mm': circ_rms_values_filtered,
})
csv_path = r"C:\vase\vase_metrology_2000_slices_rms_filtered.csv"
df.to_csv(csv_path, index=False)

• Saves slice positions and circularity RMS to CSV.

---

16. Plotting​

plt.figure(figsize=(12,5))
plt.plot(slice_z_vals[mask], circ_rms_values_filtered, marker='.', markersize=2, label='Circularity RMS (mm)')
plt.xlabel('Z position (mm)')
plt.ylabel('RMS deviation (mm)')
plt.title('Vase Metrology (Filtered, 2000 slices)')
plt.legend()
plt.grid(True)
plt.tight_layout()
plt.savefig(r"C:\vase\vase_metrology_plot_rms_filtered.png", dpi=150)
plt.show()

• Creates a plot of RMS circularity along the vase height.
• Shows where circularity deviations are higher or lower.
• Saves the plot as a PNG file.

---

✅ Summary​

1. STL is loaded, repaired, and scaled.
2. Vase is aligned vertically using PCA.
3. 2000 slices are extracted along the height.
4. Circularity (RMS) is calculated for each slice.
5. Slice centers are used to compute concentricity (RMS).
6. Outliers are removed using 5–95 percentile.
7. Median values and P = sqrt(circ × conc) are reported.
8. Results are saved to CSV and plotted.

This script essentially implements a basic metrology workflow for a 3D scanned vase using Python and trimesh.

---

If you want, I can draw a simple schematic showing how the slices, centers, circularity, and concentricity are measured, which makes it much easier to visualize.


Do you want me to do that?

 

[stevevw]

Why would you cut it there, it clearly shows it only goes back to 1979. This borders on explicitly trying to misdirect the reader, peer-review is what is needed as this point.
View attachment 371018

To be honest I did not even read the detail. Just took it for granted that a certificate of authenticity stating its a predynastic vase was a certificate of authenticity for a predynastic vase. Thats what the certificate says. Its certifying its authenticity as a predynastic vase lol. Otherwise its false advertisement and they can be sued.

If you notice down the bittom of the certificate it says purchase dare 1979 and mentions it comes from a collection. I think this collection is what gives it provedence from memory in another article. Some vases were from a famous collector in the 60's after the 6 day Isreali war who was a Isreali general who had obtained vases directly from digs when Isreal took back the land in parts of Egypt.

Anyway I am not trying to hide the provedence of any vase and have acknowledged that some come from the 60's and 70's. I argued that it would be silly for a forger to fake high precision in vases when it was totally unnecessary as precision was not an issue back then. No one was going on about it back then.

Just making the vase would require specialist and be very expensive to make for a back street fake antiques dealer. They could have got away with a far less precise vase as they appear similar until you get down to the micro level. So the whole idea about fakes being made 60 odd years ago is a weak arguement.

Its then pushed to deny the fact that many vases come from museums. So unless you want to start calling museum pieces fakes I don't think the whole provedence red herring is enough to refute the precise vases being made in predysnastic times.

I just found another vase from Matt Bealls collection that has provedence back to 1962 with excellent precision. Even does a live metrology to show its precision.

https://x.com/MBeallX/status/1768638058885181918

 

[Stopped_lurking]

To be honest I did not even read the detail. Just took it for granted that a certificate of authenticity stating its a predynastic vase was a certificate of authenticity for a predynastic vase. Thats what the certificate says. Its certifying its authenticity as a predynastic vase lol. Otherwise its false advertisement and they can be sued.

If you notice down the bittom of the certificate it says purchase dare 1979 and mentions it comes from a collection. I think this collection is what gives it provedence from memory in another article. Some vases were from a famous collector in the 60's after the 6 day Isreali war who was a Isreali general who had obtained vases directly from digs when Isreal took back the land in parts of Egypt.

Anyway I am not trying to hide the provedence of any vase and have acknowledged that some come from the 60's and 70's. I argued that it would be silly for a forger to fake high precision in vases when it was totally unnecessary as precision was not an issue back then. No one was going on about it back then.

Just making the vase would require specialist and be very expensive to make for a back street fake antiques dealer. They could have got away with a far less precise vase as they appear similar until you get down to the micro level. So the whole idea about fakes being made 60 odd years ago is a weak arguement.

Its then pushed to deny the fact that many vases come from museums. So unless you want to start calling museum pieces fakes I don't think the whole provedence red herring is enough to refute the precise vases being made in predysnastic times.

I just found another vase from Matt Bealls collection that has provedence back to 1962 with excellent precision. Even does a live metrology to show its precision.

https://x.com/MBeallX/status/1768638058885181918

Good provenance is when you can say what dig it came from, not when you have 1000s of years unaccounted for. If we cannot be certain where a vase is from it can't inform us about the time or place it was made, they should just be excluded from the analysis especially if we have 1000s of vases actually found and documented in digs.

The surface deviation plots shows that there can be mm scale deviations even in the the supposedly good ones.

 

[Hans Blaster]

To be honest I did not even read the detail. Just took it for granted that a certificate of authenticity stating its a predynastic vase was a certificate of authenticity for a predynastic vase. Thats what the certificate says. Its certifying its authenticity as a predynastic vase lol. Otherwise its false advertisement and they can be sued.

If you notice down the bittom of the certificate it says purchase dare 1979 and mentions it comes from a collection. I think this collection is what gives it provedence from memory in another article. Some vases were from a famous collector in the 60's after the 6 day Isreali war who was a Isreali general who had obtained vases directly from digs when Isreal took back the land in parts of Egypt.

Anyway I am not trying to hide the provedence of any vase and have acknowledged that some come from the 60's and 70's. I argued that it would be silly for a forger to fake high precision in vases when it was totally unnecessary as precision was not an issue back then. No one was going on about it back then.

Just making the vase would require specialist and be very expensive to make for a back street fake antiques dealer. They could have got away with a far less precise vase as they appear similar until you get down to the micro level. So the whole idea about fakes being made 60 odd years ago is a weak arguement.

Its then pushed to deny the fact that many vases come from museums. So unless you want to start calling museum pieces fakes I don't think the whole provedence red herring is enough to refute the precise vases being made in predysnastic times.

So if this story is to be believed it is a looted artifact taken from occupied territory during a war. He should repatriate it to Egypt then as he does not legally possess it.

I just found another vase from Matt Bealls collection that has provedence back to 1962 with excellent precision. Even does a live metrology to show its precision.

https://x.com/MBeallX/status/1768638058885181918

What dig? (I don't buy the gold is original for one second, either.)

 

[stevevw]

Good provenance is when you can say what dig it came from, not when you have 1000s of years unaccounted for. If we cannot be certain where a vase is from it can't inform us about the time or place it was made, they should just be excluded from the analysis especially if we have 1000s of vases actually found and documented in digs.

The surface deviation plots shows that there can be mm scale deviations even in the the supposedly good ones.

I find this unreasonable and inconsistent with current practice and another example of how skeptics demand a double standard when the evidence contradicts the orthodoxy.

It has been common and accepted practice to accept many of these vases with unknown provedence or provedence going back to mid or early 20th century as genuine based on other methods such as form of other authenticated works.

You can go into museums and find what is clearly not from the same periof being lumped together based on form or just because a name was scratched on it or happened to be found in the same site.

Yet all these works are held up as legitimate and even used as evidence to support orthodox narratives.

In saying that I agree that to make a good case for these vases we need lots of scanning of vases and especially from museums.

But overall I still think all this complaining about provedence is a little hollow as there have been enough vases tested that include genuine vases which show precision. Enough precision to warrant that some sort of lathing and fairly sophisticated lathing was required in a time when the potters wheel or the later bent stick or bow saw devices came about.

When we add this to the many other out of place works such as the scoop marks, giant precision cuts in rocks, precision boxes, statues, stone block walling like in Peru, giant megaliths moved around like lego blocks and the sophisticated land glyphs and other works. It makes a strong case for lost advanced tech and knowledge.

 

[stevevw]

So if this story is to be believed it is a looted artifact taken from occupied territory during a war. He should repatriate it to Egypt then as he does not legally possess it.

Lol trust you to make a political issue out of what is basically a thread about lost advanced knowledge. Maybe western governments can pay back all the cultural knowledge they forced Indigenous peoples to lose by imposing their ideology on them lol.

What dig? (I don't buy the gold is original for one second, either.)

Your beginning to sound like some kid whinging over every little thing they can find and never happy or acknowledging anything good lol. So are you saying the vase is genuine and the gold leaf on handles isn't. Or the whole thing is not genuine.

There are several of these gold leaf handle vases in museums which are genuine. This one is exactly the same in many respects. Has machine marks on the inside exactly the same as genuine ones ect. Measures the same ect.

Like I said why would a fake antiques dealer bother making such precision and going to the hassel and expense when no one would have any clue that the vase was not as precise as it needed to be. No one was asking for scans to authenticate them in 1962.

Its all one sided and bias towards the negative in assuming its all fake and whackery without one bit of neutrality or fairness in that any reasonable person would say its neither proven or disproven. Or that there is a reasonable case that this level of precision would not be the result of forgery in the 60's. But no its straight for the juggler thats its all fake lol. Which shows the bias.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I find this unreasonable and inconsistent with current practice and another example of how skeptics demand a double standard when the evidence contradicts the orthodoxy.

It has been common and accepted practice to accept many of these vases with unknown provedence or provedence going back to mid or early 20th century as genuine based on other methods such as form of other authenticated works.

You can go into museums and find what is clearly not from the same periof being lumped together based on form or just because a name was scratched on it or happened to be found in the same site.

Yet all these works are held up as legitimate and even used as evidence to support orthodox narratives.

In saying that I agree that to make a good case for these vases we need lots of scanning of vases and especially from museums.

But overall I still think all this complaining about provedence is a little hollow as there have been enough vases tested that include genuine vases which show precision. Enough precision to warrant that some sort of lathing and fairly sophisticated lathing was required in a time when the potters wheel or the later bent stick or bow saw devices came about.

When we add this to the many other out of place works such as the scoop marks, giant precision cuts in rocks, precision boxes, statues, stone block walling like in Peru, giant megaliths moved around like lego blocks and the sophisticated land glyphs and other works. It makes a strong case for lost advanced tech and knowledge.

Do you have an example when an artifact with unknown provenance or provenance going back to the other half of the 20th century (without specifics on dig place) have been used to determine which manufacturing methods were present at specific place and time? It seems, like an almost impossible task if one doesn't know in which context the find happened. Perhaps it could be said that it is compatible or consistent with known methods, but to determine a new method of manufacturing seems very hard. Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal?