There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

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?

I am not sure what you mean. How would this help as skeptics would say it is unrelaible having poor provedence only going back to the mid 20th century. In fact you already have these examples in the vases that are being objected to. These have the machining marks.

But so do ones in the museums which sort of supports the authenticity of these vases with poor provedence as they have the same witness marks. I don't think a fake antigues dealer back in the 60s would bother matching machine marks on the inside of vases to look the same. Not to that extent lol.

I think the one from Maximus which showed an image on the interior machining marks is one of these vases.

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?

Not really. I think theres enough vases tested such as from museums to refute the provedence complaint and support that these vases were machined on some sort of sophisticated lathe. Or at least show that it definitely was not made by the bent stick rotating cutter. Or even the potters wheel which was not in use during the predynastic Naqada period.

As I said the peer-reviewed work is yet to come as the data is still being gathered. This is normal science in gathering enough evidence to support your hypothesis. But we can still debate the hypothesis or tests done to support such in the meantime.

You can find some papers relating to the precision Egyptian works and vases. They are just not specificially about the precision of vases. But they will allude to their precision or higher quality. Or that they required some sort of turning and wheel.

For example one of the worlds greatest archeologists and Egyptologists Flinders Petrie mentions in his peer reviewed papers artifacts with high precision for the time and that lathe tech must have been used.

Flinders Petrie
"the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops."

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Petrie - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

And funny enough this debate we are having now was happening in archeological circles in the past. So its not whackery but a real observation that has caused debate of the evidence.

Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling: An Experimental Perspective on a Scholarly Disagreement

Expedition Magazine | Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling

<p>More than most technical procedures in the ancient world, drilling of hard stone such as quartz and granite has evoked […]</p>

www.penn.museum

The articles from Maximus are done as an academic paper and submitted as open source for peer review. So technically this is the same. He has just not submitted this through the gatekeeper of any specific journal.

Anyway its surprising how little papers there are specifically on the precision vases, There's a few examples but they don't seem to destinguish between the precision vases and the mud pottery. Though they do allude to a higher quality and the difference in methods between pottery (coil and slab-building) method and turned stone vases on some sort of lathe.

Fine pottery shaping techniques in Predynastic Egypt: A pilot study on non-destructive analysis using an X-Ray CT scanning system
This paper has argued that through the 3D image of the interior surface, transparent image, CT cross-slice, and the detailed analysis of void patterns, the range of Predynastic pottery shaping techniques and processes can be reconstructed. They are more diverse than previously thought and that the techniques used seem to have developed during Naqada II. The multiple techniques (coiling and slab-building) applied to Sample 4 and the different void patterns in relation to the use of a turning

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X21002017

The Geographical, Spatial, and Temporal Distribution of Predynastic and First Dynasty Basalt Vessels

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/030751330208800106

The Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation

The Egyptian Predynastic and State Formation - Journal of Archaeological Research

When the archaeology of Predynastic Egypt was last appraised in this journal, Savage (2001a, p. 101) expressed optimism that “a consensus appears to be developing that stresses the gradual development of complex society in Egypt.” The picture today is less clear, with new data and alternative...

link.springer.com

PREDYNASTIC AND FIRST DYNASTY EGYPTIAN BASALT VESSELS
https://www.nlc-bnc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk1/tape2/PQDD_0020/NQ53818.pdf

Before the Pyramids
The Naqada II period witnessed flourishing stone vessel craftmanship and this period is often considered the zenith of ancient Egyptian stone vessel manufactoring.

https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

In other words the zenith or peak of vase making happened in the Neolithic time of the Naqada culture with primitive methods and without the potters wheel or the bent stick or bow drill methods that came almost a 1,000 years later. In fact whatever method they used it was better than anything that came after.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I am not sure what you mean. How would this help as skeptics would say it is unrelaible having poor provedence only going back to the mid 20th century. In fact you already have these examples in the vases that are being objected to. These have the machining marks.

Which archaeologists when arguing for and presenting the orthodox methods, used vases with uncertain provenance? My guess is that they have vases with very good provenance and perhaps they compare vases with unknown provenance to those with good provenance. That is not using vases with bad provenance to argue for a new manufacturing method. You asserted that there is a double standard, I'm curious in what way?

 

[BCP1928]

Flinders Petrie
"the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops."

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Petrie - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

I find Petrie's conclusion entirely reasonable Why don't you?

 

[stevevw]

Which archaeologists when arguing for and presenting the orthodox methods, used vases with uncertain provenance? My guess is that they have vases with very good provenance and perhaps they compare vases with unknown provenance to those with good provenance. That is not using vases with bad provenance to argue for a new manufacturing method. You asserted that there is a double standard, I'm curious in what way?

I think I understand the point you were making. Which was asking for examples of double standards from skeptics I mentioned. My point was that skeptics demand a higher level of evidence or criteria for supporting something than they would apply to themselves or in support of something they believe.

Not necessarily about the existing vases or their provedence. For example Olgas vases are put forward as to show that these predyanstic vases could be made by hand and simple tools. Or the method on the walls such as the bent stick method, chisels and rubbing.

So the double standard is that not only is a vase with bad provedence being used but one we know that is not made by the predynastics but a modern attempt is being used to refute the methods of these precision vases. Yet they never subject the same level of scrutiny and peer review.

But also that skeptics will use these examples and its fine. But when a similar example such as testing the vases is made to show precision. Suddenly everyone wants peer review and placing all these demands and objections that this is fakery and whackery. While accepting some backyard experimenter as gospel.

 

[stevevw]

I find Petrie's conclusion entirely reasonable Why don't you?

I do accept Petries conclusion lol. Thats why I linked it to show that even 100 years ago people were noticing the advanced tech and knowledge of these ancient Egyptians.

That its no some modern whackos that are now noticing the same precision that seems out of place for the time when the lathe was not even around at that time to make these vases in the Naqada culture. Just like Petrie and others have noticed throughout history.

 

[BCP1928]

I do accept Petries conclusion lol. Thats why I linked it to show that even 100 years ago people were noticing the advanced tech and knowledge of these ancient Egyptians.

He was proposing technology he believed to be within the scope of Egyptian craftsmen of the time. You are not.

That its no some modern whackos that are now noticing the same precision that seems out of place for the time when the lathe was not even around at that time to make these vases in the Naqada culture. Just like Petrie and others have noticed throughout history.

BTW, the proper technical term for your "bent stick" is "boring bar," which would be the same tool used if the vases were made on a modern lathe today.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I think I understand the point you were making. Which was asking for examples of double standards from skeptics I mentioned. My point was that skeptics demand a higher level of evidence or criteria for supporting something than they would apply to themselves or in support of something they believe.

Not necessarily about the existing vases or their provedence. For example Olgas vases are put forward as to show that these predyanstic vases could be made by hand and simple tools. Or the method on the walls such as the bent stick method, chisels and rubbing.

So the double standard is that not only is a vase with bad provedence being used but one we know that is not made by the predynastics but a modern attempt is being used to refute the methods of these precision vases. Yet they never subject the same level of scrutiny and peer review.

But also that skeptics will use these examples and its fine. But when a similar example such as testing the vases is made to show precision. Suddenly everyone wants peer review and placing all these demands and objections that this is fakery and whackery. While accepting some backyard experimenter as gospel.

But is this true? Are people actually arguing that the orthodox methods is defined by looking on vases with unknown provenance (because that is what is on offer)? Olgas vases are pretty good, I don't see the need for invoking any ancient tech or lost knowledge, might there have been a potters wheel involved I don't know but that would still be interesting but not very strange. I want peer review in order to say that good science have been performed. Just posting something to the internet is not in and of itself any guarantee that it was properly done. The precise vases defined by Maximus Energy, dont seem to use the same criteria as used by the Artifact Foundation this is a problem, which would have been identitfied and been asked for a clarification if there would have been peer review. In general peer review increases the quality of the science, it's not something to be shunned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyone see anything familiar?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Then they are looted items and real archeologists won't work with them either.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Nope. That's the way antiquities have worked for DECADES. One of the objects you mentioned above was claimed to be acquired during a war. When the war is over you have to give back any stuff you temporarily possessed -- land, antiquities, people, etc. It's the way it is. (Though Israel does seem to be ignorant of that law.)

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.

The gold is at least restored. Modified objects put more and more question into the overall quality of the collection. I didn't say the vase was a fake, only that the gold is not plausibly original.

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.

The qualities of these best vases with provenance to the 1960s or 70s are *completely* within the technical capabilities of the contemporary craftsmen to make and far far cheaper than the price of sale as a genuine antiquity.

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.

Your sources are filled with cranks and "true believers" in some crazy stuff on the backend. They discredit themselves.