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.

 

[stevevw]

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

Actually no he did not think it within the Egyptian tech of the time. He thought this was beyond the capabilities of anyone for that time as the tech was even beyond what he knew for his time let alone some 4,000 plus years earlier.

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.

Thansks. Its not be the same tech as the 'boring bar' which was a wobbly and unstable rotation. Thats how it spun by having a wobble. Whereas the lathe tech required for the level of precise symmetry and circularity requires tight tolerances where the device is near perfectly still like a lathe.

That is why its commonly acknowledged it was some sort of lathing rather than the 'boring bar' or hand made.

The problem is the predynastics such as the Naqada culture (3,600BC) did not even have the 'boring bar' or potters wheel let alone a sophisticated lathe. They made pottery by the coil and slab-building method because they had no potters wheel which both did not come until near a 1,000 years later in 2600BC.

The potter's wheel was introduced to Egypt from the Levant during the reign of Pharoh Sneferu in the 4th dynasty (c.2600 BC).

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt -ORCA

orca.cardiff.ac.uk

 

[stevevw]

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)?

I don't think I ever said that or meant that in the first place. So to me you are arguing a strawman.

To the mainstream consensus the vases are made by the orthodox method which is the 'Boring bar', pounding, chiseling and rubbing. Its not the provedence thats the issue but the method claimed. Thats why the experiments are done to show that these hard stone vases can be made by the traditional method which is still in use today.

The provedence issue is itself an issue used to refute the ancient advanced tech and knowledge by saying that these are fake. That any claim or evidence of modern signatures in vases must be a modern forgery because such tech could not have been available back then. But thats a seperate issue to double standards. It is in a way a double standard in that the whole 'Fakery' narrative is exaggerated and used to refute even vases with good provedence.

Or to assume that they are fakes when its actually 'unknown' and any fair assessment would be neutral. In fact would probably lean towards authentic for arguements already given. Which is the fact that no one was worrying about such micro precision back then and therefore it would not have been necessary.

But the double standards are generally applied. As mentioned skeptics allow sub standards for support and its ok. But those proposing past advanced knowledge must jump through hoops.

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 don't know what you mean by 'pretty good'. It sort of is implying that handmade or tradition is as good as the precision vases. A bit vague. Olga used a potters wheel and thats the point. She used modern tech to help achieve a better result in the vase. Which reallly proves the point that these precision vases needed even more modern tech to achieve there even higher precision lol.

It states in the Maximus article that the 'Scientists against Myths' for which Olga was part of aim was to show how the traditional methos could achieve the precision hard stone vases. Its in the name of their group lol. They believe they are scientists who are refuting the idea of advanced ancient tech by making Egyptian artifacts in the traditional way.

Slipping in a rotating wheel stablised with ball bearings is introducing modern tech. The very tech (lathing) that the Naqada people nor the Egyptians as per wall paintings (bore-stick method) have.

I want peer review in order to say that good science have been performed.

I get what you mean but Peer Review does not guarentee good science is being done. Science as in the metrology done on vases is lab testing with equipment. Numbers don't lie. You can watch the live tests of them measuring the vase right before your eyes lol. You don't need peer review to tell you about the data. You do need it replicated though and thats whats happening. Thats good science.

Just posting something to the internet is not in and of itself any guarantee that it was properly done.

Yes but if your going to make this criteria then it has to be applied even handedly. The skeptics use their own words and analysis without Peer review and just say it off their own authority as thopugh fact to refute anything linked as evidence from third parties. At least I am linking independent sources as support.

In that sense I would expect peer reviewed papers breaking down how the traditional methods can achieve such precision. Or papers refuting that there was advanced ancient tech. Same thing. But not just some objection made by someone without any support. As has been happening. Therefore the double standards. At least I am trying lol.

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.

Thats why I mentioned that this is ongoing because it may not be up to the point where repeated metrology in specific methods or all methods have been done yet. I think other testers have used the same 3D CT scanning. From memory Adam Young and Matt Beall have sent vases to places like ZEISS who have scanned some. I am pretty sure UnchartedX has 3D scans on their vase resources.

Here is the paper.
I was able to obtain high-quality 3D CAT scans of 22 stone vessels purportedly of ancient Egyptian origin from Matt Beall’s collection – Fig. 1.

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

Here are the tests from Károly Póka research team.

We brought a micron-accurate 3D scanner into the Petrie Museum to examine Egypt’s oldest stone vases

Ancient Technology Podcast with Karoly Poka | Ancient Technology

Join electrical engineer Karoly on the Ancient Technology Podcast as he delves into lost ancient technologies, cultures, and mysteries. Listen on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcast.

karolypoka.com

Heres 3D scanning of Pottery rather than the precision stone vases for comparison which destinguishes the difference in signatures between handmade and ones turned on a wheel or lathe.

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

But heres the thing. 3D CT scanning is just a more accurate metrology to other 3D light scanning like structured light, lazer and Xray. Its just a matter of how precise the measures go down to. But the other methods are reliable and still get down to the micron level. They are still repeating the precision found in the vases.

Even the guage metrology is repeating the precision. All methods find the same precision.

 

[BCP1928]

Actually no he did not think it within the Egyptian tech of the time. He thought this was beyond the capabilities of anyone for that time as the tech was even beyond what he knew for his time let alone some 4,000 plus years earlier.

Thansks. Its not be the same tech as the 'boring bar' which was a wobbly and unstable rotation. Thats how it spun by having a wobble. Whereas the lathe tech required for the level of precise symmetry and circularity requires tight tolerances where the device is near perfectly still like a lathe.

Is that supposed to make any sense?

That is why its commonly acknowledged it was some sort of lathing rather than the 'boring bar' or hand made.

The boring bar is generally used in a lathe, where a lathe is available. You really don't know what you are talking about, do you.

The problem is the predynastics such as the Naqada culture (3,600BC) did not even have the 'boring bar' or potters wheel let alone a sophisticated lathe. They made pottery by the coil and slab-building method because they had no potters wheel which both did not come until near a 1,000 years later in 2600BC.

The potter's wheel was introduced to Egypt from the Levant during the reign of Pharoh Sneferu in the 4th dynasty (c.2600 BC).

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt -ORCA

orca.cardiff.ac.uk

I'll ask you one more time: what tools do you know how to use? Have you ever had a job where you had to lay out work and cut it to a specified dimension?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I don't think I ever said that or meant that in the first place. So to me you are arguing a strawman.

I'm sorry but to me it's madness to try to argue for some new manufacturing technique based on measurements on vases with bad provenance.

To the mainstream consensus the vases are made by the orthodox method which is the 'Boring bar', pounding, chiseling and rubbing. Its not the provedence thats the issue but the method claimed. Thats why the experiments are done to show that these hard stone vases can be made by the traditional method which is still in use today.

View attachment 371083

The provedence issue is itself an issue used to refute the ancient advanced tech and knowledge by saying that these are fake. That any claim or evidence of modern signatures in vases must be a modern forgery because such tech could not have been available back then.

It's an obvious objection!

But thats a seperate issue to double standards. It is in a way a double standard in that the whole 'Fakery' narrative is exaggerated and used to refute even vases with good provedence.

Or to assume that they are fakes when its actually 'unknown' and any fair assessment would be neutral. In fact would probably lean towards authentic for arguements already given. Which is the fact that no one was worrying about such micro precision back then and therefore it would not have been necessary.

The fair way is to exclude them from the analysis.

But the double standards are generally applied. As mentioned skeptics allow sub standards for support and its ok. But those proposing past advanced knowledge must jump through hoops.

I don't know what you mean by 'pretty good'. It sort of is implying that handmade or tradition is as good as the precision vases. A bit vague. Olga used a potters wheel and thats the point. She used modern tech to help achieve a better result in the vase. Which reallly proves the point that these precision vases needed even more modern tech to achieve there even higher precision lol.

The article you provided below argue for the use of turning devices, and that's all that is needed when doing what Olga did (marking the parts that stick out).

It states in the Maximus article that the 'Scientists against Myths' for which Olga was part of aim was to show how the traditional methos could achieve the precision hard stone vases. Its in the name of their group lol. They believe they are scientists who are refuting the idea of advanced ancient tech by making Egyptian artifacts in the traditional way.

Slipping in a rotating wheel stablised with ball bearings is introducing modern tech. The very tech (lathing) that the Naqada people nor the Egyptians as per wall paintings (bore-stick method) have.

I get what you mean but Peer Review does not guarentee good science is being done.

Perhaps not but in general it increases the quality of the science. And without peer review it's just someone's best guesses.

Science as in the metrology done on vases is lab testing with equipment. Numbers don't lie. You can watch the live tests of them measuring the vase right before your eyes lol. You don't need peer review to tell you about the data. You do need it replicated though and thats whats happening. Thats good science.

Taking measurements is not science in and of itself. Not to be confused with the science of measuring.

Yes but if your going to make this criteria then it has to be applied even handedly. The skeptics use their own words and analysis without Peer review and just say it off their own authority as thopugh fact to refute anything linked as evidence from third parties. At least I am linking independent sources as support.

Only because there are no scientific articles to argue against, it's all conjecture at this point.

In that sense I would expect peer reviewed papers breaking down how the traditional methods can achieve such precision. Or papers refuting that there was advanced ancient tech. Same thing. But not just some objection made by someone without any support. As has been happening. Therefore the double standards. At least I am trying lol.

There are no double standards, the artifact foundation and Maximus Energy can try to get their findings published just like anybody else.

Thats why I mentioned that this is ongoing because it may not be up to the point where repeated metrology in specific methods or all methods have been done yet. I think other testers have used the same 3D CT scanning. From memory Adam Young and Matt Beall have sent vases to places like ZEISS who have scanned some. I am pretty sure UnchartedX has 3D scans on their vase resources.

Here is the paper.
I was able to obtain high-quality 3D CAT scans of 22 stone vessels purportedly of ancient Egyptian origin from Matt Beall’s collection – Fig. 1.

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

Here are the tests from Károly Póka research team.

It's a podcast, they should write a manuscript and get it published

We brought a micron-accurate 3D scanner into the Petrie Museum to examine Egypt’s oldest stone vases

Ancient Technology Podcast with Karoly Poka | Ancient Technology

Join electrical engineer Karoly on the Ancient Technology Podcast as he delves into lost ancient technologies, cultures, and mysteries. Listen on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcast.

karolypoka.com

Heres 3D scanning of Pottery rather than the precision stone vases for comparison which destinguishes the difference in signatures between handmade and ones turned on a wheel or lathe.

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

The word lathe does not appear in the article, but they do argue that a turntable might have been used. I don't have a problem that a turntable might have been used. It's the claims about ancient technology and lost knowledge that are unsubstantiated.

But heres the thing. 3D CT scanning is just a more accurate metrology to other 3D light scanning like structured light, lazer and Xray. Its just a matter of how precise the measures go down to. But the other methods are reliable and still get down to the micron level. They are still repeating the precision found in the vases.

Even the guage metrology is repeating the precision. All methods find the same precision.

So which measure of quality have they landed on? Maximus Energys or the one used by the Artifact foundation? Neither one of them can be performed with gauges.

 

[stevevw]

Is that supposed to make any sense?

To get precise symmetry and circularity both the vase and the device cutting or grinding the vase have to be perfectly still. The more the device wobbles the more it will not produce near perfect symetry or circularity.

The lathe helps achieve symmetry and roundness. The better the lathe the better the symmetry, circularity and contricity is.

The boring bar is generally used in a lathe, where a lathe is available. You really don't know what you are talking about, do you.

This is another fallacy, strawman and red herring. Where is the lathe in the records of the Egyptians such as the paintings and reliefs showing vase making. It only shows the boring bar. Where is this modified version of a lathe.

Where is the evidence for the boring bar, potters wheel or lathe in the predynastic Naqada period to even make the vases. Let alone of reliefs 2,000 years later. Are you just making an issue of not knowing methods to dismiss the fact that there is no evidence for any rotating method, nothing from this period.

I'll ask you one more time: what tools do you know how to use? Have you ever had a job where you had to lay out work and cut it to a specified dimension?

More logical fallacies. Now one from authority lol. So if the worlds best metrologists cannot use a bore bar then the logic is their expertise and evidence don't count. This is a silly way to determine the facts.

If thats the case then I trump your authority with the authority of the best archeologists like Flinders Petrie and other archeologists. Or the research groups I have linked with their tests for you to observe who have done the metrology and the numbers don't lie.

Thats the point. I am linking the tests and they have been done repeatedly showing that the method was not, I repeat was not done by the traditional method of stone boring such as with the boring bar or a modified version. There was no wheel or rotating device like a lathe fullstop. How many times do I have to say this.

This the the Naqada people a Neolithic culture who made pottery by the coil and slab stacking method. Because they had no potters wheel or rotating device.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The provedence issue is itself an issue used to refute the ancient advanced tech and knowledge by saying that these are fake. That any claim or evidence of modern signatures in vases must be a modern forgery because such tech could not have been available back then. But thats a seperate issue to double standards. It is in a way a double standard in that the whole 'Fakery' narrative is exaggerated and used to refute even vases with good provedence.

Or to assume that they are fakes when its actually 'unknown' and any fair assessment would be neutral. In fact would probably lean towards authentic for arguements already given. Which is the fact that no one was worrying about such micro precision back then and therefore it would not have been necessary.

An object (or any other measurement) with no sourcing is **USELESS**. It has no value. It cannot tell you anything.

If we don't know when or where the object was made how can we know what period of which culture we are evaluating the technological development of?

The archeologists is 100% correct to reject the analysis of unknown objects of unknown origin.

But the double standards are generally applied. As mentioned skeptics allow sub standards for support and its ok. But those proposing past advanced knowledge must jump through hoops.

What part of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" do you not understand?

 

[stevevw]

I'm sorry but to me it's madness to try to argue for some new manufacturing technique based on measurements on vases with bad provenance.

Is this selective seeing lol. Did I not say that vases from the Petrie museum have been tested and some show precise measurements and modern maching marks.

Also I think its unfair to say vases with unknown provedence are bad vases. They are just vases that have some provedence but not back far enough for some. But they are neither good or bad and just unknown. To say they are automatically fakes because its unknown is unfair.

Like I said the arguement for why they are not fakes is strong and I think you are dismissing this far to readily. Put it this way the arguement for them being authentic is much stronger than not.

But evenso its the fact that the focus is now only only poor provedence as a way to dismiss all vases doesn't follow. There are vases with good provedence that are in the precision class. There are broken vases with actual modern machining marks from lathing of some sort under the Stepped pyramid. What more do you want.

It's an obvious objection!

Not when we have vases with good provedence. By using vases that actually have not been proven to be fakes to then dismiss good vases is a misrepresentation.

The fair way is to exclude them from the analysis.

This comes back to opinion. Like I said you may say provedence back to the 1960s or 1890s is poor provedence. But others don't. If we started doing that then there would be very few vases.

If the vase has provedence back to the 60s then its more on the side of genuine and not fake. In fact the Petrie museum regards them as genuine as they house some of them in their museums under examples of predynastic vases. From memory Beall's vases were being housed at the Petrie museum and thats why the tests were done there on them.

Nevertheless thats why more vases are being scanned. Its a red herring to take away from the genuine vases that we have tested.

The article you provided below argue for the use of turning devices, and that's all that is needed when doing what Olga did (marking the parts that stick out).

The point was the turning table which acts like a lathe was not available to the Naqada culture. The Boring Bar which is depicted on the walls in temples is the traditional way that is being used by Olga and others as there was not lathe.

Perhaps not but in general it increases the quality of the science. And without peer review it's just someone's best guesses.

Actually its not. The tests done that goes into the paper to support the findings are not best guesses. They are cold hard facts. Numbers that come out of the metrology. You cannot subjective change the readings that come out of measuring devices.

You don't need some gatekeeper in peer review to tell us the cold hard numbers are correct as they come as a result of measuring. If the object is 12cm or 12mm or less the measure is the measure. The device cannot make it longer or shorter than it really is lol.

Taking measurements is not science in and of itself. Not to be confused with the science of measuring.

Both are employed. You need to know the science of metology to be able to use and analyse the readouts. But both can be done and verified without peer review. They say measure twice and cut once lol. So its a case of correct measurements which is exactly what they experts do.

Only because there are no scientific articles to argue against, it's all conjecture at this point.

What you don't believe the read outs. The measurements that come out of the instruments. You can literally watch them calibrate abd then measure a vase and see the readouts before your eyes. You don't need to be a rocket scientists. The idea that everything can only be real or fact through peer review does not guarentee its correct.

I can look at the evidence and then make up my own mind. I don't need someone telling me something I can see for myself. Or telling as some are doing now who are claiming the side of peer review are clearly denying the data. If thats peer review then no thinks I have my own eyes to see the evidence lol.

There are no double standards, the artifact foundation and Maximus Energy can try to get their findings published just like anybody else.

I don't mean their tests. I am saying that these tests and the research is being refuted by a lower standard of evidence. No peer review or proper testing or experiments have been done to refute the findings. Just say so from skeptics. We should expect the same level of peer review and science testing to refute these vases as the skeptics demand of those who are testing the vases.

It's a podcast, they should write a manuscript and get it published

No see thats where your assuming. The podcase is the vehicle that is relaying the scientific tests. In fact they even show the testing live so you can see the researchers doing the tests as to whether its done properly.

The results are then uploads in files for others to analyse and check. The metrology tests come from expert metrologists with proper equipment.

The word lathe does not appear in the article, but they do argue that a turntable might have been used. I don't have a problem that a turntable might have been used. It's the claims about ancient technology and lost knowledge that are unsubstantiated.

Yes they have to argue that some sort of turning device was used because thats the only explanation to explin the high precision in symmetry and circularity. But no wheel or lathe was around when these vases were suppose to be made.

But it shows that the paper recognises that these vases had to have had some sort of modern tech like lathing to achieve such high precision and not the primitive orthodox method that does not make precise vases.

So which measure of quality have they landed on? Maximus Energys or the one used by the Artifact foundation? Neither one of them can be performed with gauges.

They are different methods of metrology. Each having a different dgree of accuracy. Guage being the least accurate. But that is still within 1,000s of an inch. Which is enough to establish the difference between lathing tech for excellent symmetry and circularity and other straight lines and flatness ect.

But all methods are good enough to establish the level of precision that destinguishes these vases from handmade ones on the traditional method.

 

[stevevw]

An object (or any other measurement) with no sourcing is **USELESS**. It has no value. It cannot tell you anything.

Yes so the more vases tested with good sources like the ones tested in museums. You keep making a red herring of the couple of "unknown' vases as though they are definitely fakes and therefore all vases that have measured precise like them are also fakes.

If we don't know when or where the object was made how can we know what period of which culture we are evaluating the technological development of?

I agree. My point what your making a red herring out of the vases that have unknown provedence. When we already have ones tested with good provedence. Admittedly the more genuine vases tested the better. But I think your jumping the gun a bit.

The archeologists is 100% correct to reject the analysis of unknown objects of unknown origin.

And an archeologists that deems the vase is a perfect replica to the point its beyond a copy also has a right to deem it more likely to be genuine. Like I said the museums do this all the time. They deem artifacts with unknown provedence as genuine based on a number of factors.

What part of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" do you not understand?

The skeptics demands are not about getting extraordinary evidence. Its about unreal demands that they would not apply to themselves. The extraordinary evidence has already begun. Cold, hard factual data from metrology. You can't get a better standard of evidence. The numbers don't lie.

This just needs repeating. But don't dismiss the cold hard data from the first lot of tests so quickly. Or create fallacies about all vases being fakes ect. Or demand extraordinary efforts when skeptics don't even have any effort to support their case that the orthodox method was the method.

Lets see an extraordinary evidence from skeptics show how the clear factual data does not point to modern machining. Or do proper tests instead of backyard tests on measuring the orthodox method and proving that this method can produce precision vases. Or at least show how the signatures match what we see in the precision vases.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Is this selective seeing lol. Did I not say that vases from the Petrie museum have been tested and some show precise measurements and modern maching marks.

The Petrie vases are similar in quality to Olgas vase, no unknown ancient technology needed.

Also I think its unfair to say vases with unknown provedence are bad vases. They are just vases that have some provedence but not back far enough for some. But they are neither good or bad and just unknown. To say they are automatically fakes because its unknown is unfair.

They can have been made in other places and other times that should be enough to not use them.

Like I said the arguement for why they are not fakes is strong and I think you are dismissing this far to readily. Put it this way the arguement for them being authentic is much stronger than not.

The argument that you don't understand why fakes could been done with good precision is not strong. So have you calculated the likelihood ratio or the Bayes factor then? I would be very interested in seeing your assumptions.

But evenso its the fact that the focus is now only only poor provedence as a way to dismiss all vases doesn't follow. There are vases with good provedence that are in the precision class. There are broken vases with actual modern machining marks from lathing of some sort under the Stepped pyramid. What more do you want.

No they are not according to Maximus Energy. Get your quality criteria lined up.

Not when we have vases with good provedence. By using vases that actually have not been proven to be fakes to then dismiss good vases is a misrepresentation.

This comes back to opinion. Like I said you may say provedence back to the 1960s or 1890s is poor provedence. But others don't. If we started doing that then there would be very few vases.

Fine, with me.

If the vase has provedence back to the 60s then its more on the side of genuine and not fake. In fact the Petrie museum regards them as genuine as they house some of them in their museums under examples of predynastic vases. From memory Beall's vases were being housed at the Petrie museum and thats why the tests were done there on them.

So are there any explicit statements from the Petrie museum on the vases in Matt Beall's collection? Otherwise it is not relevant

Nevertheless thats why more vases are being scanned. Its a red herring to take away from the genuine vases that we have tested.

How is it a red herring, what false statement are being said to

The point was the turning table which acts like a lathe was not available to the Naqada culture. The Boring Bar which is depicted on the walls in temples is the traditional way that is being used by Olga and others as there was not lathe.

View attachment 371101

Actually its not. The tests done that goes into the paper to support the findings are not best guesses. They are cold hard facts. Numbers that come out of the metrology. You cannot subjective change the readings that come out of measuring devices.

The interpretations are guesses.

You don't need some gatekeeper in peer review to tell us the cold hard numbers are correct as they come as a result of measuring. If the object is 12cm or 12mm or less the measure is the measure. The device cannot make it longer or shorter than it really is lol.

Both are employed. You need to know the science of metology to be able to use and analyse the readouts. But both can be done and verified without peer review. They say measure twice and cut once lol. So its a case of correct measurements which is exactly what they experts do.

All measurement is not science

What you don't believe the read outs. The measurements that come out of the instruments. You can literally watch them calibrate abd then measure a vase and see the readouts before your eyes. You don't need to be a rocket scientists. The idea that everything can only be real or fact through peer review does not guarentee its correct.

The provenance and the the interpretations rely on peer-review.

I can look at the evidence and then make up my own mind. I don't need someone telling me something I can see for myself. Or telling as some are doing now who are claiming the side of peer review are clearly denying the data. If thats peer review then no thinks I have my own eyes to see the evidence lol.

You do as you please, just don't expect to be taken seriously if you don't follow the normal way to disseminate information including peer-review.

I don't mean their tests. I am saying that these tests and the research is being refuted by a lower standard of evidence.

If they don't publish in scientific journals, scientists are not going to care to to publish their refutations in scientific journals. It's all conjecture.

No peer review or proper testing or experiments have been done to refute the findings.

As of now there are no findings to refute.

Just say so from skeptics. We should expect the same level of peer review and science testing to refute these vases as the skeptics demand of those who are testing the vases.

That is because that is all that are being offered, just say so.

No see thats where your assuming. The podcase is the vehicle that is relaying the scientific tests. In fact they even show the testing live so you can see the researchers doing the tests as to whether its done properly.

Live on a podcast? The handheld gauges I've seen used have left more than little to be wished for, there have been no effort to show that they were measured at the same height for example.

The results are then uploads in files for others to analyse and check. The metrology tests come from expert metrologists with proper equipment.

Yes, and the surface deviation on the objects with good provenance is not what you would have expected from something that would have been turned in a lathe like tool.

Yes they have to argue that some sort of turning device was used because thats the only explanation to explin the high precision in symmetry and circularity. But no wheel or lathe was around when these vases were suppose to be made.

That is not why they are arguing for the use of a turntable, read the article again. I will do so too, to make sure I'm not misrepresenting them.

But it shows that the paper recognises that these vases had to have had some sort of modern tech like lathing to achieve such high precision and not the primitive orthodox method that does not make precise vases.

See my previous comment.

They are different methods of metrology. Each having a different dgree of accuracy. Guage being the least accurate. But that is still within 1,000s of an inch. Which is enough to establish the difference between lathing tech for excellent symmetry and circularity and other straight lines and flatness ect.

But all methods are good enough to establish the level of precision that destinguishes these vases from handmade ones on the traditional method.

So which quality metric is to be used then, and how do they relate to each other? Both relevant question that would have been brought up if the manuscripts had been peer-reviewed.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes so the more vases tested with good sources like the ones tested in museums. You keep making a red herring of the couple of "unknown' vases as though they are definitely fakes and therefore all vases that have measured precise like them are also fakes.

I agree. My point what your making a red herring out of the vases that have unknown provedence. When we already have ones tested with good provedence. Admittedly the more genuine vases tested the better. But I think your jumping the gun a bit.

If you agree why do you keep talking about the "results" from bad data (bad provenance objects)?

And an archeologists that deems the vase is a perfect replica to the point its beyond a copy also has a right to deem it more likely to be genuine. Like I said the museums do this all the time. They deem artifacts with unknown provedence as genuine based on a number of factors.

This makes *NO* sense. At. All.

A fake is a fake. It is not an ancient artifact. It has nothing to do with (in this case) Egypt's past.

The skeptics demands are not about getting extraordinary evidence. Its about unreal demands that they would not apply to themselves. The extraordinary evidence has already begun. Cold, hard factual data from metrology. You can't get a better standard of evidence. The numbers don't lie.

This just needs repeating. But don't dismiss the cold hard data from the first lot of tests so quickly. Or create fallacies about all vases being fakes ect. Or demand extraordinary efforts when skeptics don't even have any effort to support their case that the orthodox method was the method.

Lets see an extraordinary evidence from skeptics show how the clear factual data does not point to modern machining. Or do proper tests instead of backyard tests on measuring the orthodox method and proving that this method can produce precision vases. Or at least show how the signatures match what we see in the precision vases.

Apparently what you don't understand about "extraordinary claims" is all of it.