There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

So why did you use that analogy? Arguing by analogy is only useful if the situations really are analogous. In this case the vases are tangible enough that it's unclear what the analogy brings to the the table.

Your just disputing this for the sake of disputing it. I could have used 100 different examples. I did lol. Isaid what if a sports car was found. A car which they can tell the signatures as to whether its a 1900s or 1950s tech. In 5,000 years they will tell that a 2025 car has different signatures to a 1950s car. The same with if they find anything that can be determined by the level of tech involved.

Are you disputiung that we can tell how something was made by the signatures. That just about wipes out most sciences that try to work out what happened without the object available.

If they want to do extra tests on well provenanced vases, that is also publishable regardless if there are any novel findings or not.

Ok I will break this down as sinple as I can. Taking one of the precision vases with good provnance and compare it to a hand made vase. Can you see any difference in these vases from the same predynastic period.

Archeology is not my field, but PLOS One has historically published methodologically rigorous studies even when the results were negative. I see that their impact factor have faltered a little but it is still better than self-publishing on the web.

Fair enough. Unfortunately the specific area of analysing ancient works with modern tech is relatively new and developing. So even 10 year old results can be wrong in peer review.

I agree more time is needed to build a case. But I really think we can do the science and see the images and know something is not adding up. I have shown some pretty obvious marks that don't look nothing like the traditional methods. You don't need to be a rocket scientists or have peer review to know this.

The age is the smallest problem, what is the connection between the hole and any incident?

It doesn't matter what incident. We can know what sort of weapon and in some cases right down to the type. Or in the case of finding for example finding an engine part like a (carburetor).

We can know what era of history it was made and that it was a machined part as opposed to hand made without finding the tools or lathe that made it.

Sure, there is a lot of uncertainty when dating an archeological site. That is why archeologist are very happy when they find organics that can be dated by C14-methods, but even that only tells us an estimate of when the carbon was last inside a living object.

And yet mainstream narratives tell us of certain dates for certain finds. What is being used to make these claims. Who says that what is claimed as late was very early.

If they found a stone house from biblical times that was reused in a later time and then buried again. Archologist only find coins from the later time and asume it was made in the later time.

The same with many sites in Egypt and around the world. These are being dates at X time because some of the later works were found in the site and there was nothing on other works as to when they were made. In fact later Pharoahs stamped their name on earlier works.

Thats why I am saying there has to be some independent way to differentiate the stone itself. If they are really made by different methods (hand made or machined) then there should be some differences that can reveal the method used.

But in the meantime I keep coming back to the simple but revealing naked eye observations. As above with the different vases we see the handmade and what at least looks like machined finishes. These are the naked eye differences in the signatures. They will reveal differences down to the micro level.

The same with cuts in stones, logistics, and any mark in the works that can be analysed. One example I came across was the scoop marks. Which is claimed as being caused by pounding with dolorite stones which are harder than the granite.

The issue is like the vases that these traditional methods are also used. Its not as if anyone is saying that both methods are being used. Like today we have varying methods being used and the best come from the best methods.

Scans are being done on these scoop marks and they are finding the exact opposite of random pounding away. Rather uniform patterns of scoops as though the granite was softened and some uniform scooper was going along scooping away the softened surface.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Your just disputing this for the sake of disputing it. I could have used 100 different examples. I did lol. Isaid what if a sports car was found.

If you want to discuss the vases, use the vases for your argument. Analogies are most often chosen to overempathise some quality, therefore are they often suspect in how well the apply.

Yes, and I said that the bearing surfaces of the crankshaft are are much smoother than any Petrie vases. The proposed quality metric is not even the same as they use when specifying circularity for modern production.

A car which they can tell the signatures as to whether its a 1900s or 1950s tech. In 5,000 years they will tell that a 2025 car has different signatures to a 1950s car. The same with if they find anything that can be determined by the level of tech involved.

Are you disputiung that we can tell how something was made by the signatures. That just about wipes out most sciences that try to work out what happened without the object available.

The signatures don't seem to support the claims.

Ok I will break this down as sinple as I can. Taking one of the precision vases with good provnance and compare it to a hand made vase. Can you see any difference in these vases from the same predynastic period.

View attachment 372635 View attachment 372639

The vase on the right is UC41053, it is from the 6th dynasty. Thank you for trying to explain it to me in simple terms

This is the empirical cumulative distribution function of its external surface deviation.

As you can see it has 1 mm valleys and 1 mm ridges over a diameter that are an estimated 20 mm (median, exluding the foot and the lip). This is not on par with modern lathing. The Artifact Foundation and Karoly Poka are overstating their case(s).

Go and look at the artifact foundations detailed report and you'll see that there is a ridge moving obliquely over the surface at an 45 degree angle from the Z axis. Is that indicative of lathing?

Where can I read about the left vase and its provenance?
Nevermind, I found it it has object number EA 68057, it is an unfinished jar from the third dynasty from Saqqara.

Why would you claim them to be predynastic?

Fair enough. Unfortunately the specific area of analysing ancient works with modern tech is relatively new and developing. So even 10 year old results can be wrong in peer review.

Yes, and they will be corrected over time when new data is available or the data is reanalyzed.

 

[sjastro]

The same with many sites in Egypt and around the world. These are being dates at X time because some of the later works were found in the site and there was nothing on other works as to when they were made. In fact later Pharoahs stamped their name on earlier works.

Thats why I am saying there has to be some independent way to differentiate the stone itself. If they are really made by different methods (hand made or machined) then there should be some differences that can reveal the method used.

But in the meantime I keep coming back to the simple but revealing naked eye observations. As above with the different vases we see the handmade and what at least looks like machined finishes. These are the naked eye differences in the signatures. They will reveal differences down to the micro level.

The same with cuts in stones, logistics, and any mark in the works that can be analysed. One example I came across was the scoop marks. Which is claimed as being caused by pounding with dolorite stones which are harder than the granite.

The issue is like the vases that these traditional methods are also used. Its not as if anyone is saying that both methods are being used. Like today we have varying methods being used and the best come from the best methods.

Scans are being done on these scoop marks and they are finding the exact opposite of random pounding away. Rather uniform patterns of scoops as though the granite was softened and some uniform scooper was going along scooping away the softened surface.

Playing the devil's advocate let's assume your idiotic conspiracy theory is correct where all 18th dynasty granite obelisks were forgeries produced in the Old Kingdom as the technology was lost by the time of the New Kingdom.
Therefore the unfinished obelisk at Aswan had been attempted in the Old Kingdom.

​

Since it is an Old Kingdom construction using superior technology dolerite pounders were not needed so why are there hundreds of rounded dolerite stones of different sizes on the site which are clearly not naturally occurring? Furthermore why are depression marks in the obelisk within the range of sizes of these dolerite stones?

​

If the Old Kingdom had the technology of softening granite then they would not have had to use dolerite, any stone harder than softened granite would have sufficed.

Going back to predynastic times in Egypt if they had the capability of producing high precision vases on lathes then making smooth sharp flint blades from dolerite, quartz and chert would have been a piece of cake yet the evidence paints a very different picture.

If you are going to be true to form the information provided is going to be ignored and the issue remains whether this is due to a lack of basic comprehension skills or trolling resulting in propagation of misinformation and disinformation.

 

[stevevw]

If you want to discuss the vases, use the vases for your argument.

Yet you were quite happy to engage in discussing the gun example. Until I revealed that the same anology can be applied to other examples. Now you change again and insist only vases can be used as the example.

Analogies are most often chosen to overempathise some quality, therefore are they often suspect in how well the apply.

Of course so. In science when they are trying to support a hypothesis they will look for the evidence that most matches this. They are not going to look at stuff that does not show the signatures or characteristics of what is proposed. That would be silly.

The hypothesis is that there are precise vases that match lathing and machining. The precision (not crooked) vases best match that hypothesis. So why look at obviously crooked vases. Why look at obvious marks that don't match machining.

Yes, and I said that the bearing surfaces of the crankshaft are are much smoother than any Petrie vases.

The bearing surfaces of what crankshaft and for which vases. How can a hand made vase have any bearing sufaces from a crankshaft that is smoother. That would imply modern tech.

The proposed quality metric is not even the same as they use when specifying circularity for modern production.

Do you think there is a threshold for circularity and symmetry that can be determined between lathed and unlathed.

The signatures don't seem to support the claims.

Ok so at least you acknowledge that your looking at the signatures or marks on the vases or works to see if they match hand made or lathing and some sort of machining.

Are you saying that no images in this thread that I have posted even look like they were machined somehow.

The vase on the right is UC41053, it is from the 6th dynasty. Thank you for trying to explain it to me in simple terms

I am merely showing you if there is any difference in the vases. I don't care where there from. Just if you see any difference in the precision from the naked eye. Especially in circularity and symmetry. Thats all. Its a simple question you have refused to answer several times now.

View attachment 372641

This is the empirical cumulative distribution function of its external surface deviation.
View attachment 372642

As you can see it has 1 mm valleys and 1 mm ridges over a diameter that are an estimated 20 mm (median, exluding the foot and the lip). This is not on par with modern lathing. The Artifact Foundation and Karoly Poka are overstating their case(s).

Can you link the original tests on this. What is it that they are overstating. This vase was I think 4ths best for precision on medium score of circularity and concentricity.

Though its centering was a little off this was not enough to put it in the imprecise hand made class. This vase had the best interior circularity of all vases tested at 26 microns deviation from perfect circle which is even harder to do by hand on the inside. It even beat a modern lathed vase interior circularity which was 45 microns. Its overall medium score based on circularity and concentricity fall within modern lathed vases.

I mean some are claiming a rudimentary lathe could have achieved this precision. A lathed vase can still be lathed with a very tiny centering error. It may have been a one off error as other vases from the same period show excellent centering, circularity and conscentricity. But still considering its overall high circularity and symmetry it falls within lathing.

Go and look at the artifact foundations detailed report and you'll see that there is a ridge moving obliquely over the surface at an 45 degree angle from the Z axis. Is that indicative of lathing?

Yes overall its score falls into the precise class. We are talking microns here and a tiny bit off center does not negate lathing. The circularity especially on the inside is well within the lathing threshold. A piece can be slightly off center and still have excellent circularity to the level it was lathed.

If anything your completely over emphasing the tiny, tiny deviation to be so massive that it cannot be lathed. Yet its much better than the hand made levels and beats lathed vases.

Heres an alabasta vase Karoly also tested which is hand made. Look at the circularity and conscentricity which is magnitudes less precise that the lathed vases. Its concentricity is 1.54 mm or 154 microns medium concentricity so thats not lathed and hand made. As opposed to the example I linked which is 0,025 or 25 microns. This is a massive difference which pushes the vase into being lathed.

Where can I read about the left vase and its provenance?

Why, they are all from museums. I just looked for a museum vase to compare. There are literally 1,000s of these kinds of vases.

Nevermind, I found it it has object number EA 68057, it is an unfinished jar from the third dynasty from Saqqara.

Why would you claim them to be predynastic?

I was not concerned where they were from. Just comparing a hand made vase to a precision vase and getting you to tell me if you see any differences.

I can get you literally 100 from all dynasties if you want and they are not unfinished. They are exactly how they are as finished as theres 1,000s the same. What did they leave 1,00s unfinished lol.

This was the level of tech they had and it was not lathed but actually made the traditional way by chisel, flint scraping and chipping and rubbing.

An ancient Egyptian alabaster vase 1st - 6th Dynasty

An Ancient Egyptian Alabaster Vase 1st 6th Dynasty

And just in case you say the provenance is questionable because they are at an auction house. Here are similar vases in the cases within museums.

Step Pyramid of Saqqara UnchartedX Tour - techzelle

The Step Pyramid (also known as The Pyramid of Djoser) is a 6 tier structure that was allegedly built during the Third Dynasty for the Pharoah Djoser. It went

techzelle.com

I will ask again. Do you see any difference in the signatures and marks by the naked eye between these hand made vases however they were made.

As opposed to the precision vases that not only look precise to the eye (hard to find deviations or mistakes). Which points to different methods. Lets start with methods. Are there different methods or tools or devices that have caused the different looks.

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA56843

Yes, and they will be corrected over time when new data is available or the data is reanalyzed.

Yes and so if they find that some things were not made the way we thought then they can correct it. Like we thought prehistory humans could not do carpentry and we find a wooden joint calved in wood 400,000 years ago. Way earlier than we thought.

So we change the assumption that early humans could not have such levels of tech. Just like they may have 5 or 6,000 years ago. No big deal.

Evidence for the earliest structural use of wood at least 476,000 years ago

Evidence for the earliest structural use of wood at least 476,000 years ago - Nature

Wooden artefacts from waterlogged deposits in Zambia dating back 477 ka indicate hitherto unknown sophistication in woodworking at an early date.

www.nature.com

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yet you were quite happy to engage in discussing the gun example. Until I revealed that the same anology can be applied to other examples. Now you change again and insist only vases can be used as the example.

I was trying to show you how silly your gun example was.

Of course so. In science when they are trying to support a hypothesis they will look for the evidence that most matches this. They are not going to look at stuff that does not show the signatures or characteristics of what is proposed. That would be silly.

The hypothesis is that there are precise vases that match lathing and machining. The precision (not crooked) vases best match that hypothesis. So why look at obviously crooked vases. Why look at obvious marks that don't match machining.

The bearing surfaces of what crankshaft and for which vases. How can a hand made vase have any bearing sufaces from a crankshaft that is smoother. That would imply modern tech.

The Porsche you talked about before has a crankshaft it is a precision part whose bearing surfaces are much smoother than the surfaces of the Petrie vases.

Do you think there is a threshold for circularity and symmetry that can be determined between lathed and unlathed.

Not until it have been showed.

Ok so at least you acknowledge that your looking at the signatures or marks on the vases or works to see if they match hand made or lathing and some sort of machining.

Are you saying that no images in this thread that I have posted even look like they were machined somehow.

We don't know, Olga's vase wasn't machined and it had an external quality better than the Petrie vases.

I tried to come up with a method of doing Olgas best vase without a rotating table, this should work.

For those that actually work in manufacturing out there, I'm sure there are a thousand and one reasons why this is a stupid idea. Don't bite my head off I'm just having fun.

I am merely showing you if there is any difference in the vases. I don't care where there from. Just if you see any difference in the precision from the naked eye. Especially in circularity and symmetry. Thats all. Its a simple question you have refused to answer several times now.

You specifically said that they were both predynastic. None of them are predynastic.

Can you link the original tests on this. What is it that they are overstating. This vase was I think 4ths best for precision on medium score of circularity and concentricity.

Sure. https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf
It's the one from the Artifact Foundation.
Their proposed quality metric underestimates the importance of variation in circularity.

Though its centering was a little off this was not enough to put it in the imprecise hand made class. This vase had the best interior circularity of all vases tested at 26 microns deviation from perfect circle which is even harder to do by hand on the inside. It even beat a modern lathed vase interior circularity which was 45 microns. Its overall medium score based on circularity and concentricity fall within modern lathed vases.

I mean some are claiming a rudimentary lathe could have achieved this precision. A lathed vase can still be lathed with a very tiny centering error. It may have been a one off error as other vases from the same period show excellent centering, circularity and conscentricity. But still considering its overall high circularity and symmetry it falls within lathing.

View attachment 372652 View attachment 372654

Yes overall its score falls into the precise class. We are talking microns here and a tiny bit off center does not negate lathing. The circularity especially on the inside is well within the lathing threshold. A piece can be slightly off center and still have excellent circularity to the level it was lathed.

I think their quality metric isn't taking to account for the surfaces deviations.

If anything your completely over emphasing the tiny, tiny deviation to be so massive that it cannot be lathed. Yet its much better than the hand made levels and beats lathed vases.

No they are not.

Heres an alabasta vase Karoly also tested which is hand made. Look at the circularity and conscentricity which is magnitudes less precise that the lathed vases. Its concentricity is 1.54 mm or 154 microns medium concentricity so thats not lathed and hand made. As opposed to the example I linked which is 0,025 or 25 microns. This is a massive difference which pushes the vase into being lathed.

View attachment 372651 View attachment 372684 View attachment 372685

Why, they are all from museums. I just looked for a museum vase to compare. There are literally 1,000s of these kinds of vases.

Don't be sloppy with details. If they are not predynastic the slow wheel was used in Egypt.

I was not concerned where they were from. Just comparing a hand made vase to a precision vase and getting you to tell me if you see any differences.

That manufacture of the "handmade" vase was stopped before it was hollowed out. Why would that be a representative sample?

I can get you literally 100 from all dynasties if you want and they are not unfinished. They are exactly how they are as finished as theres 1,000s the same. What did they leave 1,00s unfinished lol.

This was the level of tech they had and it was not lathed but actually made the traditional way by chisel, flint scraping and chipping and rubbing.

An ancient Egyptian alabaster vase 1st - 6th Dynasty

View attachment 372687 View attachment 372688

An Ancient Egyptian Alabaster Vase 1st 6th Dynasty

And just in case you say the provenance is questionable because they are at an auction house. Here are similar vases in the cases within museums.

View attachment 372690

These looks good. What's your point?

View attachment 372691

Step Pyramid of Saqqara UnchartedX Tour - techzelle

The Step Pyramid (also known as The Pyramid of Djoser) is a 6 tier structure that was allegedly built during the Third Dynasty for the Pharoah Djoser. It went

techzelle.com

I will ask again. Do you see any difference in the signatures and marks by the naked eye between these hand made vases however they were made.

Some look a lot more weathered.

As opposed to the precision vases that not only look precise to the eye (hard to find deviations or mistakes). Which points to different methods. Lets start with methods. Are there different methods or tools or devices that have caused the different looks.

View attachment 372695

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA56843

Some of the ones that you call handmade look just as good as this one. So that you know the gold was glued back on the handles on this one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Of course so. In science when they are trying to support a hypothesis they will look for the evidence that most matches this. They are not going to look at stuff that does not show the signatures or characteristics of what is proposed. That would be silly.

That is not how hypotheses are tested in science, Steve. What you have proscribed above is exactly how one gets lead down a self-reinforcing path of self-deception.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Once again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you want to claim advanced tech, then actually show the advanced tech. Not what you claim was made by advanced tech, but the advanced tech itself.

 

[stevevw]

That is not how hypotheses are tested in science, Steve. What you have proscribed above is exactly how one gets lead down a self-reinforcing path of self-deception.

We went through this before over the unreal and unfair idea of having to be forced to choose obviously imprecise vases in the limited number of vases (20) that could be selected from the museums to test.

A seperate test using known Egyptian vases in various stones including hand made, softer alabasta and modern CNC vases was also carried out. I linked the comparison which showed the predybastic precision vases were a different class of vase.

But ultimately if your looking for precision why would you not focus on the precision. There has already been many studies on Pottery and various vases over the years. We already have the data.

How is choosing the authentic vases in the museum that look most likely they will meet the precise class to only measure tham to see if they meet the precise class. If a vase visbly looks crooked why bother when we already have many studies on this.

 

[stevevw]

Once again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If you want to claim advanced tech, then actually show the advanced tech. Not what you claim was made by advanced tech, but the advanced tech itself.

I'm getting confused now. This is a contradiction to what the other poster said in that it is not even necessary to show the tech or device to prove that advanced methods was used.

Who is correct. If you are contradicting each other than is not a good basis.

 

[stevevw]

I was trying to show you how silly your gun example was.

How was it silly as far as showing that we don't have to have the gun to know the signatures are from a gun. I don't really care about the example. Your making it all about the example rather than the principle involved.

That is there are ways of analysing the marks left in something to tell what caused it without finding what caused it. Do you disagree with this principle.

The Porsche you talked about before has a crankshaft it is a precision part whose bearing surfaces are much smoother than the surfaces of the Petrie vases.

Once again your fixating on the tiny differences and missing the principle involved. If the Porse cyclinders are smoother have a guess what. We can tell they are smoother and hense even better precision and machining.

We did not have to find the machine or lathe that made the Porse cyclinders smoother to know that a lathe made it smoother. Thats the principle. No matter what example. The fact you can tell its smoother and better lathing without finding the lathe.

Thats what we are doing with the vases. We don't have to find the lathe or machines or method to say that it was lathed. Because just like the smooth cyclinders we know lathing caused them.

Not until it have been showed.

What do you mean by showed.

We don't know, Olga's vase wasn't machined and it had an external quality better than the Petrie vases.

OLga vase was machined. It used a powered wheel with ball bearings to stablised the work as it spun. This was used to identify the deviations to then chisel them off over and over again. It was the stable lathing mechanism that got that particular vase to such a high level of circularity and symetry.

A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases​

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

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker – Fig. 29.



The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians. Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric,

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

Which sort of Steel Mans the arguement that some sort of pretty sophisticated lathing was needed to produce such precision and not unguided hand made chipping away and guessing.

I tried to come up with a method of doing Olgas best vase without a rotating table, this should work.

View attachment 372705

For those that actually work in manufacturing out there, I'm sure there are a thousand and one reasons why this is a stupid idea. Don't bite my head off I'm just having fun.

If its such a stupid idea then why does just about everyone acknowledge this simple principle that very good, excellent or high precision circularity and concentricity can only be achieved with some sort of lathing.

Even your example requires a stencil. Some sort of guide to ensure the curve or line or flat surface keeps to a certain line. Not the arbitrary and human movements that guess or estimate and can miss the line.

But problems I think happen when the precision gets down to the micron level. How does the craftsman even see that level. It would surely be a guss at some level. Then theres the 3D aspect and getting that into the vase. Whereas a lathe is prefixed and will keep to the lines.

You specifically said that they were both predynastic. None of them are predynastic.

Ok sorry I probably was thinking of something else. Like there was predynastic ones lol. I was a little lazy. Do you want me to show you the same sort of vases from predynastic times. It doesn't matter as it still shows two different signatures indicating two different methods.

Sure. https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf
It's the one from the Artifact Foundation.
Their proposed quality metric underestimates the importance of variation in circularity.

Yes I linked that article earlier. Ok so how do they underestimate the importance of variation in circularity. What is the threshold for not being lathed.

They tested a CNC lathed replica vase and its circularity was greater than some of the vases in the top 5 Karoly tested. The replica showed a circularity of 108 external and 81 microns internal. Some of the vases in the top 5 were better.

For example the internal circularity on the vase I linked earlier is 26 microns which is way harder to achieve by hand than external. It was almost 3 times better than modern CNC machining on the inside. Its outside circularity was only 0.03 less circular than the modern CNC vase which is nothing.

Third best vase had an external circularity of 111 microns just 0.03 off the modern CNC vase. Second place had an external circularity of 96 microns. Better than the modern CNC vase. First place had a circularity of 72 microns even better that the modern replica.

I think their quality metric isn't taking to account for the surfaces deviations.

Ok I don't know what that means. One thing of note though is that it appears many of the vases internal precision is better than the outside. Which would be even harder to get right by unguided hand tools in blind spots and access.

The less precision in the outside may be due to the fact that the outside is most subject to wear and damage and later attempts to work on them. Or just a real effort to bring already lathed vases up to a brillant smooth finish by hand later. But its the internal precision that points to lathing and we also have actual lathing strirations inside vases.

No they are not.

Ok are you saying these tiny deviations make all the difference that we can conclude they were not lathed. At what point do we say that its not lathing.

From my understanding some pretty big deviations can still happen on lathing depending on the sophistication of the lathe ie how stable it is and how still the cutter is fixed. So all this objection about micro level deviations does not negate lathing.

Don't be sloppy with details. If they are not predynastic the slow wheel was used in Egypt.

Ok sorry sir lol. And you just literally made a factual claim above ie "No they are not". Thats very sloppy. You have not even provided any evidence. At least I tried. I may have got the name wrong as to where the vase came from.

But I did not get the analogy and point wrong. That is we can clearly see two different methods of making these vases. The signatures don't lie.

That manufacture of the "handmade" vase was stopped before it was hollowed out. Why would that be a representative sample?

Because we have 1,000s of them. But more importantly your still fixating on the example and not the point. My point was to show you imprecise hand made vases. Do you think there are many imprecise hand made vases across all time periods even back to the predynastics.

Now do you think there are also precise vases of another level that exist in predynatics and earliest dynasties at the same time. Do you think these two groups of examples are different. Have different signatures. Do they look different to the naked eye.

If you see a vase that is very hard to tell any deviations. Chances are its a predynastic or earliest dynasty vase. Though all softer or imprecise vases have existed and were made all the way through history.

These looks good. What's your point?

You don't see any difference between them and the precision vases. You don't see the lop sidedness, crooked lines, uneven spheres ect.

Some look a lot more weathered.

OK so is that an excuse for why they don't look as precise. What do you mean by whethered. Why is not the precision vases not weathered as some are the same age. Do you want me to show you an image of a sone vase of the same age that looks rough and uneven like it was hand made.

Some of the ones that you call handmade look just as good as this one. So that you know the gold was glued back on the handles on this one.

Did you link one. I cannot see a vase.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

How was it silly as far as showing that we don't have to have the gun to know the signatures are from a gun. I don't really care about the example. Your making it all about the example rather than the principle involved.

But that is because we have bullet holes to compare to.

That is there are ways of analysing the marks left in something to tell what caused it without finding what caused it. Do you disagree with this principle.

Yes, I disagree. At best you could perhaps exclude some production methods, but it would never be proof positive of an unknown advanced ancient technology.

Once again your fixating on the tiny differences and missing the principle involved. If the Porse cyclinders are smoother have a guess what. We can tell they are smoother and hense even better precision and machining.

Yes, that we can measure.

We did not have to find the machine or lathe that made the Porse cyclinders smoother to know that a lathe made it smoother. Thats the principle. No matter what example. The fact you can tell its smoother and better lathing without finding the lathe.

Well, they could be milled perhaps?

Thats what we are doing with the vases. We don't have to find the lathe or machines or method to say that it was lathed. Because just like the smooth cyclinders we know lathing caused them.

So were the vases lathed or milled or only well polished after marking the highest parts?

What do you mean by showed.

If there is such a clear threshold they haven't shown where it is.

OLga vase was machined. It used a powered wheel with ball bearings to stablised the work as it spun. This was used to identify the deviations to then chisel them off over and over again. It was the stable lathing mechanism that got that particular vase to such a high level of circularity and symetry.

A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases​

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

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker – Fig. 29.

View attachment 372707 View attachment 372708

The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians. Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric,

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

Which sort of Steel Mans the arguement that some sort of pretty sophisticated lathing was needed to produce such precision and not unguided hand made chipping away and guessing.

That is not lathing! There are other ways to achieve that without a rotating table. If you want to use a rotating table, it doesn't have to turn fast.

If its such a stupid idea then why does just about everyone acknowledge this simple principle that very good, excellent or high precision circularity and concentricity can only be achieved with some sort of lathing.

Modern mills can come close also. Who is everyone when they haven't even published it?

Even your example requires a stencil. Some sort of guide to ensure the curve or line or flat surface keeps to a certain line.

Imperfections in the template would not affect the proposed quality measure, as they would be faithfully reproduced around the vase.

Not the arbitrary and human movements that guess or estimate and can miss the line.

That is solved with measuring often and by removing very little material between measurements.

But problems I think happen when the precision gets down to the micron level. How does the craftsman even see that level. It would surely be a guss at some level. Then theres the 3D aspect and getting that into the vase. Whereas a lathe is prefixed and will keep to the lines.

But the Petrie vases have large areas with either too much material or too little material which are not circular around the Z axis of the vase, something you would expect if they were made on lathe.

Ok sorry I probably was thinking of something else. Like there was predynastic ones lol. I was a little lazy. Do you want me to show you the same sort of vases from predynastic times. It doesn't matter as it still shows two different signatures indicating two different methods.

Yes I linked that article earlier. Ok so how do they underestimate the importance of variation in circularity. What is the threshold for not being lathed.

The Artifact Foundation and Karoly's measure are just using two point estimates. There no measures of dispersal (or variation) in their proposed quality measure at all.

They tested a CNC lathed replica vase and its circularity was greater than some of the vases in the top 5 Karoly tested. The replica showed a circularity of 108 external and 81 microns internal. Some of the vases in the top 5 were better.

One CNC lathed replica is not a representative sample of what is achieveable with modern lathes.

For example the internal circularity on the vase I linked earlier is 26 microns which is way harder to achieve by hand than external. It was almost 3 times better than modern CNC machining on the inside. Its outside circularity was only 0.03 less circular than the modern CNC vase which is nothing.

That one (what the Artifact Foundation calls a jar) was from the 6th dynasty, what does that have to do with predynastic vases, it does not have any internal striations either. All according to earlier linked report.

Third best vase had an external circularity of 111 microns just 0.03 off the modern CNC vase. Second place had an external circularity of 96 microns. Better than the modern CNC vase. First place had a circularity of 72 microns even better that the modern replica.

Ok I don't know what that means. One thing of note though is that it appears many of the vases internal precision is better than the outside. Which would be even harder to get right by unguided hand tools in blind spots and access.

Many of the vases only have a fraction of their internal surfaces scanned, see the earlier linked report. The internal measures can't be used when one jar has all of its inner surface scanned and others have only a few millimeters below the neck.

The less precision in the outside may be due to the fact that the outside is most subject to wear and damage and later attempts to work on them. Or just a real effort to bring already lathed vases up to a brillant smooth finish by hand later. But its the internal precision that points to lathing and we also have actual lathing strirations inside vases.

Which ones had lathing striations? And why are they lathing striations and not core drill striations?

Ok are you saying these tiny deviations make all the difference that we can conclude they were not lathed. At what point do we say that its not lathing.

I don't know if they are lathed or not, I'm saying we can't conclusively say whether they are or not.

From my understanding some pretty big deviations can still happen on lathing depending on the sophistication of the lathe ie how stable it is and how still the cutter is fixed. So all this objection about micro level deviations does not negate lathing.

Perhaps not, but the results don't exclude that the vases are handmade either, IMO

Ok sorry sir lol. And you just literally made a factual claim above ie "No they are not". Thats very sloppy. You have not even provided any evidence. At least I tried. I may have got the name wrong as to where the vase came from.

No they are not, in my opinion.

But I did not get the analogy and point wrong. That is we can clearly see two different methods of making these vases. The signatures don't lie.

I don't see the two different methods, it looks that one is finished and the other not. How did they exclude that possibility?

Because we have 1,000s of them. But more importantly your still fixating on the example and not the point. My point was to show you imprecise hand made vases. Do you think there are many imprecise hand made vases across all time periods even back to the predynastics.

If you want to use them for an argument you need to detail their provenance and their measurements.

Now do you think there are also precise vases of another level that exist in predynatics and earliest dynasties at the same time. Do you think these two groups of examples are different. Have different signatures. Do they look different to the naked eye.

Only if you cherrypick the examples.

If you see a vase that is very hard to tell any deviations. Chances are its a predynastic or earliest dynasty vase. Though all softer or imprecise vases have existed and were made all the way through history.

You don't see any difference between them and the precision vases. You don't see the lop sidedness, crooked lines, uneven spheres ect.

No, if they would measure these with their quality measure they would measure quite good.

OK so is that an excuse for why they don't look as precise. What do you mean by whethered. Why is not the precision vases not weathered as some are the same age. Do you want me to show you an image of a sone vase of the same age that looks rough and uneven like it was hand made.

The don't look like they have been stored under the same conditions.

Did you link one. I cannot see a vase.

These ones.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm getting confused now. This is a contradiction to what the other poster said in that it is not even necessary to show the tech or device to prove that advanced methods was used.

Who is correct. If you are contradicting each other than is not a good basis.

We're not a unified hive mind nor a homogeneous group. We all have our own ideas, but we're united in that we think that your claims are bunk.

 

[stevevw]

Playing the devil's advocate let's assume your idiotic conspiracy theory

Not a good start. You have already relegated it to idiotic so why should I believe anything you say after this lol. Anyway . I think Devils advocate is not to actually be the devil and play misrepresentations. But take the actual claim seriously as true and then challenge it lol.

is correct where all 18th dynasty granite obelisks were forgeries produced in the Old Kingdom as the technology was lost by the time of the New Kingdom.

This is also a misrepresentation and strawman. I never said that all 18th dynasty obelisk as from earlier dynasties. I said at least some of them as well as columns and other works.

Based on the fact that all sites were occupied by the same dynasties throughout time. Meaning the earliest Egyptians began the site and then it was inherited and added to or taken away or reused in new projects.

Djoser inherited many predynastic vases under his pyramind. That doesn't mean he made them.

Therefore the unfinished obelisk at Aswan had been attempted in the Old Kingdom.

Hum maybe, maybe not. Your the one making the steps. All I know is the Aswan quarry was used from the earliest times and its granite is found in all sites from the earliest times.

The unfinished obelisk was covered in 7 meters of rubble and sand and had massive granite blocks on it. Which had to be cut up to move in modern times. It has witness marks from a number of different methods over history. The Romans also used the same quarry. Like the vases there seems to be more than one method happening.

View attachment 372668
​

Since it is an Old Kingdom construction using superior technology dolerite pounders were not needed so why are there hundreds of rounded dolerite stones of different sizes on the site which are clearly not naturally occurring?

Because like I said the quarry has been sitting there for nearly 5,000 years so over time a collection of different methods will be found. No one is saying Dolerite pounders were not used by some. They are just one method.

But more importantly scientific studies have found this is an insufficient method to explain the many scoop marks and their uniform pattern and angles that make it hard to use a punder. Plus the time needed has been determined to take too long. Something else must has been used to speed up the process.

The problems of the obelisk revisited: Photogrammetric measurement of the speed of quarrying granite using dolerite pounders

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

Furthermore why are depression marks in the obelisk within the range of sizes of these dolerite stones?

They are not and thats the problem. Scans done show a certain uniform pattern in the scoops like a uniform scooper or shovel scooped out pretty well uniform squares or trenches. Some extend down walls in uniform lines and go across the trench and up under the obelisk. The space in under the obelisk is too tight for getting a good hit with a stone ball.

Plus and heres the strange thing. The scoops are in places that are totally unnecessary to pound. Well away from where the obelisk joins the bedrock. One continuious long scoop mark with ridges on each side up and under. They would have only needed to concentrate on the immediate area along the join line and save all that years of pounding that is no where near the join that could have been left.

On top of that notice how these scoop marks are sort of square with ridges around them. Even stepping down inclines. Almost like a pattern and work of art has been created in being so uniform and aligned. Unlike unguided pounding. It would take more effort to ensure such patterns were left than just pounding everything in sight. Why stay on the same 40 inch square plot for months. Just smash it all down lol.

View attachment 372669
​

If the Old Kingdom had the technology of softening granite then they would not have had to use dolerite, any stone harder than softened granite would have sufficed.

Your assuming that the same dynasty had the Dolerite pounders and the stone softening tech. It may be that the earlier dynasty or people had the stone softening knowledge and it got lost. Later Egyptians come along see said works and devise pounders as the method to copy the work.

Or it may be that the stone softening was used for the big works such as removing tons of granite around the slab fairly quickly. The pounders were an additional finishing method. Maybe taking edges off or little imperfections before finishing. Who knows but don't assume any sequence or specific method covers all or any.

Just a note of the stone softening. I am not sure if it was stone softening or weakening. Weakening that it loses its strength or molecular structure and breaks up more easily. Some research has been done on this.

Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Currents.
Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Current - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

But either way the stone is easier to work with which does not necessarily require modern machining or machines. If weakened or softer then an ordinary metal scooper or shovel or some sort can scrape out the granite.

Going back to predynastic times in Egypt if they had the capability of producing high precision vases on lathes then making smooth sharp flint blades from dolerite, quartz and chert would have been a piece of cake yet the evidence paints a very different picture.

Once again your discounting that both these levels of knowledge and tech were there at the same time. Today we still see some tribes making primitive tools. If we find them in a 1,000 years should we assume that 2025 was primitive. Not because we will aslo find in that same time evidence of modern tech.

Or another possibility is that the culture making the primitive blades inherited the precision vases from someone else. They found them in tombs or sites somewhere. There have been stone vases found around 12,000 years old.

Like other works they may be found and a new culture takes over them or inherits them into their culture. Just because they are found with the culture does not mean they made them.

View attachment 372672​

If you are going to be true to form the information provided is going to be ignored and the issue remains whether this is due to a lack of basic comprehension skills or trolling resulting in propagation of misinformation and disinformation.

Yes its based on a lack of understanding on your part as to what I am saying. You are creating misrepresentations. Now your creating an either/or that I must choose from which I disagree are the only options.

I never claimed half of what your protesting about. You have made it an either/or. Either I said all of the obelisks or it must either be pounders or modern tech. Its all of the above.

The only aspect I am focuing on is the modern looking signatures that appear early and perhaps too early. As the OP said there maybe a flaw in the narrative. One of the examples showing that flaw is the precision vases and other circular or planing cuts in stone which contradict the traditional tools and methods.

Another is that tiny dolerite pounders created all the scoop marks. Its these out of place examples which build the case no matter if they happen in predynastic, 12,000 years ago, 400,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago. Its just more amazing when it happens 5 or 6,000 years ago when they said it didn't.

Like I said lost advanced knowledge and tech is not some linear process from simple and primitive to modern and advanced. It rises and falls. It may have reached a peak 6,000 years ago and was lost. It starts again. Some pockets still have the knowledge. Then it changes again. There are out of place works from medievil times. But the earliest ones are more interesting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like I said lost advanced knowledge and tech is not some linear process from simple and primitive to modern and advanced. It rises and falls. It may have reached a peak 6,000 years ago and was lost. It starts again. Some pockets still have the knowledge. Then it changes again. There are out of place works from medievil times. But the earliest ones are more interesting.

So why can't we find any of it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Your assuming that the same dynasty had the Dolerite pounders and the stone softening tech. It may be that the earlier dynasty or people had the stone softening knowledge and it got lost. Later Egyptians come along see said works and devise pounders as the method to copy the work.

Or it may be that the stone softening was used for the big works such as removing tons of granite around the slab fairly quickly. The pounders were an additional finishing method. Maybe taking edges off or little imperfections before finishing. Who knows but don't assume any sequence or specific method covers all or any.

Just a note of the stone softening. I am not sure if it was stone softening or weakening. Weakening that it loses its strength or molecular structure and breaks up more easily. Some research has been done on this.

Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Currents.
Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Current - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

But either way the stone is easier to work with which does not necessarily require modern machining or machines. If weakened or softer then an ordinary metal scooper or shovel or some sort can scrape out the granite.

Introducing a specific fantasy technology is progress, but it is still just that -- fantasy.

 

[sjastro]

Not a good start. You have already relegated it to idiotic so why should I believe anything you say after this lol. Anyway . I think Devils advocate is not to actually be the devil and play misrepresentations. But take the actual claim seriously as true and then challenge it lol.

This is also a misrepresentation and strawman. I never said that all 18th dynasty obelisk as from earlier dynasties. I said at least some of them as well as columns and other works.

Based on the fact that all sites were occupied by the same dynasties throughout time. Meaning the earliest Egyptians began the site and then it was inherited and added to or taken away or reused in new projects.

Djoser inherited many predynastic vases under his pyramind. That doesn't mean he made them.

Hum maybe, maybe not. Your the one making the steps. All I know is the Aswan quarry was used from the earliest times and its granite is found in all sites from the earliest times.

The unfinished obelisk was covered in 7 meters of rubble and sand and had massive granite blocks on it. Which had to be cut up to move in modern times. It has witness marks from a number of different methods over history. The Romans also used the same quarry. Like the vases there seems to be more than one method happening.

Because like I said the quarry has been sitting there for nearly 5,000 years so over time a collection of different methods will be found. No one is saying Dolerite pounders were not used by some. They are just one method.

But more importantly scientific studies have found this is an insufficient method to explain the many scoop marks and their uniform pattern and angles that make it hard to use a punder. Plus the time needed has been determined to take too long. Something else must has been used to speed up the process.

The problems of the obelisk revisited: Photogrammetric measurement of the speed of quarrying granite using dolerite pounders

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

They are not and thats the problem. Scans done show a certain uniform pattern in the scoops like a uniform scooper or shovel scooped out pretty well uniform squares or trenches. Some extend down walls in uniform lines and go across the trench and up under the obelisk. The space in under the obelisk is too tight for getting a good hit with a stone ball.

Plus and heres the strange thing. The scoops are in places that are totally unnecessary to pound. Well away from where the obelisk joins the bedrock. One continuious long scoop mark with ridges on each side up and under. They would have only needed to concentrate on the immediate area along the join line and save all that years of pounding that is no where near the join that could have been left.

On top of that notice how these scoop marks are sort of square with ridges around them. Even stepping down inclines. Almost like a pattern and work of art has been created in being so uniform and aligned. Unlike unguided pounding. It would take more effort to ensure such patterns were left than just pounding everything in sight. Why stay on the same 40 inch square plot for months. Just smash it all down lol.

Your assuming that the same dynasty had the Dolerite pounders and the stone softening tech. It may be that the earlier dynasty or people had the stone softening knowledge and it got lost. Later Egyptians come along see said works and devise pounders as the method to copy the work.

Or it may be that the stone softening was used for the big works such as removing tons of granite around the slab fairly quickly. The pounders were an additional finishing method. Maybe taking edges off or little imperfections before finishing. Who knows but don't assume any sequence or specific method covers all or any.

Just a note of the stone softening. I am not sure if it was stone softening or weakening. Weakening that it loses its strength or molecular structure and breaks up more easily. Some research has been done on this.

Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Currents.
Progressive Weakening of Granite by Piezoelectric Excitation of Quartz with Alternating Current - Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering

But either way the stone is easier to work with which does not necessarily require modern machining or machines. If weakened or softer then an ordinary metal scooper or shovel or some sort can scrape out the granite.

You are one horribly confused individual; do I need to remind you of the claim by the time of the 18th dynasty this super technology whatever it was had disappeared about 1000 years beforehand in the Old Kingdom.

By admitting some complex inscribed obelisks were made in the 18th dynasty from granite using dolerite pounders which you claimed was impossible on much simpler shapes such as sarcophagi is a gross contradiction.

Since signature is a buzz word how do you distinguish between a genuine 18th dynasty obelisk using simple tooling and an 18th dynasty forgery of an Old Kingdom obelisk using this unknown super technology?

You have inadvertently made the case one does not need super technology and granite carving can be achieved using simple tools.

Once again your discounting that both these levels of knowledge and tech were there at the same time. Today we still see some tribes making primitive tools. If we find them in a 1,000 years should we assume that 2025 was primitive. Not because we will aslo find in that same time evidence of modern tech.

Or another possibility is that the culture making the primitive blades inherited the precision vases from someone else. They found them in tombs or sites somewhere. There have been stone vases found around 12,000 years old.

Like other works they may be found and a new culture takes over them or inherits them into their culture. Just because they are found with the culture does not mean they made them.

Instead of giving me a lecture on making assumptions about times, once again your lack of basic comprehension skills comes to the fore.
The caption for the flint tool clearly states it is from the late Naqada II-III period.

Naqada describes the culture of the region, it was the same culture which started to produce granite vases in the same period.
Knives and flint tools of the late Naqada II- III period were produced by knapping on both sides, if the Naqada culture possessed modern lathes to produce granite vases why was the knapping process not replaced?

The answer is very simple they didn’t have modern lathe technology and granite vases were a testimony to the skill of the craftsmen using simple tools.

Yes its based on a lack of understanding on your part as to what I am saying. You are creating misrepresentations. Now your creating an either/or that I must choose from which I disagree are the only options.

I never claimed half of what your protesting about. You have made it an either/or. Either I said all of the obelisks or it must either be pounders or modern tech. Its all of the above.

The only aspect I am focuing on is the modern looking signatures that appear early and perhaps too early. As the OP said there maybe a flaw in the narrative. One of the examples showing that flaw is the precision vases and other circular or planing cuts in stone which contradict the traditional tools and methods.

Another is that tiny dolerite pounders created all the scoop marks. Its these out of place examples which build the case no matter if they happen in predynastic, 12,000 years ago, 400,000 years ago or 3,000 years ago. Its just more amazing when it happens 5 or 6,000 years ago when they said it didn't.

Like I said lost advanced knowledge and tech is not some linear process from simple and primitive to modern and advanced. It rises and falls. It may have reached a peak 6,000 years ago and was lost. It starts again. Some pockets still have the knowledge. Then it changes again. There are out of place works from medievil times. But the earliest ones are more interesting.

Given you have admitted 18th dynasty obelisks were made with diorite pounders one can dispense with the super technology nonsense which conveniently appeared and disappeared over thousands of years but left no trace.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We went through this before over the unreal and unfair idea of having to be forced to choose obviously imprecise vases in the limited number of vases (20) that could be selected from the museums to test.

It's too bad that you think that doing science properly is "unfair", but that's the way it is. No one who wants rigorous science is going to accept the slop generated by the vase phrenologists.

A seperate test using known Egyptian vases in various stones including hand made, softer alabasta and modern CNC vases was also carried out. I linked the comparison which showed the predybastic precision vases were a different class of vase.

But ultimately if your looking for precision why would you not focus on the precision. There has already been many studies on Pottery and various vases over the years. We already have the data.

How is choosing the authentic vases in the museum that look most likely they will meet the precise class to only measure tham to see if they meet the precise class. If a vase visbly looks crooked why bother when we already have many studies on this.

I am not convinced that the "precise" class is real, nor has the best available data (consistent evaluation of larger numbers, like the document from "Dr. Max") from the vasists suggested that it is a truly separate category.

As has been noted dozens of times already, your go-to sources have severe problems with non-rigorous work (even when they try to project rigor). We seriously need to talk about your sources, so would you reply to post #1004?

 

[sjastro]

For reference here is the predynastic flint tool for reference produced by knapping.

​

In my possession are flint tools I obtained from my uncle a geophysicist who found them in a cave in Northern Italy.
I recall the tools were described as being extremely old by an expert on flint tools.

​

As one of my AI challenges I asked GPT-5 to identify the stone tools and a possible time frame of manufacturing, the only reliable information I could give it they were found in Northern Italy.

​

If these are Neanderthal tools at least 40,000 years old, one would have expected the Naqada culture having the supposed capability of making granite vases on lathes would have been able to go beyond the use of knapping to produce flint tools.

 

[stevevw]

It's too bad that you think that doing science properly is "unfair", but that's the way it is. No one who wants rigorous science is going to accept the slop generated by the vase phrenologists.

How many of the 20 vases should they give up. A rare opportunity to measure precision vases and you want to force the testers to lose precisous opportunity in measuring precise vases and replace them with crooked ones they already know are crooked and won't learn anything.

I am not convinced that the "precise" class is real, nor has the best available data (consistent evaluation of larger numbers, like the document from "Dr. Max") from the vasists suggested that it is a truly separate category.

Thats because your hyper skeptical on stuff like this which is more about a belief than actual objective data.

Its widely acknowledged these precision vases occupy a seperate class or category if you like from other vases. Whether thats simple their looks to the naked eye, the many tests done, or the many references to these vases as being special and the peak of Egyptian vase making.

Do you think there was more than one method from making vases. Do you think at least some vases have been lathed and some not. Do you see any difference in the signations on the vases I linked in alabasta to the hard stone vases that may indicate method..

As has been noted dozens of times already, your go-to sources have severe problems with non-rigorous work (even when they try to project rigor). We seriously need to talk about your sources, so would you reply to post #1004?

And those pointing out the non rigorous work. Where is their tests and analysis and publication of their findings. Are you asking me to believe sources that have no formal work to back their claims. That would be bad epistemically.

I know one thing. Any reasonable and fair source would not be deriding those they are trying to prove wrong. Or be assuming they are wrong before any work has been to to support such. Just on that basis they are disqualified. The testers have conducted themselves much better.

Much of the objections are blown out of proportion. We are talking microns deviations in circularity and suddenly its not lathed. Thats why I cut to the chase and asked what is the threshold for lathed. Is there not good and bad lathing. How does a couple of microns suddenly make it not lathed.

I also pointed out that the Petrie museum vases had better circularity than an actual CNC replica vase that we definitely know was lathed. How is that not support for lathing.

 

[stevevw]

You are one horribly confused individual;

"Horribly confused" lol. When people use such dramatic language I know they are more invested that the actual topic. I will have to go back and make a list of all the names you have used. Its getting quite long now.

do I need to remind you of the claim by the time of the 18th dynasty this super technology whatever it was had disappeared about 1000 years beforehand in the Old Kingdom.

Yes for the predynastic vases. I said of the obelisk that not all were made by later dynasties like the 18th. We have evidence for this. I said that the earliest obelisks and columns are the best and all made of the granite and the later ones of softer stone like sandstone and less quality.

The OP video is about a giant flaw in the narrative of human history relating to advanced knowledge and tech. Examples can be given from any time. But the earliest advanced knowledge is the most out of place. Look at the 2,100-year-old Antikythera Mechanism. Is that not advanced tech for its age.

By admitting some complex inscribed obelisks were made in the 18th dynasty from granite using dolerite pounders which you claimed was impossible on much simpler shapes such as sarcophagi is a gross contradiction.

No I am not saying that the obelisks were made by dolerite pounders. If they were made the same way as the unfinished obelisk then the science shows they could not have been completely made of dolerite pounders in any dynasty.

Since signature is a buzz

See how you inject unnecessary biases into what is suppose to be objective. You qualify a word, not any evidence or explanation. But a single word in a negative way to undermine its importance.

Call it what you like but its a descriptor about the marks on the object that identify the maker or method. Like a literal signature. Or you could call them 'witness marks' as the marks suggest a method or tool.

word how do you distinguish between a genuine 18th dynasty obelisk using simple tooling and an 18th dynasty forgery of an Old Kingdom obelisk using this unknown super technology?

Are you seriously saying we cannot tell by the style, precision, material, and other markers anything about who made the works and when they were made in general. So we can tell say the old kingdom granite works from the new kingdom. Is there no markers we can use.

You have inadvertently made the case one does not need super technology and granite carving can be achieved using simple tools.

No one ever said that say a stone vase cannot be made by hand. Look at Olgas vases (though she cheated on one). But we see examples of hand made vases I linked that were pounded, chiselled and rubbed into existence. Many made by the bore stick and they look slightly warped as a result because the bore stick leaves that kind of signature.

The same with all tools. No one says there was not copper saws cutting soft and hard stone. Someone over 1,000s of years come along and tried that method and did not know of any other method. The same with the

Instead of giving me a lecture on making assumptions about times,

Lol thats all you have been doing. Telling me how rediculous and stupid I and the testers are and how I must wake up to myself and agree with you. Like I am in trouble or something because I was a naughty boys lol.

once again your lack of basic comprehension skills comes to the fore.
The caption for the flint tool clearly states it is from the late Naqada II-III period.

I didn't need the caption. I knew it was early and Neolithic. Once again you assume things.

Naqada describes the culture of the region, it was the same culture which started to produce granite vases in the same period.
Knives and flint tools of the late Naqada II- III period were produced by knapping on both sides, if the Naqada culture possessed modern lathes to produce granite vases why was the knapping process not replaced?

So your logic is because we find the vases and primitive knapped knives and tools together the same culture must have made them.

I am not fixed on the vases being made even earlier that the Naqada period. In fact we have evidence for such. I am saying that the mainstream narrative is that the vases were made by the Naqada people. I am saying if so they must have had some sort of lathing because the signatures match lathing. Yet they had no laths and not even the wheel. I said this 10 times or more.

But I never said that the Naqada people did not also knap flint tools. You seem to think that either two different methods could happen at the same time. Or that two different methods can be found in the same site from different times.

I actually said earlier that its strange that everything about the Naqada people is primitive and these precision vases look out of place to the level of tech they had for everything else they did.

It suggests that like Djoser who inherited these vases that the Naqada people may have also inherited them.

The answer is very simple they didn’t have modern lathe technology and granite vases were a testimony to the skill of the craftsmen using simple tools.

I think this is more a conspiracy than saying a lathe was involved. It blindly accepts without any evidence at all that a certain method was used. Simply because these were found at the same site.

If someone built a house over an earlier house and some coins were found. Would that mean the earlier house was made when the later coins were made because they happen to be in the site.

Given you have admitted 18th dynasty obelisks were made with diorite pounders one can dispense with the super technology nonsense which conveniently appeared and disappeared over thousands of years but left no trace.

Actually I haven't. This is a strawman. How can I admit the obelisks were made by pounders when I just linked a paper saying they could not have been used to make the obelisks.