There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

Vase fragment from under Mastaba 17 taken on sight.

Who took the photo?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

View attachment 372232

Predynatic vase on left and modern CNC vase on right.

Possible 1979 vase on the left, CNC vase on the right. Why did you leave out the bad provenance of that example?

 

[AV1611VET]

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

The Nephilim?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

View attachment 372231

Vase fragment from under Mastaba 17 taken on sight. There were many like this. Clearly shows circular strirations that look like machining.

They didn't happen to actually write anything about it, was it found together with something organic so we can date it etc? Where can I find more information about it and Mastaba 17? What little I found about Mastaba 17 seems to indicate that it was from the old kingdom, so what is the connection to any predynastic vases?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The Nephilim?

Not what he's talking about in the slightest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not what he's talking about in the slightest.

He said "giant".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

He said "giant".

Which doesn't have to mean a literal giant.

Maybe actually read the thread instead of just jumping in blindly, AV. Read, learn, understand.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which doesn't have to mean a literal giant.

Maybe actually read the thread instead of just jumping in blindly, AV. Read, learn, understand.

But you do agree that the giants were a flawed race of angels, do you not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But you do agree that the giants were a flawed race of angels, do you not?

That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, so I will not answer it one way or another.

 

[stevevw]

Who took the photo?

It came from a video from under the Stepped pyramid. At around the 4.20 minute mark. There are a number like this. Some with strirations on the walls like the other one linked. Most of the time the strirations have been polished out but some are fully or partly left.

Chris King (Part 4) – Ancient Technology Podcast

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It came from a video from under the Stepped pyramid. At around the 4.20 minute mark. There are a number like this. Some with strirations on the walls like the other one linked. Most of the time the strirations have been polished out but some are fully or partly left.

Chris King (Part 4) – Ancient Technology Podcast

And this is why I keep saying context matters: if you keep getting pictures from unconfirmed sources, there's no way for anyone else to validate it outside of an obviously biased source. No-one gets a chance to double-check the evidence themselves.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It came from a video from under the Stepped pyramid. At around the 4.20 minute mark. There are a number like this. Some with strirations on the walls like the other one linked. Most of the time the strirations have been polished out but some are fully or partly left.

Chris King (Part 4) – Ancient Technology Podcast

Why is some tourist handling artifacts?

 

[stevevw]

And this is why I keep saying context matters: if you keep getting pictures from unconfirmed sources, there's no way for anyone else to validate it outside of an obviously biased source. No-one gets a chance to double-check the evidence themselves.

And if you checked you would have known that this is the 3rd time I have linked those and I had already said where they were from. In fact didn't I actually state that it was from under the Stepped pyramid.

Possible 1979 vase on the left, CNC vase on the right. Why did you leave out the bad provenance of that example?

View attachment 372235

Ah the provedence again. Except Max mentioned that a number of the vases have the strirations. You cannot deny the one under the Stepped pyramid.

 

[stevevw]

Why is some tourist handling artifacts?

These are vase fragments. Theres literally 10,s of 1,000s down there. People literally had to walk over them. They are everywhere. Why would people that go under the Stepped pyramid not be allowed to touch vase fragments. This would be a specially arranged tour as going under the Stepped pyramid is not an everyday tourist site.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

And if you checked you would have known that this is the 3rd time I have linked those and I had already said where they were from. In fact didn't I actually state that it was from under the Stepped pyramid.

Ah the provedence again. Except Max mentioned that a number of the vases have the strirations. You cannot deny the one under the Stepped pyramid.

You can't skip provenance, all the vases in that article from Max was from Bealls collection. Not one of them have good provenance. If you keep using them as examples I'm going to point out their bad provenance.

So no context for the one found under Mastaba 17? Is that an actual ongoing dig? Any organics that could be carbon dated? Is the fragments from the same time as other proposed predynastic vases, if not why are we talking about them in conjunction?

 

[stevevw]

You can't skip provenance, all the vases in that article from Max was from Bealls collection. Not one of them have good provenance. If you keep using them as examples I'm going to point out their bad provenance.

Hum surely the idea that they don't have good provedence is subjective. Many date back to the mid to early 20th century. The problem is going to be that just about every vase including the ones in museums will date back to this period and mabe later 19th century. Because this is when they were discovered.

So many went to private collectors or were donated to museums. But even then theres no certificate of guarentee that they came directly from digs. So the whole provenance thing can be used subjectively.

Therefore we can determine their authenticity in other ways. For example the vases may have unique signatures that are exactly the same for which forgers would not bother. Little witness marks.

Also the owners of vases who sold them trace back to authentic people who had recieved them from digs. So its only one more step in the chain.

Still we have vases with good provenance that have the exact same signatures which lend weight to them being from the same sources.

But do you notice that in attacking the provenance people are actually admitting the vases are too modern to be from such early times. Which makes the ones with good prevenance out of place.

So no context for the one found under Mastaba 17?

Yes, they were found under the Stepped pyramid and Mastaba 17. There were 1,000s of vases let along fragments because of collapses. So found under dirt and rubble and there for as long as the pyramids they are in. But many have engravings from predyanstic kings.

Is that an actual ongoing dig? Any organics that could be carbon dated? Is the fragments from the same time as other proposed predynastic vases, if not why are we talking about them in conjunction?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Hum surely the idea that they don't have good provedence is subjective. Many date back to the mid to early 20th century. The problem is going to be that just about every vase including the ones in museums will date back to this period and mabe later 19th century. Because this is when they were discovered.

So then we see if we find any new archeological sites and excavate those.

So many went to private collectors or were donated to museums. But even then theres no certificate of guarentee that they came directly from digs. So the whole provenance thing can be used subjectively.

Therefore we can determine their authenticity in other ways. For example the vases may have unique signatures that are exactly the same for which forgers would not bother. Little witness marks.

So now you're speculating not only on my mental states, but also how the forgers think?

Also the owners of vases who sold them trace back to authentic people who had recieved them from digs. So its only one more step in the chain.

This then needs to actually done for each vase.

Still we have vases with good provenance that have the exact same signatures which lend weight to them being from the same sources.

The three pictures of the inside of vases you posted recently don't look exactly the same. So which ones are you talking about?

But do you notice that in attacking the provenance people are actually admitting the vases are too modern to be from such early times. Which makes the ones with good prevenance out of place.

No, that is not true. It's only the observation that we don't know and therefore can't use it as evidence for any historical or archeological claims. I'm sure there are vases of all qualities with unknown provenance.

Yes, they were found under the Stepped pyramid and Mastaba 17. There were 1,000s of vases let along fragments because of collapses. So found under dirt and rubble and there for as long as the pyramids they are in. But many have engravings from predyanstic kings.

Did that specific fragment have any engravings from a predynastic king? The stepped pyramid is not predynastic, so we can't assume that just because something was found under it then it was predynastic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

These are vase fragments. Theres literally 10,s of 1,000s down there. People literally had to walk over them. They are everywhere. Why would people that go under the Stepped pyramid not be allowed to touch vase fragments.

Why would they be? I've never been in any tour space where they said "touch what ever you like".

This would be a specially arranged tour as going under the Stepped pyramid is not an everyday tourist site.

A special tour is still a tour.

View attachment 372274

Picture with no context has no context.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And if you checked you would have known that this is the 3rd time I have linked those and I had already said where they were from. In fact didn't I actually state that it was from under the Stepped pyramid.

That's not context, though. Context is who took the photo, when they took the photo, what the person taking the photo's qualifications are and what they actually know about the jar itself.

Besides, doing my own little research spree (which was literally five minutes of Googling the phrase "carving jars from alabaster" turned up this website page: Hand Carving Process For Egyptian Alabaster, which simply (if not wholly visually) describes the process of how Egyptian Alabaster is shaped and form by modern artisans to make jars out of alabaster as they would thousands of years ago. And in fact, this process is expanded upon here, Crafting Timeless Beauty: The Art of Carving Egyptian Alabaster, which this time has a video, which I sadly can't link below (the actual process beings at about the 2 minute mark) and we see the exact process of how it's done in a traditional, but clearly complex and skilled manner.

But the point I'm making is that we know what processes the ancient Egyptians used, because there are still people using those same processes! We know how they did it, but you just refuse to accept that as evidence for anything. And your claims of the ancients using much more advanced technology than you claim they had just poos all over these people's hard work.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's not context, though. Context is who took the photo, when they took the photo, what the person taking the photo's qualifications are and what they actually know about the jar itself.

Besides, doing my own little research spree (which was literally five minutes of Googling the phrase "carving jars from alabaster" turned up this website page: Hand Carving Process For Egyptian Alabaster, which simply (if not wholly visually) describes the process of how Egyptian Alabaster is shaped and form by modern artisans to make jars out of alabaster as they would thousands of years ago. And in fact, this process is expanded upon here, Crafting Timeless Beauty: The Art of Carving Egyptian Alabaster, which this time has a video, which I sadly can't link below (the actual process beings at about the 2 minute mark) and we see the exact process of how it's done in a traditional, but clearly complex and skilled manner.

But the point I'm making is that we know what processes the ancient Egyptians used, because there are still people using those same processes! We know how they did it, but you just refuse to accept that as evidence for anything. And your claims of the ancients using much more advanced technology than you claim they had just poos all over these people's hard work.

He doesn't understand context.
He doesn't understand peer review.
He doesn't understand the difference between the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority and the legitimate use of authoritative views.
He doesn't understand the difference between accuracy and precision.
He doesn't understand the difference between speculation and hypothesis.
He doesn't understand that critical thinking must first be applied to ones own views.

All of which is a great pity, since he is clearly intelligent, enthusiastic and committed; ideal traits for an investigative homo sapiens.