Using AI to further debunk ancient Egyptians used technologies to drill granite far beyond the current level.

[Hans Blaster]

Seriously. What has gut feelings got to do with this. Its science. Science can prove a toy tool set cannot create an actual building for example. A 1 ton ute cannot carry a 10 ton load capacity. Its science not gut.

This whole sequence of comments is about your assessment of the evidence. I've seen nothing that would make me think you have the appropriate expertise to evaluate it, especially without having had direct contact with the evidence itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've only kept the parts that deal with the "complex geometry" allegedly embedded in the vase and numerology.

Yes and that is one of the alignments these vases meet as well as other alignments associated with all the parts of the vase in relation to known geometric corordinates.

Actually the shapes are well know geometric forms like circles, cyclingers, angles ect which then conform to more complex geometry such as the Goldren ration, Pi and Phi ect. These are not random arbitray shapes but recognised within geometry and nature.

In fact that is one of the points being made is that the early Egyptians had sophisticated knowledge about these natural shapes and other elements of nature.

Yes it does. Because measuring say the flatness of the top rim your only getting a local reference. But when you then measure that against say the bottom, every rasdial along the elipsoid, the handles and the cylinder of the opening and its axis you then get multiple references to its flatness.

The same can be done with every part of the vase in relation to other parts and not just flatness but curves, circles, vertical relations, and then into more complex geometry such as the Godlen ratio ect.

Thats the point the handles are amazingly corordinated to each other and the rest of the vase. This is the remarkable part because handles are usually created by a bullnose and cutting out the inbetween. That requires a tool change and different method to turning which can introduce errors.

But the in between spaces conform exactly like there was no handles and the handles are in perfect alignment and reference to all other points on the vase. Including the tiny holes in the handles and the handle curves which fit within a greater geometry conforming to the Golden ratio and Phi ect.

Not just craftmanship but knowledge and ability to incorporate that geometry into the vase without any guidenece. Its impossible to fluke all those cordinates by freehand.

Just a tool change, slight pressure or lack there of, a guess by sight as to the geometry will introduce errors that puts out all other reference points. They must have had some sort of template to follow as no human has even been able to do this unguided.

I find it amusing that these amazing feats are always deminished in order to keep the narrative. It may be just numerology but the issue is putting that from the calculations into a 3D object.

To understand that level of geometry and maths in the first place is amazing. To fluke getting them into the vase if they did not know is unbelievable and if they both know the numbers and also could reflect that in the vase then that is both amazing and unbelievable.

[big clip]

Why whats wrong with sacred geometry, its well recognised. The ancients used it. Are you denying that this influenced their knowledge.

The vases and statues don't just display axisymmetry they actually contain sophistiocated and precise geometry and math which is transferred somehow into a 3D vase. In other words this was pre designed to end up that way following some sort of template of method to ensure that outcome rather than luck or guessing.

When I first saw your claims about all of these numbers (including pi) being incorporated into the vase I didn't understand what you were on about. Last night I saw another item about it and this time I finally understood the claim about the picture with the circles drawn all over it. It was not impressive. (And I do have some concerns that some of the circles are just those in a 2D photograph, and not in the 3D geometry of the vase.) They use so many numbers to make their ratios and in so many combinations it is easy to find something that is quite close to any particular ratio of circle diameters. For crying out loud one of the ratios was 46/9. What profound mathematical secret or knowledge is contained in 46/9?

It is classic numerology. Not Egyptian numerology, but from the people making claims about ancient high technology. I'm not sure why they think this bolsters their case. Do they think some 7th millennium craftsman thought about what obscure mathematical ratios he could insert in to the design of his vase before programming into the Hardrock CNC machine?

 

[sjastro]

I requested the pitch values GPT-4o measured from the Petrie No. 7 image be transformed into a 3D like image.
To do this it set up parametric equations for a cylinder to model the shape of the sample where x = 2.7*cos(θ), y = 2.7 *sin(θ), z = Pitch values and 2.7 and is the diameter in inches.

​

I then asked GPT-4o to make a judgement call if the 3D image was representative of
(1) Precision diamond tipped tool drill cutting into granite.
or
(2) A copper tube and abrasion slurry with wobble cutting into granite.

The answer is of no surprise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats the mainstream guess. Theres plenty of evidence its much older. For starters Djoser ruled around 4,700 years ago. That's already a little less than 5,000 years. Djoser didn't just pop out of thin air with all his works. There is a long history before him. The First Dynasty of Egypt began around 3100 BC so thats more than 5,000 years.

But many of the works found in the first pyramid are predynastic such as the vases. In fact the Egyptians themselves say that their history goes back well beyond what mainstream say.

And what is this evidence that such artefacts come from the predynastic periods. Can you show any such materials recovered from a pre-dynastic archeological context. (And no, claiming it doesn't satisfy.)

The truth is the evidence is conflicting and we are not sure. Take the claim that the Sphinx is 10,000 years old due to the level of erosion on it.

Ultra ancient Sphinx? We don't need any more of these unfounded claims to discuss.

No it doesn't. The bow drills, the depictions of flywheel drills on walls all related to a later period in Egypt which also happens to correspond with this method throughout the world. But none of these peoples had a history of drill holes. Vases in later periods is in softer stones and are less precise and quality.

Its like the pre dynastic hard stone precise works popped up for a short time and then disappeared. Only to be replaced by a copycat industry in softer stone and with the methods depicted on walls and with the tools we find in the records.

Simpler hard stone vessels show up about 6000 years ago and get *more* sophisticated until it peaks around the period I am talking about.

A summary can be found at this time code and extends for about 5 minutes.

None are from the predynastic era. There were no wall depcitions of Egyptians making these granite and diorite vases. Its also the same for the boxes, pillars, statues and megalith structures. Its the same in many cultures as well.
Don't forget Hancock lol. I am sure theres others lumped into the mix. Then tell me why we see a higher quality come first not just in Egypt but in other cultures like in Peru where megalths and precise walling is replaced with the later Inca rough smaller stone work that not only tries to repair the ealier work but honors it and tries to copy it.

I gave the example in Peru such as at Naupa Huaca and Sacsayhuamán. There is clear evidence in these cultures of two seperate and destoinct levels of works going on.

We don't need any more topics that stray from the OP original topic.

These vases were found under the Stepped pyramid and taken by Djoser from other pre dynastic tombs. Many are predynastic including the ones tested.

Again, predynastic is a claim that needs support.

The issue of forgery had already been dealt with. At least one of the vases was authenticated as privately owned from the 60's and another from the 80's.

Putting the known provenance to the 1960s or 80s doesn't solve any forgery problems. Not in the slightest.

They have the exact same hallmarks as the ones in museums. But I am glad you recognise that the tech should not have been around at that time. Thats right. Thats why its baffling.
Well you did say to be genuine they need to come from pre 1980 when the tech came on board.

What? 1980 is not some sort of barrier.

I guess if theres a genuine dispute each side is going to feel like that. But that doesn't mean there's not a genuine difference in how the evidence is viewed or that mainstream are not biased in their views. Or that any side is not biased. This has already been evidenced in other areas so why not archeology. Theres a lot for them to lose afterall.
Oh look the fallacy.

The elevating of untrained non-professionals continues to baffle me.

The vases found under Djosers Stepped pyramid were taken by him for predynastic tombs that existed before him.

Still just a claim.

The vases continued but they became less quality and in softer stone.

Not before pyramid building began.

Other works from the first 4 dynasties also reflect this high quality and megalths. The Egyptians were still highly organised after the 4th dynasty and still did great things. It doesn't take an entire people to make vases or cut and carry blocks. But it just more or less disappears.

I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[SelfSim]

Slightly tangential, (but strongly supportive evidence of how the heavy-lifting in constructing the Giza pyramids is likely to have been accomplished by the builders), I just noticed this rather interesting information which was presented at 13th Congress of Egyptologists earlier this year.

Discovery Of Ancient Waterway May Solve Mystery Of How The Pyramids Were Built
(Labeled the Ahramat Branch (Pyramid Branch in Arabic), the waterway runs adjacent to 38 different pyramids).

They used satellite ground penetrating radar to image the subterranean watercourse.

Here's the paper:
The discovery of the Ahramat Nile Branch: a hidden ancient waterway of the pyramid chain of Egypt
the Abstract:

The construction of the Ancient Egyptian pyramids along the Western Desert margin of the Nile floodplain indicates the prior existence of a major waterway that was used by the pharaonic builders of these iconic sites. Today, however, no major river exists in the immediate area, with the Nile being located several kilometers away from all the pyramid sites. Analysis of radar satellite data, supported by geophysical survey and soil coring, has led to the discovery of the Nile’s ancient Ahramat Branch (meaning Pyramids Branch in Arabic) passing adjacent to the chain of pyramids between Faiyum south and Giza north (~ 38 Pyramid structures). The course of this branch, now concealed beneath the aeolian desert sand and the cultivated floodplain, is about 100 km long. Although invisible at ground-level, segments of the Ahramat Branch appear in radar imagery due to radar waves’ ability to penetrate the Earth surface and reveal subsurface terrain. Furthermore, satellite data revealed numerous buried sandy tributaries, feeding into this branch. During the building era of the pyramids, these tributaries would likely have acted as lagoons that hosted harbours to dock and shelter boats away from the busy traffic of the main river course. The orientation of several pyramids’ causeways, perpendicular to the Ahramat Branch and their termination at its bank, imply that this former branch and its tributaries were simultaneously active at the time of the pyramids’ construction during the Old Kingdom and through the Middle Kingdom. This research has produced the first map of the ancient Nile branch in this region, which will enable us to piece together a comprehensive picture of Ancient Egypt’s former waterscape and understand how change in the environment drove human activities in the region.

 

[stevevw]

This whole sequence of comments is about your assessment of the evidence. I've seen nothing that would make me think you have the appropriate expertise to evaluate it, especially without having had direct contact with the evidence itself.

Thats a hypocritical position to take considering your side including yourself have made claims that there is no advanced tech and that the signatures in stones can be explained by the current tools. It works both ways.

Your whole arguement is that its all woo and yet you also have no expertise to determine that. Especially having no direct contact with the evidence itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thats a hypocritical position to take considering your side including yourself have made claims that there is no advanced tech and that the signatures in stones can be explained by the current tools. It works both ways.

Sigh. Your whole argument is based on some set of claims contrary to standard scholarship. You want us to accept your claims because you think some set of tool marks is "obvious" to you, the non-expert. I don't know what the tool marks should look like and don't make any claims to know anything about Egyptian artifacts based on my impressions of the tool marks. (And the whole basis of the thread is a careful examination of one particular set of tool marks and the implications.)

Your whole arguement is that its all woo and yet you also have no expertise to determine that. Especially having no direct contact with the evidence itself.

Sigh (again). It is you that keep complaining about "woo" in this thread. It was you that first used that work (complaining about my use of it on another thread). It is you that has without prompting mentioned Hancock and Rogan. You that keeps brining up Dunn's big "woo" (the electric pyramid nonsense). Not any one else. I'm perfectly fine keeping discussion to the details of that vase (or core 7, but I don't have much to say about core 7).

 

[stevevw]

And what is this evidence that such artefacts come from the predynastic periods. Can you show any such materials recovered from a pre-dynastic archeological context. (And no, claiming it doesn't satisfy.)

First many of the sites and works are only estimated and some are blantantly labelled as later periods due to later pharoahs taking the pieces and inscribing their name on them. Ramses the 2nd was notorious for this. So theres still an ongoing disagreement about the ages. The Sphinx is one example which is said to be up to 10,000 old due to erosion. The same with other sites.

Even the time line for building the periods is questioned. Sneferu was suppose to have built 3 pyramids in 40 years and Khafre the Giza pyramid in 25 years and yet theres little evidence. How many pyamids does a pharoah need.

The lost Dixon relic from the Giza pyramid was radio carbon dated putting the pyramid 500 years ealier and other tests have given conflicting evidence of the pyramids age. The Osiris shaft has also been carbon dated to at least 5,000 years old.

Lost Dixon Relic - World Archaeology

This cigar box, containing several wooden splinters that make up a piece of cedar discovered in the Great Pyramid of Giza, was recently found in the University of Aberdeen’s collections. The piece of wood is one of just three objects ever recovered from the pyramid.

www.world-archaeology.com

The Osiris Tomb in Giza

Here you can find out all about a mysterious tomb that has long been ridiculed by experts as a figment of the imagination.

gregorspoerri.com

Mechanical Engineering in Ancient Egypt, Part XIII: Stone Vessels (Predynastic to Old Kingdom Periods)

https://scholar.cu.edu.eg/?q=galal%2Ffiles%2Fme_part_xiii_ijres.pdf

An overview of the Predynastic Pottery of Ancient EgyptDiane Leeman - Academia.edu

An overview of the Predynastic Pottery of Ancient Egypt

The pottery of Predynastic Egypt remains some of the most beautiful pottery ever produced in Egypt. From the Naqada period to the Dynastic era, freehand paintings were added to the pottery depicting animals, plants, birds, patterns, boats and human

www.academia.edu

Ultra ancient Sphinx? We don't need any more of these unfounded claims to discuss.

How do you know they are unfounded. There is conflicting evidence. Some claim the erosion on the walls is from wind and others from water. But the erosion looks like water more than wind. The erosion of the Sphinx itself cannot of happened so fast as it was buried in sand up until the 1800's. There are certainly unanswered questions so I would not be fobbing it off as unfounded.

Simpler hard stone vessels show up about 6000 years ago and get *more* sophisticated until it peaks around the period I am talking about.

A summary can be found at this time code and extends for about 5 minutes.

Hes doing it again and creating misrepresentations. The first one you see is the depiction of a wall painting of making vases as though this is the beginning of making vases when it comes much later as the precision vases were made in a time before wall paintings came along.

He then claims the earliest vases are in softer stomnes and come from the Medarian period from 4500 to 3800BCE. This is simply false as linked above where the precision granite and diorite vases are predynastic and found under Djosers Stepped pyramid which 4700BCE. But the vases a predynastic and predate Djoser.

I switched off then as it was obviously biased.

We don't need any more topics that stray from the OP original topic.

Its not another topic. Its additional evidence to support the commonality of the signatures and the two levels of works one megalithic, in the hardest stones and precision ect and the other smaller, in softer stone and less precise and auality works. So its valid context for supporting Egyptians two levels of works going on and lost tech.

Again, predynastic is a claim that needs support.

Already given.

Putting the known provenance to the 1960s or 80s doesn't solve any forgery problems. Not in the slightest.

Why. If its from the 60's there was no tech that could produce such vases. But many have been authenticated and valued at 50k plus and sold as such at the best auctions.

But heres the other problem. Even the works from the earliest dynasties reflect similar precision and quality on boxes, statues, columns ect that are within the pyramids and temples. They cannot be forge and yet they show similar signatures. The same thing happens with these where the boxes, statues and columns ect are then made in softer stone, less precise and quality. Though still very good are not to that level.

In fact you can see how later pharoahs had calved less quality hyroglyphs into the precise works.

The elevating of untrained non-professionals continues to baffle me.

What I find just as baffling or perhaps not is the rise is false information of the true history of many of these ancient people.

Not before pyramid building began.

OK lets go with that. So we find these precision vases in the hardest stones under the first great pyramid with the 1st dynasty of Djoser and the Stepped pyramid. Thats 4700BCE and then they stop and we see later vases of softer stone that are less quality. Almost trying to copy them.

So why didn't they continue in the precision hard stone. Why does it seem a step back in quality from an earlier time. You would think as you say that the vases from this period would be the less quality and then evolving as tech improved as it does to the precision hard stone vases.

At the very least we can say we have a very high quality of works from the earliest period that stands out for that period.

I'm not sure what your point is.

I am saying your excuse that somehow the Egytians became disorganised was the reason they stopped creating these quality precision works in the hardest stones is not supported. They were still organised as we see the same levels of productions of other works on a continual basis. They just become less quality and in softer stone.

 

[stevevw]

Sigh. Your whole argument is based on some set of claims contrary to standard scholarship. You want us to accept your claims because you think some set of tool marks is "obvious" to you, the non-expert. I don't know what the tool marks should look like and don't make any claims to know anything about Egyptian artifacts based on my impressions of the tool marks. (And the whole basis of the thread is a careful examination of one particular set of tool marks and the implications.)

You keep creating fallacies, strawman and misrepresentations when you say this is all based on personal opinion without any expert testing or evidence. Its been done by a range of experts and so far they show that the existing tools don't match the signatures in the stones.

I also think its a cop out to fob it all off as we cannot use our own eyes and brain to see for ourselves and must on;y have the so called experts tell us what is the truth.

You don't have to be an expert to know a 20 foot sled in the records cannot move a 1500 ton mega block. Or that a 2 foot saw can cut a 10 foot slab in one go.

Sigh (again). It is you that keep complaining about "woo" in this thread.

No I am just pointing out the continued fallacy of attributing any questioning of the orthodox model as woo.

It was you that first used that work (complaining about my use of it on another thread).

Well of course as you revealed where you were coming from in the other thread. What your position has changed from thread to thread. You jumped into a thread where 2 or 3 other posters were already claiming its all woo. You just joined in on the pile on. In fact from memory did'nt you say what brought you in was reading the word Woo.

It is you that has without prompting mentioned Hancock and Rogan. You that keeps brining up Dunn's big "woo" (the electric pyramid nonsense).

What a minute if it was me who brought in the woo then you just admitted that you think Dunns idea is woo. Now myself in bringing up Dunn as evidence is not automatically woo. So it is you who is turning it all into woo. Even before anyone really investigate Dunn.

So I had good justifiaction from 3 or 4 people continually creating fallacies of ad hominems and misrepresentations in just about every post they made. So of course I am going to defend those who are wrongly labelled woo.

Not any one else. I'm perfectly fine keeping discussion to the details of that vase (or core 7, but I don't have much to say about core 7).

You have got to be kidding lol. I think you will find between the 3 or 4 of you around 60% of the posts are about some sort of wooism fallacy being made. I can go back and give you examples if you want as they are everywhere especially towards the end of that other thread.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why. If its from the 60's there was no tech that could produce such vases. But many have been authenticated and valued at 50k plus and sold as such at the best auctions.

It seems that there is something lurking below this comment and I think we should address this first.

Your claim, as I understand it is that vases like the one Dunn analyzed could not have been made prior to rather recent times (for example not as recently as the 1960s) because the technology did not yet exist to make it. The required technology that resembles a hard-rock CNC machine. From what I can gather your objections come in two categories:

1. The general quality, symmetry, smoothness, etc. of the produced object; and
2. The various mathematical ratios embedded in the various aspects of the shape.

Let's first set aside the math bits and look at the general quality of the objects.

Do you seriously want us to believe that if you took one of these vases to an artisan who worked hard stone with hand and machine tools in 1950 they couldn't have made something like it? Think of all of the buildings of that age and older with hard stone balusters cut to repeatable axisymmetric shapes. What is more complex about these vases? Just the handles and the hollowness.

How would you do it (and I have zero experience doing such, so this is just a bit of speculation)?

1. Build a jig for the shape of the vessel with and without the handles.
2. Rough cut the stone to the size and mount it on some sort of turning device (like a lathe).
3. Use the "with handle" jig to rough cut out most of the object.
4. Use the "without handle" jig to rough cut out the stone between the handles.
5. Drill holes in handles and use hand tools to finish rough out of outiside
6. Rough out interior.
7. Using various jigs to perform fine shaping and polishing of surfaces.

Frankly, I think that 1950 artisan would agree that they could use the tools and skills to make a high-quality vase of this type.

As for the "embedded mathematics" in the shape (a claim I don't find plausible), it is all about the specific shape. The shape is determined by the jigs that controls/guides the motion of tools. Techniques for planning the designs of things with precision have been around for long time. I don't see any reason that if such numbers were intended to be embedded in a vase that it couldn't have been done.

 

[stevevw]

I requested the pitch values GPT-4o measured from the Petrie No. 7 image be transformed into a 3D like image.
To do this it set up parametric equations for a cylinder to model the shape of the sample where x = 2.7*cos(θ), y = 2.7 *sin(θ), z = Pitch values and 2.7 and is the diameter in inches.

View attachment 358471

View attachment 358472
​

I then asked GPT-4o to make a judgement call if the 3D image was representative of
(1) Precision diamond tipped tool drill cutting into granite.
or
(2) A copper tube and abrasion slurry with wobble cutting into granite.

The answer is of no surprise.

View attachment 358473​

I don't think GPT-4o is a good basis for science. It has been shown to be incorrect on many occassions. You also forgot to put in the most vital aspects of the signatures found. The deep cuts up to 5/100th of an inch and the continuious spiral cuts.

 

[stevevw]

It seems that there is something lurking below this comment and I think we should address this first.

Your claim, as I understand it is that vases like the one Dunn analyzed could not have been made prior to rather recent times (for example not as recently as the 1960s) because the technology did not yet exist to make it. The required technology that resembles a hard-rock CNC machine. From what I can gather your objections come in two categories:

1. The general quality, symmetry, smoothness, etc. of the produced object; and
2. The various mathematical ratios embedded in the various aspects of the shape.

Let's first set aside the math bits and look at the general quality of the objects.

Do you seriously want us to believe that if you took one of these vases to an artisan who worked hard stone with hand and machine tools in 1950 they couldn't have made something like it? Think of all of the buildings of that age and older with hard stone balusters cut to repeatable axisymmetric shapes. What is more complex about these vases? Just the handles and the hollowness.

No I am not saying that. We see great smooth works in the greek and Roman times and throughout history.

How would you do it (and I have zero experience doing such, so this is just a bit of speculation)?

1. Build a jig for the shape of the vessel with and without the handles.
2. Rough cut the stone to the size and mount it on some sort of turning device (like a lathe).
3. Use the "with handle" jig to rough cut out most of the object.
4. Use the "without handle" jig to rough cut out the stone between the handles.
5. Drill holes in handles and use hand tools to finish rough out of outiside
6. Rough out interior.
7. Using various jigs to perform fine shaping and polishing of surfaces.

Frankly, I think that 1950 artisan would agree that they could use the tools and skills to make a high-quality vase of this type.

Yes they can be done. Petrie found many of these vases. He depicss and describes them as being of the highest quality ad precise. We have pics of some of them from under the Stepped pyramids. So we have a very early description that there were these very precise and high quality granite vases.

The crazy think with the idea od forgeries which was a real thing especially for less quality works is that even if someone could reproduce their vases who go to such trouble, They were not worth a great deal back then because we did not know what we know today as far as their rarity and precision.

Why not spend all the time forging bank notes. Anyone who managed to do this was not some back street vendor but would have to be a highly sophisticated worksop with all the latest equipment which is probably more expensive than what the vases were worth.

If you look at the vases tested they are exaclt the same as the ones in museums. Some of the vases display tech that would be amzing even fo0r the 1950's and even for today. For example thinness of 5/100th of an inch that light can shine through in the most brittle stones.

As for the "embedded mathematics" in the shape (a claim I don't find plausible), it is all about the specific shape.

Thats why your complaints are not taken seriously as you don't know what yopur talking about. You were just complaining about how non experts are making these claims and now as a non expert your making your own claims. The hypocracy undermines your whole arguement.

The shape is determined by the jigs that controls/guides the motion of tools. Techniques for planning the designs of things with precision have been around for long time. I don't see any reason that if such numbers were intended to be embedded in a vase that it couldn't have been done.

Like I said your not an expert. You complain that others are not experts and here you are pretending to be one

Here is a couple of the vases sold for 1,000 of $$$. Which have been authenticated back to the early 1900's and come with certificates of authentication.

Predynastic Egyptian Diorite Jar - Phoenix Ancient Art

phoenixancientart.com

Ancient Egyptian Basalt Jar — e-Tiquities by Phoenix Ancient Art | Antiquities for Sale

Egyptian, Naqada I – Dynasty I, ca. 3450 - 2900 B.C Basalt H: 8 cm Serial: 27387 Provenance: Ex- Kende Galleries at Gimbels, New York, 1940s-50s. Egyptians were skillful stone makers; perfect shapes and high technical execution mark their products already in the Predynastic and throughout the O

www.e-tiquities.com

Ancient Vase Light Scanned From Saqqara, Egypt - Free Daz Content by Causam3D

This model is from an open-source .stl file available for download from UnchartedX. The vase is from a private collection and is highly valuable, so I couldn't afford to scan it myself! I did find an example of one of the Saqqara vases online for sale at $50,000.00. Thousands of these vases were...

www.renderhub.com

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5407907

Egyptian Pre Dynastic Porphyry Vessel

Egypt, end of the Pre-dynastic Period, beginning of the Thinite Period ca. 3100 to 2900 BCE. A beautiful globular vase

www.liveauctioneers.com

 

[Hans Blaster]

No I am not saying that. We see great smooth works in the greek and Roman times and throughout history.

Then what ARE you saying about it wasn't possible to replicate until fairly recently. (not sure exactly what time frame you have in mind, but I get the impression you think it couldn't be faked in the 1960s)

Yes they can be done. Petrie found many of these vases. He depicss and describes them as being of the highest quality ad precise. We have pics of some of them from under the Stepped pyramids. So we have a very early description that there were these very precise and high quality granite vases.

We have pictures of reproductions from under the pyramids? We are talking about your claim that it couldn't be a forgery, not anything about that it couldn't be ancient.

The crazy think with the idea od forgeries which was a real thing especially for less quality works is that even if someone could reproduce their vases who go to such trouble, They were not worth a great deal back then because we did not know what we know today as far as their rarity and precision.

The antiquities market is FULL of forgeries and replicas. That's why provenance is so important even for private purchases. If you have none, then it could be fake or stolen.

Why not spend all the time forging bank notes.

Because they were stone workers, or Egyptians. They would have forged what they knew was valuable and had a market.

Anyone who managed to do this was not some back street vendor but would have to be a highly sophisticated worksop with all the latest equipment which is probably more expensive than what the vases were worth.

Again, what equipment do you think would have been needed to create a 20th century replica, fake, or forgery of one of these vases. You keep not saying anything specific.

If you look at the vases tested they are exaclt the same as the ones in museums.

Exact is exact. From what I have heard, each of the vases is unique and not an exact replica of another. (Now that *would* be a strong clue to manufacture, ancient or modern.)

Some of the vases display tech that would be amzing even fo0r the 1950's and even for today. For example thinness of 5/100th of an inch that light can shine through in the most brittle stones.

Those weren't the vases we were talking about.

Thats why your complaints are not taken seriously as you don't know what yopur talking about. You were just complaining about how non experts are making these claims and now as a non expert your making your own claims. The hypocracy undermines your whole arguement.

Like I said your not an expert. You complain that others are not experts and here you are pretending to be one

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do know the basic technologies for making turned items to a predetermined pattern.

That is the question I bring up -- what about the Dunn vase would be beyond the capability of a mid-20th century stone artisan with hand and machine tools?

Here is a couple of the vases sold for 1,000 of $$$. Which have been authenticated back to the early 1900's and come with certificates of authentication.

Predynastic Egyptian Diorite Jar - Phoenix Ancient Art

phoenixancientart.com

Ancient Egyptian Basalt Jar — e-Tiquities by Phoenix Ancient Art | Antiquities for Sale

Egyptian, Naqada I – Dynasty I, ca. 3450 - 2900 B.C Basalt H: 8 cm Serial: 27387 Provenance: Ex- Kende Galleries at Gimbels, New York, 1940s-50s. Egyptians were skillful stone makers; perfect shapes and high technical execution mark their products already in the Predynastic and throughout the O

www.e-tiquities.com

Ancient Vase Light Scanned From Saqqara, Egypt - Free Daz Content by Causam3D

This model is from an open-source .stl file available for download from UnchartedX. The vase is from a private collection and is highly valuable, so I couldn't afford to scan it myself! I did find an example of one of the Saqqara vases online for sale at $50,000.00. Thousands of these vases were...

www.renderhub.com

https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5407907

Egyptian Pre Dynastic Porphyry Vessel

Egypt, end of the Pre-dynastic Period, beginning of the Thinite Period ca. 3100 to 2900 BCE. A beautiful globular vase

www.liveauctioneers.com

This post wasn't about other vases, so I'm not interested in your other examples or a CGI render.

 

[stevevw]

Then what ARE you saying about it wasn't possible to replicate until fairly recently. (not sure exactly what time frame you have in mind, but I get the impression you think it couldn't be faked in the 1960s)

I think so when you consider all the elements involved. It doesn't mean later cultures could not achieve such works but the fact is they didn't and yet if they were capable then why not.

I think at the least this level of works is harder to achieve. Its not like the everyday works that we do see in all cultures that are of less quality.

The Romans tried to copy the Egyptian works but we can see its completely different. They build in sections of softer stone and its of less quality. But its still great. Its just the greatness is less and the amazing thing is this comes at a time when it should be of lerss quasslity because time allows cultures to develop better methods.

We have pictures of reproductions from under the pyramids? We are talking about your claim that it couldn't be a forgery, not anything about that it couldn't be ancient.

No we have pictures of the actual vases under the pyramid and from that some of the vases in museums and private collections.

1,000's of vases found under the Stepped pyramid of Djsoer, including the precision granite and diorite vases.

The vases later sorted and displayed in the Cairo museum.

The antiquities market is FULL of forgeries and replicas. That's why provenance is so important even for private purchases. If you have none, then it could be fake or stolen.

Yes and thats why these vases tested come from private collections have have been authenticated and usually bought through top auctions like Christies ect.

Because they were stone workers, or Egyptians. They would have forged what they knew was valuable and had a market.

They would be more than just back street stone masons. The type of machinary needed to create such precision does not come cheap. I don't think the price back then would justify it. Then you have to test the vases to ensure they were precise. That in itself is specialist equipment and doesn't come cheap. Plus we did not even know these were so precise back then. Its only recently that we have tested them.

Again, what equipment do you think would have been needed to create a 20th century replica, fake, or forgery of one of these vases. You keep not saying anything specific.

Well its more than just any ancient lathe even in the 60's. To0 be able to cut the vases so precisely inside and out the mlathe machine would need to have incredible strength to hold the granite in place and to withstand the tremedious pressure to grind the stone. In fact some say a lathe is not really sufficent as the vase would shatter when ground to a thiness of 5/1000th of an inch in some vases.

Exact is exact. From what I have heard, each of the vases is unique and not an exact replica of another. (Now that *would* be a strong clue to manufacture, ancient or modern.)

When I say exact I mean the hallmark lips, handles, rims, interiors, old wear ect. You can usually tell right away whether its ancient or a look alike. I don't think a forgery could look exactly the same. There are many repreats of certain shapes like the flattened rims and pregnant bulge. Or the one shaped above but thicker versions.

Those weren't the vases we were talking about.

Yes they are. These were included in the tests. How do you think they worked out the thinness of them. The vase above is an example and from the testing of the vases.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, but I do know the basic technologies for making turned items to a predetermined pattern.

So do I and I can see for myself in the visual tests done where they use metrology and light scanning. The machine readouts don't lie.

That is the question I bring up -- what about the Dunn vase would be beyond the capability of a mid-20th century stone artisan with hand and machine tools?

Well the machine tooling would help. When your talking such high level finishes your talking lathe machining. But also specialised machining as its working with granite.

This post wasn't about other vases, so I'm not interested in your other examples or a CGI render.

You made the claim that people cpuld have forge these predynastic vases. The links were to support that these predynastic genuine vases were around in the 60s and even 1930's.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The post you are responding to is ONLY about the possibility that the vase scanned by Dunn could be a modern (20th century) fake. It is not about the methods used by the ancients to make similar vase (or that one if it is genuine). It is not about other vases, etc.

I think so when you consider all the elements involved. It doesn't mean later cultures could not achieve such works but the fact is they didn't and yet if they were capable then why not.

I think at the least this level of works is harder to achieve. Its not like the everyday works that we do see in all cultures that are of less quality.

The Romans tried to copy the Egyptian works but we can see its completely different. They build in sections of softer stone and its of less quality. But its still great. Its just the greatness is less and the amazing thing is this comes at a time when it should be of lerss quasslity because time allows cultures to develop better methods.

I'm talking about 20th century reproduction. What about 20th century technology excludes the possibility of a mid-century reproduction of a early-dynastic type hard stone vase?

No we have pictures of the actual vases under the pyramid and from that some of the vases in museums and private collections.

View attachment 358519
1,000's of vases found under the Stepped pyramid of Djsoer, including the precision granite and diorite vases.
View attachment 358520
The vases later sorted and displayed in the Cairo museum.

None of those have been measure to high precision by Dunn. They are not relevant. The issue in that post was if a replica in the style of those vases under the Step Pyramid could have been made prior to the late 20th century.

Yes and thats why these vases tested come from private collections have have been authenticated and usually bought through top auctions like Christies ect.

And none of them have a provenance that goes back to prior to 1960. *THAT* is the point.

They would be more than just back street stone masons. The type of machinary needed to create such precision does not come cheap. I don't think the price back then would justify it. Then you have to test the vases to ensure they were precise. That in itself is specialist equipment and doesn't come cheap. Plus we did not even know these were so precise back then. Its only recently that we have tested them.

I didn't ask where the forger could have been. First I need you to justify the claim that the machinery did not exist. (Are you backtracking here and just making it expensive?) If you think you know what equipment is required STATE IT.

Well its more than just any ancient lathe even in the 60's. To0 be able to cut the vases so precisely inside and out the mlathe machine would need to have incredible strength to hold the granite in place and to withstand the tremedious pressure to grind the stone. In fact some say a lathe is not really sufficent as the vase would shatter when ground to a thiness of 5/1000th of an inch in some vases.

View attachment 358522

Incredible strength or delicate thinness? Which is it? (even I know that if you want a really thin, delicate piece you don't use your most powerful tools, but get close and then work thinner by hand.) (I dont by 5/1000 inch either. That is 0.12 mm.)

When I say exact I mean the hallmark lips, handles, rims, interiors, old wear ect. You can usually tell right away whether its ancient or a look alike.

It's called a style, and that's exactly what forgers copy.

I don't think a forgery could look exactly the same. There are many repreats of certain shapes like the flattened rims and pregnant bulge. Or the one shaped above but thicker versions.

That's part of the point, Steve. The vessels recovered from archeological sites are never exactly the same, but fall within styles and shapes.

Yes they are. These were included in the tests. How do you think they worked out the thinness of them. The vase above is an example and from the testing of the vases.

So do I and I can see for myself in the visual tests done where they use metrology and light scanning. The machine readouts don't lie.

Well the machine tooling would help. When your talking such high level finishes your talking lathe machining. But also specialised machining as its working with granite.

And such machines for turning granite didn't exist in 1950? Is that your claim?

So let me repeat this question since you aren't answering it:

What about the Dunn vase would be beyond the capability of a mid-20th century stone artisan with hand and machine tools?

Why? What tools were they missing? Please do be specific. Tap into your's (or Dunn's) vast knowledge of late 20th century machine tool developments to indicate what it is you think was not available.

You made the claim that people cpuld have forge these predynastic vases. The links were to support that these predynastic genuine vases were around in the 60s and even 1930's.

I made claims that such vases did not exist. If they did not what would be copied. The question involves vases with claims that only go back to private dealers in the 1980s or 1960s. Why should I trust any of those are genuine? Why would it have been impossible to fake one in that period or just before?

 

[sjastro]

Up to this stage I have given AI freedom to develop its own Python code but suggested some improvements to produce more realistic looking plots. Instead of plotting the pitch measurements on the z-axis, calculate the actual z values by summing each successive pitch term and plot this value instead.

Comparing the plots based on Dunn's nonsense of a constant pitch with actual pitch values determined by GPT-4o on Petrie's No. 7 sample.

​

GPT-4o analysis of the images is basically a repeat that pitch variations found in Petrie's sample can only be obtained by a manually operated abrasive drilling process.

 

[sjastro]

@Hans Blaster

On the subject of scanning 'predynastic granite vases' the situation is farcical enough vases may not be even genuine, but there is also a lack of information on the scanning procedure itself.
The scanning of objects which have light and dark regions is full of pitfalls which can affect the result.

Then there is the question of data points.
Why is there a discrepancy in the number of data points in scanning the left and right hand lug handles of the vase?

 

[SelfSim]

I'd like to know more about the composition of vase materials too. Thus far the words Granite and Diorite have been thrown in, as though that's just a given. I mean, the measured hardness of the vase materials would seem to be of crucial importance(?)
Where's the evidence of materials analysis? Has anyone estimated the geographical origin (or even the critical dates of the formation of the materials themselves?

 

[sjastro]

Why don't we look at an example where there is absolutely no doubt about the authenticity of an Egyptian predynastic vase made from pottery and not granite.

​

The details.

​

Since there is a square side on view of the aperture, GPT-4o can analyse the image for roundness and flatness. Since these parameters are ratios there is no need to calculate the image scale but rely only on the pixels in the image.

​

These values do not indicate extraordinary precision requiring some super technology, in fact when comparing predynastic and later period pottery in general, predynastic works are dimensionally inferior.

​

The obvious question which arises if predynastic vases made in granite, assuming samples scanned were authentic, were better than later works indicating the use of a superior technology then why did vases made from pottery not follow the same script?

 

[Hans Blaster]

On the subject of scanning 'predynastic granite vases' the situation is farcical enough vases may not be even genuine, but there is also a lack of information on the scanning procedure itself.
The scanning of objects which have light and dark regions is full of pitfalls which can affect the result.

I hadn't really worried about the actual metrology. This seemed to be the one place where Dunn's group seemed to have appropriate expertise. There were too many other iffy things and red flags about to worry about that.

Right now I'd just like some clarity about why a forgery would be impossible using mid-20th century technology (when the vase can no longer be traced). I have this lingering feeling that it is all about the implied precision of the numerology needed computer controlled manufacture, but whatever the assumption, I'd like to know. (My inclination remains that the vase is a genuine object from the early dynastic period/ Old Kingdom when the Egyptian stoneware industry peaked.)

If we can ever get past these questions about the potential of forgery, I'd really like to know what this amazing pre-dynastic stoneworking technology is. Again things seem to be lurking below the surface that he does not want to be put out in the open.

I've now spent a couple hours watching content about a single non-famous, stone vase with a limited provenance. I really would like to move on, but so much has been put into it by Dunn/UnchartedX and their fans that I really want to know why they think it is important without being coy about it. There are so many other things that have come up in these threads that I'd rather talk about.