Secret Door in Great Sphinx leading to the Hall of Records (Cover up!)

a reply to: Chadwickus

A coffee mug where the ceramic material can be identified and dated.. A poor example.

Hell Chadders!

It was an analogy. A shame you cannot discern the difference.
Lets not forget that humble pie its still coming right at you.

a reply to: Byrd

If you know your stuff why dont you give me a suitable explanation as to how this was made. Your last link you sent you debunked yourself with.

a reply to: purplemer

It’s a terrible analogy.

Pottery is an amazing thing for archeologists, it plays a crucial role in gathering information like dates and technology.

It’s extremely well studied, and any ancient symbols written on a coffee mug wouldn’t be misidentified as ancient, as you’d use the vessel it’s written on to help age it.

It’s just science and facts, two things you clearly don’t have much of a grasp on.

Mate, I was trying to replicate the bowl with the circular formed walls. Personally, I have no experience in granite, and I agree with you on how difficult a material it is to work, let alone quarry and carry 70 tonne blocks 500 miles from the quarry. I personally agree with you that the Swan neck vessels are a marvel and I completely agree with you about the difficulty/problems in creating one.
I don’t turn stone on my lathe just metals usually, but I don’t think I have the spare machine time to start one of those swan necks.
I’m not trying to debunk you as I agree on the craziness , beauty and difficulty level of these amazing artifacts.
You’re the guy who works with granite, and I defer to you on that!!
I would personally love to see some pics from you trying to do it, how difficult/impossible it is, and how the vessel breaks or gets ruined trying it, to show us all it’s true difficulty level, on which I agree with you.
I agree that particular vessel is not lathe turned, as the handle would be snapped off in turning. It’s a beautiful stunning piece.a reply to: purplemer

a reply to: Chadwickus

It’s just science and facts, two things you clearly don’t have much of a grasp on

Again my misconstrued me. My point is simple this. The lovely vessel below cannot be replicated using todays technology. Rock this hard cannot be carved out like this. The experts pretend they know. But provide no proof. Thats not being an expert that is allowing your imagination to become fact.

Poor show peeps.


I

a reply to: bluesfreak

Thanks for your reply. I misunderstood you.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

If you know your stuff why dont you give me a suitable explanation as to how this was made. Your last link you sent you debunked yourself with.

On a lathe.

Aliens brought them one, obviously.

Just because modern people haven’t replicated it, doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

It’s amazing craftsmanship, but that’s about where it ends.

The handle is the sticking point with this particular vessel with regards to lathe turning. To shape the neck on a lathe would obliterate the handle. Internal turning possibly for inside, but I won’t say that’s the case as I don’t know how thin the neck is, which itself could easily snap off in the turning process. There are turning tools that could replicate a neck like this INTERNALLY, but the material, granite, is also a material never to be underestimated in these examples. This is a beautiful piece of work, that I would class as a vase.
But the bowls?? (The ones without the necks)MANY of them show lathe forensics and I will argue anyone into the dust on that as i use one everyday.
What an interesting thread, and I wonder if our Egyptology experts ever consider that they have learned something from these discussions, or simply cling to concepts that in some cases CAN be disproved ?
worka reply to: Chadwickus

Do we think that the AE knew the hardness properties of precious stones such as diamond? Striations in granite (not just bowls) show that they were cut (literally sliced into) with something harder than granite- so what’s harder than granite? Diamond. I use diamond tooling on my lathe, there are also now lots of variations of ceramic tooling that is very hard.
Diamond tipped tooling is usually laughed out of the room on here ( as Harte etc refer to Brian foerster etc and laugh) but in my opinion , it’s a distinct possibility.

a reply to: bluesfreak

Do we know how the handle is attached?

I don’t, but am assuming it was attached later on after the vase was turned.

a reply to: Harte

Apparently all those translations where done by a guy named Mark Vygus, who is he and what are his credentials? I can't find nothing about the man himself.

www.pyramidtextsonline.com/MarkVygusDictionary.pdf

Hard to say for definite as would love to see the vase in person, but it looks like it’s part of the vase and not stuck on later, which is one of the reasons this vase is so intetesting. Not sure what glue the AE would have had for granite. This vase does look too sophisticated for glueing, my suspicion is that it’s part of the stone it was shaped from. Very cool indeed. a reply to: Chadwickus

Hard to say for definite as would love to see the vase in person, but it looks like it’s part of the vase and not stuck on later, which is one of the reasons this vase is so intetesting. Not sure what glue the AE would have had for granite. This vase does look too sophisticated for glueing, my suspicion is that it’s part of the stone it was shaped from. Very cool indeed. a reply to: Chadwickus

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

If you know your stuff why dont you give me a suitable explanation as to how this was made. Your last link you sent you debunked yourself with.

I see a picture....but no indication of where the object lives or what the museum identifies it as. Can you provide a link to the museum (since I only know how to date coffins by era and not pottery/vessels/votives (which is a whole different branch than what I've studied and is fairly complex.

And I don' t think I "debunked myself." You didn't accept the material I provided (with sources) -- and you didn't counter with different material and good sources. You just said "ha! debunked!"

So if you have some sources that back up your previous claim (I didn't see any in this thread but I haven't given it minute attention) I would appreciate a link.

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Byrd

I debunked your limited explanation earlier on how the bowl was made. You didn't even reply. Now your back pretending to know your stuff. This thread has made a mess of the so called experts.

As I recall, you just basically said "Wrong!" ... and I'm not even sure that you looked at my reference material (one post had images of the ancient Egyptians in a workshop making vessels (as seen in an Egyptian tomb scene). There were some vessels beside the workmen and the text label (in hieroglyphs) indicated that they were making stone jars.

The text also included drawings of the tools as well as some museum photographs of the tools.

...all of which you said were wrong (and provided no counter sources such as tomb paintings showing a different method or evidence that the stoneware was produced somewhere.)

You just said "wrong! debunked!"

That doesn't lead to any discussion or any enlightenment or support for alternate views. I'm interested in discussion -- not an exchange of rants.

Looks like the vase is showcased at the Cairo Museum, at the 03m38s mark in this video Anthony West explains that the vase is made of one piece and that the handles have not been added at a later stage.

Similar to this shouldered jar from the 18th dynasty, 1550–1295 B.C.:
Source

originally posted by: bluesfreak
The handle is the sticking point with this particular vessel with regards to lathe turning. To shape the neck on a lathe would obliterate the handle. Internal turning possibly for inside, but I won’t say that’s the case as I don’t know how thin the neck is, which itself could easily snap off in the turning process.

The handles are carved into the piece (drilled, really). And they could get the walls fairly thin, depending on the material they were using (the photo MIGHT be alabaster and MIGHT be of something from the Ptolemaic area, when folk all over the Mediterranean were turning out some thin-walled stone ewers/vessels with handles in various types of material.

There are turning tools that could replicate a neck like this INTERNALLY, but the material, granite, is also a material never to be underestimated in these examples.

That's not granite. It's alabaster or something similar. They tended to use softer materials for bowls and plates.

But the bowls?? (The ones without the necks)MANY of them show lathe forensics and I will argue anyone into the dust on that as i use one everyday.

Actually, now that I do a little googling about the topic, it turns out that they did indeed have lathes. Flinders Petrie (famous Egyptologist, 1853-1942) was the first to show evidence that the ancient Egyptians used lathes. So no need to defend to the death; we've known this since 1900 or so.

So... a reasonably good web page on lathes and stone bowls is here ... which includes the vase in question (but no information is given about it.)

According to that page (and I have just glanced at the topic and haven't done any real research... I have a busy day ahead but perhaps others can add references) this particular technique was lost at some time in the history of Egypt. I don't have time to prowl further to find out when they stopped making stone vessels ... but it might have been that the demand for these things was huge and you could turn out a lot of jars and so forth faster via pottery than if you used stone.

(okay, so I was wrong about the lathes... I learn something new every day.)

a reply to: Chadwickus

Nobody is saying it can't be done... it's obviously been done because it exists. What people on here are saying is that it can't be done the way certain people are saying it was done.

a reply to: Byrd

That doesn't lead to any discussion or any enlightenment or support for alternate views. I'm interested in discussion -- not an exchange of rants

Thank you for your reply. Not interested in rants either. It seemed to me that you posted an explanation that was not correct. I did say why this was the case too. I have had a busy day too and dont have time for long taps today.

originally posted by: peacefulpete

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Harte

All hieroglyphic texts that can be read have been deciphered. That would be 100%.

Boom! You are so so wrong. I thought you new your stuff. You are demonstrating you know next to nothing now.

Here is a List of Egyptian hieroglyphs on Wikipepida. Please note less than ten percent have been deciphered.

en.wikipedia.org...


You come onto my thread and make stuff up. I will call you out. thats all you have been doing for a while now.

I think he was trying to be clever in his wording about that.

He said "100% of the hieroglyphics WHICH CAN BE DECIPHERED, have been deciphered" or something like that.

Which is essentially saying that 90% of them CAN'T be deciphered. But that he wants to say 100% anyway, lol, within the limits that 90% can't be translated...

So in other words, he was saying that 100% of the 10% have been deciphered LOL!!

Think what you want - here's what I said:

originally posted by: Harte
All hieroglyphic texts that can be read have been deciphered. That would be 100%.
Harte

Some texts can't be read. Texts that have worn away. Texts on papyri that have been water damaged, etc.

There is no text that contains clear Egyptian glyphs that cannot be translated.

Better?

Harte