Stocks states that..
"A long figure of eight borer could not have been admitted and turned to a horizontal position".
"However, the unusually large mouth size meant that a worker could admit a big hand held borer, and this may have been the manner in which this type of vase was internally ground to shape".
He's referring to the Liverpool Museum vase which has an unusually large neck opening.
Obviously this technique would not be possible with the high volume, narrow neck variety that we are talking about here.
It seems that his statements have been inappropriately and universally applied to all hollow stone vessels.
The proof of concept already exists in that we have hollow, large volume, narrow necked vessels that were somehow hollowed out.
Both rotational torque and axial force has to be applied to any rotary cutting stone.
Stocks has postulated that a primitive design "Universal Joint" was used. The Y shaped stick being the "Yolk", the figure eight stone being the "Cross Journal". So proof of concept and design already exists today, and has for quite some time.
However I'm not sure that a wholly primitive universal joint could me made to work in any practical sense bearing in mind
the inherent problems associated with this arrangement especially in terms of axial transmission.
The Stocks "primitive-ised" universal joint would have to be made and demonstrated.
There seems to be a tendency among some experimental archaeologists to shoehorn industrial age technology and ideas into the ancient past.
I have no idea of how or even why ancients would attempt to hollow out a stone vessel of these proportions.
In fact the implausibility and difficulty involved helps substantiate the development of clay fired ceramics.
This is only one small part of the overall mystery. Issues such as mensuration and the effective navigation of the cutting tool within a blind void would also need to be addressed.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07-May-16 13:42 by Jon Ellison.