> Here is a clearer image.
> Middle Kingdom travertine vessel from the Southern
> Pyramid at Mazghuneh. (The Manchester Museum,
> Photograph by Jon Bodsworth)
> From what is next to it in the original image it
> don't look that small to me.... maybe you can
> clear that up for us.
I'm curious how you think such an anomaly could have happened, Archae.
- Since the opposite side doesn't show such an anomaly, that's evidence of an eccentric cutting method which means they had a very imprecise drilling rig.
Since the wall was cut so thin it ended up cracking, that's evidence of a lengthy, erroneous cutting process which went unmonitored throughout what appears to be more than 1cm of wall thickness which is not a 10 second, or even a 10 minute, mistake.
It's allegedly a Middle Kingdom object which means the culture already had prior experience making thousands of similar vessels since the Old Kingdom, and yet they still hadn't nailed down a reliable manufacturing process, even for such coarse, large scale projects?
Could it be that this vessel represents what was still a primitive attempt (into the MK) to mimic a more ancient, more precise, pre-OK technology that was still unknown to the MK?
Also, it's interesting how Stocks grossly misrepresented the wall thickness of that anomaly to make it seem that the drilling was indeed stable and coaxial when the physical evidence (Bodsworth's photo) clearly shows it was not:
This is an example of how the theoretical method, as depicted on paper, doesn't always reflect the real-world performance of that theoretical design.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07-May-16 16:03 by Origyptian.