> >Again you are referring to materials.
> > Again that is not the issue.
> Ya I know we got that even when the advancyness is
> made of painted plaster someone spatulaed out 70
> years ago.....
Is this a communication breakdown?
> So now we're back to they can't carve limestone
> again. Calcite (again what that jug is made out
> of) is slightly harder than you
> fingernail......... Why you imagine there is an
> insurmountable problem for Stocks' methods with
> limestone, please enlighten us? It's one step up
> from gypsum and 2 steps up from talc and those
> steps are not that high..... both of which the AEs
> made stone vessels out of. Can the AEs even carve
> BTW, Petrie (1932)'s got a cross-section of a
> Class V jug made of travertine (they all appear to
> be made of that, limestone after all is the most
> common only seconded to gypsum for stone vessels
> making followed by that
> "schist"/metasiltstone/"slate" stuff the fringe
> claim is 'too hard" and "too brittle" to
> carve..... all of these are in the beginners
> section of your local library for softrock
> carving) it's just got the core tube about 2/3 of
> the way down. No that's not to say that others are
> not hollowed out they clearly are from the
> back-lighted ones I have seen in the lit, but some
> are not.........
OKAY what about the one's that are hollowed out? How did they position and manipulate the tools?
> Petrie, W.M.F. (c1977 (1932)) The funeral
> furniture of Egypt: with stone and metal vases.
> Aris & Phillips, Wiltshire, 65 p.
> >Granite? That's interesting, with an overall
> >of 20cm. Can you estimate the neck diameter?
> Looks to be about half from my image of it and the
> inside don't look like it is anything close to
> that imagined fringeism of perfectly,
> symmetrically, machined cause it's balanced beyond
> today's technology, sans any notice of the 2
> handle lugs, 2 handles, and the copper fittings,
> "constant wall thickness of only a few
I can see the thickness of the rim in the photo. It's no more than 1cm which is a few mm
Yes it does have two lugs, which eliminates the use of any kind of lathe.
> >>smaller andesite porphyry vessel are too
> >>for the AEs to carve other than it takes longer
> >>than travertine grinding?
> >It that a question or a statement?
> Considering that the minerals in the andesite
> porphyry are altered to fine-grained softer ones I
> already assumed it was not going to be taken as a
> question when I asked it...... so I guess it is a
> statement thus no answer.
> >In both cases the
> >feldspar phenocrysts (just like the large
> >crystals in the travertine examples you keep
> >presenting) have been sectioned by grinding and
> >You seem to know how this form was manufactured.
> Well, as a result of the felspars we know it was
> not pored from a bucket like some here
> imagine..... no one other than the fringe is
> asserting the manufacture of these were fast and
> easy (which is not consistent with the fact that
> granite vessels are not that common compared to
> the easier to carve rocks like that limestone
> stuff). One can work granite (and the softer
> andesite porphyry) with a piece of quartz stuck on
> the end of a toothpick by the power of crayon
> colouring alone.
Who are you arguing with?? Technique not materials .. HOW DID THE POSITION AND USE THE TOOLS?
You're telling me you cannot
> think up plausible methods of making these vessels
> with the known AE technology level?
You are the expert so I'm asking you..
How did they do it?
How did they carve the undercut?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08-May-16 20:53 by Jon Ellison.