> The table you did post would be (or should be) of
> vast interest to the GHMB rock expert Archae. Have
> you noticed his mentions (claims) of you can
> scratch it with your fingernail? LOL! Stocks
> reckons a 1:3 or 1:2 attrition rate on copper even
> on soft stones limestone , calcite etc.
Thanks again for the thoughtful reply.
The 1:3 ratio is based on volume. When you base it on weight, more copper is consumed than granite (1:0.9):
This is also reflected in another "waste powder" table later on (p. 126):
> I believe the tube drill depth results are on page
> 137 if my notes are correct?
You may be referring to the table on page 115. His methods are not described in detail, and it's not clear what kind of "tube" he's using as well as its diameter or wall thickness:
On page 165 he makes the following statement regarding drilling the lumen of a small limestone vase:
- "The maximum internal diameter of the vase measured 8 cm, its minimum diameter being 5.5 cm, with a mouth diameter of 4.5 cm and a depth of 10 cm (Figures 5.38, 5.39). The total time for manufacture was 22.5 hours."
> Anyway the point I was trying to make was that
> folks here often quote the authority of Stocks
> work yet do not seem to have studied the results.
After being insulted by Stower for not having read the book, I suspected he might be wrong about Stocks' contentions and so I paid a lot for my copy because I wanted to see for myself what Stocks had to say. And it now seems pretty clear to me that he hadn't studied the book himself or else he would have plainly seen the catastrophic errors in Stocks' hypothesis and how Stocks, in his own words:
- - contradicts his own position on ancient stonework
- reveals the funerary (and not real-world) context of the exemplary tomb iconics
- clearly portrays the farcical impossibility of the Rekhmire paintings
- openly acknowledges the total absence of any physical evidence of the tools that he claims were used during the Old Kingdom
> Clearly but unwittingly he proves that AE or
> whomever did not make precision holes or cuts in
> the manner he hypothesises. His excuse is somehow
> he imagines with years of practice they would get
> infinitely better and overcome the inprecise
> ragged gouges to arrive at clean sharp work.
For whatever reason, Stocks seems to be withdrawing his hypothesis from the public.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?