> Hi Audrey
> This is an Egyptological classic
Obviously Stocks cropped this pic for the same reason osirisnet did. The vase appears attached to the larger pot with something shaped like a moon sliver. When it's unexplainable, just cut it out.
> The author describing a lower forked stick and
> stone boring tool that simply does not exist in
> the artwork.
> See "manufacturing Stone Vessels" in the link
It's amazing how they come up with the details to fill in the gaps. I think it's funny how osirisnet quotes Stocks "Tools to perforate stone or wood have evolved over millennia". Well it must have taken the AE several millennia to develop the tools and skills to build pyramids because from pyramids to 18th dyn, 1200 yrs later, they're still using the same tools. No progression! And where is the archaeological evidence for these millennia of development?
> It seems that when a mere hypothesis is committed
> to print, it then goes viral among the
> Egyptological community,
> being accepted as cast iron evidence and fact.
> Parroted ad nauseam without any critical thought
> Or just a plain and simple attempt at BS
Exactly. And it's totally circular. Tool in vase of painting = stone tool U24 = primitive = Stocks 'proof' of primitive stone tools = proof of stone work in painting.
And educated people actually believe this.
> In terms of context and IMO this is obviously a
> depiction of a woodwork/furniture shop, The only
> woodworking prerequisite that would require a pot
> is glue.
> Is this guy mixing glue?
> I can't be absolutely sure because I can't see
> exactly what's going on inside the pot.
> Neither for that matter can anyone else.
He could be mixing stains or adhesives or churning butter for all we know. If 'they' made mortar for casing stones surely a glue for wood was a simple task. But that would leave them with no explanation for how some pots were made leaving the door wide open for alternative theories. Can't have that.