> So the mystery is not "if" the AE made stone
> vessels, which is incredibly stupid to say otherwise...
See, it's exactly that kind of myopic pompous arrogance that makes you so difficult to converse with.
So you think "On and on it goes"? Well let's see...
> This device is depicted in other reliefs which are
> more clear all associated with vessel making:
> Fig. 73. The making of stone vessels as depicted in
> an Old Kingdom relief from an unknown tomb at
> Saqqara. Egyptian Museum, Cairo JE 39866. Drawing
> by Peter Der Manuelian after Maspero 1915b, pp.
> 25-27, pl. 22
This simply cites Stocks again and is not an independent assessment. There is nothing in that graphic that indicates a vessel is being made either in the real world or the afterlife.
> Chiseling a statue, Tomb of Ankmahor, Saqqara c.2200BC
I see no glyphs in the wider field of view in that scene that describes what those graphics are portraying. However, in a different panel at Ankhmahor there is a scene of 4 statues being chiseled which Kanawati and Hassan(plt. 40) explain are made of wood, not stone:
- All four statues appear to be of wood, which may be judged from the lack of any back pillars or support usual in stone statues.."
Do you see any pillar or support on that guy being chiseled?
> MK/NK I assume, various vessel making:
There is no "vessel making" going on in any of those scenes. The vessels are all complete and other than possibly polishing the outside and adding minor engravings to the finished surface, there is no indication of any cutting tool being applies to significantly shape any block of stone into a hollow vessel. How sure are you that those guys aren't simply putting all the vessels though the annual Spring cleaning? And as I've suggested regarding Rekhmire, these portrayals are in the funerary context which renders them irrelevant to the real world, and suggested that the contemporary culture had no idea how those things were made.
> Which to note the obvious, its not like all the
> stone vessels are found in the OK and before-they
> never stopped making them which are a dime a dozen
> in later times.
You have no idea how many vessels might have been "found in the OK", and then refound and repurposed with each subsequent dynasty. You certainly don't know for sure that the best work was done during the OK. Since every one of these paintings are found in tombs, we can't even say that those scenes depict anything happening in the real world at all. So what is it about these scenes are seem so "obvious" to you to the point of calling anyone disagreeing with you, "incredibly stupid"?
> Dynasty 0/1st Dynasty
How "Dynasty 0" makes "obvious" sense to you is anyone's guess.
> Dynasty 0
It's "incredibly stupid" to deny that provenance, eh? Nothing incredibly stupid about having blind faith acceptance of such attribution without any rationale other than attempted intimidation thrown at anyone who disagrees due to the lack of any tools and methods that could accomplish such precision stonework? You truly think yours is such an extremely credible position?
> Dynasty 0/1st Dynasty:
What unbelievably "obvious" tools and methods that were used to make these things, Thanos, that would justify you calling anyone who expresses skepticism so "incredibly stupid"?
> On and on it goes. Not to mention things like
> these from the same period...
It's laughable that those objects are so broadly accepted to be from that same early dynastic period. What makes those things "from the same period"?...is it simply that they were found amongst other stuff thought to be from that same period? How is that an "obvious" attribution? If I have a neanderthal skull on my bookshelf and the ruins of my house are found 3000 years from now, will archeologists think that skull is from a person who lived during the 21st century AD?
> What is interesting, however, is
> that the quality was certainly never better than
> it was at the beginnings of Dynastic times which,
> along with its relatively sudden appearance in the
> archeological record, is really the issue.
Oh, that's "interesting" to you, is it? You means you're not being "incredibly stupid" for not understanding why all the stuff that orthodoxy claims to have been made with the oldest technology happens to be the best stuff?
It's all so obvious...except for some "interesting" stuff that you can't explain and yet feel no compulsion to consider in your paradigm since it just might stir up that neat little self-consistent house of cards.
"Incredibly stupid" indeed.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?