> That has nothing to do with it, stop twisting what
> was said.
It has everything to do with it as this is what I said in context and what I actually meant.
> You very specifically said that when
> anyone so much as doubts it, so much
> as says "if" the AE made them, so much as
> suggeseted it to be the slightest
> "mystery", it therefore is "incredibly
Yes, I find the idea the AE did not make any of the thousands of stone vessels attributed to them in their entire history a stupid one. Correction-"incredibly stupid". I said it assuming that no one actually thought this, but if you actually do please accept my very insincere apologies.
> But none of us ever said "all of the
> stone vessels were not made by Egyptians".
Right, so what's the problem then? This is why having conversations here sucks is that some just do not get it because they don't actually read the entire posts to understand the context of what is being said. You read the word "stupid" and your brain shuts off. The point I am trying to make, which really, again, sucks to have to actually explain it as it should be clear, is that there is a distinction to be made between the average AE stone vessels and the often "superior" ones found in early Dynastic times. Did no one read my post about Petrie and lathes? Jeezuz. I said in my "stupid" post that what came after the OK was inferior of which there is no reason to believe they were not made by the tools depicted or any which way any other ancient culture made stone vessels. Like these found on Crete dated to the 3rd millenium:
The work of the ALC or the Minoans? A rhetorical question. Come on here people. I am actually saying the AE did not originally have the technology to make the Archaic Dynastic stone vessels and that it was of a higher order than what made the thousands of years of later examples.
> So that's just you once again twisting what was
I am twisting nothing friend so don't impose your inequity on me.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11-May-16 22:57 by Thanos5150.