> And yours is? Sorry, but I am not "acting" and my
> intention is not to be "tough". You just get to
> the point where you're nonsense is not worth a
Now you know how we feel.
> > I guess you're referring to this
> If you read the tag attached to the picture you
> can see that is exactly what I am talking about.
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
Oh well that's proof. The tag says so, so it's proof.
I'll start a blog, put up this photo with my own tag, and that will be proof that it isn't.
Unless you're suggesting that I believe it because Egyptology says so? That would be stupid.
> > The tool in that pic does not look like the
> > in the pic Stocks used.
> The tool in the Rekhmire looks like a version of
> this same tool and is shown boring into vessels.
In your opinion. Which doesn't make it truth
> > The only similar feature
> > is the crooked handle.
> And a weight at the top under the handle and the
> fact it is bored into what is clearly a vase. I
> did not say "identical" but obviously in principle
> they are the same type of tool used for the same
And how do you know that photo shows the manufacture of stone pots? Do the glyphs say so? The 4th guy from the left is using an awfully big tool to hollow out a small bowl that could be done by hand or smaller tool. The last 2 men on right do nothing. And as Corp pointed out, the 3rd is using his arm to do what exactly? But if you want to believe the Egyptologists, go for it.
> > So I don't see how your
> > statement is true since you don't show "it"
> > depicted in other scenes. Or would that be a
> > "stupid" "dishonest" "vapid" "lie".
> Oh, Audrey. When will you ever learn.
> Mastaba of Mereruka, 6th Dynasty:
I'll never learn that you know it all (like you're showing us an obvious truth and how stupid that I don't see it). I don't like your tone.
There is so much wrong with that image I can't believe you take it for what Egyptology spoons out.
Man on left is using tool to hollow out bowl? Doesn't seem necessary, might be more efficient to use hands. And corp pointed out a problem with the man on the right. Nope, the image doesn't make sense in terms of carving 'vessels'.
But if that's your truth I'll not pop your bubble.
> Quoting Emery regarding early Dynastic stoneware
> production (Archaic Egypt, Walter B Emery p215:
From unfinished vessels we have ascertained
> that the vessel was finished externally before the
> hollowing of the interior was begun. We also know
> that the rough cutting of the interior was done
> with the aid of a drill with a curious eccentric
> handle, to which two oval stones were slung with
> ropes. These stone weights, which splayed outwards
> when the drill was turned, thus provided extra
> motive power. The cutting head of of these drills
> was a flint blade shaped rather like a blunt arrow
> head. Such drill-heads, and stone weights, have
> been found in considerable quantity, and we also
> have pictures of the the Pyramid Age which show
> the drill being worked (Fig.124).
> "Pictures" as in plural. I assume if it
> were just these two, which I believe there is at
> least one other of the same but I cannot find it
> right now, Emery would have made note as, despite
> being an impeccable researcher, he further laments
Unfortunately, we have no really
> satisfactory evidence of the manufacture of these
> stone vessels, and, although certain processes of
> the work are known to us, others remain a complete
Oh well if Emery says so....
How exactly does he know "the rough cutting of the interior was done with the aid of a drill with a curious eccentric handle"? Because that's their interpretation of the "tool"? And probably nothing more than that. If that's good enough for you, fine, far be it for me to call you stupid for being so accepting of what I reject.
> You know full well I am an honest and objective
Since you profess to have such high standards of truth.....
I would not call you objective.
I do not know you personally and would not vouch for your integrity.
(did you want me to lie?)
> who presents the information accurately
> to the best of my ability so you know exactly
> where you can put your "stupid" "dishonest"
> "vapid" "lie" "selective vision" nonsense.
But I would say you're crude and ill mannered.
Vapid, stupid, dishonest, lie, were words you used for others. You don't like your own choice of words? Gee, it wasn't nonsense when you used them.