Ann K
Senior Member.
I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.
Claim: Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Without High-Tech Diamond Tools
- Thread starter NorCal Dave
- Start date
Ravi
Senior Member.
I see.. I hope it comes back. But like you say, some of these grifters he is pointing at perhaps complaint at YT. This is how we roll in todays world: complain and it is taken away.I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
The doctrine of Fair Use has repeatedly been successful in fighting such knee-jerk strikes, and this seems to be a case where it would apply.
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.
Yup, apparently an attempt at censorship via DMCA, but he's not sweating that it will eventually go back up due to fair use.
Article: For those of you who are wondering where my latest video, "Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase," one of the guys whose views are critiqued in the video is upset with me that I used an image that he created and which appear in the article he wrote. So he has filed a copyright claim against me. My use of his image falls under "fair use" in US copyright law, so I am disputing his claim. Unfortunately, the video will be down until the dispute is resolved.
It seems to have been taken down due to a copyright claim by the people that wrote the "Abstractions Set in Granite" paper.I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.
Apparently, peer review was not in their plans when they released the article.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
It's back!
tobigtofool
Active Member
What about these toes? You all are messing up my youtube algorithms (just saw this suggested after clicking a few of the videos)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nMn7DWTYgAs?feature=share
(dont know how to embed this - I am helpless!)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nMn7DWTYgAs?feature=share
(dont know how to embed this - I am helpless!)
Ann K
Senior Member.
Good, I can finish watching it. I notice that of the gushing gee-whiz accolades and down to earth disagreements that UnchartedX chose to post on screen (about 55:50) the very first is from Ross Coulthart.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Russ is into Atlantis too?! I'll have to watch it time permitting.
I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Welcome to Metabunk!
Has any of this been seen experimentally?
Ravi
Senior Member.
Fully agree. The point here is that they certainly would have found out ways to speed up the cutting. It is as old as humans to be rather lazy than tired, right. The technical way to accomplish this is perhaps hard to prove, but the technological features are found throughout.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
Ben has a new video up proving once again metrologists can measure vases. Christopher Dunn is even in this one.
I'd link it but I don't want to give them clicks.
I'd link it but I don't want to give them clicks.
Ravi
Senior Member.
I was watching the SGD channel (link) on YT again, and he provides a great link to an interesting channel called Night Scarab (link).
This channel very recently made an excellent video (see below) and rebuttal on the recent videos made by UnchartedX (link but do not click)
Because it is such a well made video that raises all issues point by point, I recommend you view this video in its entirety. But below is an overview of the content.
@01:33 Provenance
@05:01 Art dealer
@06:24 Metrology
Orientation of the handles, not in line:
@09:01 Math fallacies
@19:41 Lathe masters
Some techniques, not Egyptian, but it shows that methods that could have been used.
@24:11 Hard to make today?
Straight answer: not at all, and can even be cheap.
@27:52 Polishing is not precision
Very important note the video makes is that polishing is not per se precise.
@31:26 Is forgery viable?
@39:58 How it could've been done
The video raises the question weather or not the vases could have been from a much more recent time, as the provided provenance by UnchartedX team is very weak and unproven (no base, no evidence).
From 9 minutes onwards, it very interestingly discusses the statistical trickery that is at play here, and shows that ratios in smaller objects are very easy to link to mathematical constants.
Then the video goes into detail on the way it could have been done, using contemporary materials and methods, and also demystifies the talk that Ben is going on about all the time.
Anyway, watch the video if you can, as it explains much better and much more than I did above.
Source: https://youtu.be/O_4SaxVP44g
This channel very recently made an excellent video (see below) and rebuttal on the recent videos made by UnchartedX (link but do not click)
Because it is such a well made video that raises all issues point by point, I recommend you view this video in its entirety. But below is an overview of the content.
@01:33 Provenance
@05:01 Art dealer
@06:24 Metrology
Orientation of the handles, not in line:
@09:01 Math fallacies
@19:41 Lathe masters
Some techniques, not Egyptian, but it shows that methods that could have been used.
@24:11 Hard to make today?
Straight answer: not at all, and can even be cheap.
@27:52 Polishing is not precision
Very important note the video makes is that polishing is not per se precise.
@31:26 Is forgery viable?
@39:58 How it could've been done
The video raises the question weather or not the vases could have been from a much more recent time, as the provided provenance by UnchartedX team is very weak and unproven (no base, no evidence).
From 9 minutes onwards, it very interestingly discusses the statistical trickery that is at play here, and shows that ratios in smaller objects are very easy to link to mathematical constants.
Then the video goes into detail on the way it could have been done, using contemporary materials and methods, and also demystifies the talk that Ben is going on about all the time.
Anyway, watch the video if you can, as it explains much better and much more than I did above.
Source: https://youtu.be/O_4SaxVP44g
Attachments
Last edited:
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Many thanks for that. I think he's still missing a few other criticisms that could be levied against the original claims. The one that jumps out to me specifically is covered with his warning not to confuse precision with polishing, but he could hammer it home more - and that's the "precision" of the wall width. How wide are the walls of the vessel? In some places, they're precisely 2mm wide. In other places they're precisely 4mm wide. So, in reality, they're 3mm +/- 1mm wide. So 3mm, but accurate to one part in three. How is such a wide range worthy of the epithet "precise"? (The desirable property from an engineering perspective of course being "accuracy", not "precision" - "Pi=2.781828" is a very precise statement, but with horrific accuracy. This ties in with his precision vs. polishing thrust - precision certainly can aid prettiness, a useful attribute for an artisenal piece.)
I just wish I wasn't broke currently, I think I'd be up for a replica for $100! Heck, I'd buy two and sell one!
Beware of seeing modern units of measurement in supposedly ancient items.
Metric units of measurement are, in the end, arbitrary, however precisely defined. They might occur in ancient objects by pure chance of course, but their presence should always raise questions. If an items has a range of sizes, from above an even metric value to below that value a person might simply be rounding off the value for convenience, but if so they should specify they have done so.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Especially if that person calls themself a metrologist.
Lu Ann Lewellen
Active Member
Scientists Against Myths has a video out in English on the two-year diorite vase project.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Source: https://youtu.be/yyCc4iuMikQ
From the video description in link above...External Quote:
The experimentalist Nikolay Vasiutin copies the ancient Egyptian technology of granite drilling: a copper tube and a grinding agent (corundum). Evidence of ancient machining?"It often happens that on various Internet forums and social media I have to communicate with people who do argue that ancient Egyptians had zero skills. Though all of us read about them in schoolbooks and watched some films. In other words, ancient Egyptians allegedly didn't have tools and technologies necessary to create all those things which are shown to touristsin Egypt nowadays.For even guides in the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo say they don't know how such impressive bores in granite could be made". The experiment was carried out for the ANTROPOGENEZ.RU (http://antropogenez.ru).The video was first presented on June the 5th, 2016, at the "Scientists against Myths" educational forum."Principles of tubular free abrasive drilling" (Oleg Krugliakov): https://antropogenez.ru/drilling/ "Out-of-place artifact: 100 years of deception":• Out-of-place artifact: 100 years of d...
One thing that does not appear in previous posts relates to the origins of the vases being scrutinised for evidence of modern tooling-Provenance.
These objects have a history of being faked for the Arts and Atiquities market and it is highly unlikely these 'Independent Researchers' would be allowed to pfaff about with known excavated examples held by reputable museums, which leaves those held by private collectors with dodgy provenance.
Archeologist Paul Barford discusses the issue on his blog 'Portable Antiquities Heritage and Collecting Issues' ;
https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2024/05/more-on-those-hyper-precise-ancient.html
In reply to some abuse, archaeologist Flint Dibble;
https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/01/rubbish-in-rubbish-out.html
From this earlier thread Barford suggests;
Less 'Caveat emptor', more 'Cave independens inquisitores' .
These objects have a history of being faked for the Arts and Atiquities market and it is highly unlikely these 'Independent Researchers' would be allowed to pfaff about with known excavated examples held by reputable museums, which leaves those held by private collectors with dodgy provenance.
Archeologist Paul Barford discusses the issue on his blog 'Portable Antiquities Heritage and Collecting Issues' ;
https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2024/05/more-on-those-hyper-precise-ancient.html
In reply to some abuse, archaeologist Flint Dibble;
https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/01/rubbish-in-rubbish-out.html
From this earlier thread Barford suggests;
Less 'Caveat emptor', more 'Cave independens inquisitores' .
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
We've touched on provenance in other threads, e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...manufacturing-capabilities.12240/#post-287000 .
This thread here was set up to discuss ancient manufacturing capabilities, not the modern ones.
Eliminating modern fakes is a necessary step in making sure you're actually looking at something ancient. There's no point trying to find out how the ancients made something if they didn't make it.
Ann K
Senior Member.
I think a good many such items are made for the tourist market and sold as such, and the "fakery" involved is on the part of the people who make the claim that the thing they bought on vacation is an ancient artifact.
That certainly happens when unscrupulous sellers attempt to fleece tourists, but there is a far more insidious problem with dealers,galleries,auction houses offering items for sale with very dodgy provenance 'from; a pre 70's collection, grandad's collection'.
There are industries set up to fake items not for sale to tourists but for intoroduction to the international antiquities market. Some, rather sadly , have been known to pass through well known auction houses and even ended up in museum collections (in a similar way to faked paintings).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archa...times, forgeries of,or the Piltdown Man skull.
Though we do see it from some who wish to present evidence of their own pet theories, or just for the fun of it eg Piltdown Man
Certain artefacts are faked on an industrial scale eg Bulgarian 'Roman' Bronzes and even though well documented even now appear in auctions and dealers windows.
I could go on, but will leave it there as a polite reply, before going too far off topic.
Ravi
Senior Member.
Just saw a video on yt of Night Scarab, with an interesting subject. I will quote his video discription:
Source: https://youtu.be/t9N2KomV2uQ?si=st-cxRyS1CRDLmvq
Source: https://youtu.be/t9N2KomV2uQ?si=st-cxRyS1CRDLmvq
Mendel
Senior Member.
(full tweet below)Article: As has always been the plan, and as was the agreement with Artifact Foundation from the start, the reports will be released freely for all to see and use. They are now available under a Creative Commons license on my website. I hope everyone will use this new data to deepen our understanding!
I have also uploaded an overview with the precision score and an overview of the circularity measurements on my website - this gives a good overall view of the findings in the Petrie Museum vessels.
The link is https://arcsci.org/catalogue.html , which leads to an overview of 27 vase scans like these:
These items are linked to "precision reports"; the one I checked at random is Creative Commons-licensed and contains 50 pages explaining the methodology and various metrics of the object.
Source: https://x.com/stinegerdes/status/1902137009977868769
Last edited:
Alexandria Nick
Senior Member.
Although this doesn't apply the same way to Imperial/US Customary, because the units are derived from the same source as some ancient units. In a low tolerance application, a djeser and a foot are functionally the same unit.
This appears to be the usual issue that crops up when newer more precise information may contradict the analysis made based on older less precise information.
In this case precision measurements of Egyptian stone vases suggest they are not as uniformly symetrical as they appear to the eye, or measurements made with less sophisticated tools.
The custodians of some of the vases examined are now regretting they allowed the new measurements to be made and are seeking to suppress the resulting details.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
That makes sense. I was trying to remember all the players involved.
Ann K
Senior Member.
<** putting on my conspiracist's hat **> "They are trying to suppress the Truth because they're trying to keep the ancient civilizations a secret!!"
Or, perhaps more likely, (1) they think you're trying to weave a large blanket out of a very small piece of thread, or (2) they've become concerned that they've paid good serious-collectors money for an antique and now fear they've been cheated because it might be a modern machine-made forgery instead.
Fear of revealing that they have bought modern fakes is likely to be a real brake on their "research".
The less accurate information they produce about their collections the better. They can then just claim that theirs are the REAL THING while all of examples the debunkers have access to are the fakes.
I would hope that among museum collections there are enough examples from known sources that have been in the collections decades or a century or more that will be scanned.
Similar threads
