Granite Vase Fantasies: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out

The guys claiming on social media that super-accurate measurements with extremely sophisticated machinery of 'ancient' stone vases with sophisticated geometry and technical parameters are evidence of some Lost Ancient Knowledge are back. We've just been throuigh all this.  

Matt Beall @MattbLimitless The CT scan report on thin walled granite artifacts is back! The X & Y axis of the lip and width vary by less than 1/1000 of an inch, making it perfectly round. Also, IT WAS LATHED. the surface deviation proves that. This is the first time that we can conclusively prove that with data (more data will be released in the coming weeks/months). So either [sic]
1.) The Egyptians made this and we don’t know how or what tools they used (same as pyramids/serapeum etc)
2 a more ancient civilization made this and the other precision artifacts
3 it’s a modern forgery

Previously, we had pointed out that these vases could not be considered evidence because they were unprovenanced (ungrounded) items from the antiquities market and thus were probably fakes (so nothing would be surprising in them being produced using sophisticated equipment equivalent to modern machine tools because they probably were produced using modern machine tools). Now this guy's showing unprovenanced (ungrounded) items from the antiquities market with COAs (!) "Here’s the certificate of authenticity " of the one features in the video.  Read it. Who's going to tell him?

I'd also like to know which Egyptian rose granite is this? it does not look like any of the types currently commercially available from Egypt. So if there are no more outcrops that could have been exploited, where did the raw material come from, how and when?

The Teddy Kollek collection is a storied provenance. We are told that some 56 years ago a member of the Barakat family bought it, kept it in a storeroom for half a century before selling it to the current owner. Is there any Israeli export documentation showing how it got to London? The question is, can it be proven that it was from the Teddy Kollek collection? Mr Beall refuses to answer my question of whether there is anything written on this vessel or an old collectors' label. A shame. Then again, if Mr Kollek (who collected mainly Israeli pieces) acquired this from somebody, how did he ascertain that it was an authentic antiquity <1968? 

Mr Beall lightly mentions that in his opinion, the dealer he bought it from might have been mixed up in illegal activity. Of course I do not believe that for a second, but here for the record is what he wrote, clutching at straws to make it seem more likely this vessel is ancient:

"There was the 6 day war in 1967 where Israel occupied Egypt and is said to have stolen artifacts. Barakat was based in Jerusalem at that time and would have been THE place to offload the loots. I’d be happy to return it to Egypt if it can be verified as genuine and stolen. A few of my others have 1968 Provence and Uzi Narkiss as prior owner. He was the general who occupied Egypt on the ground".

Look at this: 

William Wallace Welker @Will_W_Welker ·13h
Nice to have proof but anybody who has used a lathe and examined these jars already knew that. Modern forgery is unlikely due to the extremely high number of these jars that have been found.

Mmmm. There were a lot of them, but one cannot assume that the undocumented ones on the antiquities market are the same as the body of examples in excavation storerooms (!). These are two separate bodies of material and cannot be studied in the same way. Mr Beall is so convinced that he would be able to prove something if he had access to properly-excavated (grounded) material that, unlike the "orphan" and "floating" material on the antiquities market, cannot be a modern product. Then why not persevere and put together, in collaboration with other specialists, a research project to get that access, instead of faffing about with privately-owned "samples" of unknown provenance? 

UPDATE  9th May 2024

Both he and his 'alternative pasts' pals seem annoyed that somebody is discussing his ideas (referring to my tweet linking to this post):

Matt Beall @MattbLimitless
Help me out here David. Why was my post rubbish? Why was this repost worth reposting, you didn’t comment on it and I personally didn’t see anything material in it. I didn’t get anything out of it except anger and frustration and division. I am suggesting that there are three options. I am open to all three. Can we stay open minded and work together to get some answers? 11:25 PM · May 8, 2024

Ahsam Koji @AshamKoji · 5h
Matt, he is unable to critise your methodology or hypothesis only providence (sic). Like Anyextee who will slander you for encroaching on “their” territory. Rather than collaborate or offer ad hominem free criticism they fear your will ‘steal’ market share. Tour Tickets / Add Views

I beg to disagree, I think there is something material in the post... Yes, three options were proposed on the basis of what he saw as "evidence", but Ockham's razor reduces it to one. If you cannot document that the object really was made in pre-dynastic times, all the rest goes out of the window. It is as simple as that. I am not sure what part of that would be difficult to understand for a person of normal intelligence. Rubbish data in, rubbish conclusions out. Get better samples to test your theories on, then we can discuss 'options'.