Granite Vase Fantasies: Rubbish In, Rubbish Out [UPDATED]

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'.

 

UPDATE  9th Dec 2024
Oh dear, how sad.... We now have a video that seems to show the underneath of this vessel:  Praveen Mohan, "Evidence of Ancient Machining Technology in Egypt" Dec 2, 2024  (here) Beall can't resist the temptation to brag about how perfect the vessels in his collection are and states how implicitly he trusts the dealer (ahem....). Here it seems (though it is difficult to be sure Mr Mohan keeps rubbing the object) that there is no lettering on the base, and yet we know that this was how Teddy Kollek marked his objects. From what I see here, I am inclined to believe that the collection history is not at all convincing. 

Dodecahedron "Mystery" Brings in Money for the Dealers

According to the Antiques Trade Gazette a Roman dodecahedron of unknown origin

was offer   ed for sale on the open market at Wilkinson’s in Doncaster on Dec. 3 2022. The estimate was £800-1200. No information regarding its provenance was included in the catalogue and auction house and buyer were keeping tight-lipped about its collection history and any documenatation related to it. In the end, the object sold for £33,000.

Heritage Watch Watches

                        An Edwardian castle?              

Hooray, hurrah, hwre:

Gwent Police | Rural Crime Team @GPRuralCrime · 9h
#RuralCrimeTeam investigating a report of illegal #MetalDetecting on a protected #ScheduledMonument in #Monmouthshire today #PartnershipWorking with @CadwWales we investigate all reports of #NightHawking activity on our #Historic sites

What does that actually in real (not fluffy-wuffy talk) mean? Go along look at the site, see/not see traces of overnight digging, and.... what? The offence has three components (a) entering private property, (b) digging holes in itm, and (c) making off with artefacts. What Britain needs for combatting (a) is a system like the one being introduced in Poland next year by a new law whereby through registering using their phones, active metal detectorists give the authorities their phone details, so they can be tracked using phone data and their presence on a particular field at a particular time can be documented. As for (c) it is an easyt matter to identify finds in a seized private collection that do not have any legitimising documentation, such as protocols signed by teh landowner assigning ownership to items from their land. Are Gwent police investigating that? Doubt it. Who can see a flaw in both of those measures? This reveals that a proper discussion of these issues is the only way we can stop faffing about and get a truly effective system in place to protect the archaeological record from looting by irresponsible and law-breaking actors.

Reference:
Paul Barford, 'An App, a Map, and a Reward: Promoting and Enabling Artefact Hunting in Poland', The European Archaeologist 78 (October 2023) (mirror here)

PROTECTION versus EXPLOITATION British Archaeology's "Big Dilemma"

The laws of finding – and keeping – treasure in Britain (msn.com)

"Although academics might harbour "resentments and jealousies" about the successes of amateurs, any ill-feeling is "tempered" by the fact that nearly all of their finds would never show up in an archaeological excavation. "Most of these finds are made on cultivated land," said Lewis. "If metal detectorists didn't find them, they'd just be lost to plowing."

Hmm. Resentments and Jealousies? I really think British archaeology is utterly failing to get the message across. We do nature conservationm not out of jealousy and resentment for the proud owner of bunches and bunches of wild flower ripped out of the woodled snd soon to wilt stuck in vases. Or jealousy that Fred Scruggins has a bigger collection of blown Osprey eggs than any academic might have. Where did MSN get that idea from, and jwhy are conservationists not putting them straight about that? Where do people like this get such ideas about conservation from?

So is the idea of conserving ospreys to get all the eggs we can find in museum cases? Butterfly conservation Professor Lewis, to get them all in nice neat rows pinned to a label in the British Museum Natural History? To get all the statues of teh remote easater Island, where hardly anyone sees them and install as many as we can on the stairwell in the BRitish Museum? Rip all the sculptures off the temples of SE Asis so they can "be preserved" in private collections and museums - after all Professor Lewis, if left in the jungle and caves, "nearly all of them would never show up in an archaeological excavation. If artefact hunters don't find them, saw them off, they'd just be lost to the jungled". yes, Professor Lewis? That's ghow we preserve the legacy of the past in your eyes? I do not see it that way. Besides teh artefact a that are found in ploughed fields but BELOW plough level, we yes, we do not see them there, but that is what iun archaeological parlance is called "undisturbed archaeological record" (I'd refer the learned academic to the Valletta Convention). Then again, a lot of metal detecting is done on grassland, so not ploughed felds, some is done in forests, some in open water. I do not think this Lewisian Argumentation applieds to it all, nor does it make sense as archaeological resource PROTECTION. What it is he is advocating there is some crude form (because tekkies dig blind and tend to keep no real records)of Archaeological Resource EXPLOITATION. Which to choose? What a dilemma for British archsaeologists. Think of themselves, or think of future generations' usage of what tehey leave behind?





he . Then again, a lot of metal detecting is done on grassland, so not ploughed felds, some is done in forests, some in open water. I do not think this Lewisian Argumentation applieds to it all, nor does it make sense as archaeological resource proection. What it is he is advocating there is(some crude form 9because tekkiees dig blind and tend to keep no real records) Archaeological Resource

The Only Reason to Replace an Ancient Nose..."

This is weird, even for pseudoarchaeology and actually reflects insistence on "racial" stereotypes ("what an African nose should look like").  Rather a chaotic video. by two guys who clearly don't know what actually comes out of the ground. But then again, there were Black Pharoahs (25th dyn) and some dark-skinned members even of the Theban royal house, but not all the time. But obviusly fantasy and playing teh victim take priority over actually establishing facts.  

Posted on You Tube by @kingmono "FORGERIES - w/ Prof. Manu Ampim" Streamed live on Apr 28, 2024.‧

Let's just point out that the statue at the beginning showing an inserted nose is the result of what the early art market (18/19th cent) actually did to 'restore' damaged statues before a dealer sold them, the Vatican Museum and others have hundreds with new arms, fingers, genitals, heads etc etc added where they had been broken off. Many Egyptian statues have the noses broken off (the Christains are to be blamed for some ot it - eyes gouged out too - , but whaen a statue falls over face first, the nose tends to go...) . Africa is a big continent, and there are a wide range of physical types speread across the continent. In North Africa (where Egypt IS), the dominant range of nose shape is not at all coincident with what these guys consider as "African" - despite being nose of peeople that live in Africa and desceneded from people that lived in Africa.

Some Cairo faces

 
.

Estonia returns almost three hundred Ukrainian artifacts

 

British Archaeology Fail: APPAG Cuddly Pink Unicorn Inquiry on Archaeology and Artefact-Hunting

APPAG Inquiry on Archaeology and Metal-detecting

Relations between archaeologists and the metal-detecting community have improved significantly over the last 25, especially with the establishment of the Portable Antiquities Scheme – a project to record archaeological finds made by the public in England and Wales – and reform of the Treasure Act 1996, covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Most archaeologists now recognise the value of detector finds for advancing knowledge, and recognise the contribution made by responsible metal-detecting for understanding Britain’s past. The UK has led the way in this regard, becoming a model for public finds recording schemes elsewhere in Europe. However, there is a recognition that more could be done to bring these communities closer together in the public interest, especially with more people than ever taking up hobby metal-detecting. As such, the aim of this inquiry is to see what can be done to support responsible metal-detecting in England (specifically) and promote the benefits of archaeologists and metal-detectorists working more closely together. We therefore welcome written submissions from anyone with responses to any or all the questions in the call for evidence by the deadline of 30 April 2024:

1). What are the main factors contributing to better relations between archaeologists (whether academic, commercial, community, museum-based, organisational etc) and metal-detectors users (both independent and within detecting organisations), and how could these be advanced further?

2). What is the role of hobby metal-detecting (as a research tool) in the context of advancing our understanding of the archaeology and history of Britain, and how does that link with professional and non-professional archaeology? How should access to metal-detected finds (especially those in private collections) be facilitated, for both the wider public and academic study?

3). What is the relationship between metal-detecting and other forms of community archaeology, and how could closer cooperation be encouraged?

4). How do we better promote responsible metal-detecting, and what are the roles of archaeological bodies, landowners, detecting organisations and those that organise events for detectorists, such as those organising detecting holidays and rallies?

5). How could archaeologists better facilitate the use of metal-detectorists (and the wider public) in archaeological projects, and what are the barriers to that? Might it be possible to develop and promote methodologies for systematic metal-detecting surveys?

6). How do archaeologists, metal-detectorists and others work together to better acknowledge best practice? What is the role of museums (for example) and other publicly funded bodies in highlighting the positive contribution of metal-detecting?

7). How have museums benefitted from detector finds, and how could mechanisms be improved to enable museums to acquire more public finds?

8). What should happen to archaeological finds found through metal-detecting not acquired by museums? How can metal-detectorists be encouraged and supported to document their collections and plan for when they can no longer look after them?

Total submissions should be no longer than 500 words and sent by email to APPAG@archaeologyuk.org.

Following the submission of written evidence, the committee will select representative parties to give oral evidence at the Houses of Parliament.

The committee will decide whether to accept a submission and whether to publish it – all written evidence will be considered by the committee (whether published or not). Once a submission is published it cannot be changed. Consider carefully how much personal information you share.

All pink unicorn stuff. Five hundred words is the length of their notice, so a rather dumbdown "inquiry". And all of the questions are loaded, the typical jobsworthy and conciliatory-defeatist claptrap that is all British archaeology can offer. Searching for the word "context", "methodoilogy" or "documentation", "ethics" or anything much else than mealy-mouthed fluff, then you'll see where this is going. Needless to say I did not bother. I wonder what the response was. | 

For the record: 

1). THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE is that there is no "better relations between artefact hunters/collectors" and archaeologists/ heritage professionals generally and it is head-in-sand bollocks to say there are. Look on the metal detecting forums and social media. Just look. 

2). WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE (and if you can't be bothered yourself, there are also several recent papers by me "Alter Vikings", Medieval, Judaica - one on Bronze Age possibly coming up soon) hobby artefact hunting and collecting do not actually "advance our understanding of the archaeology". If you look objectively and as archaeology, the questions it asks and answers are simplistic and mostly based on Kossinnist dots on maps. Context is ignored,. That is NOT archaeology but antiquarianism. 

How it "links with professional archaeology" is that archaeologists get a supply of loose artefacts to write context-frei articles about without getting up off their butts. 

Metal detecting (artefact hunting and collecting) is NOT Archaeology any more than collecting costume Barbie dolls is ethnology.

3). Since artefact hunting, ripping loose archaeological finds from a more complex context, treating the latter as a quarry for collectables is NOT archaeology, it can't have any relationship with "other" archaeologies.  Loaded question - APPAG should define what archaeology is - just "digging up old things"? 

4). From the point of view of actively managing the erosion of the archaeological record by the various agences that are reducing it, it seems to me that the term "responsble artefact hunting and collecting" is an oxymoron, or at least has yet to be properly defined in Britain. The superficial and antedilluvian Code of Best Practice...,) hardly does that as it fails to cover issues such as targeting known sites, information collection strategies, and the dissemination of the record (finds) when a personal collection is dismantled.

- "detecting organisations and those that organise events for detectorists, such as those organising detecting holidays and rallies" [as the PAS already say; see also Heritage Action in 2017]  are NOT treating the archaeological record responsibly, they are using it up just to make some money for themselves. APPAG should define "responsible" first.  

5). Not only is it "possible to develop methodologies for systematic metal-detecting surveys" people are doing them (Rendlesham in GB, Grunwald here in Poland, work in Denmark). What are you "inquiring" about? Whether hobbyists can or will do them on their own initiative? Just read the forums and don't ask stupid questions. 

6). Is "highlighting the positive contribution of metal-detecting" what the emphasis should be on? what about highlighting for the better informnation of the wider public the damage done when it is done "wrong"? (again, what actually - from a resource conservation point of view - is that non-damaging "right" anyway? I do not see one, not in Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine or the UK).

7). What pressures are put on museums by not curbing the way the archaeological record is being hoovered up and dumped in their glass cases without much site context?  When we have the National Museum of Wales deemed superfluous and closing - are these pressures that museums can cope with in this period of Britain's cultural decline? WOULD the National Museum of Wales be "saved' if some metal detectorist walked in with even the biggest ever Roman denarii hoard found in a Welsh field, twice as big as any ever known from the British Isles? Of course not, the problem lies elsewhere. 

8). "What should happen to archaeological finds found through metal-detecting not acquired by museums?" Should have thought about that before potentially 12.27mln of them have already been dug up and dispersed. I'd be interested in collecting here the references to all those conference papers delivered on this subject in Britain since 1996.