Veronica Winters Painting

In his discussions about ancient Egyptian stone vases, Ben van Kerkwyk (from the channel UnchartedX) explains that the most precise and high-quality artifacts are often found in private collections rather than museums. He notes that collectors typically sought out the most “precise” and “beautiful” examples, while museums often hold thousands of broken or less remarkable specimens. Ben appeared on numerous podcasts talking about this.

Facts vs. Ben’s claims about super-precise granite vases from a single video (and repeated in many others):

#1. Kush & Toshka sites: ancient stone vases

What the Toshka site actually represents:

The Toshka burial sites comprise several archaeological locations in Lower Nubia, primarily excavated in the early 1960s before the area was flooded by Lake Nasser.

These sites span from the Middle Kingdom (c. 2000 BCE) to the X-Group period (c. 4th–6th centuries CE).

Archaeological Sites:

• Toshka East (Rock-Cut Tombs)
  • This site features three monumental rock-cut tombs from the New Kingdom.
  • Tomb of Heka-nefer: The most prominent burial, belonging to the Prince of Miam (a Nubian prince raised at the Egyptian court) during the reign of Tutankhamun.
  • Finds include wall paintings and inscriptions showing Heka-nefer paying tribute to the Pharaoh.
• Toshka West (Cemeteries B, C, and D)
  • C-Group Cemeteries: Dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 1900–1700 BCE), these burials typically featured circular stone tumuli.
  • Finds: Intact graves (like Cemetery C No. 76) contained copper mirrors, ivory rings, carnelian necklaces, and ostrich egg-shell anklets.
  • Later layers include Meroitic and X-Group (post-Pharaonic) burials characterized by brick-blocked tomb entrances

Archaeologists have found stone artifacts and materials related to stone vessel production at the Toshka sites, though the burials themselves are more famous for their pottery and luxury jewelry. Most of the original riverbank sites were submerged by the Aswan High Dam project. However, salvaged materials and unpublished data are currently being re-examined by the Yale Peabody Museum. 

• Toshka West Cemeteries: Excavations in C-Group and Meroitic cemeteries (such as Cemeteries B, C, and D) primarily yielded pottery vessels, copper mirrors, and jewelry made of ivory, carnelian, and ostrich eggshells. While stone beads were common, complete stone vessels were not the primary grave goods reported here.
• Relationship to Stone Working: Toshka’s major link to stone vessels is its role as the river terminus for the desert route to Chephren’s Quarry (located about 50 miles west). This quarry was the ancient world’s oldest large-scale source for diorite used specifically for royal statues and fine stone vessels during the Old Kingdom.
• Associated Desert Sites: Surveys by the Yale Toshka Desert Survey identified stone tools like mortars, rubbing stones, and grinding stones at nearby desert outposts (e.g., Nuq‘ Maneih), as well as ink inscriptions on stone pebbles.

In Conclusion:

Correction of Common Misconception: There have been recent viral claims on YouTube suggesting “12,000-year-old precision granite vases” were found at Toshka. However, archaeological consensus and peer-reviewed data from the Penn Museum and Yale confirm that the Toshka burials date to the much later Middle and New Kingdoms, and such fine, stone vessels are typically found in Early Dynastic sites like Saqqara, not the Toshka burial pits. 

These articles debunk viral claims about stone vessels at Toshka and clarify their connection to ancient quarrying sites. * Summarized by Gemini

“Nubia.” Expedition Magazine 4, no. 4 (July 1962): -. Accessed March 07, 2026. https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/nubia/

#2. Cryptographer Mark Qvist findings about the radial traversal pattern on the OG vase:

Mark Qvist (a software developer, cryptographer, and metrology enthusiast behind unsigned.io) first gained attention in the ancient-precision community for his March 2023 analysis of 3D scan data from one of the so-called “OG” granite vases (PV001 / Adam Young’s private collection piece). In his article “Abstractions Set in Granite,” he concluded that the vase showed a mathematically coherent radial traversal pattern (involving phi ratios, precise concentricity, and geometric relationships far tighter than expected), and that it was produced via sophisticated subtractive manufacturing requiring high-precision mechanical technology—beyond what conventional hand tools or even modern CNC could easily replicate.

His most recent public view (updated after higher-resolution 2025 CT scans and the broader Vase Scan Project dataset) is a clear reversal of the ultra-precise private-collection examples he originally examined. He now states that the object (or at least its current form) “is definitely not 5,000 years old—it is either a modern replica, a contemporary piece, or an ancient artifact that was later reworked.”

This shift came after the 2025 scans provided over 5× more vertices and finer resolution, revealing details that undermined the earlier “impossible ancient tech” interpretation. The ultra-precise vases (only ~4 out of ~56 scanned, all from private collections like Adam Young’s PV001 and Matt Beall’s V18) lack verifiable provenance; claimed histories contain errors (e.g., references to a pre-1918 Czechoslovakian ambassador). Museum-held Predynastic pieces show far lower precision consistent with hand craftsmanship.

On Stine Gerdes’ work: Gerdes (of Arc Scientific/arc sci.org) was directly inspired by Qvist’s 2023 article; she has said it sparked her 30-month deep dive into 3D metrology of ancient stone vessels. She collaborated on the Vase Scan Project (providing precision reports and statistical analysis for Adam Young’s collection for nearly two years) before publishing her own 2025 comparative study of 32 Petrie Museum artifacts.

Her key findings:

• Museum Predynastic vases are statistically indistinguishable from modern handmade replicas (using copper tools/abrasives).
• They show multi-stage hand-guided repositioning marks, axial misalignments, and tolerances (often 70–100+ μm RMSD) fully consistent with pre-industrial craftsmanship—no evidence of lathes, electricity, or lost high-tech.
• Private ultra-precise pieces (like PV001) are statistical outliers that exceed even industrial CNC benchmarks in some metrics, but their provenance is unverified, and their interior/exterior heat-map patterns more closely resemble modern machining.

Gerdes has also publicly criticized data-handling issues in the private-collection scans (e.g., Adam Young allegedly substituting incorrect scan data from one vase for another to exaggerate precision differences, plus flawed geometric-mean methodology). Qvist’s opinion change explicitly followed the “2025 report with new data” that incorporated exactly this kind of museum-comparative metrology Gerdes produced.

In conclusion:

In short, Qvist’s updated stance and the broader analyst consensus (including Gerdes and Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov) now treat the ultra-precise “OG” vases as anomalous outliers whose claimed ancient origin and technological implications do not hold up under rigorous, provenance-aware scrutiny. The museum pieces remain impressive examples of Predynastic skill—but achievable with hand tools. Gerdes’ systematic, open-source metrology work is the foundation that enabled this re-evaluation, and Qvist’s own reversal is presented in direct connection with it. No newer public statements from Qvist (as of early 2026) contradict this updated position. *This is summarized by Grok

#3. Rose granite used in super-precise vases?

Ben: (1:08:23)

“..Radial traversal pattern the < TK of 6/2 to the power of n very much seems to be a design element of two other vases that have been analyzed, the thin wall vase that we’ve looked at as well as the spinner vase, both made from rose granite and classified as pre-dynastic.”

Questions I have:

There are no predynastic rose granite vases found in tombs in Egypt besides one (the awkward granite vase is pictured in Barbara Aston’s book as far as I know. More on this later)

#4. Hard data & provenance claims:

Ben: (1:15:23):

“…And have gone on personal crusades to debunk the findings any way they can well I say any way they can but given all of the open-source scans and the hard data the only way that’s emerged is to yell fake on the internet like a flat earther who’s looking at Globe photos from a Japanese satellite no one can argue with the actual data so it generally boils down to noisily trying to discredit the (1:15:52) origins of the artifacts and distract the audience away from the significance of the findings that’s more or less what the whole Providence argument is. It’s a fancy word used to suggest that most of these phases are nothing more than modern fakes there’s been a couple of reaction videos that have taken this approach implying that because we don’t know the exact circumstances of when where how and by whom all of these ancient artifacts were extracted from Egypt then they must just be modern fakes and we could ignore all this pesky data and hard facts about (1:16:30) precision right there’s so much stupid in this statement that it’s tough to know where to start but let’s give it a go as previously mentioned it’s easy to just throw out an unqualified assertion like that yelling fake on the Internet only takes a sentence or two but adequately responding to it requires paragraphs as the actual discussion and Providence topic is full of context and Nuance seeing as we’re here let’s point out a few of the many ways this modern forgery argument just doesn’t hold up… (1:17:03)

Ben: “First of all I don’t think that the people making this accusation fully understand how Providence or the Antiquities market for that matter actually work or they’re deliberately misrepresenting it they seem to act like any artifact not in a museum say for example one in a private collection must be either stolen or fake and on that basis try and discredit everything about it even Flint Dibble shamefully took this approach when in a discussion about analysis with Matt Bell on Twitter petulantly responded to him by throwing shade on the origins of the artifact suggesting Matt stops buying looted vases and then rage quitting the conversation and blocking Matt you see how it works do whatever you can to distract away from the actual evidence and the important parts of the discussion which is of course the utterly astonishing precision and just loudly make unfounded accusations for what it’s worth and while we’re talking about everyone’s favorite budget Indiana Jones let me address the many people who have suggested that I should debate or discuss these topics with Flint I generally disagree with this idea I think it would be both frustrating and to be honest an utter waste of time because he’s got quite literally nothing to offer on the topic he’s not an engineer he doesn’t understand precision and look none of this is his fault nor is that a negative statement it’s just not what archaeologists do that said I also find it incredibly unlikely that he would ever even accept or acknowledge the data and findings of this project I suspect any discussion between him and I would just be us talking past each other..”

Questions I have:

Btw, not everyone from the finance industry knows the numbers…

Ben: (1:24:07)

“…Just magically has impeccable Provence purely because it’s in a museum, lots and lots of artifacts in museums are classified and dated according to form style. Stone type those types of things 1:24:20yet the little plark next to it might say pre-dynastic or 26 Dynasty but in reality we really have no idea exactly where it came from or of its history before it landed in a display case in the museum it’s generally all the same stuff of course many artifacts do happen to have impeccable Providence and in a shocking turn of events the people on the internet yelling fake never seem to…”

Questions I have:

Museums pay attention to their labels and put a summary of provenance on them, including the names of private collectors if applicable.

#5 Adam’s vase from the Czech Ambassador

Ben: (1:24:44)

“Acknowledge that artifacts with impeccable Provence also exist in private collections in fact several such vessels have been analyzed by the vascan project Adam Young has a large vase dated well into pre-dynastic times by carbon 14 analysis of the burial that it was found in and that was legitimately given to a Czech Ambassador in the 1930s as a gift people then die estate sales happen 1:25:09ultimately ends up in an auction house and onto the market and in this case it was eventually acquired by Adam.”

Questions I have:

While I haven’t seen the document stating that the vase was dated to the pre-dynastic times, I know that there were 4 Czechoslovak Diplomats (not Ambassadors) in the 1930s. If the diplomat has a name, he should have a document showing provenance.

#6 Petrie Museum Collection: good and bad in the same argument?

Ben: (1:26:34)

“..Stupid that I have to keep saying it but it’s always been a stated goal of the vase scan project from day one to get into museums to analyze as many artifacts as possible and to analyze those with the best possible Providence that work is ongoing and it’s gaining Traction in 2024 at Adam Young and other members of the vase scan team spent 2 Days in the Petrie museum in London using structured light scanners and doing photogrammetry on a number of artifacts according to the curators of that museum the many thousands strong collection in the Petrie Museum which is a teaching Museum on the grounds of the University College of London only represents the bottom five maybe 10% of Flinders Petrie artifacts his teaching stock if you will the good stuff he gave to his benefactors his friends all kept for himself much of which ID wager is still in private collections I guess they must be fake then the analysis work from this field trip is still ongoing but here are the cliff notes from Adam (1:27:38) Young directly at least half the vases they analyzed are precise meaning they’re in the same ballpark low singled digit thousands of an inch as the other vases previously detailed on this channel I wonder what the Skeptics will have to say say about that finally let’s look at this fake claim from a logical perspective logically claiming these vases of modern forgeries makes zero sense when you consider what we know about them the people making these claims never seem to want to deal with…”

Questions I have:

1. So, where is the published data from those trips to the Petrie Museum? There are a few files posted on UnchartedX website showing the same three or four super-precise vases from Adam and Matt’s collections only.
2. Petrie didn’t give away his finds left and right and adhered to a work ethic that some may not understand. See more on this below.
3. Top museums and super-wealthy collectors/donors/ subscribers to Funds kept the best artifacts from the first excavations, according to the book, Scattered Finds. Those artifacts were stelas, mummies, statues…
4. So, at first Ben mentioned that Petrie Museum had the bottom 10% artifacts, yet Adam Young stated that at least half of the analyzed vases were precise… We spent 3 days in total with over 20 objects scanned there, and only one vase showed the precision with handmade quality, not modern machining. No published data from reputable museums, no proof, guys.

The largest museums (and donors who sponsored the excavations and donated their staff to museums) received the best and largest artifacts from Egypt during the first excavations in the late 19th century-early 20th century.

3 crucial figures were leading the first excavations and dispatch of ancient Egyptian artifacts from Egypt- famous archeologist Flinders Petrie (ERA fund+), Victorian writer Amelia Edwards (who presided over the Egypt Exploration Fund (EEF), founded in 1882), and Oxford University mathematics graduate John Garstang.

The notes or letters of these three organizations lead to a specific tomb or the names of wealthy individuals who sponsored the excavations in Egypt. Notes, letters, lists, papers, and photos also listed the names of the subscribers receiving the artifacts, even when they were gifts. There were also distribution grids with a catalog classification system like the one from 1901, organizing the dispatch of artefacts from royal Second Dynasty tombs at Abydos to museums around the UK. (p.47).

In the book Scattered Finds, you’ll find out that Petrie had a documented work ethic showing his genuine interest in excavated objects, not sales. Moreover, donors and the wealthy who sponsored the digs were also mentioned in papers.

“Dignitaries who visited active digs, such as Princess Henry of Battenberg, who witnessed some of the excavations at Deir el-Bahri in 1904, might be presented with personal gifts. The EEF later sent
a small crate to Buckingham Palace, containing beads, scarabs, a bronze cat’s head, amulets, and a stone statue of a couple.” (p.14)

Several women working at the excavation sites in Egypt held several responsibilities alongside male participants, such as marking objects with context numbers, drawing and photographing finds, packing
crates of artefacts, surveying sites, and occasionally directing fieldwork itself. Excavations in Egypt produced masses of finds, and it was often the women who were responsible for the heavy burden of ensuring ‘the general orderliness of the ever-growing collections’. This is clear from Petrie’s introductions to his archaeological memoirs, like that for Abydos, published in 1901” (p.60).

While deaccessioning in the museums and funds’ collections happened after the war, the best staff still should have the provenance leading to a tomb, a famous name, or an excavation site. Read the rest here: https://veronicasart.com/tracing-the-source-the-provenance-of-ancient-egyptian-artifacts/ or directly in the book Alice Stevenson’s book, Scattered Finds: Archaeology, Egyptology and Museums.

#7 Cost of making them…

Ben: (1:28:24)

“So precisely what about the radial traversal pattern why design them with such subtle mathematical Elegance if we were to make these today as they would cost an absolute bomb and it would take our best five axis machines burning up expensive tool tips to grind into granite you simply wouldn’t go to these links if they are purely for profit if you’re just making fakes to sell on the Antiquities market then why not just pump them out from a Chinese lathe shop they’d never be super precise but who cares no one was doing precision..”

Questions I have:

Making granite vases doesn’t cost a fortune. However, it does require a considerable cost to sponsor management of the entire process oversees that usually has several steps before the vases look close to being done. It also involves multiple DHL shipping charges to get every new batch of the vases to the US.

Ben: (1:29:23)

“..Have made them with the precision that they show back then maybe but it would take an incredibly talented craftsman as these vases with their lug handles have very complex geometry you can’t just make them on a lathe and in fact evidence suggests that they had to have been made on a machine with five axes of Freedom again check out this video or..”

Questions I have:

And here I agree with Ben, whoever made these ‘super-precise’ vases was more than a craftsman. This type of refinement comes from an artist who is highly likely to have used the machine-made tools to create these artful vessels.

#8 Scanning hardstone vases’ chips below the ground:

Ben: (1:32:34)

“…Going to hold up when here we are literally 150 ft below the step pyramid scanning large fragments of hardstone vessels that are still there and these are fragments that have been there for thousands of years what happens when some of these turn out to be precise as I expect them to be just as some of the vases in the Petrie museum were….”

Questions I have:

These broken pieces look like plates or bowls to me, not stone vases, because of the shape and color of the stones. I’d like to see proof that these are stone vases. What do you see here?

#1. Ben and Christopher talk about the inability of others to understand their work.

The problem is not that. There are plenty of engineers around more than capable of understanding it. The real problem is showing measurements and numbers of three precise granite vases that have no clear record of where they came from. While Ben often mentions the ‘impeccable provenance,” it’s unclear about what provenanced vases he’s talking about…There is no clear evidence of the provenance of these 3 granite vases. The super-precise vases look new, made of granite and somewhat different in shape from the predynastic Egyptian vases. So what’s the point of measuring the granite vessels and not the provenanced ones from Matt Beall’s collection?

#2 Mr. Dunn says it’s impossible to make them on a potter’s wheel.

It’s not surprising, because the known potter’s wheel was used for pottery, not stonework! Egyptians seemed to use a different grinding method with sand and water, and some rotational device for stone vessels. The predynastic Egyptian vases were handmade and clearly show in Max’s analysis, contradicting Ben’s statements.

#3. (23:37) Ben talks about the rose granite and that the three most precise vases were made of it, that they are at least 5,000 years old, and damaged in spots. He’s amazed by the consistent precision seen in those vases.

The problem here is that the predynastic Egypt didn’t have granite vases. Only one was found, and it looks quite ugly (see Aston’s book).


#4. Drill Cores and Petri’s Core #7: (38:29-1:18:56)

They discuss the debate regarding Petri’s Core #7. Petrie’s Core #7 is the most famous piece of evidence used by Christopher Dunn to argue for high-tech machining in Ancient Egypt. Dunn explains the spiral groove found on the core as evidence of advanced machining, noting that it advances at a rate of 100,000ths of an inch per revolution (40:43), which is impossible with primitive tools. No human could push a hand drill hard enough to sink 0.1 inches into granite in one turn; therefore, it must be a machine.

The core is a piece of granite debris from a tubular drill (hollow drill bit), discovered by Sir William Flinders Petrie in 1881 near the Great Pyramid. It is currently housed in the Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology in London.

The main problem with Dunn’s argument lies in neither seeing nor unseeing the continuous groves. The problem is that the copper drill gives the specific, cone-like shape to the core because of uneven drilling down the granite. If it were drilled with a CNC machine, it would go into the granite like butter, leaving the edges straight in this core. Therefore, arguments about the spiral, continuous groove are pointless!

But if you’re unconvinced, let’s sponsor the research to scan the Petrie core #7 with a good scanner to see if the grooves are really continuous or they are simply a series of stochastic (random) scratches caused by individual grains of abrasive (quartz sand or emery) being dragged around by a copper tube to close this argument for good!


#5. (1:03) In their arguments for super-precision, Ben & Dunn try to discredit Denys A. Stocks, who is one of the world’s leading experimental archaeologists, specializing in replicating ancient Egyptian manufacturing techniques.

Stocks is a trained mechanical engineer. He has worked as a researcher at the University of Manchester and has extensive experience teaching high school design and technology. He is widely respected in academia for bridging the gap between historical theory and practical engineering, having conducted over 20 years of hands-on experimental research. I read Stocks’ book and found it enlightening because he demonstrated how ancient Egyptians used primitive tools to make their stonework.

His book, Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology: Stoneworking Technology in Ancient Egypt (first published in 2003, with an expanded 2nd edition in 2022), serves as a technical manual for how the Egyptians could have achieved their feats using only the tools found in the archaeological record.

Stocks documents the creation and testing of over 250 replica tools, including copper saws, tubular drills, and bow-driven lathes. His central thesis is that the “work” was not done by the soft copper tools themselves, but by quartz sand abrasives. The copper acted merely as a carrier to rub the sand against the stone.
He provides a step-by-step breakdown of how hard-stone vases (like those made of diorite or granite) were carved and hollowed using twist-reverse-twist drills and flint scrapers.

Stocks doesn’t just show how it was done; he calculates the man-hours and resources required, arguing that the massive scale of Egyptian production was a result of organized, high-volume labor rather than high-speed machinery. He explores how the Egyptians evolved their tools—such as developing multiple-bead drilling systems—to increase efficiency during the New Kingdom.

Dunn often suggests that academic archaeologists lack the industrial background to recognize machine marks. He states that someone like Stocks is looking for a “primitive” solution, which leads him to ignore features that an engineer would immediately recognize as the result of a high-speed tool [12:18].

While Christopher Dunn looks at a granite core and sees machine feed rates, Denys Stocks looks at the same core and sees the natural behavior of sand grains under a manual copper tube. Stocks’ book is essentially the “technical Bible” for the mainstream view that “primitive” tools, when combined with engineering ingenuity and infinite patience, were sufficient to build the wonders of Egypt.


While I also have my doubts about the manpower working stone in ancient Egypt, what has Christopher Dunn done to prove his point about advanced stone machining, besides visiting the museum and rolling the thread around its core?

Ben & Dunn argue that while Stocks has shown it is possible to make a crude approximation, he has failed to replicate the specific geometric precision and feed rates seen in the actual artifacts. However, Stocks didn’t have to do it as there are NO predynastic Egyptian artifacts found with super-precision, only the ones Ben keeps showing us!

Petrie Core #7: Dunn vs. Scientists Against Myths

The Scientists Against Myths team—led by experimentalist Nikolay Vasyutin—presents several evidence-based arguments to show that the core’s features are consistent with primitive copper drilling.

Vasyutin’s experiments demonstrate that high RPM (speed) is not necessary if you have sufficient abrasive. By using a simple bow-drill or a weighted hand-cranked drill, they successfully cut through granite. The depth of the “groove” is determined by the hardness of the abrasive grain (quartz/corundum) rather than the pressure of the drill.

Feature	Christopher Dunn’s Argument	Scientists Against Myths Argument
Groove Shape	Continuous mechanical spiral.	Discontinuous random scratches.
Feed Rate	0.1″/rev (Impossible for humans).	Not a feed rate; just spacing of grains.
Tool Material	Unknown high-tech material.	Copper tube + Quartz sand (Abrasive).
Core Taper	Intentional or machine byproduct.	Natural result of copper tube thinning.

Main Questions Remain Unanswered:

What I see in Ben’s videos:

He’s walking around the scientific community trying to find an ‘open-minded’ person to support Ben’s high-precision idea for authority reasons. As it turns out, it’s not that difficult to be open-minded, searching for ancient tech, as Stine Gerdes, Max Fomitchev, Mark Qvist, and Christopher Dunn, signed up for this journey easily. However, when three people out of four were confronted with data/facts after extensive and deliberate research in their respective fields, they changed their opinion about what Ben said of super-precision in stone vases.

How the algorithm determines whether the vase is Predynastic Egyptian or machine-made:

Bases on high-quality scan, the algorithm looks at the concentricity and circularity of any vessel to sort it as machined, handmade, or predynastic Egyptian. It doesn’t look at names, donors, or collections’ value.

This vase is sorted out as machine-made. Visually, it looks Egyptian but the color of this stone is highly unusual. The handles are of slightly different shape (although the shape of the handles does very in the predynastic Egyptian vases).

 A metrological method for manufacturing quality assessment and classification of ancient Egyptian stone vessels.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s40494-025-02196-7

Questions I have:

Willing to call me ‘close-minded’, ‘toxic’, or ‘delusional’? These questions remain:

• How come all super-precise vases shown by Ben & friends are shared between the two people – Adam Young & Matt Beall?
• What about the provenance of THESE vases, not some other ones held in private collections?
• Why is the granite of ‘super-precise’ vases different from the ancient Egyptian one? Why does it have a similar pattern that looks more like it’s possibly coming from India?
• Why did ancient Egyptians not use granite for vases but used it for statues & architecture?
• Why does the mathematical algorithm consistently shows modern-machining on the ‘super-precise’ vases? (see chart above)
• What happened to all those advertised scans of Egyptian objects in museums and Egypt that were done by the Artifact Research Foundation with Karoly Poka?
• Why can’t we find any other super-precise, granite vases from a specific tomb in Egypt or a museum with provenance?
• When you write an argument about seeing a “super-precise” vase, please link to a specific page, photo, literature page, provenance publication, article, etc. Otherwise, it’s impossible to know what vase you’re talking about! Some of you refer to the Arnold Meijer archives of Egyptian art, but many stone pieces are mislabeled! You can find several bowls and vases there labeled as granite and black breccia but the actual stones are different.
• Well-made scanned predynastic Egyptian vases look precise at first sight, which suggests that a potential collector wouldn’t be able to make a difference between the artifacts in the past (without a scan). How come the precise ones come from private collections only, according to Ben?
• It’s easy to dismiss scientific work and scientists and archeologists in general who actually do all the heavy-lifting researching the topics, writing about it, and publishing data. But what are the FACTS going for these 3 super-precise, granite vases then? There are NO predynastic Egyptian artifacts found with super-precision just yet, only the ones Ben keeps showing us!

Until these questions are answered clearly with peer-reviewed, published papers or some other honest method that can be verified independently, I’m highly skeptical that the ‘super-precise’ vases are genuine predynastic Egyptian artifacts of a lost technology. And I’m done with this project.

Use of Granite in Egyptian Vases? Barbara Aston’s Stone Materials and Forms Analysis Reveals A Different Result

Tracing the Source: the Provenance of Ancient Egyptian Artifacts

Unveiling Naqada Enigma: Aliens or Ancient Ingenuity? Predynastic Egyptian Vessels, Tools, Materials, and Technology

Barbara Aston’s Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials, Forms, and Granite Findings

Review of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms by Barbara G. Aston

Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms, published by Heidelberg Orientverlag as part of the series Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Altägyptens, is a comprehensive and meticulously researched volume originating from Barbara G. Aston’s 1989 PhD dissertation at the University of California, Berkeley. Aston, an archaeologist with a strong geological background, bridges the disciplines of Egyptology and geology to provide an authoritative analysis of the materials used in ancient Egyptian stone vessels and their evolving forms across millennia. The author mentions ancient Egyptian words used labeling specific stones, although not all words or terminology is known to us today. The book spans 221 pages, including detailed appendices, a bibliography, and plates featuring color photographs of vessels and rock samples. One minor criticism is the occasional, necessary density of technical detail, which might overwhelm casual readers, but this is mitigated by the glossary. It stands as a seminal reference for scholars interested in ancient Egyptian material culture, quarrying practices, and chronological typologies.

How did she study the stones?

First, Aston collected 197 stones from quarry sites around Egypt (she includes the maps of quarry sites) and then compared them to the stone used for ancient Egyptian vessels. To determine the exact name and composition of each stone, which is often impossible to identify with a naked eye, the author cut 42 samples from her collected rocks to study them in thin sections under the petrographic microscope.

She studied 42 fragments of Egyptian stone vessels from the Lowie Museum, Berkeley, the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the British Museum, and the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge as well as prepared earlier 14 thin sections of stone vessel fragments from the British Museum. Each 1 x 2 inch rock sample was ground down to a thickness of .03 mm on a glass slide.

In addition, Aston identified the rock types with other techniques -using scanning electron microscopy, x-ray diffraction, x-ray fluorescence, and neutron activation analysis. The most common chemical test used to identify the stone type of unbroken vases was the hardness test of a mineral called the Mohs’ hardness scale. In the introduction, you can see a ‘Classification of Plutonic rocks’ with quartz being the hardest rock at the top of the chart.
Barbara mentions ancient Egyptian labels for most stones, which she derived from writings and quarry sites’ inscriptions.

Chapter 1: Introduction

In the introduction, the author talks about common mislabeling of the rocks in literature and museums across the world. For example, the ‘andesite porphyry’ received many names like “porphyry” 2, “porphyritic diorite” 3, and “black and white breccia.” The name ‘porphyry’ was applied to a variety of rocks including a hornblende diorite. The name ‘alabaster’ often got mixed up in museums’ descriptions too, and today it refers to gypsum alabaster and travertine.

Chapter 2: Materials

Chapter 2, the core of the book, categorizes stones into igneous (molten rock material from magma cooling), sedimentary (joined rocks via chemical precipitation or cementation), metamorphic rocks (preexisting rocks that recrystallize under high temperature, pressure, or chemical reactions), and minerals, providing detailed descriptions, thin-section analyses, and discussions of ancient Egyptian terminology. This chapter is particularly valuable for its correction of errors in Egyptological literature in the misuse of terms for different stone types.

All rocks consist of one or many minerals. Igneous rocks are subdivided into two categories: plutonic ( formed underground with course crystals like granites ) and volcanic (fine-grained crystals forming above the ground). Besides the andesite and basalt, felsic volcanic rocks were not used for stone vessel production in predynastic Egypt. Finally, the rare stones- tuff, green serpentine, mica schist, amethyst, and malachite were all used in stone vessels through Dynasty 2.

Diorites have black and white speckles with 40 percent less dark minerals than the gabbro rocks, which are black because of high black mineral content. Gabbro stones were used in stone vessel production in the 4th Dynasty only.

Hornblende granodiorite looks grey consisting of small, fine black and white grains. This rock isn’t just diorite because of high amount of quartz, thus it’s close to the granites in hardness. Ancient Egyptians made stone vases from this rock from the predynastic to Dynasty 3 times, according to the author.

Type A Hornblende diorite was the most common rock used in predynastic & early dynastic Egypt for vessels. Hornblende diorites exist in 3 types (A-C)! Type B & C were used until Dynasty 4 for the most part.

Granodiorite https://collezioni.museoegizio.it/en-GB/material/Cat_1376/?description=&inventoryNumber=&title=&cgt=&yearFrom=&yearTo=&materials=&provenance=&acquisition=&epoch=&dynasty=&pharaoh=&searchLng=en-GB&searchPage= 

Almost black porphyritic quartz monzo-diorite consists of biotite and hornblende minerals that give this rock black appearance. Used heavily in New Kingdom, examples include Sakhmet statues of Amenhotep Ill.

Basalt is a black, volcanic rock that was often called ‘dolerite’ or ‘diabase’ by the British. Predynastic Egyptians used basalt for stone vessels’ production heavily, although its use declined rapidly by Dynasty 4. Manufacturing of small vessels continued in Dynasties 5-6 and almost disappeared after the Old Kingdom. p.21

Andesite Porphyry: This is a fine-grained, volcanic stone that looks very similar to diorite. The author identified 4 different types of this stone! Andesite consists of large, white crystals in black stone but andesite porphyry comes in several colors. Type A of hexagonal white crystals in black rock is the most common in Egyptian stone vases. Type D is purple ‘imperial porphyry’ of the Romans, which was first mentioned by Pliny. The stone was quarried in Egypt and moved to Rome. On p. 23, Barbara sites the exact time frames for each stone type used in ancient Egypt.

Obsidian: semitransparent obsidian is a black or reddish volcanic glass that differs in translucency. Imported to the country, obsidian was used in knives, amulets, and vases (Obsidian vases appeared in the 1st dynasty, not earlier). “Almost all of the obsidian objects found in Egypt, including all of the stone vessels, are of a jet black variety, which is opaque in the mass and translucent at the edges.” p.25

Tuff: Made of ash, tuff is a tough rock to determine as such based on visual perception only and requires a review under the microscope. It was a rare stone in Egypt for vase production, and the author determined its use between predynastic Egypt and Dynasty 2 only. Some tuff is greenish. Some Tuff stone vessels have yellowish appearance because of exposure to water or moisture, “due to the weathering of the calcite”. p.26. Others, used in stone vase manufacturing, are yellow-brown with purple, wide hematite stripes.

Tuff is one of several mislabeled stones called “red-veined marble”, “brown-veined quartzite”, and “purple-striped limestone” in the past. And Petrie’s labeling of this stone could cause confusion too.

Sedimentary rocks:

Greywacke is a sandstone with some clay in it.

metagraywacke stone: The General Tjahapimu, dyn30: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/551806

Siltstone: This a very fine, grey-green rock made of sand and green minerals. It was often mislabeled as ‘slate’ or ‘schist’. The Wadi Hammamat was the major quarry source of the siltstone with over 250 inscriptions left there dating from the Early Dynastic Period to Dynasty 30. Ancient Egyptians began using this stone for stone vessels in Naqada II and stopped its use in early dynastic period.

Apparently, siltstone vases were very popular in this time period. Archeologists found 20% of the stone vessels in the royal tombs at Abydos, and over 30% of the vessels from the tomb of Hemaka (temp. Den) at Saqqara. 40% of siltstone vessels in the graves of Dynasty 1 were found in the cemetery of Naga ed-Der. Both the 1st Dynasty Giza mastaba and the Dynasty 1 “M Cemetery” at Abydos had 20% siltstone vessels.

Siltstone became a unique rock to create artistic sculptures in the early dynastic period like flowers, leaves, basketry trays, and hieroglyphs, and imitations of metal vessels. Siltstone was a popular material in statues production throughout Egyptian history. p.32

An example of siltstone monument: Shaft of a black siltstone obelisk dedicated by Nakhthorheb to Thoth and placed before the entrance (with 523) to a shrine in a temple of the god, 350BC (Nectanebo II) https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA524

Green Conglomerate: this is a fun, volcanic rock that consists of multi-colored (white, brown, yellow, green, etc) chips (chert, quartz, and quartzite) mixed in green mass. Romans called it ‘Breccia verde antica’ and exported it from Egypt. There are no stone vases of this kind as ancient Egyptians made sarcophagi from it.

Sedimentary quartzite was one of the hardest stones used in ancient Egypt. The author identified quartzite of white, pale yellow, dark yellow, brown, red, pink and purple color in Egypt for study. Egyptians made many sarcophagi and statues from it but very few vessels on record.

Limestone: Limestones consist of fossils and calcite with minor editions of other elements giving it a specific color like yellow, red, or grey. Egyptians made numerous stone vessels from this soft rock in predynastic periods that was available in 17 quarries around the country. Limestone, travertine, alabaster and chert are sedimentary rocks formed by chemical and biochemical precipitation. The author made 6 separate categories for this stone used in vessel production that differ in color and texture. They were used in different time periods with the most popular, type A in white and yellow, used through several periods in Egypt.

The Egyptians consistently quarried limestone from carefully selected fine-grained layers; layers particularly resistant to weathering. p.38

Recrystallized Limestone is a semi-translucent rock of yellow or white color with wide grey, parallel streaks, according to Aston that was used in stone vases in early dynasties.

Dolomite has opaque white color with thin dark dolomite veins in fine-grained mineral. In stone vessel production, it was very popular and used in the Dynasties1-3 only! only travertine and siltstone were more popular than dolomite.

Calcite is a soft rock that’s either colorless or white with unique rhombohedral cleavage. Because of its easy breakage it was used in beads production, not the vessel manufacturing.

Travertine is also a soft but compact rock of varied colors- white, yellow, brown, yellow-white. It was widely used in the predynastic Egypt and remained the most popular rock used for stone vases in the entire Egyptian history! In Egyptian sources, travertine was named alabaster and these words are interchangeable. Alabaster was the cheapest stone used for vessels in Egypt. Greek traveler, Pliny recorded ‘alabaster’ or ‘Alabastron’ as the town’s name where the stone was sourced. Used in the Old Kingdom, Travertine is different from alabaster in chemical composition and origin.

Real Alabaster is basically gypsum and refers to a rock composed of calcium sulphate. It’s a very soft stone that’s water-soluble and highly scratchable. Therefore, it was used in tombs of the poor and had funerary use only from the Predynastic to the early Old Kingdom use, according to the author.

Inscriptions from the walls of the quarry, either incised or simply painted in ink, of which 17 can be dated to the Old Kingdom. p.45

According to statistics compiled by Lucas, travertine was the third most commonly used stone for vessels in the Predynastic Period, surpassed in quantity only by limestone and basalt. In all subsequent periods of Egyptian history, travertine was by far the most common material for stone vessels.p.47

Anhydrite is gypsum of white, grey, or bluish color thus named ‘blue marble’ in early literature. It’s white variety was called ‘crystalline limestone or even ‘alabaster’. It’s a soft but beautiful stone (hardness 3) that was used for vessel production in ancient Egypt between the Dynasty 12 to the Second Intermediate Period only, according to the author.

Red and white limestone breccia vessels are often on display in the museums as Egyptians used this stone heavily from Naqada I to the 4th Dynasty. This stone has a unique pattern of white limestone pieces set in a red rock of hematite and carbonate cement. White pieces vary in size and color.

Metamorphic rocks:

These metamorphic rocks, like slate, phlyllite, schist and gneiss, very in composition and form in the mountains from already existing stones under high pressure or heat.

Marble is a metamorphic rock that completely recrystallized from fossils. It was rarely used for vessels in ancient Egypt because it’s quite soft.

Brucite is very soft, white, blue, or yellow mineral, magnesium hydroxide of the composition Mg( OH)2. I have never seen stone vessels in the museums with this name. The author found only a fragment of this stone in EEF excavations. So it’s unclear during what time period it was used in ancient Egypt.

Serpentine is a group of green, metamorphic minerals and rocks (including chrysotile and antigorite) formed deep in the earth. Serpentine comes in a wide variety of colors and shapes but often has snake-like, mottled appearance with a Mohs hardness of 2.5–4, which makes them easy to carve. According to the author, ancient Egyptians used 3 types of serpentine for stone vessel manufacturing in different time periods.

• A-opaque green/grey serpentine with black veins
• B-translucent green serpentine with black patches (used in predynastic to dyn.1), and
• C-iron-rich, granular black serpentine with intermixed grey or brown granules. p.57

Serpentine in vessels was found at the very end of the Naqada I period but did not become common until Naqada II.

Steatite is a super soft, mineral talc of greenish grey, brown or grey colors rarely used in stone vessels. It is extremely soft and was labeled as soapstone. Steatite used to be mixed up with limestones, serpentine and siltstone in museums’ labeling of stones.

Meta-andesite Porphyry and Amphibolite: these rocks look similar, moreover, they look like andesite porphyry of Type B. They were mislabeled as ‘black and white breccia’ and ‘porphyritic diorite.’ Meta-andesite Porphyry is a metamorphic igneous rock with a porphyritic texture of large crystals set in a fine-grained, altered, purple-gray or dark matrix.

Mica schist is made of mica in layers that has glossy grey hue. It was rarely used in stone vessel manufacturing due to its easy breakage into layers. Mica schist is often mixedup with the green siltstone from the Wadi Hammamat.

Diorite gneiss consists of of translucent white plagioclase and dark hornblende with a little biotite. it has a mixed appearance of black and white in a variety. It was used in early dynastic period.

Minerals:

Quartz is the hardest stone ancient Egyptian craftsmen used for stone vessel production. Quarz is colorless, semi-transparent mineral seen as large crystals in veins and cavities, like in granite. It’s present in chert and chalcedony. Quartz may appear colored due to some other mineral inclusions, and thus can be mislabeled too.

Rose quartz has a pink coloration. Amethyst is translucent quartz crystal with purple hue (iron inclusions give the color). It was used in the Middle Kingdom for beads, amulets, and scarabs as well as Roman times. I haven’t seen a stone vessel made of amethyst in museums. There are a few documented amethyst vessels manufactured during Naqada III through Dynasty 2.

Quartz crystal is transparent to translucent, white (or colorless) quartz. Found in royal tombs, quartz vessels were made in the late Naqada III-the early Dynastic periods.

Chalcedony and chert are made of microcrystalline quartz. Chert is opaque with granular texture. Red, yellow, and green varieties of chert are called jasper, which were special, semi-precious stones for Egyptians. Chert vessels were mostly made in the early dynastic period.

Chalcedony is translucent with concentric bands. Named Carnelian, red chalcedony has inclusions of iron oxide in quartz . Agate is a color-banded chalcedony. the author thinks that all vessels made of chalcedony were imported into Egypt.

Malachite is a soft stone that has a bright green color. Ancient Egyptians used malachite for eye paint, beads, amulets and even stone vessels, although the author identified only 2 malachite vessels dating from late Predynastic to Early Dynastic periods, and I haven’t seen the malachite vase from Naqada culture in museums.

Lapis Lazuli was a rare and expensive stone imported from Afghanistan. It was carved for inlays and miniature vessels in Naqada II-early dynastic period.

Hematite is an iron oxide of either dark red or black hue with a luster sheen. Egyptians made kohl sticks from it. It comes in many shapes but Egyptians used metallic black rock for vessel production.

Chapter 3: Forms

Chapter 3 (Forms) shifts focus to typology, documenting vessel shapes from the Predynastic Period through the Roman era. Aston does a remarkable job of compiling known vessels with provenance into a catalog of forms. She defines date ranges for common forms based on provenanced and well-recorded examples, extending and refining earlier typologies by scholars like W.M.F. Petrie and G.A. Reisner.

For each form, the earliest and latest examples known to me are recorded, along with a selection of intermediate examples to illustrate the date range covered. The examples listed are not exhaustive, and include, for the most part, only well provenanced and/or well dated examples.p.78

Drawings of forms give straightforward overview of stone production in ancient Egypt, helping establish the dates of the common vessels. This is an excellent reference material to have a detailed look at the ancient Egyptian stone vases to compare them to modern and/or machine-made vases ( if you haven’t seen many examples of Egyptian stone vases in the museums).

Also, she lists provenance of each stone vessel under each form!

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 (Conclusions) synthesizes the findings, discussing identifications, quarry sources in ancient Egypt, and chronological patterns of stones. The author summarizes her findings showing mislabeling of the stones in early literature including Petrie’s. For example, she makes the distinction between true alabaster and travertine, and differentiates red granite, basalt, purple andesite porphyry, tuff, red breccia, diorite gneiss, and steatite.

Under the microscope she identified Egyptian basalt as porphyritic olivine basalt with an intergranular texture. Roman purplish “imperial porphyry” is a hematite-rich andesite porphyry. The bibliography is extensive, covering Egyptological and geological sources up to the late 1980s. On a page 170, you’ll find a table with a list of all stones used and in what Periods in Ancient Egypt.

Geology & Altered States Key Findings: the ‘altered’ state of plutonic rocks

Aston’s work excels in its precision and corrective lens on previous scholarship. Many plutonic rocks used for vessels are in an “altered” state—a process where rocks undergo mineralogical changes due to interaction with hot water solutions (hydrothermal alteration). This alteration often results in saucerization (clouding of feldspars) or replacement of minerals like hornblende with actinolite or chlorite. Aston thinks that the ancient Egyptians may have preferentially selected altered rocks because the secondary crystal intergrowth makes them tougher, more cohesive, and less prone to fracturing under stress during carving or use.

“Rocks may be “altered”, i.e. undergo a change in mineralogy, commonly by interaction with hot water solutions. A high proportion of the plutonic rocks which the Egyptians used for stone vessels, when examined in thin section, tum out to be altered rather than fresh rock. It is possible that the Egyptians selectively chose the more altered rocks, as the secondary intergrowth of crystals during alteration makes them tougher, more cohesive, and less likely to split and fracture under stress than unaltered rocks.” p.12

Hornblende granodiorite: “The heavily saussuritized feldspars indicate that the rock has been altered.” p.15

As revealed in thin section, this rock is an altered andesite porphyry. The original rock was very iron-rich; samples of unaltered andesite porphyry collected from near the quarry at Gebel Dukhan have a high magnetite content -both the hornblende phenocrysts and the groundmass veing peppered with magnetite. As a result of alteration, the black magnetite has been oxidized to red hematite and the plagioclase altered to epidote and granular quartz. A small amount of the epidote consists of the pink manganese epidote, piedmontite, which gives the phenocrysts a pink cast and contributes to the overall purple color of the rock.
It is possible that the andesite porphyries of Types A-C are also altered or metamorphosed. Two stone vessel samples 83, also black with white phenocrysts, proved on examination in thin section, to be of metamorphic rock (see under meta-andesite porphyry and amphibolite below). p.22

What about the use of granite for the predynastic Egyptian stone vases?

According to the book, the granites are usually light-colored stones or speckled with dark minerals consisting of 20 percent quartz and of potassium feldspar giving them pink coloration. If the rock is dark, it’s not granite, it’s diorite or gabbro instead.

The ancient Egyptian name for granite was m3t. Originally the term encompassed dark-colored diorites and gabbros as well, but in the New Kingdom the word m3t became specialized to refer only to the red granite of Aswan.p.16

Aston identified the red granite of Aswan as a porphyritic hornblende biotite granite that has more than 20% of quartz. Aswan’s red granite consists of a unique blend of half pink potassium feldspar and other elements – 15% opaque white plagioclase, 25% translucent grey quartz, 6% black biotite and 3% black hornblende, 1% yellow granular sphene (yellow), and magnetite, apatite, zircon, and epidote. As a result, the Aswan’s granite has a distinctive appearance of 2 main colors and quartz.

In earlier literature, other names for red granite used in Roman times was the red granite of the Wadi el-Fawakhir, which is really a porphyritic biotite granite. The other black and white “granite” from Mons Claudianus is really a hornblende biotite quartz diorite. Both of these rocks were not used in stone vessel production. p.18

“The ancient Egyptian term lnr km, referring to dark-colored, coarsely crystalline rocks as opposed to red granite, is not attested before the New Kingdom.” p. 13

Granite for vessels was exploited from the Early Dynastic Period (Dynasties 1-3) through the Old Kingdom (Dynasties 4). Granite’s use declined after Dynasty 6, likely due to shifting preferences toward softer stones like travertine. She debunks terms like “syenite” (low-quartz plutonic rock) for Aswan granite, confirming it as true granite (>20% quartz), and rejects “grey granite” or “black granite” for darker diorites or gabbros.

Overall, hard igneous rocks dominate early periods (Predynastic to Old Kingdom), while softer sedimentary stones prevail later, reflecting technological and economic shifts.

This means that the “super-precise” stone vases made of granite are modern machine-made examples with high probability. They don’t come from the predynastic Egypt, and perhaps these vases were created as artful objects in other time periods (the late 19th-early 20th century?) The pattern of real Egyptian Aswan red granite is visually different from all precise granite vases shown in a file titled “2023 Danville Metal Stamping Vase Metrology Report” (under Vase Scan Resources Tab) on Uncharted X website.

Examples of the Granite stone and its use in Ancient Egypt:

As you can see the Egyptian red granite has a specific, mottled pattern that consists of black, red-rose hue and a touch of off-white quartz. Another Egyptian granite (light rock) is of sand/beige color. All these statues exhibit the same pattern style of black hue, although overall coloration may differ some. Ancient Egyptians used granite for statues and sarcophagi with VERY limited stone vessel production.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/543936 Granite Palm Column of Sahure
Old Kingdom, ca. 2458–2446 B.C. 5th dynasty. The stone was quarried at Aswan and ferried downstream five hundred miles to the pyramid site at Abusir.

Red granite column with palm-leaf capital in British museum, EA1385, Excavated/Findspot: Pyramid of Unas, funerary temple https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA1385?selectedImageId=426159001

Granite Sphinx of Hatshepsut, New Kingdom, ca. 1479–1458 B.C., Granite, paint: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/544442 

Granite Stela of King Raneb, dynasty2, Probably originally from Memphite Region, Saqqara, Tomb of Raneb: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/545799 

Kneeling statue of Amenhotep II offering two vases, ca. 1425-1401 BC. Granite, dimensions: 152 x 57 x 79 cm. From Luxor / Thebes, Karnak, Temple of Amun. Drovetti collection (1824). Now in the Egyptian Museum of Turin. Cat. 1375 https://collezioni.museoegizio.it/en-GB/material/Cat_1375 

Recumbent Lion, Old Kingdom, ca. 2575–2450 B.C., granite, Met, Fayum Entrance Area, Herakleopolis (Ihnasya el-Medina), EEF excavations 1890-1891, 2575–2450 B.C https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/549541

The Prudhoe Lions, red granite, Excavated/Findspot: Jebel Barkal (Nubia) (originally from Soleb), British M: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/Y_EA2 

Red granite in the Louvre: E 11104, mummiform funerary servant, 1390-1352 (Amenhotep III)
Discovery site: KV 22, tomb of Amenhotep III , Brought back by Édouard de Villiers du Terrage following the Egyptian Expedition; given by his son to the Louvre in 1906. https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010033470 

mummiform funerary servant, 1390-1352 (Amenhotep III), Discovery site: KV 22, tomb of Amenhotep III
E 11103, KV 22 Tomb of Amenhotep III (West Valley -> Valley of the Kings -> Western Thebes, now in the Louvre, https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010033471 & Red granite statue, time of Amenhotep III, E 17187 https://collections.louvre.fr/en/ark:/53355/cl010004463 

Red granite brooklyn m https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/objects/3621 

Red aswan granite modern: https://elamaarstones.com/product/redaswan-egyptian-granite/ 

https://marmostoneegy.com/product/red-aswan

Petrie’s Misidentifications of Stones in Ancient Egyptian Vessels

Based on Barbara G. Aston’s Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms, W.M.F. Petrie, a pioneering Egyptologist, frequently misidentified stone materials in his publications due to a lack of rigorous geological analysis and/or knowledge. Aston, drawing on petrographic thin sections and fieldwork, systematically corrects these errors throughout her book, particularly in Chapter 2 (Materials) and the Conclusions (Chapter 4). Petrie’s misidentifications often stemmed from reliance on visual appearance (e.g., color, texture, or veining) rather than mineral composition, leading to arbitrary or inconsistent terminology that caused confusion in later scholarship. Below, I outline the major examples highlighted by Aston with references to Petrie’s errors and Aston’s corrections.

While syenite and porphyry are two types of diorite, Petrie puts “syenite” in his “granite” category, and “porphyry” into “porphyritic rocks”. Petrie and others used the terms “porphyritic rock” and “porphyry” to describe other rocks, like a granite or a basalt.

Type A hornblende diorite was called “porphyry” or “porphyritic rock” by Petrie and this name was adopted by GARSTANG, QUIBELL, and REISNER in the publication of their Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom excavations. p.13 As Petrie applied these terms arbitrarily, and with no relation to their true geologic meaning, much confusion has resulted. p.14

• Petrie mislabeled siltstone calling it “slate”. p.29 He also came up with a term ‘durite’ to describe a range of green rocks, used in scarabs and amulets. He labeled diorite gneiss as “diorite”. “Chephren diorite” used to describe a diorite gneiss.
• Petrie called highly-colored limestones “marble”.p.36
• Petrie called the recrystallized limestone “grey marble” and ‘saccharine marble with grey bands’, or a “grey and white saccharine marble”.p.40
• Petrie called dolomite “geobertide’ and ‘dolomite marble’.
• He called anhydrite “blue marble.” Red and white limestone breccia was named “breccia” or “red and white breccia” by Petrie. Other archeologists called it “red breccia.”
• Petrie places a category of “metamorphic” rocks within his “volcanic” vessels, confusing two fundamentally different classes of rocks.p.54
• Petrie used the term “steaschist” to describe “steatite” for talc rocks.p.60

Therefore, literary descriptions of stone vessels from early literature are pointless without a picture confirming the description. These findings challenge and refine earlier works by Petrie, Lucas, and Reisner, emphasizing scientific rigor over visual assessment of archeologists without the geological insight.

Broader Implications from Aston’s Analysis

Aston attributes Petrie’s errors to the era’s limited tools—no thin sections or chemical tests—and his focus on archaeology over geology. This led to overreliance on macroscopic traits, inconsistent catalogs (e.g., contradictions in Stone and Metal Vases), and invented terms like “durite” or “steaschist.” These misidentifications propagated in works by Lucas and Reisner, skewing understandings of quarry sources, chronology, and ancient terms. Aston’s major finding: Many “hard” stones Petrie identified were softer or altered versions, preferred for durability in carving.

While exemplary, the book has limitations inherent to its dissertation origins. The focus on pre-1989 data means some later discoveries (e.g., advanced geochemical analyses) are absent, though Aston’s methods remain foundational. The forms chapter, while useful, could integrate more statistical analysis of shape evolution.

In Conclusion

This is an indispensable resource for Egyptologists, geologists, and archaeologists studying ancient Egyptian stone vessels production. Aston’s integration of fieldwork, lab analysis, and typological study provides a model for interdisciplinary research. The book’s emphasis on accurate identification of stones fosters great understanding of trade, technology, vase dating, and cultural preferences in ancient Egypt. it The correctly identified stone in a vessel can reveal the dating of the vessel regardless its shape. It’s also possible to track the vessel to its original source. Aston does a remarkable job compiling known vessels with provenance into a catalog of forms. So by identifying the correct stone type used in ancient Egypt and ancient quarry sources, the author gives us a spectrum of dates when the specific stone vessels were created. Some rocks appeared similar to the eye but differ significantly in thin section under the microscope. She lists provenance of each stone vessel under each form!

Her research also closes the argument about the granite use in stone vase production in ancient Egypt. Ancient Egyptians didn’t really use granite to manufacture stone vessels but used it a lot to manufacture statues, sarcophagi, columns, etc. Only one, unfinished granite vase was listed in the book with a few other ones mentioned in earlier literature (that was probably a mislabeled stone). Therefore, all ‘super-precise’ granite vases are not coming from the Predynastic Egypt.

Where to buy this book:

Here is a list of online sites where Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels: Materials and Forms by Barbara G. Aston (published in 1994 by Heidelberger Orientverlag) is available for purchase. This is a specialized academic book, so it’s often sold as used or rare copies through booksellers rather than new from the publisher. Availability and prices can vary, so check the sites for current stock.

• Amazon: Available in various editions and regions (e.g., US, Belgium, Spain). Search for the ISBN 3927552127.
• AbeBooks: Multiple used copies from independent sellers, with international shipping options.
• eBay: Listings for used copies, including from sellers specializing in Egyptology books.
• Meretseger Books: A specialist in Egyptology and ancient history books; offers first editions and rare copies.
• Biblio: Aggregates from booksellers; includes detailed listings for used copies.
• BooksRun: Focuses on textbooks and academic books; available for purchase or rental in some cases.

If you see a mistake, contact: nika@veronicasart.com

Tracing the Source: the Provenance of Ancient Egyptian Artifacts

Unveiling Naqada Enigma: Aliens or Ancient Ingenuity? Predynastic Egyptian Vessels, Tools, Materials, and Technology

Art books from the artist: