PDA

View Full Version : Ancient Greek 'Masterpiece' Revealed on Thumb-Size Gem



Raphael
11-20-2017, 02:29 PM
An article from National Geographic this month details the find of a 3500 piece of artwork of stunning quality and detail on a piece of agate the size of your thumb.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/2017/11/7/griffin-warrior/01-griffin-warrior-pylos.adapt.590.1.jpg

The problem that the stone has thrown to archaeologists is from the tomb of a warrior who died 3500 years ago, and the detail is "incomprehensibly small" with some details less than a millimeter long. This suggests that the carver had to have used magnifying glasses, but we don't have any record in this time period of them having knowledge of magnifying glasses.


"They're incomprehensibly small," said University of Cincinnati professor Jack Davis in a press release.

In an interview, Davis further explained that works of art made with such detail wouldn't be seen for another 1,000 years.

"[Other works of art] bear as much resemblance as a Mickey Mouse cartoon to Michelangelo," he said.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/greek-sealstone-gemstone-combat-griffin-warrior-tomb-spd/

Teallaura
11-20-2017, 03:25 PM
Cool!

rogue06
11-20-2017, 03:50 PM
Could have used a jar full of water which can significantly magnify things. Or perhaps the artist used a piece of naturally formed convex crystal.

Raphael
11-20-2017, 06:45 PM
Could have used a jar full of water which can significantly magnify things. Or perhaps the artist used a piece of naturally formed convex crystal.

The jar of water would be a problem as I don't think they had many glass jars/plastic bottles1 3500 years ago.

The crystal is possible. I've seen some very very clear quartz crystals.

The thing is the level of detail means that once again we need to revise the "ancient humans were dumb, hur hur" narrative favored by a number of folk.

Sparko
11-21-2017, 10:04 AM
obviously the answer is obvious.


24994

Cerebrum123
11-21-2017, 10:41 AM
obviously the answer is obvious.


24994

Either that or an oopart left behind by a time traveler. :yes:


Anyway, it's an impressive piece of artwork even if it wasn't on such a tiny piece of agate.

Teallaura
11-21-2017, 11:42 AM
Could have used a jar full of water which can significantly magnify things. Or perhaps the artist used a piece of naturally formed convex crystal.
Transparent glass that well made?

Forget magnification - who the heck did they make tools precise enough and hard enough?

Raphael
11-21-2017, 12:37 PM
The jar of water would be a problem as I don't think they had many glass jars/plastic bottles1 3500 years ago.

The crystal is possible. I've seen some very very clear quartz crystals.

The thing is the level of detail means that once again we need to revise the "ancient humans were dumb, hur hur" narrative favored by a number of folk.

Forgot to add my superscript comment:

1.) here in NZ a few years ago there was a problem with a brand of bottled water, where the shape of the bottle meant that when full it made a very good lense and would end up melting holes in car seats when left in the sun.
http://tvnz.co.nz/content/1072401/2483318.xhtml

Cerebrum123
11-21-2017, 03:53 PM
Transparent glass that well made?

Forget magnification - who the heck did they make tools precise enough and hard enough?

The Doctor! :yes:

Maybe they should zoom in on it and see if they can find a Police Box. :teeth:

:outtie:

shunyadragon
01-02-2018, 08:05 AM
The jar of water would be a problem as I don't think they had many glass jars/plastic bottles1 3500 years ago.

The crystal is possible. I've seen some very very clear quartz crystals.

The thing is the level of detail means that once again we need to revise the "ancient humans were dumb, hur hur" narrative favored by a number of folk.

Nice discovery concerning ancient human skills, but not unique.

Maybe some layman 'folks' believe this unfortunate fallacy. This is not the view of scientists of the intellect of Neolithic and Bronze age humans. Numerous rather advanced items have been found world wide including an aerodynamically designed weapon made from elephant tusk that is capable of killing a large animal from a considerable distance. Analysis shows that the weapon requires considerable learned skill to use properly.

Ancient Chinese cultures before ~2000 BCE carved detailed jade works using very fine tools drills.laths and saws made for harder silicate stones.

Teallaura
01-02-2018, 08:16 AM
Nice discovery concerning ancient human skills, but not unique.

Maybe some layman believe this unfortunate fallacy. This is not the view of scientists of the intellect of Neolithic and Bronze age humans. Numerous rather advanced items have been found world wide including an aerodynamically designed weapon made from elephant tusk that is capable of killing a large animal from a considerable distance. Analysis shows that the weapon requires considerable learned skill to use properly.

Ancient Chinese cultures before ~2000 BCE carved detailed jade works using drills.laths and saws made for harder silicate stones.
Read the thread, please. You didn't address either the actual issue - magnification - or my side issue - precision. I'm well aware that ancients had tools and could carve stone - but machining such fine tools is not something I've seen the evidence for.

shunyadragon
01-02-2018, 08:21 AM
Read the thread, please. You didn't address either the actual issue - magnification - or my side issue - precision. I'm well aware that ancients had tools and could carve stone - but machining such fine tools is not something I've seen the evidence for.

I read the post and the issue of magnification is not a significant issue.

You may not have seen it, but it is common in ancient Chinese jade carvings. I have collected and studied Neolithic Jade carvings of China for many years and some of their works are as fine as the one you cite.

Sparko
01-02-2018, 12:56 PM
I read the post and the issue of magnification is not a significant issue.

You may not have seen it, but it is common in ancient Chinese jade carvings. I have collected and studied Neolithic Jade carvings of China for many years and some of their works are as fine as the one you cite.

post a picture of such a comparison.

shunyadragon
01-02-2018, 03:22 PM
Read the thread, please. You didn't address either the actual issue - magnification - or my side issue - precision. I'm well aware that ancients had tools and could carve stone - but machining such fine tools is not something I've seen the evidence for.

What do you propose as alternative to simply the creative artistic technology of human abilities?

shunyadragon
01-02-2018, 03:25 PM
post a picture of such a comparison.

Simply google ancient Chinese jade carvings for a selection of carving from over the millennia.

What do you propose for source of the carving if not natural creative artistic abilities of humans? Aliens?

Cerebrum123
01-02-2018, 03:27 PM
What do you propose as alternative to simply the creative artistic technology of human abilities?

Nobody is proposing an alternative, just stating that our knowledge of their own technical capacities must be extremely incomplete since they apparently can create such artifacts.

Teallaura
01-02-2018, 03:50 PM
What do you propose as alternative to simply the creative artistic technology of human abilities?
Post your evidence - you've stated there's nothing unusual about this despite at least one expert stating otherwise. Burden is yours, post it.

Quit answering the same post over and over again.

Possible answers:
1) Incorrect dating
2) Anachronistic placement
3) ET is just yanking your chain.
4) Previously unknown tooling capabilities.
5) An angel dropped it.
6) Medieval forger (they forged everything else supposedly).
7) Underwater carving - tedious as heck since the light would be a major issue.
8) Modern forgery.
9) Bigfoot's toenail after his pedicure - it shrinks, you know.
10) Shrinky Dink and stupid archaeologist that didn't know what it was.
11) You're a twit.

Take you pick - I still want to see the machining capability to get something hard and small enough to do that in period.

Sparko
01-03-2018, 06:39 AM
Simply google ancient Chinese jade carvings for a selection of carving from over the millennia.

What do you propose for source of the carving if not natural creative artistic abilities of humans? Aliens?

I know it was done by a human. duh. But he must have used some techniques unknown to us.

You said you collected such jade pieces that compared to the carving. Take a photo and show us. Put it next to something to show scale.

tabibito
01-04-2018, 04:30 AM
Diamond stylus in a pantograph, perhaps.

Sparko
01-04-2018, 08:28 AM
Diamond stylus in a pantograph, perhaps.

Except pantographs were invented in the 17th century.

...as far as we know.

Raphael
01-04-2018, 10:33 AM
As the others have said, it's not the artistic ability demonstrated in the piece. It's that we have no other Greek piece of from that era with that level of detail. and it's not us saying that, it's the experts in the field saying that.

Second our current knowledge of the skills and tools of the artists of that era cannot explain how the piece was made. This is not to say we think it was made by aliens, or some other mysterious means, what it does say is that there is a major hole in our knowledge of the skills and tools available in that era, and it is intriguing to speculate both how they made the piece and what other skills and tools they had that we think were only available centuries and millennia later.

I would like to see photos of the claim that there are Chinese jade miniatures from the same era with the same level of detail and, as with this piece, I would like to know how they made them.

Sparko
01-04-2018, 12:26 PM
I would like to see photos of the claim that there are Chinese jade miniatures from the same era with the same level of detail and, as with this piece, I would like to know how they made them.

Me too. Still waiting for Shuny to produce. I googled it and there is nothing like this at that scale and detail in jade. They made small jade statues but looks mostly like trinket stuff. Nothing ancient even close to this. Shuny just likes to pretend to be superior and then not come through when asked to prove his claims.

But I could be wrong. He could be uploading photos right now. Right now. right..

shunyadragon
01-06-2018, 06:31 AM
Diamond stylus in a pantograph, perhaps.

Actually, not necessary, agate is a silica, which is a hardness of seven, as in China agates, and other rocks of a hardness of seven or less were used in detailed abrasive carving, diamonds are not necessary. In China these techniques of using stone to to intricately carve stone were used up until the 18th-19th century.

shunyadragon
01-06-2018, 06:34 AM
As the others have said, it's not the artistic ability demonstrated in the piece. It's that we have no other Greek piece of from that era with that level of detail. and it's not us saying that, it's the experts in the field saying that.

Second our current knowledge of the skills and tools of the artists of that era cannot explain how the piece was made. This is not to say we think it was made by aliens, or some other mysterious means, what it does say is that there is a major hole in our knowledge of the skills and tools available in that era, and it is intriguing to speculate both how they made the piece and what other skills and tools they had that we think were only available centuries and millennia later.

I would like to see photos of the claim that there are Chinese jade miniatures from the same era with the same level of detail and, as with this piece, I would like to know how they made them.


Actually, not necessary, agate is a silica, which is a hardness of seven, as in China agates, and other rocks of a hardness of seven or less were used in detailed abrasive carving, diamonds are not necessary. In China these techniques of using stone to to intricately carve stone were used up until the 18th-19th century.

Sparko must be blind the jade carving pictures I googled had equivalent detail even on a larger more detailed scale.

Raphael
01-07-2018, 02:47 PM
Actually, not necessary, agate is a silica, which is a hardness of seven, as in China agates, and other rocks of a hardness of seven or less were used in detailed abrasive carving, diamonds are not necessary. In China these techniques of using stone to to intricately carve stone were used up until the 18th-19th century.

Sparko must be blind the jade carving pictures I googled had equivalent detail even on a larger more detailed scale.

1.) I thought you said that you had miniatures from the period.
2.) You have not provided any links (from Google or otherwise) to the pieces you're saying Sparko is ignoring.

Are there Chinese pieces, from the same period, with the same level of fine detail? I want to see the pictures and the articles about them because I am genuinely interested in it. I also would love to know how they made them with the level of detail we see in this piece as the current view from the experts is we don't know how they managed such fine detail as we thought the technology to do so was only developed centuries and millennia later.

rogue06
01-07-2018, 03:04 PM
A few images of the "Pylos Combat Agate" from a Science Alert article (https://www.sciencealert.com/bronze-age-greek-sealstone-pylos-combat-griffin-warrior-art-history)



25844

before & after cleaning

25845
3.6 cm (1.4") long

25846

shunyadragon
01-08-2018, 05:51 AM
1.) I thought you said that you had miniatures from the period.
2.) You have not provided any links (from Google or otherwise) to the pieces you're saying Sparko is ignoring.

Are there Chinese pieces, from the same period, with the same level of fine detail? I want to see the pictures and the articles about them because I am genuinely interested in it. I also would love to know how they made them with the level of detail we see in this piece as the current view from the experts is we don't know how they managed such fine detail as we thought the technology to do so was only developed centuries and millennia later.

In China the technology of carving detail in amorphous stones like jade, agates, and other jade like stones dates to the same time as the Greek carving. The pictures cover a wide range of dates from the Neolithic to the 19th century. The techniques as previously described remained the same traditional techniques of using stones to carve stones in great detail up until the introduction of steel tools in the late 18th and 19th century for mass produced non-traditional carving. Even in the Neolithic Chinese developed drills, laths, and grinding wheels made of hard stone (hardness of 7.0 and greater. Even today some carvings have preserved the ancient techniques of stone carving stone by abrasion. The Chinese have a great reverence to do things the traditional way the ancient Chinese did.

I may post some of pictures in the future they are on CDs and I have to dig them out. My best piece is pale green nephrite of a bunch of grapes with a mouse about the same size as the Greek carving. It shows intricate life like detail of the vine. grape leaves, and mouse ears.

Sparko
01-08-2018, 08:10 AM
Actually, not necessary, agate is a silica, which is a hardness of seven, as in China agates, and other rocks of a hardness of seven or less were used in detailed abrasive carving, diamonds are not necessary. In China these techniques of using stone to to intricately carve stone were used up until the 18th-19th century.

Sparko must be blind the jade carving pictures I googled had equivalent detail even on a larger more detailed scale.

Shuny, you said you collected such pieces and they were equivalent to the piece in the OP


I read the post and the issue of magnification is not a significant issue.

You may not have seen it, but it is common in ancient Chinese jade carvings. I have collected and studied Neolithic Jade carvings of China for many years and some of their works are as fine as the one you cite.

Yet now you are admitting that not only do you not HAVE such pieces in your collection, that you merely googled them and they are NOT of equivalent size.

As usual, you find the need to stick your mouth where it doesn't belong so you can claim to be some sort of expert, when you apparently can't even use google correctly.

shunyadragon
01-08-2018, 04:18 PM
1.) I thought you said that you had miniatures from the period.
2.) You have not provided any links (from Google or otherwise) to the pieces you're saying Sparko is ignoring.

Are there Chinese pieces, from the same period, with the same level of fine detail? I want to see the pictures and the articles about them because I am genuinely interested in it. I also would love to know how they made them with the level of detail we see in this piece as the current view from the experts is we don't know how they managed such fine detail as we thought the technology to do so was only developed centuries and millennia later.

google Chinese jade carvings. The same technology of using hard stone tools to carve amorphous stone like agate and nephrite did not change in China for millennia. The current experts cited only mentioned the apparent technology known in Greece.

The following reference describes Neolithic jade culture carvings from 4900 BCE

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/east-asian-art/jade-carving.htm

rogue06
01-08-2018, 04:51 PM
google Chinese jade carvings. The same technology of using hard stone tools to carve amorphous stone like agate and nephrite did not change in China for millennia. The current experts cited only mentioned the apparent technology known in Greece.
I did and looking at even later pieces, such as this larger (3" tall) one from the Western Zhou dynasty (9th-8th century B.C.) which is considered a splendid piece (selling for $100,000 at an auction at Christies in 2016 (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/jewelry/a-very-rare-and-superb-pale-greenish-yellow-5978459-details.aspx?from=salesummery&intObjectID=5978459&sid=f399ef3a-41da-4e2a-86e3-8d5d380cab2a)), it looks flat and lifeless in contrast to the "Pylos Combat Agate."



25884


Here are a couple rare pieces from the time of the Shang dynasty (the start of which is contemporaneous to when the Greek stone was carved) size unknown.


25885

25886



Again, no comparison to



25887

Sparko
01-09-2018, 05:31 AM
google Chinese jade carvings. The same technology of using hard stone tools to carve amorphous stone like agate and nephrite did not change in China for millennia. The current experts cited only mentioned the apparent technology known in Greece.

The following reference describes Neolithic jade culture carvings from 4900 BCE

http://www.visual-arts-cork.com/east-asian-art/jade-carving.htm

ok

25890

This is nowhere the size or complexity of the Greek piece. You are wrong.

Sparko
01-09-2018, 05:35 AM
I did and looking at even later pieces, such as this larger (3" tall) one from the Western Zhou dynasty (9th-8th century B.C.) which is considered a splendid piece (selling for $100,000 at an auction at Christies in 2016 (http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/jewelry/a-very-rare-and-superb-pale-greenish-yellow-5978459-details.aspx?from=salesummery&intObjectID=5978459&sid=f399ef3a-41da-4e2a-86e3-8d5d380cab2a)), it looks flat and lifeless in contrast to the "Pylos Combat Agate."



25884


Here are a couple rare pieces from the time of the Shang dynasty (the start of which is contemporaneous to when the Greek stone was carved) size unknown.


25885

25886



Again, no comparison to



25887

And it is not just the realistic detail, it is the action pose. The Greek piece would look at home in a Michelangelo painting. The Jade stuff shunya keeps on about is just decorative hair pieces and abstract statues, all much larger and less detailed. And the fact that he can't come up with examples on his own but tells us to google it... that shows he has nothing but smoke.

tabibito
01-09-2018, 05:48 AM
And it is not just the realistic detail, it is the action pose. The Greek piece would look at home in a Michelangelo painting. The Jade stuff shunya keeps on about is just decorative hair pieces and abstract statues, all much larger and less detailed. And the fact that he can't come up with examples on his own but tells us to google it... that shows he has nothing but smoke.

My own google searches aren't producing any support for Shunyadragon's claims.

shunyadragon
01-09-2018, 05:56 AM
ok

25890

This is nowhere the size or complexity of the Greek piece. You are wrong.

I believe it is and made of a similar material and Neolithic techniques of the time of the Greek Greek carving. In fact it shows three dimensional detail and very fine life like stems as thin as a thread. I have seen these carvings before.

Wrong about what?!?!?!

That human creativity can create finely detailed carvings using stones to carve stones. Your really picking frog hairs here on the differences.

tabibito
01-09-2018, 06:01 AM
ok

25890

This is nowhere the size or complexity of the Greek piece. You are wrong.

Even it it was (and I concur that it isn't) there is the description of the hairpiece to be considered.
Jade Hair Ornament
with Flower Design
Jin/Song Dynasty (1115-1234)
Shanghai Museum.

Cerebrum123
01-09-2018, 06:03 AM
ok

25890

This is nowhere the size or complexity of the Greek piece. You are wrong.

shunyadragon is just talking out his butt, like usual. He's unwilling to accept that he might be wrong on something like this. I don't know why he chose to dig his heels in on such a topic, but then again it is shunyadragon.

shunyadragon
01-09-2018, 06:07 AM
Even it it was (and I concur that it isn't) there is the description of the hairpiece to be considered.
Jade Hair Ornament
with Flower Design
Jin/Song Dynasty (1115-1234)
Shanghai Museum.

Your conclusion is problematic. The Chinese carving is made with Neolithic techniques of carving stone with stone and the detail is three dimensional, life like and as fine or finer than the Greek example. Steel carving tools were not available, and brass and bronze are too soft.

Sparko and you are just talking out his butt, like usual. Both of you unwilling to accept that you both might you may be wrong on something like this, since you have absolutely no experience in this and only arguing from on news release. I don't know why you both chose to dig your heels on such a topic, but then again it is just Sparko and you arguing from ignorance.

Chinese jade carvings, techniques, and Chinese culture are my specialties for over thirty years with nine years living in China.

Cerebrum123
01-09-2018, 06:08 AM
Your conclusion is problematic. The Chinese carving is made with Neolithic techniques of carving stone with stone and the detail is three dimensional, life like and as fine or finer than the Greek example. Steel carving tools were not available, and brass and bronze are too soft.

You need glasses if you think they are anywhere near the same level of detail.

tabibito
01-09-2018, 06:17 AM
Your conclusion is problematic. The Chinese carving is made with Neolithic techniques of carving stone with stone and the detail is three dimensional, life like and as fine or finer than the Greek example. Steel carving tools were not available, and brass and bronze are too soft.

Sparko and you are just talking out his butt, like usual. Both of you unwilling to accept that you both might you may be wrong on something like this, since you have absolutely no experience in this and only arguing from on news release. I don't know why you both chose to dig your heels on such a topic, but then again it is just Sparko and you arguing from ignorance.

Chinese jade carvings, techniques, and Chinese culture are my specialties for over thirty years with nine years living in China.

Plenty of techniques produce different results when improved tools are used. Your claim was for 3000+ year old examples - you haven't produced anything by way of substantiation.

Sparko
01-09-2018, 07:22 AM
I believe it is and made of a similar material and Neolithic techniques of the time of the Greek Greek carving. In fact it shows three dimensional detail and very fine life like stems as thin as a thread. I have seen these carvings before.

Wrong about what?!?!?!

That human creativity can create finely detailed carvings using stones to carve stones. Your really picking frog hairs here on the differences.

The entire greek piece we are discussing would fit inside one of those flowers, Shunya. You are wrong about the jade carvers having the same skill/technical level as the Greek piece.

tabibito
01-09-2018, 07:27 AM
The following reference describes Neolithic jade culture carvings from 4900 BCE


Nuff said

Raphael
01-09-2018, 12:05 PM
Shunya, let me get this straight: you claim just because because you think that the Chinese techniques of jade/stone carving remained unchanged from the Neolithic to the late 18th/early 19th century (AD) that because later Jade pieces exhibit the same/similar detail as the Pylos Combat Agate (PCA) this is evidence that Neolithic Chinese carvers could have done the same.

The problem with this is that the actual jade pieces we have that are from that time "bear as much resemblance as a Mickey Mouse cartoon to Michelangelo" to the PCA (to quote Professor Jack Davis). The jade pieces are good. For arguments sake I will even agree they are probably better than the majority of contemporary Greek works. The problem is that like the contemporary Greek pieces they are much larger than the PCA and the level of detail is not as minute (one of the problems with figuring out how the PCA was carved is the fact that to see all the detail you need some pretty decent magnification and the earliest crude magnifying glasses we know about are 1000 years younger than the PCA).

The fact that later Chinese carvers could do such detailed work is irrelevant as so could later Greek carvers, not because the overall technique had changed, but the tools they had available (like magnifying glasses) did. Some details on the PCA are less than 1mm in length, and they are actual detail, not a slip of the artist's tools.

rogue06
01-09-2018, 12:48 PM
ok

25890

This is nowhere the size or complexity of the Greek piece. You are wrong.
While actually a nice piece keep in mind that it is not even a thousand years old (Jin/Song Dynasty: 1115-1234 AD) and not from the Bronze Age


ETA: I see that tabibito has already noted the age difference

shunyadragon
01-11-2018, 05:13 PM
While actually a nice piece keep in mind that it is not even a thousand years old (Jin/Song Dynasty: 1115-1234 AD) and not from the Bronze Age


ETA: I see that tabibito has already noted the age difference

http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2015/03/09/31671567.html#&ui-state=dialog

Cerebrum123
01-11-2018, 05:18 PM
http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2015/03/09/31671567.html#&ui-state=dialog

Still nowhere near the intricate work on the agate from the OP.

rogue06
01-11-2018, 06:27 PM
http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2015/03/09/31671567.html#&ui-state=dialog
Several nice pieces but none as old as the Pylos Combat Agate

shunyadragon
01-12-2018, 11:53 AM
Still nowhere near the intricate work on the agate from the OP.

Living in denial. The detail is more if not greater than the Greek example.

The following are beads magnified and much smaller than the Greek figure.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/c0/1b/e4c01bba9a5893b7f0ad91053de5f953.jpg

Cerebrum123
01-12-2018, 12:53 PM
Living in denial. The detail is more if not greater than the Greek example.

The following are beads magnified and much smaller than the Greek figure.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/c0/1b/e4c01bba9a5893b7f0ad91053de5f953.jpg

It's some nice work, and those beads are small, but it's still nowhere near as intricate and detailed as the agate in the OP. The fact you are trying to say I'm living in denial about it is rather hilarious given your examples so far.

Teallaura
01-12-2018, 02:53 PM
And for the home audience, a side by side comparison:

2593025931


Um, yeah, right...

shunyadragon
01-12-2018, 07:28 PM
It's some nice work, and those beads are small, but it's still nowhere near as intricate and detailed as the agate in the OP. The fact you are trying to say I'm living in denial about it is rather hilarious given your examples so far.

For the 'Three Stooges' with only in intricate carving from Greece, and absolutely no knowledge of the archaeology of jade and jade=like stones of China, you delusions of illusions is not hilarious it far too pathetic to even be remotely funny.

The beads to scale are less than a quarter of the size of your carving. One difference is also they have found numerous very fine drills and tools in China for making these fine carvings.

rogue06
01-12-2018, 08:11 PM
For the 'Three Stooges' with only in intricate carving from Greece, and absolutely no knowledge of the archaeology of jade and jade=like stones of China, you delusions of illusions is not hilarious it far too pathetic to even be remotely funny.

The beads to scale are less than a quarter of the size of your carving. One difference is also they have found numerous very fine drills and tools in China for making these fine carvings.
All that would be far more convincing if you could produce a single piece from the same time that is of similar quality to the Pylos Combat Agate. So far you have not even come close.

Cerebrum123
01-13-2018, 06:42 AM
For the 'Three Stooges' with only in intricate carving from Greece, and absolutely no knowledge of the archaeology of jade and jade=like stones of China, you delusions of illusions is not hilarious it far too pathetic to even be remotely funny.

The beads to scale are less than a quarter of the size of your carving. One difference is also they have found numerous very fine drills and tools in China for making these fine carvings.

:lol:
The beads are smaller, but the details aren't nearly as intricate. The details themselves are also less refined, and are clearly the result of larger tools.

Get some glasses so you can stop "living in denial".

Jedidiah
01-13-2018, 02:56 PM
For the 'Three Stooges' with only in intricate carving from Greece, and absolutely no knowledge of the archaeology of jade and jade=like stones of China, you delusions of illusions is not hilarious it far too pathetic to even be remotely funny.

Calling names does not make you more convincing. I say this with no axe to grind on either side, I do not have the knowledge to take sides.

Raphael
01-14-2018, 12:24 PM
Living in denial. The detail is more if not greater than the Greek example.

The following are beads magnified and much smaller than the Greek figure.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/c0/1b/e4c01bba9a5893b7f0ad91053de5f953.jpg

You say the beads are magnified (and indeed they are). But there is nothing I can find after doing an image search that gives any indication of the actual size of the pieces.

There is also nothing I can find that gives an actual date.

AND more importantly, the key issue you're completely ignoring, even if the beads have detail as small and as fine as the PCA (and the artwork as brilliant, the art of the beads is crude in comparison) then we are still left with the puzzle of how did they see the level of fine detail.

The problem is not the techniques for carving stone, but the ability to actually see the detail that is being carved. For that you need magnification.

Cerebrum123
01-14-2018, 12:29 PM
You say the beads are magnified (and indeed they are). But there is nothing I can find after doing an image search that gives any indication of the actual size of the pieces.

There is also nothing I can find that gives an actual date.

AND more importantly, the key issue you're completely ignoring, even if the beads have detail as small and as fine as the PCA (and the artwork as brilliant, the art of the beads is crude in comparison) then we are still left with the puzzle of how did they see the level of fine detail.

The problem is not the techniques for carving stone, but the ability to actually see the detail that is being carved. For that you need magnification.

The detail is nowhere near as complex either. Even if those lines in the jade are really tiny, they are just nowhere near as impressive in design.

Adrift
01-14-2018, 12:35 PM
You all realize that there is absolutely NOTHING you can say to change shunyadragon's mind about this, right? He could have the thing in his palm, and he still wouldn't believe his lying eyes.

Cerebrum123
01-14-2018, 12:39 PM
You all realize that there is absolutely NOTHING you can say to change shunyadragon's mind about this, right? He could have the thing in his palm, and he still wouldn't believe his lying eyes.

Good point. On to something more productive. What cartoon is that avatar of yours from? I remember you having something like it a long time ago. I've watched a LOT of cartoons, and it's one I don't recognize at all.

Adrift
01-14-2018, 01:29 PM
Good point. On to something more productive. What cartoon is that avatar of yours from? I remember you having something like it a long time ago. I've watched a LOT of cartoons, and it's one I don't recognize at all.

It's from a French animation from the 80s called Les Mondes Engloutis, otherwise known in English as "Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea". I was already older, and maybe even in my teens by the time I saw it airing in the US on Nickelodeon, so I didn't watch it regularly or anything, but I just liked how bizarre it was. French comics, fantasy, and animation is just so unique and interesting...the work of Moebius, magazines like Metal Hurlant (Heavy Metal in the US), animations like Fantastic Planet and the Triplets of Belleville, and the films Jeunet and Caro. Love that stuff.

The villains of the cartoon were a bunch of bafoonish punk pirates. Here's their theme in French:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBoWD5E3hYQ

Cerebrum123
01-14-2018, 03:02 PM
It's from a French animation from the 80s called Les Mondes Engloutis, otherwise known in English as "Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea". I was already older, and maybe even in my teens by the time I saw it airing in the US on Nickelodeon, so I didn't watch it regularly or anything, but I just liked how bizarre it was. French comics, fantasy, and animation is just so unique and interesting...the work of Moebius, magazines like Metal Hurlant (Heavy Metal in the US), animations like Fantastic Planet and the Triplets of Belleville, and the films Jeunet and Caro. Love that stuff.

The villains of the cartoon were a bunch of bafoonish punk pirates. Here's their theme in French:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBoWD5E3hYQ

That is so bizarre. I would have thought I would have at least heard of it before now though.

I think it was a bit before my time. The stuff that was on regularly when I was a kid was DuckTales, Chip and Dale Rescue Ranger, Darkwing Duck, etc.

I mean, I ended up seeing a lot of Rocky and Bullwinkle, Underdog, and other old stuff, but never this. strange.

There are a decent amount of French/Canadian cartoons and animation I've really enjoyed. Code Lyoko, Atomic Puppet*, League of Super Evil, and Storm Hawks come to mind for now. I'll have to look some of this stuff up for later. :yes:

*This one is new, and hilarious. It's a great parody of super hero stuff. Since Disney XD is working with them, they are given a lot of leeway with references to Marvel characters, so that's pretty cool. If it weren't for the DuckTales reboot I never would have seen it, so I got a lot more out of them doing that than I expected.

Adrift
01-14-2018, 06:22 PM
That is so bizarre. I would have thought I would have at least heard of it before now though.

I think it was a bit before my time. The stuff that was on regularly when I was a kid was DuckTales, Chip and Dale Rescue Ranger, Darkwing Duck, etc.

I mean, I ended up seeing a lot of Rocky and Bullwinkle, Underdog, and other old stuff, but never this. strange.

There are a decent amount of French/Canadian cartoons and animation I've really enjoyed. Code Lyoko, Atomic Puppet*, League of Super Evil, and Storm Hawks come to mind for now. I'll have to look some of this stuff up for later. :yes:

*This one is new, and hilarious. It's a great parody of super hero stuff. Since Disney XD is working with them, they are given a lot of leeway with references to Marvel characters, so that's pretty cool. If it weren't for the DuckTales reboot I never would have seen it, so I got a lot more out of them doing that than I expected.

I think this was on just a few years before the stuff you mentioned like Ducktales and Chip and Dale. It was during a period when Nickelodeon was importing a lot of cool cartoons and shows from other countries like Danger Mouse, Count Duckula, You Can't Do That On Television, and the like. There's actually another cartoon from the same creators of Spartakus called The Mysterious Cities of Gold, but I don't think I ever caught it. The other cartoons you mentioned sound newer, so I haven't heard of them. I don't really watch much animation anymore unless it's films. Looks like a lot of good stuff out there though. The animation is so much better than it was when we were kids.

Cerebrum123
01-15-2018, 06:43 AM
I think this was on just a few years before the stuff you mentioned like Ducktales and Chip and Dale. It was during a period when Nickelodeon was importing a lot of cool cartoons and shows from other countries like Danger Mouse, Count Duckula, You Can't Do That On Television, and the like. There's actually another cartoon from the same creators of Spartakus called The Mysterious Cities of Gold, but I don't think I ever caught it. The other cartoons you mentioned sound newer, so I haven't heard of them. I don't really watch much animation anymore unless it's films. Looks like a lot of good stuff out there though. The animation is so much better than it was when we were kids.

I do remember Danger Mouse and Count Duckula. I watched the latter quite a bit actually. When I was young I would watch just about anything animated, well, that I was allowed to watch anyway. My dad was a bit overly strict when I was young.

Well, I'm not sure I would say the animation has gotten better. For evidence of the contrary you can look at a lot of the stuff on Disney XD, and Cartoon Network. They have stuff like Uncle Grandpa, Clarence, Hector and Korvich, and some of the other garbage out there. I mean, Hector and Korvich looks worse than art I've seen by little kids.

From the late 1980's to around 2010 I was almost always able to find at least 2 or 3 good cartoons on any channel with animation. Now, I'm lucky if I find 1. Right now Disney XD is the only channel I've been able to find with anything decent, and even then it's overrun by the amount of garbage.

Anyway, some of the stuff I mentioned, especially Atomic Puppet are things you might look into when you have more free time than usual. Especially Atomic Puppet since it's cut into ~15 minute chunks for most episodes.

Like you I hadn't been watching much animation outside of movies recently, until they did the DuckTales reboot. I wanted to give it a chance since the animation looked decent. Although admittedly it was just different enough to be a bit off putting at first. I was delightfully surprised by it, since reboots tend to be pretty bad*. Since then I got into Atomic Puppet, and bought stuff like the original DuckTales Season 1 and 2. For Christmas I was also given some Looney Tunes cartoons, a DVD set with Dexter's Lab, Johnny Bravo, Ed, Edd, and Eddy(not really a fan of that one), and Courage the Cowardly Dog. Unfortunately it only comes with like half of season one for each of those. I guess you get what you pay for. :sigh:

*Looking at yo Teen Titans Go!. :glare:

Sparko
01-16-2018, 10:54 AM
Living in denial. The detail is more if not greater than the Greek example.

The following are beads magnified and much smaller than the Greek figure.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/c0/1b/e4c01bba9a5893b7f0ad91053de5f953.jpg

So how old are these beads? and give source info backing it up.

The details are small but I would not say as good as the greek one. Just simple lines carved into the beads. No three dimensionality. No composition. Just decorative.

Sparko
01-16-2018, 11:02 AM
You say the beads are magnified (and indeed they are). But there is nothing I can find after doing an image search that gives any indication of the actual size of the pieces.

There is also nothing I can find that gives an actual date.

AND more importantly, the key issue you're completely ignoring, even if the beads have detail as small and as fine as the PCA (and the artwork as brilliant, the art of the beads is crude in comparison) then we are still left with the puzzle of how did they see the level of fine detail.

The problem is not the techniques for carving stone, but the ability to actually see the detail that is being carved. For that you need magnification.

Well they say that people were smaller back then. Maybe they were REALLY smaller. :lol: