 Moorey was unconvinced the artifact was indeed a vase , mentioning that Selimkhanov , after his analysis of the Tello object ( published in 1975 ) , " attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony " ( i.e. native metal ) and that " the antimony objects from Transcaucasia are all small personal ornaments . " This weakens the evidence for a lost art " of rendering antimony malleable . " 
 Moorey was unconvinced the artifact was indeed a vase , mentioning that Selimkhanov , after his analysis of the Tello object ( published in 1975 ) , " attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony " ( i.e. native metal ) and that " the antimony objects from Transcaucasia <a href='drop_aux' title='1'><mark>are</mark></a>all small personal ornaments . " This <a href='uninflect' title='2'><mark>weakens</mark></a> the evidence for a lost art " of rendering antimony malleable . " 
Moorey was unconvinced da artifact was indeed a vase , mentioning dat Selimkhanov , after his analysis of the Tello object ( published in 1975 ) , " attempted to relate the metal to Transcaucasian natural antimony " ( i.e. native metal ) and tdat" the antimony objects from Transcaucasia alll small personal ornaments . " dis weaken the evidence for a lost art " of rendering antimony malleable . "