> Understand that I have great difficulty with accepting that a
> capability existed without any physical evidence to
> authenticate it.
And what physical evidence is missing from Roman history that you require from the Pantheon?
> A decree by Hadrian is not proof that he had
> the wherewithal to do it.
So, for the Egyptians you claim as proof they did none of these things because they didn't write it down. But when the Romans write it down this is not proof as well? Sorry, not following you there. Regardless, again, we also have the quarries the columns were taken from of which there is only a Roman presence, the Pantheon itself which, again, if they could do the rest of it and move the columns in the first place it goes without saying they could make the columns, again, just like the thousands of other columns they used.
Denying the Greeks and Romans their architectural and technological achievements is on par with Moon landing hoaxing and Holocaust denying. Its one thing to delineate Roman and non-Roman architecture at places like Baalbek for obvious reasons, but arguing about columns in particular is absurd as they are the foundation of all Roman and Greek architecture and arguably the most studied ancient architecture form in history. Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Tuscan, blah, blah, blah. They sit on the foundations and hold up the roof and yet the Romans and Greeks could make both and move the columns from afar a field as Egypt but not actually make the columns? Its absurd.
Are we to believe these are the work of a lost civilization as well which you also impose on AE statuary:
(made of bronze, by the way)
And you think pillars are a problem for cultures who can make works of art such as these....?
> As Ulrich pointed out, where are the
> tools, scaffolds, and cranes? The evidence might exist but I am
> unaware of it.
From the Romans? Greeks? But if you are not aware then is not the onus on you to become aware? You look at a curiously cut stone column and think lost civilization yet know little to nothing of the culture it is attributed to and why. And yet you still cling to your beliefs despite your admitted ignorance and vapidly argue against any information given to you that contradicts your beliefs all the same for no other reason than you do not want to accept it. Respectfully, I think this is what MJT was referring to.
> Why shape the waste walls so precisely?
They are not as precise as the columns themselves though, but if the tool was circular then wouldn't we expect the same kinds of marking on the "waste wall"?
> How did they cut under those cores to remove them?
Indeed-how did the Greeks and Romans do this?
> Where is the evidence of methods to lift and position the
Core? You mean drums? And to make the columns? Is it not possible as well that the ground level directly surrounding them was lower leaving what we see today erosion and sediment buildup after over 2,000yrs?
> Have any connecting iron pins been found (or rust in those
The holes were for the "machine of Chersiphron", a Greek inventor of the 6th century. I picture a drawing of it in an earlier post. Unless they left the machine attached to one for no apparent reason there would be nothing to be found.
Quoting the 1st century BC architect Vitruvius:
It will be useful to explain the ingenious contrivance of Chersiphron. When he removed from the quarry the shafts of the columns which he had prepared for the temple of Diana at Ephesus, not thinking it prudent to trust them on carriages, lest their weight should sink the wheels in the soft roads over which they would have to pass, he devised the following scheme. He made a frame of four pieces of timber, two of which were equal in length to the shafts of the columns, and were held together by the two transverse pieces. In each end of the shaft he inserted iron pivots, whose ends were dovetailed thereinto, and run with lead. The pivots worked in gudgeons fastened to the timber frame, whereto were attached oaken shafts. The pivots having a free revolution in the gudgeons, when the oxen were attached and drew the frame, the shafts rolled round, and might have been conveyed to any distance.
The shafts having been thus transported, the entablatures were to be removed, when Metagenes the son of Chersiphron, applied the principle upon which the shafts had been conveyed to the removal of those also. He constructed wheels about twelve feet diameter, and fixed the ends of the blocks of stone whereof the entablature was composed into them; pivots and gudgeons were then prepared to receive them in the manner just described, so that when the oxen drew the machine, the pivots turning in the gudgeons, caused the wheels to revolve, and thus the blocks, being enclosed like axles in the wheels, were brought to the work without delay, as were the shafts of the columns. An example of this species of machine may be seen in the rolling stone used for smoothing the walks in palæstræ. But the method would not have been practicable for any considerable distance. From the quarries to the temple is a length of not more than eight thousand feet, and the interval is a plain without any declivity.
> Where is the detailed description of the tool marks?
Must be out there.
> Why quarry in what is clearly 2 different stages (the 1st ring
> is only a few inches wide)?
This further implies something other than just hammer and chisels. But if not, the first ring would be the guide scribe cut in about 6" or so. The outer ring would be cut and the rock removed between the two rings then repeated.
> How long is required for such bedrock "settling" to occur?
You mean to make the cracks? How about 500yrs? 1,000? Do I hear 2,000yrs? 500BC was a long time ago, ya know. Throw in an earthquake or to to speed up the process for good measure and voila-cracks and settling.
> Where is the analysis of the surface erosion?
And without it this means what? The city and its temples that were made from the quarry are right near by.
> Why are all those cores still sitting there, apparently
Selinus was sacked several times since its founding and was abandoned altogether in around 250BC after the Carthaginians removed the population and destroyed most of the city. In 409BC the Carthaginians attacked the city with an estimated 100,000 troops killing 2/3 of its population and enslaving most of the rest which marked the end of temple building in the city.
Not all of history is such a mystery if you just take the time to look.
> Where is the credible explanation of how/why the Roman
> technologies in 1st millennium BC was forgotten until 2000 yrs
> later in the 15th century AD?
Lol. Case in point. Collapse of the Roman Empire? The sacking of Rome by the Visigoths in 410AD? The Dark Ages? The Crusades? The Plague? The Spanish Inquisition? Maybe you've heard of some of these things before.
> i have difficulty accepting that the OK knew how to quarry and
> shape millions of tons of limestone and granite and then
> somehow lost that technology until the Romans rediscovered how
> to work granite two millennia later, and then it was forgotten
> again until two more millennia later in the 1800s.
That would be difficult to accept if any of it were true. The idea the AE stopped working in granite since the OK is only in your mind. The Chinese used 14 miles of granite blocks to build the 25ft tall Mutianyu section of the Great wall in the 6th century AD:
Was the Great Wall built by your lost civilization too?
> Where is the physical evidence that all that stonework
> originated in the 1st millennium BC?
And what "physical evidence" would this be? Would the city barely 8mi away with numerous temples built with stone from this very quarry conclusively dated to the 6th century BC count? And no other structures built with columns from this quarry found anywhere else before this time?
Post Edited (15-Jun-15 00:58)