> Origyptian wrote:
> > They're all totally complete and just lying there broken amidst
> > the debris. That is a clear sign of a completed settlement
> > whose stonework has been pilfered and repurposed elsewhere. It
> > is not a sign of an abandoned quarry. It far more resembles a
> > ransacked settlement.
> If they ransacked, and preferred to to steal such columns, then
> that contradicts your belief
> that they wouldn't like to finish them there, as they would
> suffer damage as fragile and delicate in a
> finished state.
I disagree with your characterization. If they break one, they could just go back and grab another one. That's still a LOT easier than quarrying a 60 ton granite column from raw bedrock. And one could even suggest that grabbing a ready-made column from Egypt was a lot cheaper and quicker than quarrying/shaping/finishing such a granite monolith right there in Italy. Perhaps they could pack the columns in wood logs as protection. That's still a lot less work then hewning the thing from bedrock. But to suggest they carved it from bedrock in Egypt, shaped it and polished it so precisely and THEN shipped it all the way to Italy (with or without wood packing) simply makes no engineering sense at all, at least to me, and I'm still looking for evidence that indicates that's what they did.
> The book part you read (Thanos posted) says explicitly on page 71
> that they never ever completely finished stone in the quarry but left it oversize
> in case of possible minor transport damage.
To put it simply, I just don't believe that. The surfaces are way to polished, even after a couple thousand years of erosion. That kind of claim rings of an author contriving a story to keep the narrative self-consistent. It's like the claim that G1's passages were designed to be so cramped in order to force the funerary procession into a penitent or respectful bowing position. It's mere contrivance to make it fit the narrative. But there are too many contradictions in the physical evidence that are left unreconciled.
> So if they were ransacked, and then they had to transport and
> finish them or fit them perfectly, etc
> Then , why couldn't they make the lot themselves? Why go to
> another country?
Not sure what you mean about "finish them or fit them perfectly". The hypothesis is that they were already finished and sitting there for the taking in Egypt. In the case of the Pantheon, the architect designed it to fit the pre-fabbed columns already sitting there in Egypt. I am assuming it's a lot less work to ship a finished 60 ton column from Egypt than to go there and quarry the thing from scratch.
Regarding your question about why not make the lot themselves, the two possibilities discussed here so far are (1) Egyptian granite is better suited for the Pantheon than Italian granite, and/or (2) taking a finished column from Egypt is quicker and cheaper than to quarry one from raw bedrock in Italy. Regardless of the reason, they apparently preferred the Egyptian columns than the Italian columns.
> Are you saying that no one up until 18th Century AD, NO ONE
> could make such and everything comes from ..we don't know where!?
Where did you get that idea? I'm simply talking about the Romans procuring pre-fabbed monolithic granite columns that were already sitting there for the taking in Egypt. In my view, doing so was much easier, cheaper, and quicker than quarrying the 60 ton solid granite columns from bedrock regardless of whether the granite is in Italy or Egypt.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?