> Hi Ori
> Origyptian wrote:
> > I've described several aspects of the physical evidence that
> > contradict the notion that those blocks were quarried in Egypt
> > by the Romans:
> >Those so-called quarries have been
> > described to be self-contained communities complete with bath
> > houses, schools, women, children, rather than industrial quarry
> > outposts, suggesting the columns remaining there today were
> > part of that community's infrastructure.
> Why would anything be left other than that unwanted be left
> if you claim the Romans were
> "acquirers" in this and definitely were thief's at times!? Why
> would it HAVE to be
> the infrastructure other than the rubble , rejects and duds?!
I must have missed your point there. There IS nothing left presumably because it's been pilfered except for the crudest remnants of buildings of poor stonework, and of course the broken columns.
And so the point is, why would it have to be a quarry?
> > The columns remaining in Egypt (at Mons) are completely hewn,
> > shaped, and polished rather than being rough prototypes ready
> > for shipping to a prestaging area at the site of construction
> > where the final shaping/polishing of the surfaces in the
> > finished product was done.
> >Is there any logical explanation of
> > why the construction engineers would take such an unnecessary
> > risk with the final product?
> For any sort of "evidence" I guess you would have to ask a 1 century knowledgeable
> "construction engineers " involved in the project!
And so, unfortunately, such an open question doesn't allow us to conclude it was a quarry either, especially since it defies logic. Otherwise, you cannot simply say they must have used a different logic without stating what it was or provide other hard evidence to support that.
> But the conjecture is almost limitless... how about they had
> all their available stone workers
> at the most elite region for stone the Empire could deserve,
> had a bit of trouble and couldn't afford
> to have quality finishers at Rome.. they needed them for a
> project in Gaul!?
And I disagree with your premise. The conjecture is not limitless. It must be supported by hard evidence. And right now the evidence contradicts the notion that Mons was quarried by Romans for its 60 ton granite columns.
> > All of the columns we see at the "quarry" today were completely
> > finished and polished. None remain only partially quarried,
> > partially shaped, or partially finished. Hardly evidence that
> > the quarry was abandoned. We do see some signs of wedge
> > splitting, but nothing resembling a partially hewn column.
> > There is evidence[[/u] that the Romanesque architecture at those
> > "quarries" is the result of repurposing pre-existing structures
> > that may be far older.
> You keep saying that.. without the evidence except your say so!?
The evidence was presented. You keep missing it:
> > There is no clear explanation regarding why Hadrian required
> > columns to be brought in from Egypt instead of simply tapping
> > the granite quarries in Italy, and that supports the hypothesis
> > that he did so because those columns were already finished in
> > earlier times and were sitting there for the taking by the
> > Roman Empire.[/quote]
> What this explanation stuff..... I thought we were after hard "evidence"?
Exactly, so where is the hard evidence that the 1st millennium Romans quarried granite at Mons?
> trying to indicate , your opinion, is merely conjecture, no
> matter how much you admire it!
And again you've missed the point that I'm not voicing an "opinion" but rather am simply looking for hard evidence that the 1st millennium Romans quarried 60 ton solid columns of granite in Egypt and shipped them intact back to Italy. Where is that evidence?
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?