I would like to declare I like your internet persona, I value your contribution here, consider you a very intelligent and
demonstrably knowledgeable individual. I preface this comment thus, as an attempt to remove doubt that I have gone crazy, hostile
and just want to argue for the sake of it. No, it is rather to share ideas, thrash things out , and learn.
Jon Ellison wrote:
> How can you possibly determine that the columns are unfinished
> ..?? Speculation???
> You speculate that these perfectly circular base rings which
> clearly display accurately cut, flat, sharp cornered vertical
> right angles are unfinished??
Jon, I gather the implication of these two sentences is that you consider that the columns at the MC quarry are finished?
The only other alternative is that you are pointing out to Lover that it is only "speculation" or subjective conjecture.
So, let me ask you (to ask yourself) how do you " possibly determine" that the columns are finished.
Would that be just "Speculation???"
No, you offer the information about the degree of perfect finish you observe.
So if they are finished, and given you have stated several times they are "finished" to a state you have never seen before anywhere
in Greek Roman or Egyptian …anywhere, then you must be declaring them to be one off, bespoke, Mons Claudianus specials!
They are therefore either specific to that one site, or of a genre not in evidence anywhere in the known world.
If so, then what would the Romans want with them? You declare later that they aren't appropriate for things like the Pantheon. You imply they could not be re finished in Rome to match what is at The Pantheon.
Yet you seem to imply elsewhere, that the granite columns of Rome were appropriated from some other culture somewhere. Did they go searching…. for exactly the right …..desired finish to repurpose from some unknown culture or architectural era?
Or are you suggesting that Romans made their own granite columns, from scratch, elsewhere?
If so where?
Do you dispute the information provided by Thanos that Romans had a presence at MC region for several hundred years , with multiple quarries, infrastructure, roads , wadi boat loading points, and several artefacts in stone in Rome that match exactly the material qualities of quarries from that region?
If so, how and why? What is the reason or “evidence” for such speculation?
> Is that your logical explanation for them having base rings
> that look absolutely nothing like the numerous roman columns
> posted by Thanos.??
> Furthermore. Because they do not look like Roman columns you go
> on to identify them and categorize them as Roman columns???
> How can they be identified as Roman columns if they look
> nothing like Roman columns??
> We identify columns much like many other things, totally by
> their appearance.
> Look at the photographs you have posted .
> They are totally different.
> Not of the same appearance.
> Visually incompatible.
> Not one of the same thing.
> In fact, as for as column shaft identification and
> categorisation is concerned they could not be more different,
> (shape of base and top rings)
It seems to me that you absolutely base your claim of the columns being unrelated, primarily on the shape of the base or ends of the column as shown in the pictures Lover posted
Now I ask you for your objective, considered, serious, opinion.
Are you declaring that is not possible to further sculpt those granite columns to the final state shown at Pantheon?
If so why? Is it because you consider the width of the MC columns bases to be too narrow to accommodate all those fluted bulging rings at the base ?
Let’s step through it. PLEASE!
First let’s look at the top of the capitals, or the fancy top, of the columns.
No problem achieving that from the MC blank is there surely? If you think a there is a problem what is it?
I suggest that that fancy work, to be in public display for millennia, would be the master craftsman’s job.
This work would produce delicate easily damaged fine worked stone and would therefore be best performed on final construction site. Would you agree? If not, why not?
Secondly, let us re examine some of the pictures you have been asked to consider and make some observations.
Do those pedestals or bases (somewhat yellow colour) look to you to be the same stone and extension of the column?
What about the pedestals or bases (nice shiny white) do they look to be the same stone and extension of the column?
Thirdly, let’s look again at the Pantheon
Do you agree the square pedestal is a separate piece of stone? If not why not?
Subject to the width of the large base ring on the MC blank being wide enough, do you agree that ring base could be sculpted and reduced to form those ornate fluted rings? If not why not?
I draw your attention to the middle front column in view.
Do you see at the middle of the square base a join line passing through the entire ringed base?
Do you note the bulging immediately at the bottom of column before the ringed base?
Could not these ringed bases be separate, but identical type stone, which forms a tight interlocking skirt at the base? If not why not?
There we have it.
I contend that the MC blanks could be sculpted on site to conform to those in evidence at Pantheon.
Further that it would be the ideal method.
The master craftsman on site for ornate delicate work do not have to fuss about the finish of the vast circular column section.,
Maybe you can't agree?
My sincerest kindest regards