> Hi Jon
> 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,
> 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
> > ..?? 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???"
The idea that they are unfinished can only be speculation. A guess.
They differ greatly from the Roman images posted by Thanos.
In extreme you could speculate that a block of raw quarried rock is an unfinished column . This of course is speculation. What we see before us today as empirical evidence is not similar in any way to a Roman column.
> 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
> in Greek Roman or Egyptian …anywhere, then you must be
> declaring them to be one off, bespoke, Mons Claudianus
> They are therefore either specific to that one site, or of a
> genre not in evidence anywhere in the known world.
I know of nothing else like it .
> 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.
The Romans obviously didn't want them . They're still in Egypt.
I Try not to imply . Yes of course any piece of rock could be refinished in Rome to any shape or size. But were not looking at roman columns, were looking at anonymous stone cylinders. Anything else is speculation.
> 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?
Rome undoubtedly scavenged masonry from other cultures. That is beyond doubt. Architectural salvage, repurposing has always taken place. Often the new structure being designed around the salvaged items.
> 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
No I don't, but that is not reason enough to believe that the romans are responsible for everything there. The British had a presence there but they are not responsible for everything there. Egyptian masonry is even incorporated into buildings here in England.
> > 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
> > 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
Yes I do, The Column shafts are different, Different base and top rings.. That is how we identify columns as doric, tuscan among others .. As far as I'm aware, These columns are without capitols or bases . Just shafts. Therefore we can only rely on the shafts for categorisation. The rings differ from any roman ring that I know of.
> Now I ask you for your objective, considered, serious,
> 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 ?
The MC column flanges do appear to be too narrow to accommodate a series of rings. However that is not the point. The point is that they are not even a single radiused/ bulging ring, they are straight cut flanges. And yes they could be further modified into lawn rollers.
Yes it is possible to re shape any stone . but that is conjecture and speculation not hard evidence before us.
> 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?
The capitols were usually separate pieces.
A complete column usually consists or a capitol , Ionic, Corinthian etc.
A shaft with rings top and bottom, a base plate also ringed, and a plinth, pad or base usually square.
Four separate pieces.
The design of each the four pieces dictate the column type.
There are also other variations.
> 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
> Maybe you can't agree?
> My sincerest kindest regards
That was complicated. So I'll summarize.
The classification of an ancient column is dependent solely upon the design of the capitol, shaft and base. Here we see only the shafts. They are not fluted, so therefore that would put them among the Tuscan breed.
However the shaft base and top rings are not. I have never seen anything like them so I cannot identify or classify them. There is not enough information there to classify them as anything.
I could speculate that they are all unfinished to exactly the same state but again that would be a guess and not what I see before me.
I could equally argue that they are unfinished lawn rollers.. Again speculation.
I argue that there is nothing there extant on those columns on that site that would enable anyone to classify them as anything.
They are anonymous.
I suspect that antiquarians considered them roman because there had been a roman presence on the site.
Could the romans not have been attracted to the site because of the presence of usable valuable salvage?
All speculation of course.
All equally valid. As speculation often is.
I hope that answers your questions mate.
Post Edited (16-Jun-15 18:09)