> Another source for Mons Claudianus:
> At Empire's Edge: Exploring Rome's Egyptian Frontier.
> Scroll up to page 35 and go down.
From pg. 36:
From ...and then from Fig 2.1:Quote
"...the imperial government established [the military station] to protect the valuable granite quarries."
How do you suppose that "military station" was positioned to protect the granite quarries when the quarries are on the other side of those hills? And I'm wondering why a military station requires a "labyrinth of rooms", many of which were covered by woven mat roofs.Quote
"The main quarries are located on the other side of the hills behind the fortress".
There were "luxurious baths" and yet there's also evidence that water was "strictly rationed". It's not clear that there was even enough capacity for the workers to bathe, let alone their families. That doesn't sound like a well sustained military base and industrial quarry complex that was able to accommodate women, children, and schools, estimated to be at least 900 people.
"The exact system by which the Romans supplied themselves with water at Mons Claudianus...is not clearly understood".
Archeologists have had their own difficulties interpreting the structures at that site. For example, it had long been held that the stone tower was the source of water and the two stone walls emerging from it were considered aqueducts...until recently.
But now they've decided it is NOT a water tower and the two walls were simply there to protect the road from flooding (it's not clear where the flood waters originated).
There is a well which was built with stones taken from the fortress, so there's already evidence of repurposing materials by later settlers, such as a 5th century monastic community.
Regarding the use of staples to repair a broken column, there's also a basin that was repaired with staples and apparently used at that settlement (vs. intended to be shipped out as a quarried object to be used elsewhere), so how can we say with certainty that the stapled column, as well as other, and for that matter ALL, columns at that site were not part of that site's infrastructure?
By the way, I consider the author's take on that basin to be entirely bogus:
Is this the kind of "science" reporting we are expected to accept?Quote
"As the workers moved this basin from the quarry, however, it cracked across its diameter, and although an attempt was made to secure the two halves by means of iron staples, the overseer of the quarry must have decided that its durabillity was compromised beyond the point where it could be used. It was abandoned where it sits today, and another was probably hewn and sent on to Rome."
If they couldn't even move a small basin a short distance within that site without breaking it, how could they expect to routinely ship so many finely shaped, and far bulkier, columns to another part of the world without an exponentially increased risk of them being damaged?
Post Edited (16-Jun-15 19:33)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?