I also enjoy the volume of passion you bring to the forum.
> I contend you proceed from a false premise. The problem is your
> use of the word "blanks". On what basis are you claiming they
> were originally quarried as blanks that were prepped for
> shipping outside the country vs. finished columns that were
> used in buildings at the Mons Claudianus settlement but were
> later repurposed by Hadrian, et al.? What evidence is there to
> explain why Hadrian needed to go all the way to Egypt to quarry
> granite vs. getting it from local quarries in Italy? Why is it
> not possible that Hadrian got word that there were already a
> slew of ready-made columns for the taking in Egypt rather than
> going through the far greater labor and expense of quarrying
> and shaping granite from raw stone right there in Italy?
Hadrian may have obtained the granite columns exactly as you imagine. The use of the word “blank” then would become, perhaps something more palatable to you like “second hand raw material” or spoila.
Indeed all your speculation and many reasoning conjectures, and your alternative opening postulate or premise, might be less false than mine. (???)
However it seems to take a whole new complexion in your world of deductive reasoning, because all of what you speculatively claim, then seems to become, to you, “evidence”. “Evidence” being defined as exclusively, that which Origyptian considers most likely.
The only difference in our individual starting premise is whether the columns were carved by Romans, or some unknown people previously.
I am tempted (foolishly) to wonder in your scenario, whether the original carvers were iron age Egyptians?
Or are you now biting your own tail and suggesting speculatively bronze age Egyptians?
However, I will bail out of the argument... on tip toes!