Please can you stop this nonsense once and for all. I've already said countless times that you, Dscribr et al. may simply disregard anything you think I've claimed. Pretend I've retracted everything I've claimed. I am making no claim. I am merely suggesting alternate possibilities based on my own interpretation of evidence which I am not imposing on anyone or trying to make anyone agree with me, OK?
Hopefully, you understand what that means.
Now, YOU and others here have made a rather clear and bold claim, which you consider indisputable leaving no room for any other possibility, that the Romans quarried a granite-like stone from Mons Claudianus in the 1st c. BC to provide the Pantheon with its non-segmented columns, and I have asked repeated for physical evidence that validates that claim to the point of making it indisputable.
I'm slowly getting though the literature bomb you folks are throwing at us, but nothing is "indisputable" and you seem unable to point at anything specific that proves with any certainty when and by whom those columns were quarried. Rather, those so-called "quarries" have not distinguished themselves from being another "Baalbek".
There have been photo bombs that show column after column which do NOT "indisputably" prove who quarried those columns or when they were quarried. At best, such columns can be shown to have simply originated at Mons Claudianus.
There are books that claim to translate the ostraca but none of the translations I have seen indisputably prove anything about when those columns were quarried or by whom. In fact, the ostraca I've been reading about were allegedly created in the 2nd century, or about 100 years after the Pantheon columns were installed and the so-called daily activities were merely written in "hindsight".
The documents that argue that slave/convict labor was used are neutralized by other documents that argue that the workers were paid and that there is zero evidence that any convicts/slaves were used at any of those so-called quarries.
I read one ostraca translation in which the quarryman confirmed to the procurator that his column is ready but he doesn't know where it came from!
There are alleged work schedules, names of workers, skill level of workers, but nothing that actually describes specifically what those workers actually did.
In other ostraca the quarrymen and procurator debate whether a damaged/repaired columns is acceptable as if solid granite that took 19 days to prepare was a fragile stone that the quarry wasn't able to ship in one piece. In fact the literature reports an inordinately high number of damaged items produced by these so-called "quarries". Why that's not seen as a blazing red flag that there might be another possibility going on here is anyone's guess.
Now please stop deflecting from my very simple point: You made the very straightforward claim about the Romans quarrying in Mons Claudianus but you still have not produced the evidence that makes that claim indisputable. And as far as I can tell from what I've read so far, neither have the authors of the documents you've cited.
Again, I've never said the Romans didn't do it; I'm certainly open to the POSSIBILITY they did it. I'm only asking for proof from those of you who INSIST they did it.
Post Edited (24-Jun-15 23:44)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?