> Thanos5150 wrote:
> > The ostraca speak extensively of the quarrying activities which as
> > you unknowingly note the overwhelming majority date to the time
> > of Hadrian which is also the most active period of using the
> > stone from MC in the Roman Empire.
> This is contradicted by Bulow-Jacobson
> and later, in speaking of Hadrian.....Quote
All these columns
> must have been extracted during the first 5-6 years of Hadrians
> reign, but this period has not given a single dated ostracon.
> Seven paragraphs later :Quote
> therefore have been a fair amount of activity in the early and
> middle part of the 130ies on Mons Claudianus, which has no
> equivalent in the ostracon-dates. In the ostraca we find a
> spurt of dated texts from the last years of Hadrian and the
> beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius, i.e. between 137 and
> 155. This period does not correspond to any known use of
> From what I read, the identification of MC columns in variousQuote
The disparity between the dates
> known from the ostraca and the dates we must necessarily assume
> from the use of the stone, need not worry us overmuch.
> buildings was done by one man alone, I think it was Peacock.
> I'm guessing no one has double checked him.
> I'm not arguing for or against this issue. I'm just sayin
Respectfully, what Thanos and Corpuscles are claiming is not what I've read in the ostraca translation. In my opinion, an objective reading exhibits clear ambiguity that allows more than one possible scenario. In any case, I've seen nothing that makes the "quarry" claim "indisputable". Meanhwhile, there are some significant contradictions to that widely "accepted view".
That MC only had just over 100 skilled workers (the remaining 800-ish were their families and logistics support) to work the 130 so-called "quarries" that were spread across those mountains for a mere 100 years (a tiny fraction of the stone in those mountains) suggests how low key the operation really might have been. Why have so many quarries for so few quarry workers? We need to ask why an inordinately high number of objects were broken or damaged to badly they were rejected from the procurator (according to the authors). This has been acknowledged by several authors but none have offered an explanation. HOW did so many of them break, considering the time and resources required to "quarry" them, and considering that the stuff was made of extremely durable granite/gneiss?
In my opinion, if a site worker had to ask a procurator for more "iron" so they could deliver a single column a few days earlier, that introduces clear doubt about whether this truly was a bustling, high tech, industrial quarry complex. The ostraca informs us that a quarryman told the procurator "Well, we have a broken one over here we can repair with giant iron staples; you want THAT one?!".
Post Edited (26-Jun-15 04:18)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?