> They also say regarding the "missing ostraca":
...the fact there are no dated ostraca found from a
> given period does not necessarily mean that there were no
> ostraca written during that period.
> I think this is a fair statement all things considered the
> least of which the majority of these ostraca were found in
> rubbish dumps.
They, and consequently we, can only go by what they are able to date conclusively. Filling in the blanks is subjective.
> What the
> ostraca state is that the Romans were quarrying columns among
> other things at MC in the 2nd century which is the time these
> buildings are known to have been constructed.
Then why does he say :
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 Claudianus-stone.
> I would also note that this source is from 1996 where there
> have been two more volumes of translations of ostraca
> published. 4 in all: 1992, 1997, 2000, and 2011. Maybe they
> found what they were looking for after all.
Well that makes discussion impossible because we do not have the data. We can't examine the situation without the data. There may well be data in those 4 volumes that would tip the scales one way or the other.