> I've described several aspects of the physical evidence that
> contradict the notion that those blocks were quarried in Egypt
> by the Romans:
>Those so-called quarries have been
> described to be self-contained communities complete with bath
> houses, schools, women, children, rather than industrial quarry
> outposts, suggesting the columns remaining there today were
> part of that community's infrastructure.
Why would anything be left other than that unwanted be left if you claim the Romans were
"acquirers" in this and definitely were thief's at times!? Why would it HAVE to be
the infrastructure other than the rubble , rejects and duds?!
> The columns remaining in Egypt (at Mons) are completely hewn,
> shaped, and polished rather than being rough prototypes ready
> for shipping to a prestaging area at the site of construction
> where the final shaping/polishing of the surfaces in the
> finished product was done.
>Is there any logical explanation of
> why the construction engineers would take such an unnecessary
> risk with the final product?
For any sort of "evidence" I guess you would have to ask a 1 century knowledgeable
"construction engineers " involved in the project!
But the conjecture is almost limitless... how about they had all their available stone workers
at the most elite region for stone the Empire could deserve, had a bit of trouble and couldn't afford
to have quality finishers at Rome.. they needed them for a project in Gaul!?
> All of the columns we see at the "quarry" today were completely
> finished and polished. None remain only partially quarried,
> partially shaped, or partially finished. Hardly evidence that
> the quarry was abandoned. We do see some signs of wedge
> splitting, but nothing resembling a partially hewn column.
> There is evidence[[/u] that the Romanesque architecture at those
> "quarries" is the result of repurposing pre-existing structures
> that may be far older.
You keep saying that.. without the evidence except your say so!?
If I said I had a big donger... is that all you need ...to believe me?
(I can't find it myself sometimes!)
> There is no clear explanation regarding why Hadrian required
> columns to be brought in from Egypt instead of simply tapping
> the granite quarries in Italy, and that supports the hypothesis
> that he did so because those columns were already finished in
> earlier times and were sitting there for the taking by the
> Roman Empire.[/quote]
What this explanation stuff..... I thought we were after hard "evidence"?
The best money .. that owned much of the "known world" could afford?
You ought marry an Italian...... I did once ...... only the best will do!
trying to indicate , your opinion, is merely conjecture, no matter how much you admire it!
Post Edited (16-Jun-15 04:45)