That would depend on what you mean by "Mons Claudianus"; Bulow-Jacobsen claims that name typically refers to "a whole complex of quarries and structures", so I'm not sure your "unbelievably unsurpassed massive!" temple is a good characterization.
It is a "whole complex of quarries and structures" within one geographical location, namely the small mountain range it is quarried from. "Mons" means "mountain".
One of the ostraca fragments is a communication between the quarry and the procurator admitting that the column is ready for shipment but the quarry administrator doesn't know what quarry it's from. In another fragment the quarryman asks the procurator for "more iron" to presumably speed up getting a single column ready. What kind of quarry is this that isn't equipped to quarry the stones that are on order?
One that quarries columns obviously. Yes, we in the modern world never make mistakes or need more material to complete a job. Come on man. But strange you would cite an ostraca that clearly refers to quarrying and columns yet still think this is not evidence? A broken record, but this make no sense. 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.
According to Guiseppe ("Global Convict Labor"; 2015), the ostraca apparently were written long after much of the "quarrying" occurred.
He does not say this. The exact opposite actually. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not understand what you are reading. The quarry was founded sometime in the 1st century AD; year 1-100. What he says is that: "Most of the textual evidence stems from the 2nd century CE" (p75), meaning the year 101-200AD. Hadrian began quarrying there extensively in the "2nd century AD" (between early to mid) which of course is the time the majority of the ostraca date to, again the opposite of what you are claiming: Archaeology and Philology on Mons Claudianus 1987-1993 (p723-725 in particular.)
How can we rely on a daily journal of "inventories" that was apparently written "in hindsight" about an "actual situation on a given day" that allegedly occurred there years earlier?
Again you are confused. The "hindsight" means at the end of the work day or within the work week not "years".
Post Edited (25-Jun-15 23:37)