> 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
There must 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 Claudianus-stone.
From what I read, the identification of MC columns in various buildings was done by one man alone, I think it was Peacock. I'm guessing no one has double checked him.Quote
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.
I'm not arguing for or against this issue. I'm just sayin