> 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".
It's a "whole complex" consisting of 130 separate "quarry" fields". It's enormous and they're spread out. That small "fort" is 1km away from all the action, hardly positioned to protect any "quarry operation" from disruptive locals.
> 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?
Where is there a reference to quarrying? In that ostraca there was no reference to any activity related to breaking stone from bedrock, or shaping stone from the rough. There was only a discussion about ordering and delivering 2 columns. I'd love to see what you describe, but so far none of the ostraca I've read translations of refer to any quarrying activity. Rather, what I've read could just as easily apply to ready-made columns sitting there for the taking.
The reference to "iron" is inclusive since it could just as well refer to tools for cutting the columns down to size per the procurator's orders, or to make stronger transports to match the stone size, or to make custom staples to repair a broken one. Bases of columns have been found at "quarries". Authors have proposed that those ends were cut by later civilizations to serve as grinding wheels. Alternatively, they might have been cut from the ends of pre-existing columns to shorten them to the size specified in the order.
In any case, there was no reference to what the iron would be used for in that particular ostraca communication.
> 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.
And Hadrian seems to have tapped the place out in less than 100 years after which he stopped getting stone from that site. There seems to be a lot of stone remaining in those mountains. Why would they stop "quarrying" after only 100 years? Maybe it's because there were no more finished stone objects remaining there to procure, and so they closed down the shop, leaving the damaged goods behind.
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
> Again you are confused. The "hindsight" means at the end of the
> work day or within the work week not "years".
Perhaps. You certainly are entitled to your own interpretation. It's interesting that Giuseppe doesn't use that word for any other aspect of work other than "inventories". How is the reporting of inventory stock at the end of the day considered "hindsight" if the inventory represents the current stock count?
Post Edited (26-Jun-15 04:22)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?