The Mystery of Baalbek---The "Trilithon" Stones

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 18 2003 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I, and a friend of mine, have been doing a little bit of reading on this ancient site of Ballbek which is located in modern day Lebanon. This site has a very large temple complex on it that dates back to Roman Times but what we have been endeavoring to uncover is the possible ancient Egyptian connection, if not a Phoenician. We have come to almost a conclusion that this site may be the doings of a far more older ancient civilization then the above two.

The foundations of this site include the "trilithon" stones which are quite immense if not totally "huge". These "trilithon" stones are the largest megaliths found anywhere in the world to date. They are 20 times the weight of the largest stones at or of Stonehenge!

Here's a picture:


"There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archeologists and the conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Great Terrace."
www.sacredsites.com...

And another link:
www.andrewcollins.net...
The message trying to be relayed here is that a high culture with a sea-faring capabilities established itself at Byblos before gradually expanding into other parts of the Eastern Mediterranean. More curious is the assertions of Sanchoniatho's mythical history that the god "Taautus", the Phoenician form of the Egyptian "Thoth" or "Tehuti" and the Greek "Hermes", was some kind of founder of the Egyptian Pharaonic culture which began about 3100BC but the Egyptian Kings List dates back much further. Now, thats very interesting to say the least.

Also this link:
www.varchive.org...

I would like to hope that many would have a comment or thought on this. For anyone interested in ancient history and the chances of "ancients" living prior to ancient Egypt, etc..... certainly leaves one to wonder. I found that picture of the "trilithon" to be utterly mind blowing.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Seekerof]




posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 07:25 PM
link   
That is some interesting reading. The stones are some of the most massive I have ever seen.



posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This is very interesting...I have read about it some before, but I was wondering what is used to dat it to the time period of rome?



posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
This is very interesting...I have read about it some before, but I was wondering what is used to dat it to the time period of rome?


My understanding of it saturine_sweet, is that at the time of the Roman occupation and time period that the place was still being utilized as a temple complex.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Actually Seekerof, there are those who believe that the technology of some ancient civilizations was on a par with our own, considering the tools....


I'm gonna dig a little also!!



posted on Jul, 22 2003 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Zecharia Sitchin has a an interesting view on this. Check his book: "The Stairway to Heaven".

I'm beginning to think that Z.S.'s work contains a lot of half-truths; but interesting nonetheless. I'll probably reply more later.


ONE



posted on Jul, 22 2003 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Plutarch states that Solon studied Egyptian history and thought under the priests at Heliopolis (ca 572 bc), and learned of the sunken continent Atlantis while there. He actually started an epic concerning this that was left unfinished at his death and picked up a couple of centuries later by Plato.

ca 430 bc Eudoxus spent 16 months learning astronomy under the priests of Heliopolis.

Pharaoh Necho built a canal that ran from the Nile near Heliopolis to the Red Sea near Suez. It was later rebuilt by Darius I after the sands had consumed it, and rebuilt a second time by Ptolemy II.

Also, Herodotus speaks of Heliopolis in his history. I'm having trouble locating my copy (may still be in big D). When I find it I will post what I find. If anyone else happens to have a copy, please do the same.

Interesting topic!


[Edited on 22-7-2003 by Valhall]



posted on Jul, 22 2003 @ 04:06 PM
link   
I recently found somemore photos of interests concerning the Ballbek "trilithon" stones.
Picture:
almashriq.hiof.no...

This site is has apparent evidences of pre-Roman and pre-Greek activity. According to the writings of Latin historian Macrobius, in his book "Saturnalia," he discusses the Egyptian origins of not just the temple at Baalbek but of temples in Byblos and many of the Greek and Phoenician gods and traditions.

It is also apparent that no such stones like this were ever used in Rome or any where else. Each one is larger than any statue or obelisk ever created in Rome or in the Med. area. They are bigger than the Colossus of Memnon at Karnak.

The area and the site/location in particular was a very important one in that the armies of then Ramesses, Seti, and Thumosis, who all fought and camped around there against the Hittites and Hyksos and Babylonians, would all have used this site and the surrounding springs/wells.

I found this site also mentioning the antiquity of this area and mention Baalbek:

www.specialtyinterests.net...



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Jul, 22 2003 @ 09:32 PM
link   
These stones are very interesting. Either they were carved where they lie, or they were brought they. Just imagine how much man power a project like this would take. Even now a project like that would be very difficult and take many resorces. Kinda makes you think what was happening way back when.

[Edited on 23-7-2003 by jetsetter]



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 01:35 AM
link   
Well, apparently the Greek record, including Herodotus and Plutarch confirm the Egyptian "ownership" as far back as ca 500 bc.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Well, apparently the Greek record, including Herodotus and Plutarch confirm the Egyptian "ownership" as far back as ca 500 bc.


I agree Valhall.
The thing my friend and are trying to "connect" or find more evidence for is the fact that this site is actually older than 500BC. Still working on it...stay tuned.


regards
seekerof



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Plutarch states that Solon studied Egyptian history and thought under the priests at Heliopolis (ca 572 bc)......


For the record:
For those of you who don't know what city Heliopolis is, it is first and foremost the ancient city of On, located in what is now the outskirts of Cairo close to the pyramids, by the Nile. The Greeks also called Baalbek Heliopolis, or the City of the Sun.

As for these stones, they are HUGE! And as the name of the place insinuates, it was most probably a main center for Baal worshipping. The name of the city, Baalbek means "the City of Baal" in Phoenician. (The) Baal(s) is the name of the old fertility god(s) we know from the bible that was worshipped in what is now known as Israel and her surroundings.

Edit: According to another source, "Baalbek means 'God (Baal) of the Beqaa', and refers to the fertile Beqaa plain." But there seems to be argumants for both these meanings.

whc.unesco.org...
user.interfaces.fr...

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 24-7-2003 by mikromarius]



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 10:10 PM
link   
From Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews:

End Note from Book II:

(4) This Potiphar, or, as Josephus, Petephres, who was now a priest of On, or Heliopolis, is the same name in Josephus, and perhaps in Moses also, with him who is before called head cook or captain of the guard, and to whom Joseph was sold. See Genesis 37:36; 39:1, with 41:50. They are also affirmed to be one and the same person in the Testament of Joseph, sect. 18, for he is there said to have married the daughter of his master and mistress. Nor is this a notion peculiar to that Testament, but, as Dr. Bernard confesses, note on Antiq. B. II. ch. 4. sect. 1, common to Josephus, to the Septuagint interpreters, and to other learned Jews of old time.

From Book XII:

Chapter 9:

7. Accordingly the king sent to Judas, and to those that were besieged with them, and promised to give them peace, and to permit them to make use of, and live according to, the laws of their fathers; and they gladly received his proposals; and when they had gained security upon oath for their performance, they went out of the temple. But when Antiochus came into it, and saw how strong the place was, he broke his oaths, and ordered his army that was there to pluck down the walls to the ground; and when he had so done, he returned to Antioch. He also carried with him Onias the high priest, who was also called Menelaus; for Lysias advised the king to slay Menelaus, if he would have the Jews be quiet, and cause him no further disturbance, for that this man was the origin of all the mischief the Jews had done them, by persuading his father to compel the Jews to leave the religion of their fathers. So the king sent Menelaus to Berea, a city of Syria, and there had him put to death, when he had been high priest ten years. He had been a wicked and an impious man; and, in order to get the government to himself, had compelled his nation to transgress their own laws. After the death of Menelaus, Alcimus, who was also called Jacimus, was made high priest. But when king Antiochus found that Philip had already possessed himself of the government, he made war against him, and subdued him, and took him, and slew him. Now as to Onias, the son of the high priest, who, as we before informed you, was left a child when his father died, when he saw that the king had slain his uncle Menelaus, and given the high priesthood to Alcimus, who was not of the high priest stock, but was induced by Lysias to translate that dignity from his family to another house, he fled to Ptolemy, king of Egypt; and when he found he was in great esteem with him, and with his wife Cleopatra, he desired and obtained a place in the Nomus of Heliopolis, wherein he built a temple like to that at Jerusalem; of which therefore we shall hereafter give an account, in a place more proper for it.

From Book XIII:

CHAPTER 3.

THE FRIENDSHIP THAT WAS BETWEEN ONIAS AND PTOLEMY PHILOMETOR; AND HOW ONIAS BUILT A TEMPLE IN EGYPT LIKE TO THAT AT JERUSALEM.

1. BUT then the son of Onias the high priest, who was of the same name with his father, and who fled to king Ptolemy, who was called Philometor, lived now at Alexandria, as we have said already. When this Onias saw that Judea was oppressed by the Macedonians and their kings, out of a desire to purchase to himself a memorial and eternal fame he resolved to send to king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, to ask leave of them that he might build a temple in Egypt like to that at Jerusalem, and might ordain Levites and priests out of their own stock. The chief reason why he was desirous so to do, was, that he relied upon the prophet Isaiah, who lived above six hundred years before, and foretold that there certainly was to be a temple built to Almighty God in Egypt by a man that was a Jew. Onias was elevated with this prediction, and wrote the following epistle to Ptolemy and Cleopatra: "Having done many and great things for you in the affairs of the war, by the assistance of God, and that in Celesyria and Phoenicia, I came at length with the Jews to Leontopolis, and to other places of your nation, where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bare ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about Divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; for the prophet Isaiah foretold that "there should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God; (5) and many other such things did he prophesy relating to that place."

2. And this was what Onias wrote to king Ptolemy. Now any one may observe his piety, and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra, by that epistle which they wrote in answer to it; for they laid the blame and the transgression of the law upon the head of Onias. And this was their reply: "King Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra to Onias, send greeting. We have read thy petition, wherein thou desirest leave to be given thee to purge that temple which is fallen down at Leontopolis, in the Nomus of Heliopolis, and which is named from the country Bubastis; on which account we cannot but wonder that it should be pleasing to God to have a temple erected in a place so unclean, and so full of sacred animals. But since thou sayest that Isaiah the prophet foretold this long ago, we give thee leave to do it, if it may be done according to your law, and so that we may not appear to have at all offended God herein."

3. So Onias took the place, and built a temple, and an altar to God, like indeed to that in Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer. I do not think it proper for me now to describe its dimensions or its vessels, which have been already described in my seventh book of the Wars of the Jews. However, Onias found other Jews like to himself, together with priests and Levites, that there performed Divine service. But we have said enough about this temple.

Chapter 10:

4. Now it happened at this time, that not only those Jews who were at Jerusalem and in Judea were in prosperity, but also those of them that were at Alexandria, and in Egypt and Cyprus; for Cleopatra the queen was at variance with her son Ptolemy, who was called Lathyrus, and appointed for her generals Chelcias and Ananias, the sons of that Onias who built the temple in the prefecture of Heliopolis, like to that at Jerusalem, as we have elsewhere related. Cleopatra intrusted these men with her army, and did nothing without their advice, as Strabo of Cappadocia attests, when he saith thus, "Now the greater part, both those that came to Cyprus with us, and those that were sent afterward thither, revolted to Ptolemy immediately; only those that were called Onias's party, being Jews, continued faithful, because their countrymen Chelcias and Ananias were in chief favor with the queen." These are the words of Strabo.

Endnote from Book XIII:

(5) It seems to me contrary to the opinion of Josephus, and of the moderns, both Jews and Christians, that this prophecy of Isaiah, 19:19, etc., "In that day there shall be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt," etc., directly foretold the building of this temple of Onias in Egypt, and was a sufficient warrant to the Jews for building it, and for worshipping the true God. the God of Israel, therein. See Authent. Rec. 11. p. 755. That God seems to have soon better accepted of the sacrifices and prayers here offered him than those at Jerusalem, see the note on ch. 10. sect. 7. And truly the marks of Jewish corruption or interpolation in this text, in order to discourage their people from approving of the Worship of God here, are very strong, and highly deserve our consideration and correction. The foregoing verse in Isaiah runs thus in our common copies, "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan," [the Hebrew language; shall be full of Jews, whose sacred books were in Hebrew,] "and swear to the Lord of hosts; one" [or the first] "shall be called, The City of Destruction," Isaiah 19:18. A strange-name, "City of Destruction," upon so joyful occasion, and a name never heard of in the land of Egypt, or perhaps in any other nation. The old reading was evidently the City of the Sun, or Heliopolis; and Unkelos, in effect, and Symmachus, with the Arabic version, entirely confess that to be the true reading. The Septuagint also, though they have the text disguised in the common copies, and call it Asedek, the City of Righteousness; yet in two or three other copies the Hebrew word itself for the Sun, Achares, or Thares, is preserved. And since Onias insists with the king and queen, that Isaiah's prophecy contained many other predictions relating to this place besides the words by him recited, it is highly probable that these were especially meant by him; and that one main reason why he applied this prediction to himself, and to his prefecture of Heliopolis, which Dean Prideaux well proves was in that part of Egypt, and why he chose to build in that prefecture of Heliopolis, though otherwise an improper place, was this, that the same authority that he had for building this temple in Egypt, the very same he had for building it in his own prefecture of Heliopolis also, which he desired to do, and which he did accordingly. Dean Prideaux has much ado to avoid seeing this corruption of the Hebrew; but it being in support of his own opinion about this temple, he durst not see it; and indeed he reasons here in the most injudicious manner possible. See him at the year 149.

Book XX:

CHAPTER 10.

AN ENUMERATION OF THE HIGH PRIESTS.

1. AND now I think it proper and agreeable to this history to give an account of our high priests; how they began, who those are which are capable of that dignity, and how many of them there had been at the end of the war. In the first place, therefore, history informs us that Aaron, the brother of Moses, officiated to God as a high priest, and that, after his death, his sons succeeded him immediately; and that this dignity hath been continued down from them all to their posterity. Whence it is a custom of our country, that no one should take the high priesthood of God but he who is of the blood of Aaron, while every one that is of another stock, though he were a king, can never obtain that high priesthood. Accordingly, the number of all the high priests from Aaron, of whom we have spoken already, as of the first of them, until Phanas, who was made high priest during the war by the seditious, was eighty-three; of whom thirteen officiated as high priests in the wilderness, from the days of Moses, while the tabernacle was standing, until the people came into Judea, when king Solomon erected the temple to God; for at the first they held the high priesthood till the end of their life, although afterward they had successors while they were alive. Now these thirteen, who were the descendants of two of the sons of Aaron, received this dignity by succession, one after another; for their form of government was an aristocracy, and after that a monarchy, and in the third place the government was regal Now the number of years during the rule of these thirteen, from the day when our fathers departed out of Egypt, under Moses their leader, until the building of that temple which king Solomon erected at Jerusalem, were six hundred and twelve. After those thirteen high priests, eighteen took the high priesthood at Jerusalem, one m succession to another, from the days of king Solomon, until Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, made an expedition against that city, and burnt the temple, and removed our nation into Babylon, and then took Josadek, the high priest, captive; the times of these high priests were four hundred and sixty-six years, six months, and ten days, while the Jews were still under the regal government. But after the term of seventy years' captivity under the Babylonians, Cyrus, king of Persia, sent the Jews from Babylon to their own land again, and gave them leave to rebuild their temple; at which time Jesus, the son of Josadek, took the high priesthood over the captives when they were returned home. Now he and his posterity, who were in all fifteen, until king Antiochus Eupator, were under a democratical government for four hundred and fourteen years; and then the forementioned Antiochus, and Lysias the general of his army, deprived Onias, who was also called Menelaus, of the high priesthood, and slew him at Berea; and driving away the son [of Onias the third], put Jaeimus into the place of the high priest, one that was indeed of the stock of Aaron, but not of that family of Onias. On which account Onias, who was the nephew of Onias that was dead, and bore the same name with his father, came into Egypt, and got into the friendship of Ptolemy Philometor, and Cleopatra his wife, and persuaded them to make him the high priest of that temple which he built to God in the prefecture of Heliopolis, and this in imitation of that at Jerusalem; but as for that temple which was built in Egypt, we have spoken of it frequently already. Now when Jacimus had retained the priesthood three years, he died, and there was no one that succeeded him, but the city continued seven years without a high priest. But then the posterity of the sons of Asamoneus, who had the government of the nation conferred upon them, when they had beaten the Macedonians in war, appointed Jonathan to be their high priest, who ruled over them seven years. And when he had been slain by the treacherous contrivance of Trypho, as we have related some where, Simon his brother took the high priesthood; and when he was destroyed at a feast by the treachery of his son-in-law, his own son, whose name was Hyrcanus, succeeded him, after he had held the high priesthood one year longer than his brother. This Hyrcanus enjoyed that dignity thirty years, and died an old man, leaving the succession to Judas, who was also called Aristobulus, whose brother Alexander was his heir; which Judas died of a sore distemper, after he had kept the priesthood, together with the royal authority; for this Judas was the first that put on his head a diadem for one year. And when Alexander had been both king and high priest twenty-seven years, he departed this life, and permitted his wife Alexandra to appoint him that should he high priest; so she gave the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, but retained the kingdom herself nine years, and then departed this life. The like duration [and no longer] did her son Hyrcanus enjoy the high priesthood; for after her death his brother Aristobulus fought against him, and beat him, and deprived him of his principality; and he did himself both reign, and perform the office of high priest to God. But when he had reigned three years, and as many months, Pompey came upon him, and not only took the city of Jerusalem by force, but put him and his children in bonds, and sent them to Rome. He also restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus, and made him governor of the nation, but forbade him to wear a diadem. This Hyrcanus ruled, besides his first nine years, twenty-four years more, when Barzapharnes and Pacorus, the generals of the Parthians, passed over Euphrates, and fought with Hyrcanus, and took him alive, and made Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, king; and when he had reigned three years and three months, Sosius and Herod besieged him, and took him, when Antony had him brought to Antioch, and slain there. Herod was then made king by the Romans, but did no longer appoint high priests out of the family of Asamoneus; but made certain men to be so that were of no eminent families, but barely of those that were priests, excepting that he gave that dignity to Aristobulus; for when he had made this Aristobulus, the grandson of that Hyrcanus who was then taken by the Parthians, and had taken his sister Mariarmne to wife, he thereby aimed to win the good-will of the people, who had a kind remembrance of Hyrcanus [his grandfather]. Yet did he afterward, out of his fear lest they should all bend their inclinations to Aristobulus, put him to death, and that by contriving how to have him suffocated as he was swimming at Jericho, as we have already related that matter; but after this man he never intrusted the priesthood to the posterity of the sons of Asamoneus. Archelaus also, Herod's son, did like his father in the appointment of the high priests, as did the Romans also, who took the government over the Jews into their hands afterward. Accordingly, the number of the high priests, from the days of Herod until the day when Titus took the temple and the City, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was a hundred and seven years. Some of these were the political governors of the people under the reign of Herod, and under the reign of Archelaus his son, although, after their death, the government became an aristocracy, and the high priests were intrusted with a dominion over the nation. And thus much may suffice to be said concerning our high priests.



posted on Mar, 8 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   
In further recent research on Ballbek and The "Trilithon" Stones, it is fair to mention that a friend of mine and I discovered, accidently, I might add, that the stones, weighing in excess of 800-1000 tonnes, one at 1200 +/- tonnes (a stone block lying on the ground outside of the site. This block is called the "Midi" or "Stone of the South." Its specifications are: 21.36 meters in length, 4.33 meters in height, and 4.60 in width. The weight calculations range from 1,200 to 2,000 tons), could have been lifted or at least moved by the use of a Lewis device/mechanism, though merely speculative at best:

"The Lewis"
www.freemasons-freemasonry.com...


We eventually ran across more information dealing with this semi-mystery, not in the fact that the Roman's did build the temple structure at Baalbek, but the ever elusive semi-mystery of the foundation stones that the Roman's utilized when they built the temple on top of them.

The once curator of the ruins has been quoted saying:

"... in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'...."
www.thelivingweb.net...

Further research into this has revealed that the Nephilim (means both giant, and "beings fallen from the sky), Giant race/civilization, "sons of Anak" (Anakim), or maybe a another reference to Canaanites, were quite possibly and literally in control of this area, which is part of the proclaimed "Promised Land" and would have had significant encounters with the Israelites.

"On the Acropolis of Baalbek, stood a temple dedicated to the storm god Hadad. It was 60 feet wide and 290 feet long, surrounded by 19 columns, each 62 feet high and over seven feet in diameter. But its flooring stones - still intact - are each larger than a modern railroad boxcar. No one can imagine how they were moved into place."

This is Biblical reference to this also by Moses:

"And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature."
www.stevequayle.com...

Description of "men of great stature":

"there was a man of great stature who had twenty four fingers and toes, six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot; and he also was descended from the giants." 1 Chronicles 20:6

Further from the Bible on those who inhabited "The Promised Land" and subsequently, Lebannon--Bekaa Valley:

"The Lord himself helped to disperse these giants so that the Hebrews could inherit the land: 'Hear O Israel! You are crossing over the Jordan today to go in to dispossess nations greater and mightier than you, a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom you know and whom you have heard it said, 'Who can stand before the sons of Anak?' 'Know therefore today that it is the Lord your God who is crossing over before you as a consuming fire. He will destroy them and He will subdue them before you, so that you may drive out and destroy them quickly, just as the Lord has spoken to you.'" Dueteronomy 9:1-3 from the NWT.

These Cannanites/Nephlim/'Sons of Anak' (Anakim) later probably became known as the Philistines...nonetheless, we think that this is another possibility to how the foundation stones were laid at Ballbek.

In a bit of digging, I accidently ran across an old previous thread by Mad Scientist, for which I never got to interact with...damn it, but it was on this also, but never got through developing a hypothesis:

"BAALBEK - Who and how did they build it ?"
www.abovetopsecret.com...
(My apologies to Mad Scientist for not mentioning his past thread/post on this.)

Needless to say, we ran across some further site information on Baalbek and the Mysterious "Trilithon" Stones:

"The Ruins at Baalbek"
www.tmeg.com...

Excerpt:

"Beneath the temples lay a greater wonder, a huge foundation comprising an area of more than five million square feet and containing more stone than the Great Pyramid at Giza. No mortar was used in its construction and yet in 2000 years it has not perceptibly settled. The secret of this stability lies in the downhill retaining wall, which contains three of the world's biggest blocks of cut stone. Stood upright, each would be as tall as a five story building, and weigh more than 600 tons."



It is somewhat known that both, the Greek's and the Roman's, placed their temples on top of the foundation's of old or past sites.

We also ran across these:

"The Secret of Baalbek"
www.varchive.org...

Excerpt:

"There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and the conventional theories of prehistoric civilization. There are no legends or folk tales from Roman times that link the Romans with the mammoth stones. There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. Finally, the great stones of Baalbek show stylistic similarities to other cyclopean stone walls at verifiably pre-Roman sites such as the Acropolis foundation in Athens, the foundations of Myceneae, Tiryns, Delphi and even megalithic constructions in the ‘new world’ such as Ollyantaytambo in Peru and Tiahuanaco in Bolivia."

"BAALBEK - LEBANON'S SACRED FORTRESS"
www.andrewcollins.com...
(If page with title doesn't show, click Articles, scroll to bottom of loaded page)

Excerpt:

"There is much more in Sanchoniatho's mythical history, but the basic message is that a high culture with sea-faring capabilities established itself at Byblos before gradually expanding into other parts of the eastern Mediterranean. More curious is his assertion that the god Taautus, the Phoenician form of the Egyptian Thoth or Tehuti and the Greek Hermes, was some kind of founder of the Egyptian Pharaonic culture which began c. 3100 BC."

"Baalbek, Lebanon"
www.sacredsites.com...

ms108.mysearch.com..."Baalbek"%20+%20"egyptian"


Will have more on this in the near future...with Spring Break and all coming...plan to devote more time into some unfinished research(s).




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 8-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Stichlin was brought up earlier, but there was no information. Here it goes:

Stichlin proposed that some of the larger stones (the ones which do form a foundation), were ancient launch pads for alien rockets.

There was a connection between the location of these stones and the Pyramids. I believe it was that the Pyramids were either a homeing beacon of sorts, or a positioning indicator.



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
This, IMHO is the thing about Stichlin (sp)....
He has some rather decent research (small amounts), when required, but when it comes to UFO's and "ancient rocket launchers/launch pads", etc...umm, I have a very hard time buying those concepts. as well as even finding significant proof or evidences.

His work is far-fetched to me, but in some areas, his small amounts of decent research is quite useful. Again, I merely commented some of his work to give more on speculations. I am still researching on this but looking at things from all angles.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 9 2004 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I agree. There are some things about Stichlin I like, and find informative... and then there are other parts which is hard to swallow; especially an advanced civilization evolving on a planet below absolute zero for the majority of its 3600 year orbit.

As for these stones, it still remains in the area of "anything is possible".

But you know... if they were found on Mars, these stones would be explained as a natural occurance in geology.



posted on Mar, 13 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Having done somemore research into Ballbek, I ran across a rather old picture of the main 'Midi' block or the 'Stone of the South':

A beautiful picture:

www.ozfactors.com...


It seems that what remains in question is 'how' and 'what' the purpose of these stones were and for. More so, and yet still debateable is just "who" really cut these stones and for what intensive purpose.
Some claim it was the Roman's:
www.ramtops.demon.co.uk...

This may well be so, but being that the Roman temple was built upon an old Greek temple and that Greek temple built upon an older Egyptian ancient temple....that is where the other mystery or unanswered question comes in. Some information and studies have proposed that the Egptian temple was built upon an even older ancient Canaanite temple or foundation.
www.ozfactors.com...

Yes, the Roman's had moved massive obelisks from Egypt, but as indicated above, I don't think anyone is refuting that the Roman's built the last temple on this site. The controversy comes in with the questions I asked above. The Roman's were formidable builders, but did they actually cut this stone and others. There are no records or scrolls to say that they did. Stories in the region say that they didn't. That these massive stones had existed before the Roman's began buidling the last remianing temple on this site. Local legends and stories indicate that the foundation to this site pre-dated the Roman and Greek temple complex's. Again, the Roman's were wellnoted for building temples and such complex's on pre-existing sites.

As indicated in this article:

"There is no answer to this question until all the evidence has been presented in respect to the construction of the Great Platform, and it is in this area that we find some very contradictory evidence indeed. For example, when the unfinished upper course of the Great Platform was cleared of loose blocks and rubble, excavators found carved into its horizontal surface a drawing of the pediment (a triangular, gable-like piece of architecture present in the Temple of Jupiter). So exact was this design that it seemed certain the architects and masons had positioned their blocks using this scale plan.28 This meant that the Great Platform must have existed before the construction of the temple."
www.newdawnmagazine.com...

But then, it all could be that these researchers did shoddy research?

Nonetheless, further indepth exploring on this, I found information that dated back to the time of Jeroboam. Jeroboam was the first king of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, when it was separated into two separate kingdoms. Interestingly, the king of the Southern Kingdom of Israel, was Rehoboam, the son of Solomon.
It has been determined, though debateably by historians, that Jeroboam was one of the first to build in Baalbek. The story goes something like this:

"The ambitious servant was not satisfied with this honor of administering the land of Menashe (Manasse) and Ephraim, or even the entire northern half of the kingdom; he wished to be a king himself. From the viewpoint of serving his own ends, it was a sound idea to build on some ancient sites places for folk gathering which would compete with Jerusalem. Whereupon the king [Jeroboam] took counsel, and made two calves of gold, and said unto [his people]. It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem . . . And he set the one in Beth-el, and the other put he in Dan. Beth-El was in the south of his kingdom, close to Jerusalem, Dan in the north of his kingdom. In order to attract pilgrims from the land of Judah, Jeroboam also made Beth-El the site of a new feast, "like unto the feast that is in Judah". 1.Kings 12:32,33. Setting up the image of the cult in Dan, Jeroboam proclaimed: "Behold thy gods, O Israel, that brought thee up out of the land of Egypt." 1.Kings 12:28. Thus, Dan in the north competed with Jerusalem in the days of Passover and Tabernacles. The temple of Dan was a much larger edifice than the temple in Bethel, and it became a great place for pilgrimage, attracting people even from the southern kingdom."

More here:
www.specialtyinterests.net...


Other local traditions and stories point or indicate that Ballbek was built during the time of Solomon's reign:

"Ildrisi, the Arab traveler and geographer (1099-1154), wrote: "The great (temple-city) of astonishing appearance was built in the time of Solomon." [Idrisi in P. Jaubert, `Geographie d'Edrisi' (Paris, 1836-1840), I, p. 353; quoted by C. Ritter, Die Erdkunde, Vol. XVII (Berlin, 1854), p. 224.] Gazwini (d. 1823 or 4) explained the origin of the edifices and the name of the place by connecting it with Balkis, the legendary Queen of the South, and with Solomon. [Al-Qazwini Zakariya ibn Muhammad, `Kosmographie', H. F. Wüstenfeld ed. (Berlin, 1848-49), II, p. 104.]

The traveler Benjamin of Tudela wrote in the year 1160 of his visit to Baalbek: "This is the city which is mentioned in Scripture as Baalath in the vicinity of the Lebanon, which Solomon built for the daughter of Pharaoh. The place is constructed with stones of enormous size." [A. Asher tr. and ed.. The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (N.Y. 1840-41).]

Robert Wood, who stayed at Baalbek in the 1750's, and who published an unsurpassed monograph on its ruins, wrote: "The inhabitants of this country, Mohomedans, Jews and Christians, all confidently believe that Solomon built both, Palmyra and Baalbek." [R.Wood, `The Ruins of Palmyran Baalbek', (London, 1827), p.58.] Another traveler who visited Syria in the eighties of the eighteenth century recorded: 'The inhabitants of Baalbek assert that this edifice was constructed by Djenoun, or genies in the service of King Solomon." [C. F. Volney, op. cit., p. 224.]"

www.specialtyinterests.net...


And this on the "TRILITHON" stones:

"Already in the last century it was observed that the Acropolis of Baalbek and the temples built on it date from different epochs. The massive substratum—the great base of the acropolis—appears to be of an earlier date; the three temples on the substratum, of a later date.

It is even probable that the wall of the acropolis did not originate in one epoch. Among the stones of which it is built there are three of an unusual size—almost twenty meters long. Each of them weighs about one thousand tons. These huge monoliths are incased in the wall. The question arises whether they are not the survivals of the original cyclopean structure—that which carried the name Rehob, or Beth-Rehob, and which served as a landmark for the scouts dispatched by Moses in their survey of Canaan, and for the emissaries of the tribe of Dan in their search for the territory in the north. Like Stonehenge in Great Britain, or Tiahuanaco in the Andes, it may have originated in an early time—not necessarily neolithic, since it appears that these stones are subjected to hewing by metal tools.

In the quarry a mile away is found another stone of comparable size, cut out of the rock from all but one side; it appears that this stone of more perfect cut was quarried in a later time, possibly in the days of Jeroboam, or even later; but, for probably mechanical considerations, the work was not finished and the stone not removed, and the emulation of the early builders not completed. [See the recent discussion by Jean-Pierre Adam, "À propos du trilithon de Baalbek, Le transport et la mise à l'oeuvre des mégalithes", Syria LIV (1977), pp. 31-63] In another place I intend to return to the problem of the Trilithon of Baalbek, when treating cyclopean buildings and the mechanical means of quarrying and transporting these monoliths."

www.specialtyinterests.net...


And then this on the mentioning of the Oracle of Baalbek and its relevance to the Hebrew Talmud, written during their captivity in Babylonia and subsequent release to their native land of Israel, under the protection of the Babylonian's that had encouraged the Israelites to rebuild their temple and city:

"In the Tractate Pesahim of the Babylonian Talmud is written the following sentence: "The image of Micah stands in Bechi." Pesahim 117a; see Ginzberg, `Legends of the Jews', VI, p. 375]

Bechi is known as the Hebrew name for Baalbek in the time of the Talmud. As we have seen, in the Book of Exodus it is recounted that the Danites, migrating to the North, took with them Micah and his idol, and that it was placed in Dan of the North. The Talmud was composed between the second and the fifth centuries of the present era.

This passage in the Tractate Pesahim is a stong argument for the thesis of this essay, namely that Baalbek is the ancient Dan. (The readers of this passage probably understood it in the sense that Micah's oracular image, after being removed from the temple of Dan, was placed in Baalbek. Baalbek being Dan, such an interpretation is superfluous. Conclusion about (Tel) Dan: We should take note then that according to this information the conventional `Tel Dan' near Highway 99, Mt. Hermon and Nimrod's Fortress, is not the biblical city of Dan. It is however, the location of the `Tel Dan' inscription.)"

www.specialtyinterests.net...


Very interesting stuff. I eventually ran across a brief history of Baalbek covering 5 Era's starting with the Biblical Era:

"The word Baalbek is an alteration of the Syrian name Baal-Bek or is derived from the Phoenician Baal- Beka. The first syllable "Baal" corresponds to the "Sun", the Hadad of the ancient Near East. The Syriac termination "Bak" means town; the Phoenician ending "Beka" means country, if it stands for the Arabic word Buk'at (watered land). However, in the recently discovered Phoenician inscription, the word Beka has the meaning of town. So we can safely conclude that "Baalbek" means "town of Baal." The name Heliopolis, which is the literal of Baalbek, was given by the Seleucides and adopted by the Romans. But, as in the case of many Phoenician towns, the primitive semitic form of its name, Baalbek, outlived the names given by the Romans and the Greeks. The name, Baalbek, is mentioned in the poetry of Amrou el-Kais and of Omar ben-Kalthoum, who lived in the 6th century, prior to the conquest of Syria by the Arabs."
www.dsoln.com.au...


Questions still remain, and I'm still investigating a variety of angles and sources. Further imput from others would be appreciated, granted if anyone has the time to research this.




regards
seekerof



posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   
doubtful that researches would have missed a dovetail cut for lifting using a Lewis - also, exactly what would they have used to lift the stone with considering all but seabourn cranes can't lift it.
Also - Sitchin's theory is that these beings lived underground on their planet and were warmed by the planet's interior - not a far-fetched theory considering modern astrobiologist's theories about extraterrestrial life.
Problem is - Sitchin's theory is currently the only one that can answer how these stones were moved. Since we can't manage it today either these people had technology that rivaled our own or someone else moved them - you decide.



posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
This, IMHO is the thing about Stichlin (sp)....
He has some rather decent research (small amounts), when required, but when it comes to UFO's and "ancient rocket launchers/launch pads", etc...umm, I have a very hard time buying those concepts. as well as even finding significant proof or evidences.

His work is far-fetched to me, but in some areas, his small amounts of decent research is quite useful. Again, I merely commented some of his work to give more on speculations. I am still researching on this but looking at things from all angles.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 9-3-2004 by Seekerof]


Small amounts of research by Sitchin? That's a joke. His research is pretty #ing extensive. Some of the ideas are a little out there, and not as well supported as others. But ultimately very little he says is totally without some line of logic, usually translated from texts.

We now only JUST have cranes that're capable of shifting these stones. I remember reading one engineer's assessment of the size of ropes needed to haul something that size and he was talking 5 meter THICK ropes. One way or another, that people could carve and then move and position such stones in antiquity is giving more credit to humanity than it's most likely due.





new topics
top topics
 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join