It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The drum is a complete mystery isn't it?
How exactly did these reports identify the older appearing stone and the trilithons as being roman?
Don't they lack the same tool markings typically found in roman quarrying?
Dont they also lack the leading romans used to to keep their stoneworks from moving - I dont know what they call that, but its where they notch into two stones then pour lead in the notches to keep them connected. Maybe that came from a later roman period?
Theres a picture I think in one of the early posts that shows them sliding the big trilithon off of rollers onto the block wall but how does that happen? Grease maybe? It seems like a lot of friction would be generated trying to slide into place over the wall below it. Its either that or rol it into place then lift it off rollers but thats even less believeable.
What do you mean by 'drum'?
the temple was used as a fortress and the flat terrace was given walls.
Yet they were moved, if the Roman’s couldn’t do it how did the less technically advanced Phoenicians do it?
Local tradition, which may be traced to the early Middle Ages, points to a definite period in the past when Baalbek was built: the time of Solomon.
Ildrisi, the Arab traveler and geographer (1099-1154), wrote: “The great (temple-city) of astonishing appearance was built in the time of Solomon.” 36 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.37
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.” 38
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.” 39 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.” 40
Hans: The stone are large because the Romans were building a traditional temple and the site selected was on a slope. The one wall is on the down hill side. Ever wondered why there is only ONE side with big stones?
Hans: The stone look different because different layers of limestone were used. Limestone comes in different textures and density depending on when and how it was laid down.
In the 1904 site report ( Theodore Weigands landmark 1925 report Jabrbuch Kunstwisseschaft 1924-25) the Germans took the temple remains down to the bedrock, they found typical Roman 'honey comb' construction, ie large stones on the outside, brick interior walls and the spaces inbetween filled with rubble. There is some evidence that there was a bronze a culture site here prior to the Romans.
Ramtops: A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.
Hans: The fringe world has created endless nonsense and disinformation about the site, the grand daddy of all of this came from ("Voyage autour de la mer morte") by Felicien ce Saulcy written in 1864-before any investigation was done, later Sitchin made up some more stuff about it.
Ramtops: The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 ("Voyage autour de la mer morte" by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book "published in Paris in 1898" - long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, 1921-1925), is "forgotten" by these guys.
Hans: My main beef with the idea of the Roman's not building it is a total lack of any evidence for anybody else having built it. The 1904/5 expedition found numerous Roman materials and a few items from the neolithic era and the bronze age. No civilization, no habitations, no pottery, no evidence of any kind for anyone else in the vicinity.
Hans: So Karl show us the civilization that did it, how they did it and why? Can you explain why we cannot find them?
Hans: There is no evidence for any other culture there capable of moving the stones - if so where is the evidence.
Hans: I think we could agree that only the Roman's have been shown to have been there and had the technology to move the stones. Can we prove they did it? No. Can we prove someone else did it? No. So we are left with what evidence we do have. The stones are in a building built entirely using Roman technique on a Roman site.
Hans: Oh did you read the last german Expedition report on Baalbek the one done during the 1990s? Oh you didn't? That obvious, LOL
Hans: See, the quarry is actually uphill from the site by quite a few meters,meaning every stone was moved downhill and absolutely no lifting was ever required for the megaliths. Also, the quarry is not separated from the site by any "rough and winding terrain."
Hans: So are you suggesting that these mysterious non Roman's build a shell wall - nothing else and then walked away? LOL...leaving no trace?
Blackmarketeer: You keep implying that no other culture existed in this region.
Hans: Really? Are you still making stuff up Blackmarketeer? Of course there were other cultures there, try to think logically will you and don’t make up stuff, I get tired of telling you that over and over. I was referring to the fact that you said the Roman’s couldn’t move the rocks so who moved them? Who build the retaining wall (a retaining wall is not a foundation) So you are now claiming the Canaanites did it huh? Well the Phonecians were there, they provided the name. They showed up around 4000 BP - which is in historic times.
Hans: You do realize that your 'evidence' consists of denying the Roman evidence?
Hans: You are forgetting that limestone is a sedimentary stone, it comes in different densities, hardness and erosion resistence. You can see that clearly in the Sphinx where the different layers of the stone has weathered differently. Different stones cut from different layers will age differently. You can see the same thing in the pyramids - the different layers reflect the different layers of limestone and when and where it was quarried.
Hans: It would seem that the work on the last expedition in the 1990's found the remains of some of this Phoenician work which has survived. These ruins were found during excavations and I'm no looking for the German language paper/publications that describes them.
Frankensence: I also read that the "roman drum" beneath the foundation walls has never actually been seen and was just a mistaken report from an early expedition.
Hans: Can you expand on that please?
Frankensence: How exactly did these reports identify the older appearing stone and the trilithons as being roman?
Hans: By indentifying the ruins as Roman, remember the ruins you see now were extensively damaged and rebuilt, the temple was used as a fortress and the flat terrace was given walls. I have been unable to find any source to ID the stones as anything but Roman……which is why I’m now trying to follow up on the German source.
Frankensence: Don't they lack the same tool markings typically found in roman quarrying?
Hans: No, I've never seen a mention of this in any scientific source
Hans: Yet they were moved, if the Roman’s couldn’t do it how did the less technically advanced Phoenicians do it?
Hans: The Roman original I believe was based on Weigand digging down to the bedrock thru typical Roman construction, masonry on the outside, brick matrix (honey comb) that was filled with rubble. That rubble was said to have contained Roman shards and other materials and no others.
Hans: I have not read Ragette so I cannot comment further