The Baalbek foundation stones.

originally posted by: Caligula
a reply to: karl 12

Anything in a town named after Baal gets my attention, my guess is like most stone monuments it does something special at the winter solstice while mapping the stars somehow by there positioning. Very intriguing.

The structure is the temple to the sun god, Baal-hadad, later merged with the god Jupiter. The entire thing is a temple to Jupiter.

They'd move beyond "winter solstice" by that time... winter festival had been long established before that and since they had a reliable calendar (thanks to Julius Caesar and Cleopatra), there was no need to put up some sort of marker to decide when the winter solstice was.

They simply looked at their calendars, just as we do today.

it's funny how the older and more massive parts are the oldest, what'd they do get lazy? forgot how to work with really heavy stones? how'd they forget if it was so easy?


a reply to: Byrd

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's funny how the older and more massive parts are the oldest, what'd they do get lazy? forgot how to work with really heavy stones? how'd they forget if it was so easy?


a reply to: Byrd

Look again. The larger stones are sitting on considerably smaller ones.

a reply to: bottleslingguy

The most massive part of the temple foundation is the trilithon, and were placed by the Romans circa 70 AD give or take a few decades. The oldest part of the foundations were placed by Herod, about 100 years before the Romans took over the site. See several pages back. I was one of those who once believed the site to be much older, possibly even Canaanite in origin, but after much back and forth (with Hanslune & Harte primarily) the evidence speaks for itself:

• Ancient people worshiped at the site dating back to 7000 BC, the date given for an altar buried beneath the Tel.
  
• No known temple existed at the site, until Herod built a "t-shaped" podium, similar to the one in Judea (under his purview), utilizing blocks no larger than 200-250 tons. (as a reference the "western block" in Judea was 500 tons)
  
• Herod was killed before work progressed beyond a foundation.
  
• Romans expanded the site, wrapping the Herodian podium with larger blocks as a 'retaining wall,' including the "trilithon" (3 blocks of about 800 tons). Most of the other blocks were in the 400-500 ton range and would support the peristyle.
  
• The "trilithon" blocks were quarried near the town center, due east of the temple and yes, uphill from the site, making moving them a downhill ride.
  
• The largest blocks quarried are the "stone of the south" and the "second monolith," but these remain in situ, never having been removed from their quarries.
  
• The DAI (a German archaeological institute) removed the Arabic fortifications (placed circa 600 AD) to expose the tops of the Roman podium including the trilithon and revealed full-scale Roman architectural sketches of the planned temple, as well as indications of their movement - so-called "Lewis holes," a means of attaching anchors to the blocks for lifting or hauling by winches.
  

Daniel Lohmann and the DAI have shown that NO significant architecture was present on the site, prior to Herod's construction, other than the Tel it was built upon. Whatever may have been there was obliterated by Herod's and later the Roman's works. But did however retain the site of an original stone altar that was clearly the focus of all the attention.

If you look at the Judean "master course" in the Temple Mount, and the entirety of the Herod's t-shaped foundation in Ballbek, as well as an overall view of Roman construction circa 100BC-100AD, you will see that while larger than the rest, the trilithon blocks are a logical progression in size and use, as well as their builder's increasing ability to quarry, move and place them. This was done a generation or two before the Romans would build the Pantheon, another marvel of advanced engineering with concrete.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

I wish I could give you more than one star for that beautifully done explanation.

according to Byrd's link the older parts contain those smaller ones too soooooo just sayin yer wrong about what I was sayin



a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
according to Byrd's link the older parts contain those smaller ones too soooooo just sayin yer wrong about what I was sayin



a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

You liar, you claimed that the older it was the more massive, which is clearly wrong

it's funny how the older and more massive parts are the oldest, what'd they do get lazy? forgot how to work with really heavy stones? how'd they forget if it was so easy?

its funny how pretty much every post I've ever seen of yours has been wrong
where are you researching this stuff from, a wheeties packet ?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
according to Byrd's link the older parts contain those smaller ones too soooooo just sayin yer wrong about what I was sayin
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Um, excuse me?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's funny how the older and more massive parts are the oldest, what'd they do get lazy? forgot how to work with really heavy stones? how'd they forget if it was so easy?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Look again. The larger stones are sitting on considerably smaller ones.

Are you really so inept that you don't remember what you said just a few posts ago, or are you deliberately trying to deceive people?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
according to Byrd's link the older parts contain those smaller ones too soooooo just sayin yer wrong about what I was sayin
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Um, excuse me?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
it's funny how the older and more massive parts are the oldest, what'd they do get lazy? forgot how to work with really heavy stones? how'd they forget if it was so easy?

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Look again. The larger stones are sitting on considerably smaller ones.

Are you really so inept that you don't remember what you said just a few posts ago, or are you deliberately trying to deceive people?

Neither, probably.

I'd say it's just resistance to the existential moment that awaits him.

Harte

good one hardly existential. more like being lazy. true about the smaller ones and it makes sense from an engineering perspective. has there been any ground penetrating radar done? how do the experts know how old the oldest stones are?

If these lower stones were parts of earlier construction, then where are the missing parts? how much effort would it take to remove stones like that? where's the rest of the earliest work?

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
good one hardly existential. more like being lazy. true about the smaller ones and it makes sense from an engineering perspective. has there been any ground penetrating radar done? how do the experts know how old the oldest stones are?

If these lower stones were parts of earlier construction, then where are the missing parts? how much effort would it take to remove stones like that? where's the rest of the earliest work?

a reply to: Harte

Much of this was posted back in 2012: page 12 of this very thread.

Harte

much of what? which part of what I asked? is there a part in there about ground penetrating radar? maybe some attempts at carbon dating the lower levels? don't throw smoke and mirrors in my face I'm asking for a yes or no.

and do you have some Cliff's Notes of where the rest of the earliest parts went to? I know you'll say I have to read all of that but throw me a bone and just give me a yes or no.

a reply to: Harte

do you know where the rest of the earliest parts went?


a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

do you know where the rest of the earliest parts went? If the newer work was built on top of earlier work then what kind of structure was just that earlier section? just a bunch of random humongous blocks stacked perfectly level? what did the earlier structure look like before the newer work?


a reply to: Marduk

two of those links didn't work and the third didn't say anything about what I asked you. In other words yer full of it. where is ground penetrating radar discussed? where is the rest of the earliest structure?

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
good one hardly existential. more like being lazy. true about the smaller ones and it makes sense from an engineering perspective. has there been any ground penetrating radar done? how do the experts know how old the oldest stones are?

If these lower stones were parts of earlier construction, then where are the missing parts? how much effort would it take to remove stones like that? where's the rest of the earliest work?

a reply to: Harte

Much of this was posted back in 2012: page 12 of this very thread.

Harte

ignore that last post I blame the IPA

Harte just give me a yes or no on the gpr and/or carbon dating attempt at lowest levels. and does anyone mention what the earliest stones were a part of?

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
two of those links didn't work and the third didn't say anything about what I asked you. In other words yer full of it. where is ground penetrating radar discussed? where is the rest of the earliest structure?

I just checked, and every link given works just fine. Why would anyone want to waste the money and the time to scan the area with ground penetrating radar when there are no subsurface structures in the area?

Someone in this thread is definitely full of it, though: You

lol

and how do you know there is no subsurface structure if they haven't checked? again what did the rest of the earliest parts look like and where are they now?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
do you know where the rest of the earliest parts went? If the newer work was built on top of earlier work then what kind of structure was just that earlier section? just a bunch of random humongous blocks stacked perfectly level? what did the earlier structure look like before the newer work?


a reply to: Marduk

According to what i linked you to, the site was cleared by Herod prior to his construction there, and his construction was surrounded and covered by the Romans a century later (or so, IIRC.)

There is still a tell in the vicinity. There appears to have been no former temple at the site. If there was, Herod demolished it.

Note I didn't tell you to read the whole thread. I linked you to a specific post.

Can you not even bother to read a few posts, when linked?

Harte

unless it talks about ground penetrating radar analysis and/or carbon dating I don't want to listen to hearsay and speculation. that's why I asked you did it or did it not. If you said yes I would read it if you said no why should I bother? what is so authoritative about it? I don't trust any of those "expert Egyptologists".

a reply to: Harte