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.
Another key point is that the Romans and Greeks were keen on writing stuff up about amazing things - yet there is no mention of something at Baalbek.
Originally posted by Solomons
Yip these are a great marvel i must admit,ive heard of them before.Like the pyramids i dont think there was any super technology etc at work..just man power and ingenuity but that doesn't take away the fact it must have been one damn big effort! Good thread,star and flag
[edit on 22-2-2009 by Solomons]
Originally posted by Hanslune
The best current resource for Baalbek is the book
Ruprechtsberger, E. M. (1999) Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis / Baalbek (Libanon), Linz. DB879.L6 R852 1997
One forms the bulk of the wall, five layers of considerably eroded blocks. Several such blocks also survive in the sixth layer. Sizes of these blocks vary from big to unbelievably big, the largest building blocks anywhere.
The second part is a later Arab addition. Its blocks differ by being:
1) Uneroded, of a different color and texture
2) Much smaller
The top corner of the northern block of the Trilithon is well rounded by erosion, and human abrasion. One of the newer, small blocks rests directly on this eroded, round spot. So, when it was lain into this position, the damage was much like it is today.
It is evident that one block is a lot older than the others, as the position of the newer blocks marks the extent of erosion in the older blocks at the time.
If the big blocks were to be Roman then the newer Arab blocks would mark the erosion of the older Roman blocks as it was after the first six or seven-hundred years. But, how could this erosion be a lot greater than the subsequent erosion of both the old and the new blocks in twice as much time? This contrast is made bolder by the fact that earth' atmosphere has since become ever more corrosive.
In the details below, we can see that whoever had added the smaller blocks (presumably also limestone, and coming from the same quarry, the nearest one to the temple), had made adjustments for erosion in the old ruin, which are visible as steps, or notches in the elsewhere straight line of the newer blocks. The eroded blocks seem to have been hewn flat on top to facilitate the laying of additional blocks.
A horizontal line was cut into the older block. It seems to continue the bottom line of the neighboring newer block quite exactly. The red line you see is there to show this fact:
This wall is made up of many ill-fitted stones, many of them reused from the ruined Roman temple by the Arabs, Crusaders, and Turks when the ruins were used as a fort. Some pieces of the Roman entablature can be seen, as well as slits cut into the rock for firing positions in the wall.
Because all these stones are piled one upon the other, it is clear to see an evolution of stone working. This reveals some of the stones piled upon the megaliths to be even older than Roman. These are also huge stones. Yet despite their size, they are still dwarfed by the megalithic blocks.
"To good Fortune! In the year 371, the second day of the month of Lôos (August 60 AD), the katochoi put off their beards".
Below them at least 3 tiers of stones can be found, much smaller though still monumental in size.
Another example that they are separate to the Roman temple, is that while the Romans built the back of their temple wall flush with 3 of these stones, on one of the sides of the temple of Jupiter the perimeter clearly falls short of the width of the original megalithic structure, allowing a tier of megaliths to protrude obtrusively from the temple foundation— incongruous if they were simply foundation stones for the Roman temple.But it seems the Romans could not extend the building far enough to cover the layout of megaliths.
There are several other matters about the Baalbek stones that further confound archaeologists and 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.
The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue reeally seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks (see below, left) when it is almost like new after having been recently sanded. However, sanding did not get rid of the deep pits, signs of either considerable previous erosion, or the product of drilling, if not both:
This is how the giant stones look when old. The stone's surface is pitted and cracked. (Above, right)
lavishing great architecture on Baalbek then seems totally out of character for the undeniably selfish Rome, which had at the very same time been stealing historic treasures from other countries, such as the obelisks from Egypt. It makes more sense that Baalbek had something no other place could offer, not even the city of Rome, the heart of the empire.
One also finds plenty of circumstantial evidence undermining the official version of Trilithon's origins:
a) Absence of Baalbek records
Above all, Rome records no claim to the incredible retaining wall.
b) Presence of other records of actual Roman transport capabilities
Elsewhere in the Roman empire, just a little over 300 metric tons seemed to be the limit for the transport of big blocks, achievable only with the greatest difficulty. Transport of the 323 ton Laterano obelisk to Rome spanned the reigns of three emperors. Clearly, the record setting engineers from Baalbek, had they existed, could have also managed the task of transporting the relatively light Lateran Obelisk. The fact that they were nowhere to be found, no matter, how crucial the task, indicates that they simply did not exist.
c) Baalbek was an important holy place
The Ptolemys conferred the title of Heliopolis upon Baalbek. Therefore, like the other Heliopolis (Sun City) under Ptolemys' domain in Egypt, it had to be an ancient holy place, it must have had some notable architecture, and the two places had to have some connection. I suggest it was the titanic blocks that instilled awe in everybody. In Phoenician times, Baalbek had supposedly been a religious centre devoted to Baal. Local Arab legends place the cyclopean walls (the Baalbek Terrace) into the time of Cain and Abel.
d) Roman and Megalithic styles of building
Orthodox scholars of today scoff at all suggestions that Romans had not brought the great blocks to the temple site, despite the fact that building with megalithic blocks was not at all in the Roman style, and was no longer practised in those days.Romans knew and used concrete. The Colosseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.
Originally posted by karl 12
Originally posted by prevenge
awesome.. never heard of this.
antigrav/sonic lathing methinks.
Originally posted by spitefulgod
Goes to show what can be done with a few hundred slaves, imagine this sort of feat with todays unions having their say?