You are forgetting that the site was damaged and rebuilt and used as a fortification. Now you mentioned it from the stuff that you copied and pasted
in as your own but ....The newer stones are newer and date to that rebuilding. Care to explain how you know those stones are NOT from the rebuild
I would suggest you read the conclusions of the French teams report and the interim report from the last German expedition-all available at your
friendly neighborhood University.
So is this how we're supposed to apply logic to solve a mystery at Baalbek? Let's see: The Romans had the technology to move large stones (check),
The Romans built the temple atop the Baalbek trilithons (check). QED: Rome excavated and placed the trillithons. Is that how it works for you guys?
And if a German archeologist says it's so, then it's so. And if it can't be proved some earlier civilization built it, then we'll just stick with
the Roman theory, cause that's all we got.
Hans: Yep that pretty much it, unless you can come up with some real evidence as to why that evidence has been discredited.The fact too that when
excavated the foundations shows it was built in typical Roman style, outer layer of stone with a brick matrix filled with rubble - that rubble having
debris from Roman time.
So are you suggesting that these mysterious non Roman's build a shell wall - nothing else and then walked away? LOL...leaving no trace?
You do realize that your 'evidence' consists of denying the Roman evidence?
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
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
So besides denying the Roman evidence do you have any evidence of this other culture that could do what you say the Roman's couldn't?
Please go read some real books on the archaeology of Baalbek. Here is a suggested list: Fringe website really don't cut it.
Th. Wiegand (ed.), Baalbek. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898-1905 Band I-III (1921-25)
P. Collart - P. Coupel, L'autel monumental de Baalbek (1951); Liban - Les Dossiers de l'Archéologie 12 (1975)
N. Jidejian, Baalbek: Heliopolis, "City of the Sun" (1975/1998)
F. Ragette, Baalbek (1980); M. van Ess, Heliopolis - Baalbek, Forschen in Ruinen 1898 - 1998 (Beirut 1998)
A. Neuwirth - T. Scheffler - H. Sader (eds.), Baalbek: Image and Monument 1898 - 1998, Beiruter Texte und Studien 69 (Beirut 1998)
M. van Ess - T. Weber (eds.), Baalbek. Im Bann römischer Monumentalarchitektur (Mainz, Philipp von Zabern 1999)
M. van Ess with contributions from T. Bunk, V. Daiber, B. Fischer-Genz, F. Henze, K. Hitzl, F. Hoebel, B. Ritter, H. Wienholz, "Archaeological
Research in Baalbek. A preliminary report on the 2001-2003 seasons"
Bulletin d'Archologie et d'Architecture Libanaise (BAAL) 7, 2003: 109-144. M. van Ess - K. Rheidt, Archaeological Research in Baalbek. A preliminary
report on the 2004 and 2005 seasons, BAAL 9, 2005, 117-146
V. Daiber, Baalbek: die mittelalterlichen Feinwaren, Orient-Archäologie (OrA) 18, 2006, 111-166
M. van Ess (with contributions from J. Abdul Massih, N. Chahine, V. Daiber, H. Ehrig, M. van Ess, S. Feix, B. Fischer-Genz, H. Genz, F. Henze, K.
Hitzl, F. Hoebel, H. Lehmann, D. Lohmann, J. Nádor, K. Rheidt, D. Rokitta-Krumnow, A. Seif, F. Wakim, H. Wienholz, J. Yasmine), Baalbek/Heliopolis.
Results of the archaeological and architectural research 2002-2005, BAAL Hors-Série IV, 2008.
And what does all this research point to? (I've added paragraphs)
The German Archaeology Group
Preliminary results of the documentation of building history and geodesy led to a new hypothesis concerning the chronological sequence of the
construction of the temples and their interrelationship. In the Hellenistic period the former comparatively small tell, on which there was probably
already a temple building, was completely covered by the construction of the first large sanctuary.
The town might have had to move to the foot of the tell. At this early stage a road axis might have been created, which led across the settlement to
another important religious building in the quarter of Haret Beit Sulh. There, a larger than life-size statue of Venus was found in the 19th century,
which has led to the assumption that in this area a sanctuary of Venus might have been located.
The temple of Jupiter as well as the so-called temple of the Muses were axially oriented towards this hypothetical temple. This held true for the
later monumental temple of Jupiter in Roman times. Later, during the 2nd century AD the temple of Bacchus was built, and the dilapidated temple of the
Muses hidden by a porticus. The temple of Mercury was constructed on Sheikh Abdallah hill and the city expanded to the south-west in the area of the
Bustan el Khan.
Only in the 3rd century AD the so-called temple of Venus, the popular name of which is certainly wrong, was built as replacement of the older
so-called temple of the Muses and oriented towards the sanctuary of Jupiter.
Remodeling measures inside the sanctuary of Jupiter represent the last building activities that took place in Roman times. In the early Christian
period the area of the so-called temple of Venus was transformed into a Christian church complex, and in the 5th century AD the large basilica was
built in the Great Courtyard of the sanctuary of Jupiter.
Finally, in the 12th/13th centuries AD the religious function of this complex was abandoned, as the remains of the sanctuary of Jupiter were
transformed into a defensive fortress, which offered enough room for the lavishly furnished palace of the governor. At the same time the town of
Baalbek around the fortress seems to have expanded for the first time outside the boundaries of the ancient city wall. In the Bustan el Khan outside
of the medieval city wall new building activities, namely of private dwellings and baths, take place.
[edit on 22/3/09 by Hanslune]