The Baalbek foundation stones.

page: 9
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune


.... being thus suggestive of two different phases in construction. This same observation was made by Professor Daniel Krencker of the German archaeological mission, although it led him to the conclusion that the Temple of Jupiter was originally planned on the same colossal scale as these foundations. In other words, Krencker believed that the Roman builders must have had a change of mind.


Hi, just thought I would check back in to see if Hanslune was still pushing "The Roman Construction Techniques" link.

Hanslune, read the quote above again, he doesn't say the Roman builders built the foundation, he says the Temple of Jupiter was originally planned on the same colossal scale.....all that means is that they planned to match the scale of something that was probably already there.

I think we probably all agree (by now) that the Romans had some interesting construction techniques, since you referenced that link about 5 different times.

What some of us are trying to point out is the fact that nobody can definitely say how the three monumental stones were laid, or who laid them. We can only speculate on what actually happened, but who knows for sure.

And, for conspiracies sake, since this is ATS, I'll just say, maybe officially, TPTB may have a vested interest in keeping the real builders identity a secret. Since, if giants, or jinn or space brothers did build or give ancients the knowledge and technology to build, maybe they don't want people to know about it.




posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 12:04 AM
link   
This argument regarding Baalbek's foundation stones seems to have devolved into proving the Romans did/did not build the temple platform based on their technology level or capability to build it. Could the Romans have built it? Sure. Did they? Not likely.

Romans had a distinguished architecture style. They were far more likely to build using smaller materials in a more efficient fashion than to haul mega-ton blocks around. Brick and concrete were their forte. Megalithic construction was the stone-age. Every major edifice built by Roman hands can be identified with the period or emperor who built it. Rome did not arrive in Baal prior to 15 B.C. Baalbak was an oracle, it was consulted by Trajan. It had fame and religious significance throughout the ancient world, long before the Romans culture rose. They built on top of what they found already in place.

Had the Romans built the entire site, including the lowest foundations, there would be a consistency to the design and construction which we don't see - the lowest course of retaining wall including the trilithons is not at all in keeping with later Roman efforts. The size of the blocks and their fitting don't match. Dog holes in the smaller blocks are in keeping with Roman methods of handling blocks and indicate how they were lifted. No dog holes are found in the trilithons or lower courses of stone.

Consider the location. Romans would not have built halfway down a sloping site. Not the Roman style. They would have chosen the top of the hill - better to defend, and befitting a temple to their chief deity in a foreign colony. They would have built on top of the hill even if it meant leveling the hilltop, as they did with the Palatine Hill. Baalbak was already a religiously important site, to the Phoenicians, Hittites, et al. The Romans clearly recognized and agreed with its religious importance and honored that importance by building a temple dedicated to their version of the same god.

The placement of the trilithons are pre-historic. No written record, especially of Roman origin, details when they were placed. Traces of whatever means was used to get them into place appear to be lost to time. If there were an ancient roadway (of which no trace exists) then it could have been erased during a great flood, which would indicate a far more ancient origin to the trilithons. Same as any ramp at the Giza plateau. Later works (post flood) - those we see. But not at these two sites (Baalbak and Giza). Does this mean Baalbak and Giza are pre-flood? Since scholars refuse to believe any pre-flood civilizations were capable of these feats then I guess we're stuck with endless "proofs" it was later cultures who, for all intents and purposes, "co-opted" the sites as their own.


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 Romans did not choose the site. It was already significant. Like the oracle at Siwa consulted by Alexander, Baalbek was recognized as an oracle and important enough Trajan traveled there to consult it. You refer to an older archeological claim (1904-05) as evidence the Romans were responsible for the trilithons along with everything at Baalbek. If it were truly a Roman affair it wouldn't even be named Baalbek. It wouldn't be the first time an archeologist made an incorrect assumption that a later culture was responsible for an earlier work. He saw a Roman temple, hence Baalbak was of Roman origin. You bolster the Roman origin claim by claiming Roman building methods could have moved those stones. But not one Roman, from Severus nor any of the emperors of his era (Caracalla, Phillip), responsible for the temple claimed to have excavated or moved these stones. The records of their deeds exist for every other aspect of the temple, but not for the trilithons.

Mainstream archeology whitewashes sites that don't fit in with established precepts. How something was built is only one portion of the overall puzzle. When and why are every bit as important.

(Blackmarketeer, formerly Æhµ)



[edit on 28-2-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Howdy blackmarketeer

Thanks for you long reply

You made several errors however, there was no "flood' that phrase along brings your knowledge level into question.

There was more than a dig in 1904-05 there has been continual digging there for over 100 years, two major German and one French expedition-there findings, Roman. I'm sure you've never read those studies or the abstracts?

There is no evidence for any other culture there capable of moving the stones - if so where is the evidence.

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.

If you wish for an unknown culture to have built a lone retaining wall there x years ago, so be it.

Its amusing but an unproven thought.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Hans its not even worth replying to you, you must not be a native English speaker as you seem to fail to comprehend the majority of peoples posts.

Archeology is continually re-writing the book on human history, revising our concepts of what took place as new evidence comes to light. You absolutely cannot rely on outdated discarded 1950's era research. Older academic's would rather sweep something under the rug if they couldn't explain it.

This site is very succinct in describing Baalbek and the Trilithons:
Sacred Sites - Baalbek, Lebanon
Here you can read all about the "unknown" civilizations that played a role in establishing Baalbek, an important religious center long before Rome came along.

As far as the flood is concerned - well, if you want to remain ignorant, biased and closed-minded that's your choice. Considering the number of ancient cultures that relate a flood epic and the cyclical nature of ice ages and thaws, particularly the end of an ice age circa 10,500 BC, it's by no means a stretch of imagination that something "epic" happened then. Don't let the absurd Bible version or your rejection of religion delude you into thinking it simply couldn't happen. Ancient civilizations such as those in China, Babylonia, Wales, Russia, India, America, Hawaii, Scandinavia, Sumatra, Peru, and Polynesia all have their own versions of a flood. Given the proclivity of drastic climate change throughout history, a flood is very probable. We even see remnants of ancient lost cultures beneath the seas off the coast of Japan.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
double post

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 





Hans its not even worth replying to you, you must not be a native English speaker as you seem to fail to comprehend the majority of peoples posts.


Hans: I can read just fine BM, I just reject the incorrect information in those messages.




Archeology is continually re-writing the book on human history, revising our concepts of what took place as new evidence comes to light. You absolutely cannot rely on outdated discarded 1950's era research. Older academic's would rather sweep something under the rug if they couldn't explain it.


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



Here you can read all about the "unknown" civilizations that played a role in establishing Baalbek, an important religious center long before Rome came along.


Hans: Yes but made up stuff on fringe sites cannot erase the actual archaeology done. Maddening isn't it, those darn pesky facts




As far as the flood is concerned - well, if you want to remain ignorant, biased and closed-minded that's your choice.


Hans: You mean having an opinon based on evidence and facts and not make believe? Yep guilty as charge. No biblical flood (we seem to agree on that)

As I suggest to all true believers, read a real book on archaeology and history not fringe websites, open your mind.



posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Hans its not even worth replying to you, you must not be a native English speaker as you seem to fail to comprehend the majority of peoples posts.

The obverse view is that your posts are themselves not worth reading.


Originally posted by BlackmarketeerThis site is very succinct in describing Baalbek and the Trilithons:
Sacred Sites - Baalbek, Lebanon
Here you can read all about the "unknown" civilizations that played a role in establishing Baalbek, an important religious center long before Rome came along.

The above is an excellent example of why. You are attempting to foist palpable and provable ignorance on a community who's motto is "Deny Ignorance." Why are you doing this? I thought you wanted to pretend you knew something.
Take a gander at what your suggested reading states:


The route to the site of Baalbek, however, is up hill, over rough and winding terrain, and there is no evidence whatsoever of a flat hauling surface having been created in ancient times.

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."

This was already shown right here in this thread, indicating yet another character flaw you have - foot in mouth due to not actually looking into what any expert, and anyone that can read here at ATS, already knows.

Harte



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
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.

Well maybe we should stick our heads in the sand and pretend all is right with the world because God knows an Archeologist or researcher has never made a mistake.

So where does the controversy over the trilithons come from? Because there sure isn't something right with the generally accepted, conventional idea that Rome built it all. Placing or moving the stones is only one aspect of why this controversy persists.

Point by point here are the problems (I'll borrow some arguments from a previously posted link at vejprty.com):

1. Augustus (the first of three Emperors building construction spanned) had no obvious reason for selecting Baalbek as the temple's building site. In the time of the Romans, Baalbek was just a small city on a trading route to Damascus through the Bekaa valley in the Lebanese mountains.

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. This something may also be the reason why so many people wished to be buried there. Indeed, it has been noted that the blocks in the retaining wall of the Baalbek temple site clearly look a lot more eroded than the bona fide Roman ruins of the Temple of Jupiter, as well as those of the other two Roman temples also on the site.

What this "something" is was the Oracle. It was revered throughout the ancient world; Revered by the Hittites, Egyptians, Phoenicians, even the Greeks conferred the title "Heliopolis" on the site, signifying great importance. How many other cities did the Greeks name Heliopolis? Only those of great religious importance, as they harbored Oracles. The very term "Heliopolis" is of Greek origin demonstrating something was "already there." Even the Arabs have a great legend of this location as the fortress built by Cain.



2. Material Evidence
The much greater erosion of the big Baalbek blocks qualifies as material proof of their much greater age. The issue really seems rather simple. This is how the stone looks 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 a recent photo, in which a large chunk of the block was removed and the overall block was sanded. Compare it to earlier photos in which the block was much more eroded and the missing chunk was in place.



This is how the Trilithons look in the retaining wall. The stone's surface is pitted and cracked and heavily eroded.



Continued next post


[edit on 17-3-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
3. Circumstantial Evidence
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. Every feat involving construction of major projects or movements of massive “spoils” such as the aforementioned Lateran column are recorded and murals/bas reliefs carved. Nothing has ever been found concerning the Trilithons or Hadjar el Gouble.

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 Lateran 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 Ptolemy’s conferred the title of Heliopolis upon Baalbek. Therefore, like the other Heliopolis (Sun City) under Ptolemy's 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 practiced in those days. Romans knew and used concrete. The Coliseum still standing in Rome is a good example of a classic Roman concrete structure.
The sad truth is that regarding the Trilithon, some scholars have mental blocks its own size. Admissions that blocks weighing over 1000 metric tons were quarried and transported in prehistoric times would invite uncomfortable questions on what technology had made it all possible.



The wall has two distinctly contrasting parts:
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
3) Uniform

The Arabs had a fortress here. It was devastated by wars and finally by a major earthquake several centuries ago. The Romans must have left the old sacred enclosure walls as they were, and concentrated on building the temples. They had no need for defensive walls like the Arabs



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 laid 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.

Continued next post

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
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.



Of the four blocks atop the eroded blocks, each is at a different horizontal level, fitted to account for the erosion of the original trilithons.

Time to Draw the Line



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.
I believe that the cut line was made just before the placement of the newer blocks. It had marked the top portion of the older block, which was to be cut away, so that the newer blocks could be set level. Thankfully, the plan was not carried out for some reason. Consequently, we have a clear clue to what had happened here.

Because the line in the eroded block survives about as well as the newer blocks, the two materials must be similarly durable. It then follows that by the apparent rate of aging, the heavily eroded blocks should be at least several millennia older than the newer blocks. Ergo, the older part of the wall cannot be Roman.



Hadjar el Gouble (the Stone of the South) 1,170 metric tons

In a quarry about half a mile away from the Trilithon is an even bigger block. It measures 69 x 16 x 13 feet, ten inches, and weighs about 1,170 metric tons. There is a belief, the block was slated for the retaining wall, but was later found to be too big. Thus, it was abandoned in the quarry while still joined to the bedrock at one end.

The important question is, was it younger, or was it older than the three Trilithon blocks? It seems that it had to be made later than the Trilithon. If it was made first, and then deemed to be too big, it would have still been utilized. Rather than quarrying a new block, the Romans would have simply whittled the big block down to a more manageable size. We would not see it in the quarry today.

On the other hand, despite their brilliant ability to move about burdens as unprecedented as the Trilithon, the unknown architects lost their nerve at the very end, the big block looming almost ready. There was no attempt to move the practically finished block despite the recent brilliant successes with transporting the other blocks. This just does not behoove the solid Roman engineers, especially the creme de la creme entrusted with the task by the Emperor himself. Why did they leave behind a monument to their engineering limits and human weaknesses, and by extrapolation - Roman emperor's limitations?

Continued next post



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Again, rather than abandoning the block, the Romans would have simply whittled the big block down to a more manageable size. We would not see it in the quarry today. The situation seems absurd and very un-Roman, and even more so in view of what the same Roman engineers saw at Aswan, when planning the entire project since the fifty-four enormous granite columns of Jupiter’s temple actually came from Aswan! There the Roman engineers could not have missed witnessing the abandoned 1,170 ton obelisk, which the Egyptians had obviously intended to move, prior to discovering that it was cracked, a fatal flaw.

Did the obelisk somehow inspire Romans to quarry a block of the same weight (albeit not proportion) at Baalbek, and then abandon it, when almost complete, mimicking the Egyptians ad absurdum, every inch of the way? Monkey see, monkey do? Is this not insane?

Despite all that it is a fact that the big block still in the quarry seems to weigh about the same as the famous abandoned obelisk at Aswan, Egypt. Here, the question begs itself if this really is by chance.

Challenge

But, similar reasoning applies to the pre Roman builders as well. If they could move the other blocks, why abandon Hadjar el Gouble on the very last step? Having eliminated some other possibilities, one possibility looms very large - the block in the quarry was left us as a challenge. Go ahead, skeptics, move the block by the same means you allow your imaginary Roman movers.

Another theory holds that work on the block stopped, when Rome suddenly became Christian, and stopped all construction on the site. That is of course impossible, because the retaining wall with the big blocks was long complete by then, and where else would the big block go, other then the retaining wall? So, none of the explanations make sense.

Then there is that utter lack of documentation for these stunning exploits, which should have been proudly noted by Roman historians, politicians, and so on. It's a little like if American history books skipped the fact that America went to the Moon. Meanwhile, local legends ascribe the stones to the time of Genesis. The big blocks were part of a fortress built there by Cain.

So, did Romans move the Trilithon blocks? Absolutely not! Romans had no desire to move such weights; because they knew just as well as we do that they could not move it. History supports our notion with solid evidence from the same time period.

Roman Limitations

When Augustus, emperor of Rome had conquered the region in 27 BC, he ordered that the massive obelisk towering above others at the Karnak temple in Egypt be brought to Rome, but the effort was aborted, when the trophy proved too heavy. Sources give varying estimates of its weight, from 323 tons to 455 tons.

The discrepancy must stem from the fact that the original obelisk was 36 meters long, and had weighed 455 tons. Now that it is 4 meters shorter at the base, it must be correspondingly lighter, and because obelisks are always considerably thicker at the base than higher up, the loss of a hundred tons would be realistic. So, the discrepancy is self-explanatory.

It seems to suggest a reason to why some 300 years later emperor Constantine I (A.D. 306-337) had succeeded where Augustus had failed, namely, in taking the obelisk out of Egypt. But, in the process, the pedestal and a large part of its base were destroyed. Well, since we are talking about the otherwise indestructible Aswan granite, we have to deem the obliteration of the thickest, strongest part of the obelisk deliberate.

Unable as they were to move the whole obelisk, the Romans had taken only as much as they could carry. After all, Constantine's workers had similar troubles with the obelisk of Tuthmoses III now standing in Istanbul. Here is a quote I found at Andrew Finkel's site:

Continued next post

[edit on 17-3-2009 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 01:36 AM
link   
www.turkeyupdate.com...

"The decision to import the structure was taken by Constantine himself. Rome had a dozen obelisks. His city, Constantinople or the "New Rome" had to have at least one. The Byzantines succeeded in fetching the monument from Deir el Bahri near Thebes, although in a sawn-off form. The original shaft was probably a great deal longer. Yet having brought it to the harbor on the Sea of Marmara side of the city, no one could figure out for an entire century how to get it up the hill"


At the same time the big 323 ton Lateran obelisk from Karnak was still in Alexandria, remaining there until after Constantine's death. His son, Constantius II (A.D. 337-340) had then taken it to Rome instead. However, it did not get to Rome's Circus Maximus until A.D. 357, seventeen years after the death of Constantius II. Finishing the centuries old project took almost fifty years.

Knowing all these facts then bears heavily on our judgment of what the Romans could, or could not do at Baalbek.

a) Roman engineers had failed to even budge the 455 ton Thutmoses' obelisk at Karnak for Emperor Augustus.

b) But, allegedly, the same Roman engineers had successfully transported the three Trilithon blocks weighing twice as much, plus, twenty-four more blocks weighing pretty well as much, i.e., 300 - 400 tons, all of which we see in the enclosure wall of the Baalbek temple terrace.
Moreover, the transport of the Trilithon blocks would have had been incredibly rapid, because the retaining walls should be in place prior to the construction of the temple itself, as logic would seem to dictate.

Unable to move the 455 ton Karnak obelisk, Augustus took two other obelisks from the Sun Temple in Heliopolis, instead. It was the first transport of obelisks to Rome. The obelisks are now in the Piazza del Popolo (235 tons), and the Piazza di Montecitorio (230 tons). Funny, 235 + 230 = 465. So, Augustus got his 455 tons, plus change, but it was in two parts. These are solid indications of the then Roman capacity in moving heavy objects.


The Trilithons are far older than the roman structures. The age discrepancie alone refutes the notion the Romans were responsible for placing them.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   
Blackmarketeer, it would have been ethical to give credit to the source of the material you just posted in the last 4 posts.

In the first post after harte's you have added a few lines on your own, and stating that you are quoting from www.vejprty.com and you have just linked just one photograph from that webpage. The rest is completley word for word from

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

All, without giving due credit to the site by giving a link.

Those are not your words, but someone else's. give them their due credit.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I did post the source, 4th paragraph down:
Point by point here are the problems (I'll borrow some arguments from a previously posted link at vejprty.com):

This is what the heart of the debate is over, the age of the Trilithons and their complete lack of integrity with the newer stones set over them.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
However Blackmarketeer

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 phases?

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 time?


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.

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)


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.


The German Archaeology Group




[edit on 22/3/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Your German Archaeology Group, as many others, recognize a pre-Roman building phase:


...The oldest finds are dated by C14 analysis to the end of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period around 7200 BCE. The settlement mound was only abandoned in the late Hellenistic period due to its transformation into a monumental sanctuary and was settled almost continuously over a period of nearly 7000 years. The architectural history of the relatively well-known sanctuary of Jupiter in the Qalaa is studied in detail since 2005. The documentation of numerous archaeological and architectural features through soundings and measurements in combination with a new analysis of constructional details have yielded a surprising wealth of new insights into the architectural layout and morphology of the sanctuary. As a result, four monumental building phases can be distinguished: the buildings from the pre-roman period forming a gigantic T-shaped terrace, which was later used as foundation of the temple of Jupiter, are now well understood in their dimension and geometry. Through new tachymetrical measurements in the substructions of the Great Courtyard the planning and implementation of the extensive building program of the early imperial period can be easily distinguished from later construction phases. Changes in the Great Courtyard and the construction of the so-called hexagonal courtyard in the middle imperial period indicate two later changes in plan, which successively enlarged the sanctuary towards the east.


This is the inner podium, that - like the outer podium wall, is built in a cyclopean fashion, a style that is distinctly NOT Roman.


If you wish for an unknown culture to have built a lone retaining wall there x years ago, so be it.


You keep implying that no other culture existed in this region. That "unknown culture", as you put it, would be the Phoenician Canaanites.

In fact the Canaanites were quite adept at cyclopean masonry construction as evidenced by the ancient cities Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre. Modern scholars date the site of Byblos back at least 7,000 years. The Canaanites are the source of most of the myths (giants, etc.) that surround the colossal stone work at Baalbek.


Another of your arguments, claiming the visible difference in weathering as just "inferior stone", despite coming from the same region and quarries as the later Roman construction, is a real stretch.

You can compare similar erosion signs with cyclopean masonry in Mycenae, dated to around 2500 BC, with the trilithons and you will see the same patterns of wind and sand erosion. Images of the Canaanite cities also display very similar weathering on the exposed stone.

Using the Sphinx as an indicator of dissimilar stone weathering is a disingenuous argument, since it completely ignores the fact that portions of the Sphinx spent a great deal of time buried in sand, while exposed portions were subject to weathering. The Sphinx was also not built of quarried and transported stone, but sculpted from living rock. Very different than the use of quarried stonework. "Inferior stone" could have simply been discarded or its use avoided at the time it was quarried, dressed, or transported.

Mycenae:


Baalbek:


It's not just the difference in visible wear, that indicates the outer podium is older or pre-Roman, its also the fitting of the later Roman stonework into the worn and pitted podium. The stone work was clearly cut to accommodate the worn foundations, indicating they were laid at a much later date.

No one can say who laid the pre-Roman foundations, only the legends speak of it. Most of these legends speak of the cyclopean masonry as part of a fortress built in ancient times, with credit going to Nimrod, Cain, or mythological giants. No one can state who built Stonehenge either, yet there it is. Stonehenge, like the trilithons at Baalbek, are simply pre-historic.

Here's an interesting write up at [url=http://forum.tayyar.org/f80/baalbeck-35048/]forum.tayyar.org[/url, the writer goes into detail about the similarities between the Canaanite and Roman deities the temples are dedicated to.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   


Your German Archaeology Group, as many others, recognize a pre-Roman building phase:


Hans: A pre-Roman building has been known there since the first excavation, its even in Wikipedia. It would seem the Germans have managed to trace it in even more detail. Why do you use the term “yours” ? How odd!




This is the inner podium, that - like the outer podium wall, is built in a cyclopean fashion, a style that is distinctly NOT Roman.


Hans: Hmmm, the document states, “As a result, four monumental building phases can be distinguished: the buildings from the pre-roman period forming a gigantic T-shaped terrace, which was later used as foundation of the temple of Jupiter, are now well understood in their dimension and geometry.”

1. where does the term inner podium?
2. where is the outer podium mentioned?
3. where is the term cyclopean?
4. where is the, “style distinctly not Roman”

Hans: Sorry Blackmarketeer but you’re manufacturing stuff left, right and center. Do you actually think no one notices this? LOL. What does your sentence have to do with what was actually said?

Here is a question for you, what does the term “terrace” mean to you?




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.




In fact the Canaanites were quite adept at cyclopean masonry construction as evidenced by the ancient cities Byblos, Sidon, and Tyre.



Hans; So you are stating that the Canaanites were the ones who moved the stones then? Okay please explain how they did it? Remember you cannot use any technology that the Romans had, because you insisted they couldn’t possibilities have done it….having painted yourself into that corner let me know how you plan to get out




Modern scholars date the site of Byblos back at least 7,000 years. The Canaanites are the source of most of the myths (giants, etc.) that surround the colossal stone work at Baalbek.


Hans: So how did they move the stones? Going back to the German's can you point to their identification of the Canaanites?





Another of your arguments, claiming the visible difference in weathering as just "inferior stone", despite coming from the same region and quarries as the later Roman construction, is a real stretch.


Hans: Your knowledge of limestone quarries, and how limestone forms, would seem to be inadequate, again go take look at the example of layered limestone, the Sphinx, take a look at how the different layers have aged and eroded. The only stretch I see is your refusal to accept the reality. Good luck trying to prove that all limestone is of the same quality –take a look at the Washington monument – there is noticeable band – yep different limestone.




You can compare similar erosion signs with cyclopean masonry in Mycenae, dated to around 2500 BC, with the trilithons and you will see the same patterns of wind and sand erosion. Images of the Canaanite cities also display very similar weathering on the exposed stone.



Hans: Sure please cite the study that does this comparison




Using the Sphinx as an indicator of dissimilar stone weathering is a disingenuous argument, since it completely ignores the fact that portions of the Sphinx spent a great deal of time buried in sand, while exposed portions were subject to weathering. The Sphinx was also not built of quarried and transported stone, but sculpted from living rock.



Hans: The Sphinx was cut from different layers of limestone – are you now denying that limestone comes in different levels? You might want to do some reading before committing yourself to that one, LOL




Very different than the use of quarried stonework. "Inferior stone" could have simply been discarded or its use avoided at the time it was quarried, dressed, or transported.


Hans: It often looks the same and only in use does the erosion rate show up




It's not just the difference in visible wear, that indicates the outer podium is older or pre-Roman, its also the fitting of the later Roman stonework into the worn and pitted podium.


Hans: Please cite an expert in Roman stone work who agrees with you? Why not ask the Germans?




The stone work was clearly cut to accommodate the worn foundations, indicating they were laid at a much later date.


Hans: Again you ignore the rebuilding phases that occurred after the Roman period-why do you do that?




No one can say who laid the pre-Roman foundations, only the legends speak of it.


Hans: Didn't you just say it was the Canaanites??? There are no ancient legends of that site that any one agrees on can be assigned to the bronze age site. The legends that came up were from later periods. You seem to be falling for fringe site propaganda.




[edit on 31/3/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
An additional piece of information from a book published in 1908 which is based on the findings of his own visit and the work of the 1904-05 Expedition.

Grammar note: the scanned periods in this document didn't copy out, so beware, I've left it un-modified.


From very ancient times Baalbek must have been a place of importance Its situation and its abundant water supply fitted it to be as it has been called from a military point of view the bridle of Anti Lebanon But a far greater and farther reaching importance attaches to it as the chief seat in these regions of the Syrian worship of Baal Many successive temples of the sun god must have risen there in the days before Rome had begun to look eastward When at last the Romans took up the work of building they began in their usual thorough fashion by clearing out every vestige of the older structures so that absolutely nothing remains of the Phoenician temples anywhere of


{page break}


vestige of the older structures so that absolutely nothing remains of the Phoenician temples anywhere As there is no written history of the building of the Roman temples we are left to the witness of inscriptions and of coins and it must be confessed that as yet this testimony is confusing The style of the architecture is Corinthian elaborately and voluptuously ornamental but that fact affords little clue to the precise date being characteristic of the whole Graeco Roman period On the one hand relying on a seventh century record the building of a temple at Heliopolis Baalbek which was one of the wonders of the world has been usually attributed to Antoninus Pius 138 161


From Damascus to Palmyra By John Kelman 1908, pages 67-69

The link to Kelman's book

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.

[edit on 2/4/09 by Hanslune]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Romans built over the top of existing foundations stones, the "Quala" which is beneath the Jupiter temple and the 3 lower outer walls of the "podium". You can tell which are the pre rome walls by how much more weathered they are.

I don't see why you are making such a big deal over those being pre roman, the area was populated for many thousands of years before romans got there.

If you look at other Phoenician sites you see a lot of similar construction, excepting for the trillithons stones.

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.

Anyhow still really amazing construction, makes you wonder how ancient societies could be so dedicated to building such monumental temples for their gods when they were probably living in huts.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by frankensence
 


Howdy Frankensence



Romans built over the top of existing foundations stones, the "Quala" which is beneath the Jupiter temple and the 3 lower outer walls of the "podium". You can tell which are the pre rome walls by how much more weathered they are.


Hans: Actually you cannot, all previous expeditions ID them as Roman. I’m interested in finding out the extent of the Phoenician terrace and whether it is the smaller stones beneath the large ones or is below ground only.




I don't see why you are making such a big deal over those being pre roman, the area was populated for many thousands of years before romans got there.


Hans: Yes of course, but in the fringe world those stones are considered to have been made by aliens, Atlanteans or giants. The terrace had not been mentioned earlier as the 1904-05 expedition took the excavation down to the bedrock and reported it Roman all the way thru. I’m interested in the extent of the Phoenician contributions. You know curiosity.

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?




Anyhow still really amazing construction, makes you wonder how ancient societies could be so dedicated to building such monumental temples for their gods when they were probably living in huts.


Hans: The Romans weren't living in huts nor were the Phoenicians – at least the ruling and merchants classes weren’t! One could say the same for the European Cathedrals and status of most rural people of the time.






top topics



 
88
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join