Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
karl 12

The Baalbek Foundation stones.

237 posts in this topic

linked-image

The massive foundation platform of Baal Hadad is like no other structure in the world. It is over 90 metres long and nearly 60 metres wide and stands some 10 metres proud of the underlying rock.

The Trilithon is composed of three stones each measuring 19 metres long x 4.2 metres wide x 3.6 metres broad. Hewn from natural crystalline limestone with a specific gravity of about 2.7, from a quarry 1 km mile away, they weigh 870 tons each.

They have been raised to a height of 10 metres and have been so accurately cut and placed that a razor's edge cannot be placed between them.

They have been laid upon a layer of 19 similar blocks weighing between 350 and 400 tons each.

linked-image

Why these stones are such an enigma to contemporary scientists, both engineers and archaeologists alike, is that their method of quarrying, transportation and precision placement is beyond the technological ability of any known ancient or modern builders. Various ‘scholars’, uncomfortable with the notion that ancient cultures might have developed knowledge superior to modern science, have decided that the massive Baalbek stones were laboriously dragged from the nearby quarries to the temple site. While carved images in the temples of Egypt and Mesopotamia do indeed give evidence of this method of block transportation - using ropes, wooden rollers and thousands of laborers - the dragged blocks are known to have been only 1/10th the size and weight of the Baalbek stones and to have been moved along flat surfaces with wide movement paths. 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.

Quite an impressive feat of engineering - the Baalbek foundation stones shown above are the largest pieces of hewn rock on the face of the Earth.

At the link below it is argued that the foundation stones are far older than previously thought and that Roman architects just simply added to an already existing structure.

The collosal stones (each weighing 800 tonnes) are situated in a wall of the great acropolis of Baalbek in Lebanon and it is said that:

"..they are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them.."

Michel Alouf,Former curator of the ruins.

Interesting stuff.

Links:

http://www.vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/baalbek.htm

http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/cu...res.htm#Baalbek

http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/Mysteries_of...6/baalbek6.html

Edited by karl 12
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting stuff.. even the Romans couldn't pilfer them... or 'borrow' them and had to cut them up to transport them..

this is interesting...

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm

The Great Court, begun during the reign of Trajan (98-117), measured 135 meters by 113 meters, contained various religious buildings and altars, and was surrounded by a splendid colonnade of 128 rose granite columns. These magnificent columns, 20 meters tall and of enormous weight, are known to have been quarried in Aswan, Egypt but how they were actually transported by land and sea to Baalbek remains an engineering mystery. Today, only six columns remain standing, the rest having been destroyed by earthquakes or taken to other sites (for example, Justinian appropriated eight of them for the basilica of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople).

Architects and construction engineers, however, not having any preconceived ideas of ancient history to uphold, will frankly state that there are no known lifting technologies even in current times that could raise and position the Baalbek stones given the amount of working space. The massive stones of the Grand Terrace of Baalbek are simply beyond the engineering abilities of any recognized ancient or contemporary builders.

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.

Edited by crystal sage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
very interesting stuff.. even the Romans couldn't pilfer them... or 'borrow' them and had to cut them up to transport them..

this is interesting...

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm

Another enigma. A lot of people focus on space and UFO's when we still have 'unexplained mysteries' sitting on our own doorstep! Sometimes there seems to be an attitude of, "if its too hard to explain, don't!".

I wonder what lies beneath the oceans, or the polar caps for that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

;) Do you think that Rome 'claimed' that these buildings were theirs???

or maybe just 'refreshed' it.. then claimed it???

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialrepo...eb/baalbek.html

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.

Note the Romans couldn't shift these blocks... so how could they have built these?

‘Dated graffito proves that the Romans could not have built or financed Baalbek.’

http://www.lebanonpostcard.com/en/phoenici...ook/index.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;) Do you think that Rome 'claimed' that these buildings were theirs???

or maybe just 'refreshed' it.. then claimed it???

Some great links there :tu:

Apparently those cheeky Romans may have not been the first -as well as the graffiti they've found building stones on top of the megaliths which predate the Romans.

These two men in the photograph below put the foundation stones into scale:

These cyclopean stones are certainly not Roman. The square cut Roman stones are heaped on top of them by the Arabs or Crusaders, whoever turned the ruins into a medieval fortress. Look at how small the two men are compared to the cyclopean stonework, let alone the megaliths upon which they are built

linked-image

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.

More info on stonework:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arqueolo...p_baalbek_1.htm

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll let Harte tackle this one, though I understand they he gets tired of pointing out the same basic facts time after time.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite an impressive feat of engineering - the Baalbek foundation stones shown above are the largest pieces of hewn rock on the face of the Earth.

At the link below it is argued that the foundation stones are far older than previously thought and that Roman architects just simply added to an already existing structure.

The colossal stones (each weighing 800 tonnes) are situated in a wall of the great acropolis of Baalbek in Lebanon and it is said that:

"..they are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them.."

Michel Alouf, Former curator of the ruins.

Interesting stuff.

They certainly are amazing, and though really must have been an engineering task requiring years and thousands of men, it was not outside the abilities of the people of the times to create and move such stones.

Do you think that Rome 'claimed' that these buildings were theirs???

or maybe just 'refreshed' it.. then claimed it???

I believe they found them in place and built on top. The Greeks and the Mesopotamians were there first and could have built this.

Note the Romans couldn't shift these blocks... so how could they have built these?

I believe that if the Romans want to they could have cut up the blocks or moved them with great expense, but I believe that they simply did not see the need or have the desire. The blocks are huge, but the obelisks and other stones works they took from Egypt to Rome and Constantinople were decorated, which is probably what the emperors wanted, as they could erect their own monuments if they wished. It just displayed more power and influence to take monuments from other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I'll let Harte tackle this one, though I understand they he gets tired of pointing out the same basic facts time after time.

--Jaylemurph

lol

he's late

must be fighting off beagles

:w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol

he's late

must be fighting off beagles

:w00t:

More likely that he's consulting with his personal Ascended Master Bool Krappi. :D

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'll do it for him then:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html

That was an interesting read. It highlights the tenacity of the human race.

Look out space, here we come, sooner or later! Maybe there is something to be said for that old "Tortoise and Hare" fable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'll do it for him then:

http://www.ramtops.co.uk/baalbek.html

Yes its interesting that Wiegand fails to address (or conveniently ignores) many pertinent points:

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

linked-image

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.

linked-image

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:

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:

linked-image

http://www.vejprty.com/baalbek.htm

Older masonry:

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.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/arqueolo...p_baalbek_1.htm

Graffiti:

"To good Fortune! In the year 371, the second day of the month of Lôos (August 60 AD), the katochoi put off their beards".

http://www.lebanonpostcard.com/en/phoenici...ook/index.shtml

Diffferent tiers:

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.

linked-image

No historical Roman records,different architecture:

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.

http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm

Weathering:

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:

linked-image

This is how the giant stones look when old. The stone's surface is pitted and cracked. (Above, right)

Out of character:

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.

Circumstantial:

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.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol

he's late

must be fighting off beagles

:w00t:

You should know by now that I usually take weekends off to reboot my sanity after a week of reading the loopy things written in this crazy forum by people with no knowledge concerning the "mysterious" things on which they pontificate.

Since nobody has said it, and people who "want to believe" won't read it, I should point out that Roman artifacts were found (in the very first excavation, almost a hundred years ago) at the site at levels below these "mysterious" stones, and that the stones required no lifting at all to place them.

And the link stating that this is not typical Roman architecture is simply lying. It certainly is typical.

Harte

Edited by Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since nobody has said it, and people who "want to believe" won't read it

Doesn't pseudo-science and pseudo-scepticism works both ways?

I should point out that Roman artifacts were found (in the very first excavation, almost a hundred years ago) at the site at levels below these "mysterious" stones, and that the stones required no lifting at all to place them.

Thats interesting evidence - do you have a link?

And the link stating that this is not typical Roman architecture is simply lying.

How do you arrive at your conclusions?

Are there any other similar Roman constructions?

The styles in architecture appear to have a marked difference.

Any comments on the graffiti or other points raised?

Cheers

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should know by now that I usually take weekends off to reboot my sanity after a week of reading the loopy things written in this crazy forum by people with no knowledge concerning the "mysterious" things on which they pontificate.

I hope you know you are in an "unexplained mysteries" forum. If you seirously believe that a unexplained mystery website with UFOs, Ghosts , and Bigfoots are going to attract people who only talk about logical and proven facts than you need to find a different forum. Maybe nationalgeographic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'd like to see this evidence too.

Even Wiki tells us it was built on top of earlier ruins - because it WAS.

The Roman construction was built on top of earlier ruins and involved the creation of an immense raised plaza onto which the actual buildings were placed.

Wiki - Baalbek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'd like to see this evidence too.

Even Wiki tells us it was built on top of earlier ruins - because it WAS.

The Roman construction was built on top of earlier ruins and involved the creation of an immense raised plaza onto which the actual buildings were placed.

Wiki - Baalbek

Yeah, it's not like anyone could get on Wiki and, you know, change the information or anything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats interesting evidence - do you have a link?

You've seen one link to the info, did you read it?

The archaeological investigation I mentioned took place in the early 1920's. You expect a link to a scientific paper published in 1925? You'll likely not find it and here's why.

Most older papers that you can easily find online are seriously important or they have been scanned and put up by woo-woo websites like those linked to here concering how Baalbek "couldn't be Roman."

If you go to the Ramtops link, you'll find the source of these completely disproven claims comes from the first discovery of the Baalbek ruins by Europeans.

The fact that they marvelled at them is understandable. However, a few decades or so later, they were explained.

You can find the name of the archaeologist and the paper in that link (Ramtops link given earlier.)

You can probably find it at Jstore, but you have to go through a library or academic institution to get it from them (Jstor, Jstore - I forget the spelling.)

In the meantime, where is your link to actual archaeology that has taken place at Baalbek? What you've put up is a series of claims made originally by "alternative historians out to sell books.

IIRC, the claim was first made by either Zechariah Sitchin or Erik VonDaniken.

Run a search here to see why these two "gentlemen" have no business at all claiming to know a single thing about Baalbek.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, I'd like to see this evidence too.

Even Wiki tells us it was built on top of earlier ruins - because it WAS.

The Roman construction was built on top of earlier ruins and involved the creation of an immense raised plaza onto which the actual buildings were placed.

Wiki - Baalbek

Puzzler,

Why do you resort to purposefully taking a quote out of context in order to "mystify" a completely explained site? Or, do I really need to ask?

The Roman construction was built on top of earlier ruins and involved the creation of an immense raised plaza onto which the actual buildings were placed. The sloping terrain necessitated the creation of retaining walls on the north, south and west sides of the plaza. These walls are built of about 24 monoliths at their lowest level each weighing approximately 300 tons. The western, tallest retaining wall has a second course of monoliths containg the famous "trilithon"; a row of three stones, estimated of the weight of these stones are about 750 tons each. [2] A fourth, still larger stone called "the stone of the south" (Hajar el Gouble) or "the stone of the pregnant woman" (Hajar el Hibla) lies unused in a nearby quarry 3 miles away. Had it been freed from the quarry, it would have been the largest stone ever moved, larger than the famous unfinished obelisk in Aswan. Another of the Roman ruins, the Great Court, has six 20 m-tall stone columns surviving, out of an original 128.

As anyone can see, wiki clearly states that the monoliths were placed by the Romans and is in complete agreement with what I've tried to tell posters here.

I see you understand, BTW, that it certainly helps when you lie about a situation if you don't include a link to your quote.

Keeps readers from finding out too quickly that you have mistrepresented the situation to further your own wonderland agenda.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Puzzler,

Why do you resort to purposefully taking a quote out of context in order to "mystify" a completely explained site? Or, do I really need to ask?

As anyone can see, wiki clearly states that the monoliths were placed by the Romans and is in complete agreement with what I've tried to tell posters here.

I see you understand, BTW, that it certainly helps when you lie about a situation if you don't include a link to your quote.

Keeps readers from finding out too quickly that you have mistrepresented the situation to further your own wonderland agenda.

Harte

It doesnt read like that to me. I read it as the Romans built their bit on top of ruins that were already there. The wiki article explains why the ruins were needed but doesnt explicitly say that the Romans did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it does read like that to me. Try leaving out the part about the ruins, which are really irrelevant to the Roman construction. See below:

The Roman construction ....................................................involved the creation of an immense raised plaza onto which the actual buildings were placed. The sloping terrain necessitated the creation of retaining walls on the north, south and west sides of the plaza. These walls are built of about 24 monoliths at their lowest level each weighing approximately 300 tons. The western, tallest retaining wall has a second course of monoliths containg the famous "trilithon"; a row of three stones, estimated of the weight of these stones are about 750 tons each. [2] A fourth, still larger stone called "the stone of the south" (Hajar el Gouble) or "the stone of the pregnant woman" (Hajar el Hibla) lies unused in a nearby quarry 3 miles away. Had it been freed from the quarry, it would have been the largest stone ever moved, larger than the famous unfinished obelisk in Aswan. Another of the Roman ruins, the Great Court, has six 20 m-tall stone columns surviving, out of an original 128.

The ruins weren't what involved the creation of an immense raised plaza, the Roman construction was. The ruins were only mentioned in passing, IMO.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... logical and proven facts..

Logical - thats a good one.

The only piece of 'evidence' being referred to is claimed by the author of 'one' textbook and the mysterious 'Roman drum' has never been confirmed or found.

Part of a [Roman] drum or column similar to those found in the Temple of Jupiter was used as a block in the foundation under the Trilithon

Please find an image or another form of independant evidence for this claim.

As for proven facts -just cherrypicking certain ones whilst deliberately ignoring all other discrepencies isn't realy that scientificaly objective is it?

Why not address the differences in graffiti,weather erosion,architecture,brick,masonry size,horizontal building line,tier arrangement etc.. or speculate upon why the Romans never made mention of the commission of 'the world's largest building project' even once in their comprehensive histories?

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've seen one link to the info, did you read it?

The archaeological investigation I mentioned took place in the early 1920's. You expect a link to a scientific paper published in 1925? You'll likely not find it and here's why.

Most older papers that you can easily find online are seriously important or they have been scanned and put up by woo-woo websites like those linked to here concering how Baalbek "couldn't be Roman."

If you go to the Ramtops link, you'll find the source of these completely disproven claims comes from the first discovery of the Baalbek ruins by Europeans.

The fact that they marvelled at them is understandable. However, a few decades or so later, they were explained.

You can find the name of the archaeologist and the paper in that link (Ramtops link given earlier.)

You can probably find it at Jstore, but you have to go through a library or academic institution to get it from them (Jstor, Jstore - I forget the spelling.)

In the meantime, where is your link to actual archaeology that has taken place at Baalbek? What you've put up is a series of claims made originally by "alternative historians out to sell books.

IIRC, the claim was first made by either Zechariah Sitchin or Erik VonDaniken.

Run a search here to see why these two "gentlemen" have no business at all claiming to know a single thing about Baalbek.

Harte

Oh no!!

Not Sitchin!

If you're going to believe Sitchin on this Mr. Harte. Then why not on Planet X? Haha hehe jp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.