Jupiter's
Temple,
Baalbek,
Lebanon
&
Are
the World's Biggest
Building Blocks Prehistoric?
|
In 27 BC, the Roman emperor
Augustus supposedly
took the
unfathomable decision to build in the
middle of nowhere the grandest
and
mightiest temple of antiquity, the Temple
of Jupiter, whose
platform, and big
courtyard are retained by three walls
containing
twenty-seven limestone
blocks, unequaled in size anywhere
in the world, as they all
weigh in
excess of 300 metric tons. Three of the
blocks, however, weigh
more than 800 tons
each. This block trio is world-renowned as
the "Trilithon".
If we think within the official
academic framework of
history,
Augustus had no obvious reasons for
selecting Baalbek as the temple's
building
site. Supposedly, Baalbek was just a small
city on a trading
route to
Damascus through the Bekaa valley in
Lebanese mountains,
about
sixty kilometers from the
Mediterranean
coast (34º lat.,
36º long.) At
that time, it was of no
special
religious significance, apart from being
in the centre of a burial
region, in the midst of of thousands of
rock cut tombs.
But, 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 (enclosure) 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.
Therefore, the heavily eroded blocks
should be much
older.
This fact naturally gives rise to a
different scenario: At
Baalbek Rome had found a fabulous
ready made foundation, a
mighty
platform to add a
suitably majestic structure to, stamping
the Roman eagle upon the
whole for the perception
of future generations.
Bonfils, ca. 1870.
Negative
inscribed "468. Mur Cyclopeen
a Balbek." Albumen. Unmounted. 11 x 9
inches.
© 1996 Middle East
Section. Joseph Regenstein Library.
The University of Chicago
The panoramic
view does not even span the
Trilithon, the three blocks
of stone in a row on the
west-side of the Baalbek
Terrace. They are in
a class of their own, by
far the heaviest stones ever
transported
on this Earth
- Super-cyclopean,
Hyper-colossal, Über-duper,
or a term of
your own, take
a pick.
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 (see
below) 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.
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.
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 awed 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.
The sad truth is that regarding the
Trilithon, some scholars
have mental blocks its own size.
Admissions that blocks weighing over a
1000 metric
tons were quarried and transported in
prehistoric times would invite
uncomfortable
questions on what technology had made it
all possible. Regardless of
such touchy issues, I have several
personal observations,
which
support dating of Baalbek's megalithic
walls to the megalithic era.
Have a look at this nice
northwestern view of the wall as it was
circa 1870.
http://www.biblemysteries.com/images/baalbek1.jpg
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 bottom three
layers are composed from
small
blocks. In this earthquake-prone
region, this is
probably
a measure to safeguard the big
blocks. During strong
earthquakes, the mass of smaller
blocks moves like
jelly,
relatively speaking, and absorbs most of
the quake's destructive force.
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
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.
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.
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,
perhaps, out of reverence for
antedeluvial ruins.
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 millenia 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
quarrry 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?
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
even
substantially smaller blocks. 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 (reigned
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:
http://www.turkeyupdate.com/obelisk.htm
"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 harbour 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 [reigned 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 judgement 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.
©Jiri
Mruzek
June, 2000
|
|
Click
on
icons for bigger
images
|
Bonfils,
ca. 1870.
The site
changes a lot
from one picture to
another.
Here, we cannot
tell which image is older
from the block's erosion, which
looks rather unchanged. |
The
block has a healthy sheen
of
high quality limestone.
Polished, it should resist
erosion
admirably.
|
|
The
Trilithon is in the upper
left corner in this
southwest view.
It
reaches past the south wall
of
Jupiter's
temple. The nine giant
blocks just below
and to the south
of the Jupiter's
temple continue
from the six support
blocks
under
the Trilithon,
and are like the
nine blocks
on the north
side |
Northern view -
nine more 400 ton
blocks
|
A View from the
south
|
Trilithon
|
Trilithon - NW
view |
Why
did
Romans pick the remote Baalbek? Did they do
it for practical
reasons, utilizing older
structures, and perhaps plentiful building
materials already onsite?
Even the fifty-four enormous yet typically
Roman columns from
Aswan granite, which had once
surrounded the courtyard, of
which
six
are still standing, may be pre-Roman,
but later recarved in
the
Roman
style. Despite being as magnificient as they
are, the spectacular
and unprecedented construction achievements
at Baalbek were not
heralded
to the world as its own by the proud and
glory hungry Rome. Why
not?
Making such a claim would have been
impossible, if the world
already knew about the awesome Baalbek
ruins, of
course. |
|
|
