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.) 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
Material Evidence
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) 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 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.
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 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.
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 logiic
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.
|
|
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. If Roman and other writers had failed to mention the great
Baalbek blocks, they were in amaziing sync with the modern day's
attitude. |
|
|
