The Baalbek foundation stones.

Howdy Karl

The quote of technique misses that the the Romans used windlasses in relay, ie as many windlasses as they needed could be hooked up using iron wire rope to a wooden sledge (regular rope would break - a problem the Egyptians probably had). Care to guess how much power a Roman style windlass could produce? In conjuction with pulleys? I suggest you take a looksee at that Roman construction techniques book.

Look how the Italians raised the re-raised the obelisks in Rome - windlasses.

A great deal of Roman literature and records were lost I'd estimate we have around 1% of what the Romans wrote . But that stand is two-edged if the stones were so amazing why no mention by other cultures?

I'd note that in 1926 the Axum obolisk taken by Mussolini was transported over land without improved roads by sixty oxen, its weight was a bit over 100 tons. So the scale that up to move 700 tons, and you have an idea of what would be needed. there is a picture of monolith being moved by this method on page 28 of that book, Roman Construction techniques

The book on Roman Construction Technique

Another question, how do they determine the weight? Take the dimensions x a known weight density for a type of stone. Limestone is difficult to know the weight due to its variable density. Estimates I've seen on the three stones go from the high 600s to the mid 800. I use 700 as a compromise.

[edit on 23/2/09 by Hanslune]

Lets see the explanations involving log rollers and hundreds of slaves confirm this one then

reply to post by nake13


You can use rollers but they have to be perfectly round, straight and used on a path that is also straight and level, if not the stones weight will exceed their compressiability factor and crush them. Probably not used much except for smaller stones. The Egyptians pictured the use of sledges drawn by lots of happy people.

Ok....just a thought...from most of the pages I have read...the name of the stones are the Baalbek stones...it was mentioned that the foundation may be from a previously standing structure early on in the thread.

What if you change the spelling of this place by replacing the letter "k" at the end of the word with an "l"...you now have the word "Baalbel".

could this have been the "Tower of Baabel" spoken of in the OT? If one were to build a tower that reached as high as it supposedly did before falling...it would be expected to have had a very strong large foundation.

Like I said...just a thought.

~Holly

reply to post by Holly N.R.A.


Interesting thought but.....the structure dates to the Roman era based on pottery shards found within it foundation.

There was bronze age and neolithic materials found too - but nothing to lead one to think there was major contruction there.

Originally posted by Æhµ
When I studied Architecture Baalbek was one of the topics that generated intense interest and debate among the professors.

Your Architecture professors appear to have very little knowledge of Roman building techniques, then.

Are you a registered architect today? If not, this might be why.

Originally posted by ÆhµIt's been recognized the Romans had little to do with Baalbek's massive foundations stones, other than to use it as a platform for their temple built to Jupiter.

It's also been "recognized" that the Moon is made of green cheese.

Originally posted by Æhµ
The argument that earthen ramps were used to move dolmens of this size isn't any more valid here than it was in Egypt. The earthen ramp itself becomes a gargantuan work that would still be in evidence today. Where is the scarred earth where such a ramp existed outside the face of the Giza pyramids or Baalbak?

Apparently, you enjoy asking moot questions about subjects you refuse to research yourself. Otherwise you would know that evidence of ramps has been found at pyramids all over Egypt, including the Great Pyramid.

And, why is everyone asking about ramps at Baalbek? No ramps were used, nor were they necessary. You've already been informed that the site is downhill from the quarry. The only reason for ramps would be if the Romans moved the blocks past the site and then back uphill. Are you saying that this was the way it was done? Wouldn't that be a little silly to do that?

Originally posted by Æhµ
I believe it was Zecharia Sitchen who writes in one of his Earth Chronicles on the consistency of the matter of the stones, how their consistency is not like any stones or granite found in nature (molecules are aligned in some fashion). He offers the theory that sound waves were used in their shaping (as well as the stone works at Machu Picchu, which bear a strong resemblance in their fitting to the Baalbak platform). Whether this was the technology of a higher intelligence or a flight of fancy on Sithchin's part still doesn't diminish the wonder of these incredible stone works.

It is neither. It is an example of a lie told by Sitchin to sell books. Which, I might add, he has been quite successful at.

Speaks a lot about the mentality of the human race, doesn't it? We would rather be lied to and remain in ignorant wonderment, it seems, than know the truth and live in the real world.

Harte

Originally posted by Lombardy Inn


The first question that came to my mind is that with all this man power obviously needed to move these large stones, why are there no remains of a major civilization around it? I know that to move the stones for the pyramids, it took thousands, and many many years, and look what is left behind from them. Where is the major city the slaves/workers lived in? It must have been a huge operation.

Because the stones were moved and placed over a relatively short time using a series of Roman cranes, which are large circular wheels resembling a Ferris Wheel.

Large numbers of men walk inside the wheel and their muscle, along with the mechanical advantage of the wheel's torque (and likely some compound pulleys as well) are more than enough to move these stones and place them.
No time for any town of workers to build up around it like the one that lasted about 15-20 years next to the Great Pyramid. And no need.

Harte

reply to post by Hanslune


coral castle guys check it out.. may be some answers to find there.

Originally posted by scrapple
Cranes! Cranes??

A simple search shows what 'modern' cranes can pick?

Certainly does. And, apparently, you didn't look:
Here's a few:
850 tons
900 tons
1600 tons
1500 tons
I could go on.

And please remember, the stones at Baalbek never had to be lifted.

Harte

Originally posted by bpg131313
I'm all for giving engineers their due, but when it's all said and done, until it's done in the real world, I'm gonna doubt it. I know the Romans were some brilliant people. I've been to Italy several times, and am always amazed with what they were able to accomplish. That said, moving a 1000 ton rock and getting it properly in place with the methods described is great on paper, but until it's proven to be done in reality I'm just not able to believe it.

Anyone is welcome to "believe what they want, of course.

Based on your statements above, I guess you'd have a problem believing that the Romans built Trajan's Column as well:

Trajan's Column is a monument in Rome raised in honour of the Roman emperor Trajan and constructed by the architect Apollodorus of Damascus at the order of the Roman Senate. It is located in Trajan's Forum, built near the Quirinal Hill, north of the Roman Forum. Completed in 113, the freestanding column is most famous for its spiral bas relief, which commemorates Trajan's victory in the Dacian Wars.

The structure is about 30 meters (98 ft) in height, 38 meters (125 ft) including its large pedestal. The shaft is made from a series of 20 colossal Carrara marble drums, each weighing about 40 tons, with a diameter of 3.7 meters (11 ft). The 190 meter (625 ft) frieze winds around the shaft 23 times. Inside the shaft, a spiral staircase of 185 stairs provides access to a viewing platform at the top. The capital block of Trajan's Column weighs 53.3 tons which had to be lifted at a height of ca. 34 m.[1]

Source
Before you point out the obvious difference in size, please note than none of the blocks at Baalbek weigh 1,000 tons. Also, the Baalbek stones were not lifted into place. Lastly, see the bolded part above? Those spiral stairs were carved into the inside of each of those marble drums before they were lifted several stories into the air straight up, and placed so that a person on the inside can't tell that they are separate sections. Think of placing something that intricate and heavy so perfectly in alighnment with a wooden human-powered (or animal-powered) crane.

IMO, it's a far greater accomplishment than dragging a handful of huge stones downhill and directing them into position.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


You my friend are the one lieing to yourdself and steeped in blissful ignorance. The rest of us are trying to figure out a reasonable explanation for afeat that would still be difficult for us even today.

The quarry site was NOT uphill from the placement site.

There were a series of up and down slopes in between the locations if memory serves from when I invedtigated this.

I can't believe that people still believe egyptologists about ANYTHING! They only care about making sure that everyone believes that egyptions were solely responsible for Giza and that they they were inferior to us.

Jaden

This is a subject that always fascinated me.

I hope to see the stones with my own eyes once

I can only imagine what the builder must have thought...

Why? Because people need to ask that question thousands of years...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Why not consider this possibility. Could the stones not have been CAST as in the same way or similar to our current brick manufacturing is done. Think about it, cast them in place. Sand some agg and a binder. Remove the cast and you have a stone that fits perfectly into place cause it was CAST that way.

Just my 2c

I read a book that claims this is the way they did it. I forget who it was by, but they basically used organic acids derived from certain plants to break down the limestone at the quarry and then water and an aggregate to cast them in place at the site.

However, even if this is true, its still a technological wonder that they had the knowledge of concrete 10K+ years ago! If true, this knowledge was lost until fairly recently.

reply to post by ldunquist


As was pointed out, some of the stones still reside at the quarry they were dug from.

Originally posted by RuneSpider
reply to post by ldunquist

 

As was pointed out, some of the stones still reside at the quarry they were dug from.

What was such a massive piece of stone dug out with? I still believe this was pure human ingenuity...but i still cant wrap my head around the huge task of doing so.

[edit on 23-2-2009 by Solomons]

reply to post by RuneSpider


Howdy Rune

Yep a number of stone remain in quarry. quoting from memory of 1990's German expedition report (only read the abstract) a number stones that cracked or were not completed were in situ plus depending on how you read the German term either a large stone like the Trilition or one of the 1,000 tonners was found buried in rubble. I've never been able to verify that unfortunately.

Howdy Harte

Hey I have to disagree, I don't think they used those polyspastos types of cranes for pulling, good for lifting and most probably used to built the upper stories, not so good for dragging stuff. I go for a series of windlasses and complicated pulley mechanisms like what was later used for re-erecting the obelisks in Rome.

Unfortunately the last time I was in Lebanon (the extreme northern tip) they were shooting at one another and Baalbek was controlled by one of the more Iranian slanted Shia militias.... yeah I chicken out! About two years ago when I was in Syria and thought about dashing across the border to Baalbek but couldn't find a Syrian willing to accompany me - dang.

reply to post by Solomons

The Romans mostly used tools that were already available at the time. They had iron tools like chisels and other stone working tools, similar to what we have today.

reply to post by Holly N.R.A.


"What if you change the spelling of this place by replacing the letter "k" at the end of the word with an "l"...you now have the word "Baalbel".Could this have been the "Tower of Baabel" spoken of in the OT?"
--------------------------------------------

The name "Baalbeck" derives from the Canaanite god Baal, whose name means "Lord."

I would say its more interesting to look at the "Tower Of Babel", as the "Tower of BaBaal". From that viewpoint it makes more sense as the "Tower To God", or "Tower To Lord".

Also interesting when applied to the "Holy Bible" or "Holy BiBaal". Holy is derived from "Helios" or "Sun", and from that viewpoint it would imply "Sun by God".

Here is some good info from (www.sacred-destinations.com...)

"Baal was adopted by the Assyrians as Bel, and he can be equated with the Egyptian Seth, the Phoenician Reshef and the Aramaean Haddad. The triad of Baal, Aliyan and Anat had its parallels in the Greek Zeus, Hermes and Aphrodite and the Roman Jupiter, Mercury and Venus. The sequence of life, death and resurrection was also central to the popular cult of Adonis and Osiris, which came out of Egypt and flourished well into Roman times."

"The Romans did not start from scratch. Archaeologists have discovered pre-Hellenistic remains of a sanctuary on the site, where Baal and the other Canaanite deities were worshipped. It centered around a natural crevice, which was probably the original sacred site before anything was built. Both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids added Hellenistic elements to the existing sanctuary. "

Peace

reply to post by Harte


If I am correct, none of those structures capable of lifting that weight are made of just wood and string. You think they had the steel and power to create a crane? We may harness the tech. to do it within our modern times but lets be real... your not making anyone look ignorant but urself

reply to post by RuneSpider


As I understand many of the tools/mechanisms the Romans had were not made obsolete for nearly a thousand years, they were good engineers. One opponent of Rome, a general whose name escapes me said. I can face their legions and gain victory but I fear their engineers.(seige craft)