It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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 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 You absolutely cannot rely on outdated discarded 1950's era research.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.
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.
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.
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 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.
"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"
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.
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?
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 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.
If you wish for an unknown culture to have built a lone retaining wall there x years ago, so be it.
Your German Archaeology Group, as many others, recognize a pre-Roman building phase:
This is the inner podium, that - like the outer podium wall, is built in a cyclopean fashion, a style that is distinctly NOT Roman.
You keep implying that no other culture existed in this region.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.