Mystery of Baalbek's Pregnant Stones: Ancient Lost Civilization?

[Eezekiel]

The base stones that make up the foundation of the Roman sun godess temple at baalbek, Lebanon. These stones have been calculated by some to 800-2000 tons a piece. Several sites claim that the romans were uncapable of moving, lifting, and placing these massive blocks with the accuracy of baalbek. The sites claim that when the romans first came to Baalbek there was already a temple there. The original temple belonged to a much more advanced lost civilization. Then the Romans built on top of the temple, while using the already existing massive 800-2000 ton stones as a foundation.

One of these sites is http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_baalbek_1.htm"

 

[Eezekiel]

I know the romans were capable of moving massive stones, but could they have moved these? How could they? anybody?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This may be relevant:

The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study.

The research, by materials scientists from national institutions, adds fuel to a theory that the pharaohs’ craftsmen had enough skill and materials at hand to cast the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids. [continued]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

 

[PlasmaSphere]

Thanx for bringing this up, i nearly forgot about this, i was going to post this myself. Out of all of the old megaliths the trilithon is the most enigmatic of the lot. There is probably not a single crane in the world that could lift up that stone today, the biggest of them is thought to weigh over 1000 tonnes. Also, they weren't quarried by the Romans, they just moved some of them when they built the temple of Jupiter on the old Baalbeck structure. Some historians even think they were made back around the time of the egyptians, or even earlier. That area of the world is where the very first civilizations developed and it has a rich history of very ancient monuments and cultures. good info at; http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_5b3.htm (page 3 of 5)

Approximately 86 kilometers northeast of the city of Beirut in eastern Lebanon stands the temple complex of Baalbek. Situated atop a high point in the fertile Bekaa valley, the ruins are one of the most extraordinary and enigmatic holy places of ancient times. Long before the Romans conquered the site and built their enormous temple of Jupiter, long even before the Phoenicians constructed a temple to the god Baal, there stood at Baalbek the largest stone block construction found in the entire world.

The origin of the name Baalbek is not precisely known and there is some difference of opinion among scholars. The Phoenician term Baal (as the Hebrew term Adon) simply means ‘lord’ or ‘god’ and was the title given to the Semitic sky-deity worshipped throughout the archaic Middle East. The word Baalbek may mean 'God of the Bekaa valley' (the local area) or ‘God of the Town’, depending on different interpretations of the word. Ancient legends assert that Baalbek was the birthplace of Baal. Some scholars have suggested that Baal (the Assyrian Hadad) was only one of a triad of Phoenician deities that were once venerated at this site - the others being his son Aliyan, who presided over well-springs and fecundity, and his daughter Anat (Assyrian Atargatis).

According to theories stated by the mainstream archaeological community, the history of Baalbek reaches back approximately 5000 years. Excavations beneath the Great Court of the Temple of Jupiter have uncovered traces of settlements dating to the Middle Bronze Age (1900-1600 BC) built on top of an older level of human habitation dating to the Early Bronze Age (2900-2300 BC).

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.

More recently in the 18th century there was a bigger one moved called the 'thunderstone' , which required a huge amount of man power. They used hundreds of round metal ball bearings on runners to move it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bronze_Horseman#The_largest_stone_ever_moved_by_man.3F

It is sometimes claimed that the Thunder Stone is the "largest stone ever moved by man." This stone was not only tremendously large, but was also effectively moved 6 km (4 miles) overland to the Gulf of Finland by manpower alone; no animals or machines were used. It was then transported by boat up the Neva, and subsequently to its current site. Due to the large size of the rock, the easiest way to measure its mass is to calculate it. Its dimensions before being cut, according to the fall 1882 edition of La Nature were 7 x 14 x 9 m. Based on the density of granite, its mass was determined to be around 1500 tonnes.[7] Falconet had some of this cut away to change the rock to its current wave-like shape, leaving the finished, stylized pedestal weighing slightly less. This still leaves it the largest when compared to other large, sculpted stones:

Quite an amazing feat! to my knowledge that is the biggest stone moved since the trilithon stones.
However, i don't think that the trilithon can be fully explained by man power alone. For a start, some of the stones had to be raised over twenty foot and placed into position to a precision of millimetres into the Baalbeck structure. I don't think that they would have managed to do that even in the 18th century, they just rolled it along the ground, and with great difficulty. Also i think it is highly unlikely a block that big could be made up of a concrete mixture, as its huge weight would create massive forces on it when it is being moved, it would likely shatter. Also they did not have any sort of sophisticated metal work before the romans, so using ball bearings to move it like were done with the thunderstone is not possible. Stones would not be sperical enough, and would likely shatter under its immense weight. I don't think anyone is sure of how they were moved and lifted into position.

Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon:

in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'.

One of the true mysteries of the ancient world.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Thanx for bringing this up, i nearly forgot about this, i was going to post this myself.

I think you missed the point of the post. The theory is that the blocks discussed in the link were poured like concrete.

 

[PlasmaSphere]

I think you missed the point of the post. The theory is that the blocks discussed in the link were poured like concrete.

surely they could not have been poured already in position? They may have well as made the whole thing out of solid concrete in that case. There would be no reason to make it out of separate parts if it was poured there.

The quarry where they were mined from is near the site, and one of the blocks is still there. They would have still had to have moved them from the quarry, and lifted them into position.

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

Even more extraordinary is the fact that in a limestone quarry about one quarter of a mile away from the Baalbek complex is an even larger building block. Known as Hajar el Gouble, the Stone of the South, or the Hajar el Hibla, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, it weighs an estimated 1200 tonnes.(2) It lays at a raised angle - the lowest part of its base still attached to the living rock - cut and ready to be broken free and transported to its presumed destination next to the Trilithon, the name given to the three great stones in ancient times.

The next problem is whether or not the Romans possessed the engineering capability to transport and position 1000-tonne blocks of this nature. Since the Stone of the Pregnant Woman was presumably intended to extend the Trilithon, it must be assumed that the main three stones came from the same quarry, which lies about one quarter of a mile from the site. Another similar stone quarry lies some two miles away, but there is no obvious evidence that the Trilithon stones came from there.

also interesting from that site;

There is, however, tantalising evidence to show that some of the earliest archaeologists and European travellers to visit Baalbek came away believing that the Great Platform was much older than the nearby Roman temples. For instance, the French scholar, Louis F licien de Saulcy, stayed at Baalbek from 16 to 18 March 1851 and became convinced that the podium walls were the `remains of a pre-Roman temple'.(39)

Far more significant, however, were the observations of respected French archaeologist Ernest Renan, who was allowed archaeological exploration of the site by the French army during the mid nineteenth century.(40) It is said that when he arrived there it was to satisfy his own conviction that no pre-Roman remains existed on the site.(41) Yet following an indepth study of the ruins, Renan came to the conclusion that the stones of the Trilithon were very possibly `of Phoenician origin',(42) in other words they were a great deal older that the Roman temple complex. His reasoning for this assertion was that, in the words of Ragette, he saw `no inherent relation between the Roman temple and this work'.(43)

So what was it that so convinced early archaeologists and travellers that the Trilithon was much older than the rest of the temple complex?

The evidence is self apparent and runs as follows:-

a) One has only to look at the positioning of the Trilithon and the various courses of large stone blocks immediately beneath it to realize that they bear very little relationship to the rest of the Temple of Jupiter. Moreover, the visible courses of smaller blocks above and to the right of the Trilithon are markedly different in shape and appearance to the smaller, more regular sized courses in the rest of the obviously Roman structure.

b) The limestone courses that make up the outer podium base - which, of course, includes the Trilithon - are heavily pitted by wind and sand erosion, while the rest of the Temple of Jupiter still possesses comparatively smooth surfaces. The same type of wind and sand erosion can be seen on the huge limestone blocks used in many of the megalithic temple complexes around the northern Mediterranean coast, as well as the cyclopean walls of Mycenean Greece. Since all these structures are between 3000 and 6000 years of age, it could be argued that the lower courses of the outer podium wall at Baalbek antedate the Roman temple complex by at least a thousand years.

c) Other classical temple complexes have been built upon much earlier megalithic structures. This includes the Acropolis in Athens (erected 447-406 BC), where archaeologists have unearthed cyclopean walls dating to the Mycenean or Late Bronze Age period (1600-1100 BC). Similar huge stone walls appear at Delphi, Tiryns and Mycenae.

d) The Phoenicians are known to have employed the use of cyclopean masonry in the construction of their citadels. For instance, an early twentieth-century drawing of the last-remaining prehistoric wall at Aradus, an ancient city on the Syrian coast, shows the use of cyclopean blocks estimated to have been between thirty and forty tonnes a piece.

These are important points in favour of the Great Platform, as in the case of the inner podium, being of much greater antiquity than the Roman, or even the Ptolemaic, temple complex. Yet if we were to accept this possibility, then we must also ask ourselves: who constructed it, and why?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

surely they could not have been poured already in position? They may have well as made the whole thing out of solid concrete in that case. There would be no reason to make it out of separate parts if it was poured there.

Not to dispute your other points, but I don't think we can make the assumption that you make here. It would be much easier to construct the rigging needed to pour blocks than to pour something as large as the entire structure. Either way, if these were poured, it seems that specific evidence would be detectable.

 

[AnaShep]

If I am reading this right, then science is now guessing the way the built the massive structures were with pouring methods similar to the way we pour concrete.

This is an interesting idea and it sounds plausible to me

 

[G037H3]

Unless the ancients were in possession of machinery that we have no proof that they had (Imhotep is impressive, but not *that* impressive), then primitive concrete is the main plausible theory.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

My question would be- if the site was built using poured concrete stones, why use separate stones at all? Why didn't they just pour a single monolithic slab?

 

[jreelawg]

The Colossi of Memnon

The statues are made from blocks of quartzite sandstone which was stone quarried at el-Gabal el-Ahmar (near modern-day Cairo) and transported 675 km (420 miles) overland to Thebes.

...the colossi reach a towering 18 metres (approx. 60 ft) in height and weigh an estimated 700 tons each.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossi_of_Memnon

Here is an example, of a 700 ton megalith, which had been moved 420 miles, by the Egyptians.

My question is, can quartz sandstone be poured like concrete?

 

[G037H3]

My question would be- if the site was built using poured concrete stones, why use separate stones at all? Why didn't they just pour a single monolithic slab?

Perhaps there were limits on how large their cast could be and still produce plane surfaces.

 

[JaredJames]

My question would be- if the site was built using poured concrete stones, why use separate stones at all? Why didn't they just pour a single monolithic slab?

I saw a documentary once which said that if the hoover dam had been poured as one and not in the block sections it was made in, it would have taken over 100 years to solidify.

Not what I saw, but it's got the info:

http://www.arizona-leisure.com/hoover-dam-building.html

Perhaps this would explain using separate blocks as opposed to one complete slab.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I saw a documentary once which said that if the hoover dam had been poured as one and not in the block sections it was made in, it would have taken over 100 years to solidify.

Not what I saw, but it's got the info:

http://www.arizona-leisure.com/hoover-dam-building.html

Perhaps this would explain using separate blocks as opposed to one complete slab.

But the Hoover Dam looks like a monolithic slab now, even though it was poured in sections. Save for expansion joints, it's one big piece of concrete.

 

[pallidin]

This makes no sense.
There are no "form boards" in-between the tightly fitted blocks, or, to my understanding, any evidence of there having been any(such as burning away).

I think the "build" was nothing more than using a Huge number of slave laborers, earthen ramps, strong ropes and rolling logs.
Plus the crack of a whip, of course.

 

[JaredJames]

But the Hoover Dam looks like a monolithic slab now, even though it was poured in sections. Save for expansion joints, it's one big piece of concrete.

Yes, because it was built in such a way that it would end up 'one big structure' but not have the inherent problems of being poured as one big slab.

For example (all figures made up for illustration):
A simple bit of logic would tell you that if you know a 0.5m^3 block of concrete takes about 12 hours to set and a 1m^3 block takes 24 hours to set, you could work out how long something the size of a pyramid would take to set (or at least be able to estimate it) with enough accuracy to know it would be far too long.
You could then work on the basis of producing a series of 1m^3 blocks, allowed to dry for 24 hours each and then put in place, avoiding the extensive setting times.

It took a very accurate degree of labour to get the Hoover Dam to set correctly. I believe it needed constant concrete being poured. Remember, we also have rebar to add strength to massive sections of concrete and help hold things together. Without it, the dam wouldn't have been possible. The Egyptians didn't (as far as I'm aware).

 

[jreelawg]

Yes, because it was built in such a way that it would end up 'one big structure' but not have the inherent problems of being poured as one big slab.

For example (all figures made up for illustration):
A simple bit of logic would tell you that if you know a 0.5m^3 block of concrete takes about 12 hours to set and a 1m^3 block takes 24 hours to set, you could work out how long something the size of a pyramid would take to set (or at least be able to estimate it) with enough accuracy to know it would be far too long.
You could then work on the basis of producing a series of 1m^3 blocks, allowed to dry for 24 hours each and then put in place, avoiding the extensive setting times.

It took a very accurate degree of labour to get the Hoover Dam to set correctly. I believe it needed constant concrete being poured. Remember, we also have rebar to add strength to massive sections of concrete and help hold things together. Without it, the dam wouldn't have been possible. The Egyptians didn't (as far as I'm aware).

Just to clear things up, the scientists mentioned in the link, only suggest that some of the top stones are cement. Even if they are correct, the vast majority of the pyramid is still made of quarried stones.

This idea, while interesting, that the egyptians may have been more advanced in using concrete, doesn't solve the mystery of how they moved enormous megaliths.

Another mystery, is the technique that the egyptians used to carve diorite statues.

 

[JaredJames]

I was just giving a possible reason for not creating one big slab. Could be miles out for all I know (probably am).

The Sphinx has always amazed me. One thing I would really like to see if I got the chance.

 

[AnaShep]

I saw a documentary once which said that if the hoover dam had been poured as one and not in the block sections it was made in, it would have taken over 100 years to solidify.

Not what I saw, but it's got the info:

http://www.arizona-leisure.com/hoover-dam-building.html

Perhaps this would explain using separate blocks as opposed to one complete slab.

This would be my first thought on why they would use blocks. I like to bake and have found that cakes cook faster when made it parts. You need special parts to make larger pieces. In fact, very large cake rounds are really halves.

Besides the drying issue. A contraption to make smaller blocks would have more uses than a very large contraption that makes one big block.

 

[FlexGunship]

This idea, while interesting, that the egyptians may have been more advanced in using concrete, doesn't solve the mystery of how they moved enormous megaliths.

How do these stones compare to the ones at Stonehenge or the Moai? It was long believed that the stones used to construct Stonehenge were too large to be moved by the "rolling log" method until someone actually tried it.

I suspect we are underestimating the power of unlimited expendable human labor here.

Here is an example, of a 700 ton megalith, which had been moved 420 miles, by the Egyptians.

My question is, can quartz sandstone be poured like concrete?

Sandstone is a sedimentary rock (even if it has lots of quartz in it) which means it can be poured like concrete. Concrete is just a cleverly devised sedimentary stone mixture.

However, I don't think they needed to pour it to accomplish this.

 

[jreelawg]

How do these stones compare to the ones at Stonehenge or the Moai? It was long believed that the stones used to construct Stonehenge were too large to be moved by the "rolling log" method until someone actually tried it.

I suspect we are underestimating the power of unlimited expendable human labor here.
Sandstone is a sedimentary rock (even if it has lots of quartz in it) which means it can be poured like concrete. Concrete is just a cleverly devised sedimentary stone mixture.

However, I don't think they needed to pour it to accomplish this.

The largest rocks at stonehenge are about 50 tons, so about 1/14 the weight of the Colossi of Memnon stones.

It's obvious they moved them, we just don't know what technique they used. They left behind no record, or artifacts of how they did it.

 

[FlexGunship]

The largest rocks at stonehenge are about 50 tons, so about 1/14 the weight of the Colossi of Memnon stones.

It's obviously they moved them, we just don't know what technique they used. They left behind no record, or artifacts of how they did it.

There are some interesting records left behind. Though not specifically about the Colossi, it does show an interesting understanding of these techniques.

This website (http://www.catchpenny.org/movebig.html) also discusses the claims that "modern technology is insufficient to move such large objects in one piece." In 1999 an entire lighthouse was moved which weight about 4800 tons. While not directly addressing the point, I still think this is cool as heck.

 

[mugaliens]

The sites claim that when the romans first came to Baalbek there was already a temple there. The original temple belonged to a much more advanced lost civilization.

Could very well be. The Romans weren't particularly advanced, technologically speaking. The reinvented some, but only some, of technologies for which we have archeological evidence of having existed thousands of years before. The did come up with a few originals, however.

 

[mugaliens]

There are some interesting records left behind. Though not specifically about the Colossi, it does show an interesting understanding of these techniques.

This website (http://www.catchpenny.org/movebig.html) also discusses the claims that "modern technology is insufficient to move such large objects in one piece." In 1999 an entire lighthouse was moved which weight about 4800 tons. While not directly addressing the point, I still think this is cool as heck.

Was that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Hatteras_Light" to relocate it. I have much better pics, but being analog, they're buried in a box somewhere. If I ever dig them up, I'll scan and repost them here.

 

[FlexGunship]

Was that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Hatteras_Light" ?

Yup!

If I ever dig them up, I'll scan and repost them here.

Okay! I'll hold my breath! :tongue:

 

[Barwick]

I always wondered if someone already thought of this, but...

Do we all agree that it would have been POSSIBLE for them to move gigantic stones on relatively flat terrain (aka not up the side of a pyramid)?

This means that they could in theory build the base of the pyramid, the first layer of stones.

Then, in order to build level two, they could have simply laid enough earth, rock, and sand to make a "ramp" up to level two, and begin building level two. Same for level 3, and so on, correct?

 

[JaredJames]

I always wondered if someone already thought of this, but...

Do we all agree that it would have been POSSIBLE for them to move gigantic stones on relatively flat terrain (aka not up the side of a pyramid)?

This means that they could in theory build the base of the pyramid, the first layer of stones.

Then, in order to build level two, they could have simply laid enough earth, rock, and sand to make a "ramp" up to level two, and begin building level two. Same for level 3, and so on, correct?

As per all primary school textbooks you mean? Every picture from early school books onwards shows people dragging big blocks up ramps to the top of pyramids. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it claimed people used to drag blocks up the sides of pyramids.

 

[G037H3]

Could very well be. The Romans weren't particularly advanced, technologically speaking. The reinvented some, but only some, of technologies for which we have archeological evidence of having existed thousands of years before. The did come up with a few originals, however.

Architecture, engineering, war, and politics/political systems+culture. Also the first example of systematized state dispersal of luxuries/goods.

 

[pallidin]

I always wondered if someone already thought of this, but...

Do we all agree that it would have been POSSIBLE for them to move gigantic stones on relatively flat terrain (aka not up the side of a pyramid)?

This means that they could in theory build the base of the pyramid, the first layer of stones.

Then, in order to build level two, they could have simply laid enough earth, rock, and sand to make a "ramp" up to level two, and begin building level two. Same for level 3, and so on, correct?

Sounds good to me. A very reasonable perspective.

If it were built by a different method, I think it is still very much clear that it was a "brute-force" method, involving thousands of slaves and many years.
Nothing "paranormal" or "magical", in my opinion.

 

[jreelawg]

The last I read, it may have been that the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids with slave labor. I believe the workers were paid in grain.