 to add a suitably
majestic structure to, stamping the Roman eagle upon the whole for the
perception of future generations.
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 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.
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,
supposedly been a religious centre devoted to Baal. Local Arab legends place
the cyclopean walls (the Baalbek Terrace) into the time of Cain and
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
practiced 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 (right image) as it was circa 1870.
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:
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 t