alithic 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 twice as much time?
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
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 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.
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
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 quarry
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
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.
