ZechariaSitchin.Com Discussion Board
The Stairway to Heaven - Book II of The Earth Chronicles
For those of you with an interest in the colossal stones of Baalbek, here is a place to discuss and trade information. Some say the Romans moved the 1000 ton stones because Roman garbage was found there. (I dropped a Pepsi cup at Stone Henge, hehe, the American's must have built it) Some say the stones were already there. Ok, I showed a bias, but only to the garbage argument. Bring on your research.
Thanks for starting up this thread
1. The Roman's never moved the two larger stones, they were never finished. Why do you say they were moved?
2. The stones the Roman did move were (accounts vary) between 450-800 tons.
3. Yep Roman construction uses a honeycomb - outside finished stones with rubble inside- mixed into the rubble was trash, shards and other materials from Roman times. That honeycomb makes up the platform.
Well three items are enough to start with.
1) what 2 stones were left unfinished? i know of the "Stone of the South", which is still in the quarry and est. at 1200 tons. what other one is there?
2) i thought that the largest thing we KNOW that the romans moved (impressively!) was a 510 ton obelisk, which they moved an amazing distance of over 1000 kilometers. while the temples atop the main platform at baalbek DO have roman inscriptions and some construction information (and are comprised of some 300-400 ton stones!), the much larger platform (which contains the trilithon @ around 800 tons each) does not.
3) i have read the online report you referenced, but i cannot find where the roman honeycoms (with garbge fillings) are found BENEATH the gigundo platform. but there are several roman temples built in the immediate area, and certainly THEY would contain the described construction method. but, again, i have been searching and reading and can't find reference (and i'd love illustrations!) of the honeycombs beneath the trilithon level of the platform level on which the temple of jupiter was built (which the romans clearly built as it had work gang inscripitions in the stone).
also, i found a couple of references to local lore on baalbek - one referencing an Arab manuscript that is supposed to have been found at baalbek :
>>"And herein the problems begin, for the local inhabitants of the Beqa’a Valley – who consist in the main of Arab Muslims, Maronite Christians and Orthodox Christians – do preserve legends about the origins of the Great Platform, but they do not involve the Romans.
They say that Baalbek’s first city was built before the Great Flood by Cain, the son of Adam, whom God banished to the ‘land of Nod’ that lay ‘east of Eden’ for murdering his good brother Abel, and he called it after his son Enoch.4 The citadel, they say, fell into ruins at the time of the deluge and was much later re-built by a race of giants under the command of Nimrod, the ‘mighty hunter’ and ‘king of Shinar’ of the Book of Genesis.5"<<
4. Ibid., p.39, quoting a story told by Estfan Doweihi, a Maronite Patriarch.
5. Ibid., p.41, quoting an Arab manuscript actually found at Baalbek.
http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/ ... t_One.html
so i ask myself, "where is this arabic manuscript and who first referenced it".
History of Baalbek By Michel M. Alouf (Alouf is a french archaeologist and was at one time curator of the site) here's a link re: the book [url=http://www.seekerbooks.com/book/9781585090631.htm
so[/url] far, it still looks to me like the romans built atop the trilithon level. i'll swing away from that when i see something more on the honeycomb structure Lune mentions being between the trilithon level and bedrock...or UNDER the trilithon level.
There are two massive stones that were left in the quarries, the well known one and another covered in rubble found by the latest expedition.
The largest moved stone in in which we have a time 'fix' was probably Rameses II "ozymandias" statue at 18m and 900 tons. Moved by those pesky Egyptians without Roman engineering skills and machines - they did it with guile, organization, zeal and manpower.
There is no "platform'. The structure consists (as does most Roman non-concrete construction) of an outer wall of larger stones with an internal structure of honey comb. The platform is thus a honeycomb center with outer masonry walls.
The large stones are in part a retaining wall, which accounts for there large size.
Yep the Roman's were able to move very heavy stones but usually made use of smaller ones, arches or concrete. however at Baalbek they were using 'traditional' construction techniques as with their other temples.
Not garbage filled, rubble filled with some trash thrown in.
Stories....there was no great flood so that kinda puts that story in a special light, nor was Cain one of the first humans. Modern humans were in the ME for tens of thousands of years before Baalbek. No sign of giants either.
The limestone of the blocks, like the limestone in the Sphinx erode at different rates due to the amount of salt in the original sedimentation.
Roman Building: Materials and Techniques by Jean-Pierre Adam
Review author[s]: Roger B. Ulrich
Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Winter, 1995), pp. 499-501
There is no 'Trilithon' level. Its a just a wall of stone, a part of the wall surrounding the other construction. That side of the construction acts also as a retaining wall.
Yep the 1904-05 German expedition dug down to the bed rock. Get a good German 19th century dictionary however as it was thick going a few decades ago when I read it.
Theodor Wiegand: Baalbek. Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905. 3 Bd. de Gruyter, Berlin 1921ff.
ok...now this is a trip! during my surf&read, i encountered this website [url=http://www.thehope.org/Sagiv/theories.html
scrolling[/url] down, there is an image in the document overlaying the current layout of the temple mount in jerusalem with that of the baalbek complex (roman temples)...trippy. oh. i can't paste the image. well, check it out, if it pleases you.
TRA: That is an interesting item on Jersulem and Baalbek - one wonders if the plan for ancient temples was a standard-or is it a coincidence. The size seems odd.
Inside or outside, well they were definitely on the inside I don't recall if they did anything but test pits outside. You'd have to check the reference. The latest expedition might have done so also.
Yep, as I understand they cut right thru - destructive archaeology was more direct back then.
Other culture may have used such a structure but they never put Roman shards into it. (you might have to investigate that)- Egyptians also used rubble fill in some of their designs.
"shock absorption" Rock? Don't think so if you wanted "shock absorption" you'd use sand. Unmortared Rock would just shatter and scatter. The Roman's really weren't hat obese!
You'd have to check the two German reports for details like that.
I think you'd quickly come to realize if you wanted to land heavy space ships/aircraft a masonry construct with rubble fill would be the worse possible design. You'want either an airstrip (roman road) for a shuttle type landing. If your thinking tail first landings you'd want a thick slab of reinforced concrete protected from the heat by vast amounts of water. Just look at what we use for our own ships.
Pottery, I think I could guarrantee that any 1st year student could tell the difference between Sumerian and Roman pottery. Plus the report had numerous photographic reps and drawing of the finds - no one has noted anything unusual about them in 100+ years.
You can see in the picture above the position of the 'Ts', and its function as a retaining wall.
Bias? Why the entire structure was Roman built. All evidence from a dig that went from the top to the bottom showed......it was Roman. The quarries the rocks came from appear to use Roman technology. The entire site appears to be Roman with other previous constructions being noted in the report.
Ever hear of Theodor Wiegand? Nope, I haven't either the poor guy didn't find anything that important. Guess he was blind to all the glory he would have obtained if he'd just hadn't been so stupid not to see that plain old Roman construction is actually that of an advanced civilization. He coud have been an Evan or Calvert - but no the moron couldn't see it.....nor could anyone in his staff nor any of the dozens of follow on scientist who've spent decades at Baalbek nor any of the tens of thousands of people who read the reports and visited the site.
But a researcher like Sitchin, who never read the report, never went to the site, never became knowledgeable in Roman construction techniques, could. LOL
Some info on Roman construction technique
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr= ... on#PPP1,M1
Great discussion guys
Now questions for you
Show the evidence for construction by an advance civilization.
Bingo? How long?
Well you should over lay a Sumerian ziggeraut plan over the drawings then.
Sorry Mr.P the Germans didn't destroy all the Roman structure just a bit of it I'm sure. You'd have to check the report to see how much of an area they X. I'm not sure of how or when reconstruction was done the plaza is now complete.
The Roman construction, what I call honeycomb IS the platform with a thin layer of paving stone atop.
does anyone recall in which book sitchin gets into baalbek? i'm curious to check his resources/works cited because he does speak/read german...i'm pretty sure. so...lune's statement that sitchin didn't read the report doesn't convince me that he didn't...and if he did...then i'm pretty certain the report is cited. ...not that it makes a difference to anyone but me.
lune...what have you read from sitchin's body of work? i've checked out the debunking sitchin sites, and some good points are sometimes made. but, usualy the debunkers come of as more emotional reactionaries slinging doubts like they're facts. i've read 6 or 7 of sitchin's books and find the facts he uses to be fascinating, although i don't/won't/can't always follow the picture he paints with them. but i've found his research to be decently documented.
do you know of any other reports that have findings which verify the 1904-05 expedition? (actualy new ones, not rehashing of re-presenting the old data) since you were willing to learn german, as one of the primary languages of archaeology, i figure you must be far deeper into this particular field of science than i...and also have a further reaching knowledge of what firsthand findings have been published. i learned spanish. it's the language of passionate expression...not archaeology. ;)
I read the first six and gave up I believe on the fiction novel he did on Enkil??, forget the title now.
If you could, it would be useful to know what he said and what references he used. However if I remember he doesn't footnote just listed references in the back. If he read the report he ignored it. Check if you would please. If I remember correctly he thought it was built by the Annunaki, survived the 'flood' and was used as a landing site. I remember reading something by him and laughing out loud in a library and getting 'shhesshed' it was the idea that an advancec race would build a space port out of limestone cut with iron tools. LOL
Yes doesn't Sitchin just SOUND plausible? Unfortunately its all made up stuff based on cherry picked data. His research is best described as minimal, wrong and difficult to reconstruct. He also uses material inapprioprately. His rating as a scholar is at best poor.
His refusal to answer critics, questions or submit papers also casts him in a very poor light. His lack of knowledge of Akkadian and a number of public language errors doesn't add to his reputation. Within the archaeological world he doesn't even merit a mention accept as a good example of a bad fringe writer.
Yes the Germans finished just recently
A preliminary report on the 2001-2003 seasons
M van Ess - Bulletin d'Archéologie et d'Architecture Libanaise (BAAL), 2003
is the latest. I would recommend you run the words Baalbek Archaeology in Google scholar you'll get several pages of cites.
Baalbek is in the Roman period which is later than I'm really interested in. I'm more interested in the earliest periods, bronze age and the development of warfare. That is what I worked in as an archy but as an amateur have taken on a more general view of lots of areas. Unfortunately their is so much material its impossible to keep up.
i shall enjoy continuing to read on the baalbek front. thanks for pointing out a path of research. good stuff.
lune, i gotta ask ('cause i'm curious!)...why are you on this site? i'm not implying that you don't belong (you belong as much as anyone else!), but your view of sitchin begs the question. i appreciate the sober POV you bring, although, in honesty (not that anyone wants honesty!LOL) you do seem thoroughly convinced of what you "know". it does not seem that you are comming in search of anything, nor really looking for discussion...but... maybe, "debate" (?).
regardless of your answer, a critical view is necesary to cover the bases in any quest. thanks for covering a base!
Hello TRA In debating Sitchin one finds it leads one into unknown paths that need to be studied. It generates ideas, plus as an educator and amateur archaeologist I like to spread the 'word'. Sitchin's stuff is all over the internet so I run into it all the time. As a kid I was more interested in fringe thought. As I've learned more I have less and time to read anything written about. The fringe item I last read was Ginenthal's Sagan and Velikovsk tirade, distressingly boring.
I find real archaeology much more interesting. Whereas I use to read 70% fringe to 30% science I'm now 99% science.
Ah yes "The lost book of Enki" that is the one I couldn't finish, absolute dribble. We and Mr. P are in rare agreement.
excellent citing, MrPP! thanks. i'm about ready to reread some of those anyway. i read the Enki book as a fictional work and got some enjoyment out of it, but i certainly wouldn't cite it! it was pretty clear that sitchin's personal theology was spread all over it.
now that i've googled mr. wiegand, i'll have to check out p.222 of "Stairway". i'm thoroughly curious what he says!
lune: thanks for the answer! it helps to see some of what informs a person's point-of-view; it helps the discourse have some meaning. i, too, am an educator (SpecialEd. k-12... 9-12 at the moment, but who knows what tomorrow brings?) i can respect your preference for established archaeology (can't bring myself to call it "real"! lol). you can spend a lifetime, i'm quite sure, within that pool of information and never get through it all. plenty to immerse oneself in and enjoy.
Howdy TRA and Mr. P
Revrend if you would be so kind as to look up what Sitchin's note on Wiegand refers to.
Education is one of my follow on careers. I've spent my time setting up colleges and technical High Schools in Arab countries but now am just a lecturer at a Brit Uni.
We, the imperial we of course Mr. P. Occam isn't here as far as I know, but Elvis riding a Unicorn with a free energy machine stapled to his forehead is.
Yep I have one degree in Archy. yep, nope, see above. However I don't claim that as a source of authority.
Wiegand is a very creditable source, after saying we'd never heard of him I looked him up and DO remember him. He was noted for standing up to the Nazis and for excellent work at Pergamon. It depends on how Sitchin has cited and used his work. We'll wait for the Al to let us know how it was used. S obviously didn't believe Weigands conclusion of Roman.
You are right Mr. P the science in V and S is equivalent to the pictures in playboy - it looks nice and glossy but it isn't real.
(Edited by Lune at 11:27 am on Jan. 25, 2007)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests