Ancient Baalbek

– Baalbek is the name of an archaeological site in Lebanon. In Roman times it was known as Heliopolis or City of the Sun. An example of how ancient is the site can be found in that its holiest area (in pagan times) was the Temple of Baal-Jupiter — a hybrid between the ancient Canaanite god Baal (lord) and the Roman Jupiter.

Moreover, this temple was built on a “tel” or ruin mound, indicating a place that had long been held sacred, though what had caused this area to be significant or “sacred” is unknown.
How old are the ruins?

Well, most date from Roman times. They, however, followed the pattern of building upon the “sacred” areas of cultures before them. This is also evident at Palmyra where the temple of Baal is also built upon a tel or ruin mound. The original Canaanite temples could be 2,000 years older than the Roman remains left today.

The question is, had the Canaanites done what the Romans did? In other words, did they build upon the site as well? If so, what caused the site to be considered sacred to them?

The oldest part of the ruins at Baalbek fit absolutely no known culture, and were originally employed for some mysterious purpose.

Questions constantly crop up concerning these blocks. Baalbek may become a focal point for the dichotomy being uncovered throughout the world today between the prehistoric past we assume existed and our earliest cultures of history.

The massive and elegant Roman stonework and columns pale by comparison to the megaliths they were built upon. The temple very visibly incorporates into its foundation, stones of some 1,500 tons. They are some 68 x 14 x 14 feet! They are the largest worked stones on earth! It is a mystery how such stones could have been moved into place, even according to our science and engineering knowledge of today. It is also a fact the Romans did not use this type of stonework.

To further increase their mysterious origin and original use, these megaliths are not “foundation stones” as they are always declared. They represent the top course of stones of the original edifice, whatever that may have been. Whatever its purpose, it was essential that the greatest stones had to be on top, not on the bottom. The whole edifice is inverted in concept, fact and layout. Below them at least 3 tiers of stones can be found, much smaller though still monumental in size.

Another example that they are separate to the Roman temple, is that while the Romans built the back of their temple wall flush with 3 of these stones, on one of the sides of the temple of Jupiter the perimeter clearly falls short of the width of the original megalithic structure, allowing a tier of megaliths to protrude obtrusively from the temple foundation— incongruous if they were simply foundation stones for the Roman temple. But it seems the Romans could not extend the building far enough to cover the layout of megaliths.

Another mystery is found in the stone wall on the far or backside of the temple, that side that is the most famous in pictures because it shows the remarkable proportion of the megaliths in contrast to other stones around them.

This wall is made up of many ill-fitted stones, many of them reused from the ruined Roman temple by the Arabs, Crusaders, and Turks when the ruins were used as a fort. Some pieces of the Roman entablature can be seen, as well as slits cut into the rock for firing positions in the wall.

Because all these stones are piled one upon the other, it is clear to see an evolution of stone working. This reveals some of the stones piled upon the megaliths to be even older than Roman. These are also huge stones. Yet despite their size, they are still dwarfed by the megalithic blocks.

Extraordinary picture. This shows the famous backside of the temple. The stones of the ruined Roman temple were piled up to form a wall. There is even a column base. But see the huge stones next to the break in the wall. They are as big as the Bimini stones and cut flush with the other, rather than neat squares. This architecture, “Cyclopean,” is the oldest we know of, yet it appears sloppy and small compared to the great megaliths below them.

These cyclopean stones are certainly not Roman. The square cut Roman stones are heaped on top of them by the Arabs or Crusaders, whoever turned the ruins into a medieval fortress. Look at how small the two men are compared to the cyclopean stonework, let alone the megaliths upon which they are built.

The Funerary Temple of Kafre at Giza, 4th dynasty (about 2500 BC). Similar to the stonework seen above, noteworthy for economical cutting and fitting of imprecise angles in the blocks, unlike the precision seen in great megaliths here.

Left, the excavated walls of Kafre’s (Chefren) temple. It stands in the shadow of no less than the 2nd great pyramid at Giza, Egypt. Even this very ancient monumental wall seems later than the megaliths at Baalbek. They match some of the unascribed stones built thereon, however, possibly by later peoples or early Canaanites.

Their style is identical to the earliest cultures of monumental stone we know of like the Egyptian and the Pre-Incan Peru cultures, like those on Malta and, frankly, like those being encountered on the Bahamas Banks within the Triangle.

This evolution in stonework is remarkable. From the small Roman and Turkish blocks, we go further down to monumental blocks identical with our earliest cultures. Yet lower than this, we come not to primitive mud bricks or shanty-hut foundations, but to the greatest stones worked by man.

They are not clumsy artifacts, crude and compromised cuts like Stonehenge. They are perfectly fitted 1,500 ton stones forming a foundation not even a huge Roman temple could encompass.

Our own science and engineering today cannot explain them, let alone what their function was. It would seem some unknown culture could move these great stones, place them on top of others, in perfect fit and alignment, before the dawn of our most ancient cultures.

What caused them to pass away without leaving a clue as to who they were and to what purpose they built such a stupefying platform?

source: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net