Largest known megalithic block from antiquity revealed at Baalbek

Largest known megalithic block from antiquity revealed at Baalbek

(Read the article on one page)

A new analysis conducted by the German Archaeological Institute at the ancient stone quarry of Baalbek/Ancient Heliopolis, in Lebanon, has calculated the size and weight of an enormous monolith, and can now conclude that it is the largest known stone block ever carved by human hands.

Located at an altitude of approximately 1,170 meters in the Beqaa valley, Baalbek is known to have been settled from at least 7,000 BC, with almost continual settlement of the Tell under the Temple of Jupiter, which was a temple since the pre-Hellenistic era. However,  some researchers, such as Graham Hancock, argue that its roots go back as many as 12,000 years . During the period of Roman rule, Baalbek was known as Heliopolis (“City of the Sun”), and housed one of the largest and grandest sanctuaries in the empire.

Layout of the temple complex at Baalbek

Layout of the temple complex at Baalbek. ( Wikipedia)

One of the most awe-inspiring features of Baalbek are the incredible megalithic foundations of the Temple of Jupiter. The temple was built on platform of stones that are among the largest building blocks seen in the whole world. Twenty-seven of these enormous limestone blocks can be seen at its base with three of them, weighing about 1,000 tons each, known as the “Trilithon.”

How they were cut so finely and moved into place has defied explanation, particularly considering the blocks are known to have weighed over 1000 tons.  Many researchers, Graham Hancock included, reject the traditional explanation that the blocks are the work of the Romans. Indeed, a quick glance at the photograph below clearly shows a difference in style and appearance between the large megalithic stones and the surrounding blocks used to build the temple.

“I do not agree with the mainstream archaeological view that any of the three megalithic blocks in the quarry, or the enigmatic megalithic foundations of the Temple of the Jupiter, are the work of the Romans,” writes Graham Hancock. “I believe these huge megaliths long predate the construction of the Temple of Jupiter and are likely to be 12,000 or more years old -- contemporaneous with the megalithic site of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. I suggest we are looking at the handiwork of the survivors of a lost civilisation, that the Romans built their Temple of Jupiter on a pre-existing, 12,000-years-old megalithic foundation.”

Photograph from the 1890s showing the huge megalithic foundations of the Temple of Jupiter

Photograph from the 1890s showing the huge megalithic foundations of the Temple of Jupiter (public domain)

Quarry of megalithic blocks

The gigantic blocks used in the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter are known to have come from a nearby quarry located around 800 meters (2,600 ft) from the temple. The limestone quarry houses two massive building blocks that never made it to the temple – one weighing about 1,240 tons, and the other, known as the “Hajjar al-Hibla,” or The Stone of the Pregnant Woman, weighs about 1000 tons.

Archaeologists believe the Hajjar al-Hibla monolith was left in the quarry, because the stone quality of a block’s edge proved to be poor and the monolith could easily be damaged during transport.

The Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek

The Stone of the Pregnant Woman at Baalbek ( Wikipedia)

According to Discovery News , the German archaeological team have now found a third building block next to the Hajjar al-Hibla stone and underneath it. Still partially buried, the monolith measures measures 19.6 meters (64 feet) in length, 6 meters (19.6 feet) in width, and at least 5.5 meters (18 feet) in height. Its weight has been estimated at 1,650 tons, making it the largest known stone block from antiquity.

“The level of smoothness indicate the block was meant to be transported and used without being cut,” the German Archaeological Institute said in a statement.

Further excavations will attempt to establish whether the newly-discovered block suffered from the same problem as the Hajjar al-Hibla stone, resulting in its abandonment in the quarry.

By April Holloway


Articles like this citing such discredited authorities like Graham Hancock really damage the credibility of this site. It has been definitively proven that the trilithon stones are of Roman origin and do not predate the Roman era. Further, the stones are not in the foundation of the temple, rather they are part of the retaining wall of the temple, which Romans were quite adept at building.

There is ample proof of other huge retaining walls being built by Romans and their origin is not in doubt by any serious scholar.

Anyone who thinks these stones were man-made are in serious need of a reality check. You have been successfully brainwashed Mark, congratulations to you as well as those who believe these lies.

I have not been brainwashed, rather I have studied history- as apparently you have not. There are ample sources out there which are easy to find if you have an ounce of intellectual curiosity but I will provide you with one easy to understand resource.
Watch this documentary (Baalbek starts at 37:45 if you are impatient) Ancient aliens is a fraud and easily disprovable.

I thank you for the morning amusement though.

Nice points you make. It's the way the ancient alien-ites get all foot stampy and indignant as soon as anyone says they disagree with them that ends up being amusing. Let's role with ancient aliens, you could also conclude that these "sky beings" were a bunch of jerks. The cheek of them: coming here and mucking around with OUR history for no reason. How are they helping advance us by moving stones WE can't move? If the proof they came is "humans can't do that" what are they doing? Showing off! Ancient Alien Bigheads! And if we were their slaves, they still look like a**holes: Ancient Alien Nazis! The net result of all that ancient building on the twenty first century is petty arguments breaking out as to whether they existed or not. So what? If people want to believe that's fine. Because all they are believing in is that we were visited by a pangalactic bunch of self serving narcissist idiots. All ET "evidence" points to this, especially modern ufology: They're so clever but their pilots exam is clearly deficient because they keep crashing. Crop circles are the best way of communication- a laughably silly idea. They can see how physically powerful modern athletes are, do they abduct these to breed with their alien women? Never! It's invariably 5 ft 2, pot bellied peasant farmers. And they keep wobbling about in the middle distance with their lights on but have radar avoiding capabilities- surely pointless. Believe in aliens but know they are all stupid.

I believe the "aliens" are our origin on the planet ."and God made man in his own image" .

Don't be a "DS" all your life !

So "if" I can prove to you that ancient man DID quarry these stones: would you watch the video?
Probably not, but, here it is any way.

Its four minutes of a tinny American robot voiced woman going on about Akhenaten's ability to use laser beam type technology or something. I couldn't really follow because I'm so brainwashed from listening to actual archeologists. There was a squirrel in my back garden I could have been watching but it's gone now.....

Your problem is when the facts hits you between the eyes you can't believe them. So here is a longer video that goes in to more details .
My female robot voice is all I can afford. So excuse her PLEASE

That not a rebuttal, it's a dogmatic statement about people who don't agree with pseudo archeology / AA "theories." Then the video says the same thing... Again.

It's a modern form of secular Gnosticism.

The 1st to 4th century Gnostics had differing ideas- like pseudo archeology today, but were unified in the notion they possessed secret or reserved knowledge. The uninitiated were earthbound and stuck in the physical world; the Gnostics on the other hand would free themselves and leave it behind.

The metaphysics has simply been replaced by a very specific view of science/mainstream academics.

So I'm just too blind/insuffiently open/uninitiated to see these truths the Hancocks and Sitchins have discovered. I'm embedded in the staid and corrupt world of mainstream academia and unable to see the bigger picture. There MUST be a concerted effort to suppress the truth because the idea it isn't true is beyond consideration. It then becomes very important to counter naysayers because thinking like this requires it's own type of closed thinking. Simple Answers below, points out concisely that it IS easy to counter Hancock with two pegs and a bit of string. But lalala! I can't hear you, it's giant mirrors and sunbeams. Similarly, the Egyptians wrote manuals and covered walls with instructions on exactly how they built the pyramids. But nonono! That's a ruse to throw enemies of the scent of their hight tec gear.

Everyone has the right to believe their own thing, but that doesn't give fringe theorists and their supporters the right to just stamp their feet and say "your too thick to get it" when anyone else expresses that they're unimpressed.

johnblack's picture

Geob, you don’t appear to have a sound understanding of Gnosticism … The knowledge of the Gnostics is still active and deep into the major institutes that many of our world leader's belong to. 

Secondly, NOTHING unconventional will easily come on the surface, NEVER. That is a fact. People that have built their careers or their organizations on a widely accepted concept, will work together not to let anyone take this out of them. Just to remind you how many decades it took for the realization that earth is round and goes around the sun to be accepted and how many died in the process. The same applies for ‘free’ energy, major life concepts such as extra-terrestrial life, existence of God, etc. Anything that would drastically change the balance in our world is strictly forbidden – sometimes for a good reason.

It is NO different today. In addition to organized religion we also have powerful scientific lobbies, academic careers at stake and whole industries behind them.

So, as an a academic and a researcher (although in a different field), I would suggest not to easily dismiss theories and take a deeper look to whatever you read and you will see the deception hidden in there.

Many many thanks for the post, Mr Black: you have just modelled exactly the point I was making.

Johnny: I'm not quite sure you understand the scientific method. There is ample proof and supporting evidence to clearly demonstrate that these giant blocks were made by humans over the years. So many people just refuse to believe that any human prior to the industrial revolution had the skill, savvy, knowledge and aptitude to build such things.

With that in mind there is also absolutely no proof demonstrating that aliens or beings other than humans build these structures. All of that is pure speculation and based solely on "belief". Humans are very intelligent and in many cases simply genius, regardless of "when" they created things. People have to stop speculating that ancient peoples could not have created magnificent structures and accomplishments without the help of outsiders, or probably more likely, without the jealous notion that people other than us (in this marvelous technological and informational age) could have built anything that we either cannot build, or would have extreme difficulty building, today.

If aliens did in fact come to earth and built these things because we were simply incapable then show us the scientific and irrefutable proof, and not simply refer to misguided and misinterpreted remnants of our past.

johnblack's picture

Canuck57 I think you confuse scientific method with scientific theory … There is no proof at all that these giant blocks were made by humans. The only proof would have been to have a video of them building the blocks 

So here is how the theory goes: Since humans are the only intelligent beings that Science supports that have existed on Earth, and since we don’t support anything else to exist in the Universe, then it was humans who have built them. So let’s find out which race/civilization is most probable to have built them. Ah ... the Romans – even though there is no historical record of anything like this anywhere. You understand that this is not a scientific method.

Either you like it or not there are huge advancements that took place out of the blue with great civilizations like the Sumerians and Egyptians to mention a few, that DO NOT have any explanation or scientific proof about the how and why.

So, in my opinion something has happened in human evolution that we DON’T have any evidence of what it was. So as a scientist, and taking into account that it is statistically impossible for other advanced life not to exist in the Universe, the theory of external interference with human evolution is much plausible. Do not forget the the Panspermia theory is gaining more and more supporters in the scientific circles.

You just supported my mentioned that there is no proof that humans built the stone blocks at Baalbek...unless you ignore all of the stone carving tools and inscriptions that have been archaeologically studied that show them making the stone blocks of course. Sure...then there is no evidence. However, show me the proof that aliens (or non-humans for that matter) had anything to do with carving these stones. You're jumping from the observation that there is no proof to the fact that humans were responsible for our ancient wonders to the fact that it must be something else in the universe. Where's the middle ground or the evidence or proof that it was someone (or something) else?

The scientific method is actually quite simple. You pose a theory, and then you exhibit all of your evidence that supports your theory, and then you try to convince the scientific community that your theory is indeed valid (i.e. against all of their arguments). If your theory survives this test it becomes the official theory.

Since humans have lived in the Middle East for literally thousands of years, and that we have direct archaeological evidence and proof of them building stone megaliths for thousands of years, it's pretty hard to refute that they are indeed also responsible for the megaliths at Baalbek. However, if you present that someone (or something) else is responsible for these megaliths then you MUST provide evidence and proof of this before your argument can move on. If you cannot, then it is just a belief or speculation....not science.

johnblack's picture

You didn’t read my comment properly … What I say is that there is no proof that Romans are responsible for these stones in the same way as there is no proof that ‘aliens’ are responsible for these stones.

In regards to ‘aliens’ I just said that it is impossible for advanced life not to exist in the Universe and that is pretty much a fact … therefore, common sense dictates, that having external interference is also a plausible THEORY and not to be dismissed lightly. And there is plenty of evidence from researchers that support this theory too, but this doesn’t mean that the theory is proven.

Posting here saying that you have the answers on behalf of science is inaccurate. It is just your opinion and the opinion of a group of scientists who support their theory! By the way, finding tools next to a monument doesn’t necessary prove that the tools belong to those who have built it  … the same applies for inscriptions …

So back to Baalbek, the foundations of the temple are not built by the Romans and there is no proof to support this theory … it is just a theory and should be treated like this. Remember that most if not all important achievements of the ancients are well documented and ‘advertised’ in the same way that humans do today ... In the same way that the three Giza pyramids were not built by the pharaohs claiming them, in the same way that most of South American monuments were not built by the Aztecs or Incas but rather used by them. The true builders are still unknown … or at least unknown to the public …

I understand what you're saying...I just don't agree with it. When science (in this case the scientific method as applied in archaeology) has absolutely zero proof for something, then the first thing they do is apply the tenets of Occam's razor. This principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. In other words, the simplest solution is usually the correct solution.

Because there is no remnant, evidence or proof that anyone else other than humans were around to carve giant stones and build megaliths and structures in the past few thousand years, the simplest solution, and most obvious choice, would be that humans were the builders. The video evidence that you state would be the only acceptable evidence to prove that humans built Baalbek works both ways. Show me irrefutable evidence that humans did not build such things (i.e. that were built by someone or something other than humans), and then you have a case. Until then, human beings are the only logical choice because there is currently no other evidence or proof to say otherwise (i.e. until then, all we have is "belief", or speculation, and that will never make it into the scientific record until that "belief" can be scientifically proven and quantitatively measured). We (and by "we" I mean science) know that human beings were around for probably 200,000 years, and we know that they are responsible for many of the most amazing structures on the planet (i.e. the pyramids for example). Because we have no evidence or proof that anyone, or anything, with our level of intelligence (or greater) coexisted with humans on this planet, then Occam's razor states that the logical choice would be that humans are responsible for all such structures on this planet, including the structures at Baalbek.

If you want to change the theories as accepted by science, then give science total proof that your theory is more valid than what is currently accepted, and you will win your case :-).

I should add that I have never read of any scientist or archaeologist that ever stated that the Romans were solely responsible for Baalbek. The Romans did work on the site though in the 1st century (AD), and added to it to build their own temple (Jupiter), as did Alexander the Great when he conquered the region around 334 BC (Heliopolis). Some of the stones that they know the Romans added were approximately 300 tons, so the Romans were capable of building such structures....the largest stones were probably built by people prior to Alexander the Great.

If the Romans were capable of building and moving 300+ ton stones then other peoples were probably capable too...including the largest of the stones at Baalbek.

Tsurugi's picture

Conventional archaeological theory is that the Romans were responsible for the Trilithon at Ba'albek.

I agree with you that they were capable of manipulating loads of up to 300 tons. The trilithon blocks are estimated at 800-1000 tons. So while I do not think it is impossible that the Romans did it, I think "they moved 300 tons, so of course they could move 800 tons" is a rather large assumption to make without any direct evidence.

So I tend to agree with you that some earlier civilization was responsible for the trilithon, as well as the other truly megalithic construction that is evident at the lowest levels of the complex.

As for Ancient Alien Theory(personally I prefer the term Paleocontact), it is a perfectly valid theory based on a rational consideration of known evidence.
It's easy to make fun of AAT because the whole subject of "aliens from space" has been made into a joke thru decades of media treatment. The mainstream reaction to the subject is laughter, followed by contemptuous dismissal...and that reaction to the idea of alien contact in the modern era transfers easily and automatically to the idea of ancient alien contact. It's just ridiculous, right? And the people who believe in it are crazy kooks, just ignore them. Let's get back to reality, and actual science.

So according to real, actual science, the existence of extra-terrestrial biological life is a mathematical certainty. Evolutionary theory thus implies the certainty of the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrial biological beings. The timelines involved imply the existence of ET beings who are far in advance of our own present level. All of that is actual science....admittedly it is a purely hypothetical proposition, since it is lacking direct evidence, but that doesn't seem to be a problem for science elsewhere; for instance, with macro-evolution(speciation) or the Romans building the Ba'albek platform.

Ok fine, aliens are most likely real, so sayeth current science. But science doesn't say they are(or were) here! That's the part of AAT that is ridiculous and un-scientific, right?

Its true that science does not say aliens are (or were) here. That part of the AAT comes from the "mythological" epics of ancient civilizations all over the globe, which basically state that powerful beings came down from the sky and made things interesting for a while. AAT takes the ancients at their word.

So...near-mathematical certainty of existence of advanced ETs, plus worldwide mythos of skybeings....this is the fundamental rationale for Paleocontact. Things such as archaeological oddities, giant stone blocks, etc., are peripheral(though admittedly fascinating) to these main arguments.

Crazy, innit? Absolutely bonkers.

In any case, there's a quote from Arthur C Clarke that sums the situation up succinctly, "There are only two possibilities: either we are alone in the Universe, or we are not. Both are equally terrifying."

Terrifying because the aliens are all idiots. Thousands of years ago they expended a ridiculous amount of effort making things that later generations wouldn't be able to decide whether or not they made them. And then recently they forgot how to land their ships and keep crash landing everywhere. The men in black aren't covering this up because they are reverse engineering amazing new types of dishwashers. They don't want to disillusion the world to the exent we can't hold on to Monty Python quotes: "pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space because there's bu**er all down here on earth!"

Tsurugi's picture

Are we in danger of losing Monty Python quotes?? Jesus christ, things are worse than I thought!

I remember another quote that is similar in spirit to that MP quote, "Sometimes I think the surest sign that there is intelligent life out there in the universe is that none of it has contacted us yet."

Love it! That's my new favourite quote on that topic!

So, after reading all these comments, I can not believe that no one even mentions ancient Sumerian texts, such as Epic of Gilgamesh, or Enki & Enil. How these are the oldest written text in existence, and do indeed give rise to the concept of extraterrestrials. In fact it out right says we were created by the interbreeding of extraterrestrials. I don't know how much actual writings from the time, weigh in on the issue of ufo's, or our involvement with those off world people, but, to out and out ignore the writings of the time, leaves a big part of the issue out of the picture. For according to ancient Sumerian text mankind is used in an breeding program by off world people. Then let us not forget Gobekli Tepe in Turkey, and those things that were built, in the time science likes to call hunter gatherer times, yet in this site, one find 3+ ton monoliths once again, shaped into large T shape formations, which appears to be a part of the structure at one time, with detailed reliefs, and images of wild animals of the time on them. Note, this is 11,000 BC. Obviously having nothing to do with Rome or Romans. So my dear friends, what are your thoughts on these things, which should be noted in this discussion.

The following data is presented to provide framework for an argument against the idea of the 'statistical impossibility' of other 'life' NOT to exist in the Universe.

In as concise a nutshell as I can possibly muster, here is the glaring error in the 'Alien' – ‘Extraterrestrial’ theory: ALL known carbon based life forms on this hermetically sealed planet appears to have a biological replication system built into their DNA which highly suggest that every species’ entire purpose is to simply replicate themselves. If the DNA tests prove the so-called ‘Starchild’ to have about half the DNA of a modern human, then the historical biological record will include an additional entry. “Starchild”: Not Human, Not Humanoid, but definitely ‘Hominin’. One more species of Earth’s 8.7 million carbon based life forms.

Every single one of the 8.7 million species on Earth carries some of the DNA of every other species. It is the one single characteristic that identifies any species in our global environment as 'Terrestrial'. Yet in this nearly pristine closed environment, bio diversity has produced some very strange and very different carbon based creatures in both flora and fauna.

That being said, the idea that on some planet, sphere, globe, asteroid or other space rock, the conditions exactly mimic or perfectly correspond to the closed biosphere of Earth is faulty analysis at best. I am not saying that a perfect replica does not exist, any more than anyone can say it does. There is absolutely no way to know until one is observed in some form.

Mathematical formulas suggesting a truth as a matter of 'statistics' is laughable Science. There is no such position with any other factual Science in the world. Add to the nature of the problem being a coin-toss, at best a 50-50 proposition, means there either IS or there IS NOT a duplicate Earth ‘like’ planet, somewhere out there in the known and/or unknown Galaxies and Universes.

Without any other possibility, and until such a planet is actually observed to have some form of carbon based life that is equivalent of Earth based DNA, it is just more rational to assume a nonexistence paradigm, than an existing one. To assume a positive planet in a galaxy far, far away allows any fringe, wing nut kook to postulate any steaming dog pile theory of Space Travel, Inhabitants, Gods, Angels and Demons their fertile minds can conjure up. And, like all faith based paradigms, the prospect of an ‘Alien’ or ‘Extraterrestrial’ presence has no rational basis in fact.

There IS strong evidence however, that several non-human hominid bipeds and 'their' unknown craft have been observed in our biosphere since the beginning of recorded history. (As have many forms of so-called ‘Dinosaurs’, ‘Flyers’ and 'Giant Hominids') That fact of 'their' observance alone does NOT make them ‘Extraterrestrial’ in any way. All it can mean, at the current time is that several Hominid species co-exist with us on this planet, and that their technology far surpasses anything we know of the so-called ‘Gravity’ based world we live in. We actually know almost nothing about them at all. Except ‘they’ are here now, and ‘they’ have been with us as far back as human history reaches. An appropriate name it seems is: “Other Terrestrials”, or OT’s.

In conclusion, ‘they’ (OT's) are not ‘Gods’, ‘Extraterrestrials’ or creatures from another planet. I will concede that ‘they’ may have lived on this planet for a very, very long time, going off planet when a comet or other potential catastrophic event was pending, returning after the Earth had settled into a stable process. If that is true, then the OT’s may, and I stress ‘May’ have the ability to transform the Electrostatic Field into a technology that allows almost instantaneous travel throughout the multi-verse. If that is true, it certainly explains ‘their’ craft and ‘inhabitants’ observed characteristics and behavior.

Which leaves open the possibility 'they' may have colonized another planet at some point in the past. Building a sustainable habitable environment on Mars, for example. But that certainly is NOT a claim that they did.

There is no rational reason to not include them in the bizarre bio diversity of the 8.7 million species on this planet. That is what they appear to be. They are kind of like the monkey in the zoo. You look at it, it flings its feces at you, and you both never really acknowledge the life conditions of the other. Same with OT's.

And lastly, the above is not a postulate, a theorem, nor conjecture. It is based on the facts and reality of our little closed biosphere and its environment.

The notion that ancient aliens once visited our planet is unfounded in simple logic. Why would an alien race, (who would have to have been thousands if not millions of years comparatively more advanced scientifically than we mere "earthlings") expend both the time and the energy necessary to travel untold light years across the cosmos, bother to visit us, let alone help us build some sort of temple to an imagined god? The whole notion is utterly ridiculous. What would they expect to learn from us? They already would have enough information about evolution of various specious on their own planet. If they were advanced enough to visit us, then they wouldn't have the need to. That is the paradox.

Some people might consider the ancient Sumerian clay tablets a form of proof. According to scholars such as Sitchin, who can actually read their written characters, the clay tablets speak of astronomical facts, such as the 26,000 year wobble in the rotation of the planet we live on. Now think about it. How could these primitive people have known about that ? And not one ancient telescope has been found that they may have used. And Pythagoras wasn't even born yet to formulate math principles that could have been used to study the movement of the heavens. And the tablets even speak about the existence of a planet that us moderns, with telescopes, didn't know anything about until the 1900's. Go figure, Einstein ! You need to do more self educating before you can try and tell anyone what does and what doesn't exist. Could it be that everything you thought was right is actually wrong ? Most people who "think" usually find out that when they "think" they got it all figured out, suddenly realize that they are really way off track. It's happened to me at least a hundred times.

Just seeing these stones half done, is Great evidence they are from man. Seeing them half quarried, abandoned is another. And greater yet, seeing them, used in a temple, is even better ! All you seem to think of, is who is trying to fool me ? You fool yourself ! and NO aliens involved..

Can you provide links to this "data" that proves these stones are Roman? I'd also love to see other examples of Romans quarrying and moving 1000+ ton stones.

Considering the physics of cutting, transporting and placing these huge monolithic blocks, you know that they could not have been done by humans, no matter how much you would like to think we are that talented and smart.

No amount of rope humans are capable of gripping and tugging, could withstand the pressures of what is ask of it, no matter how many ropes you attached to the stone. Then there is the carving near perpendicular sides. You do actually believe they had any system at all which could pull off that type of masonry in that day and age?

I'll guarantee you that Graham Hancock is closer to the truth because he is able to think outside the box, as opposed to you who like to stay cozy and safe with the "Humans did it" bunk.

You had better get used to the idea that we do have now and did have then Alien visitors and inhabitants who had technologies able to do such tasks, with little effort.

It is time to step out of your box pea brain, and get a serious grip on reality. WE ARE NOT ALONE, AND BASICALLY NEVER HAVE BEEN !!!!

You say people like us can't think outside the box and it's thinkers like Hancock who find the answers because they can. Then you say;
"Then there is the carving near perpendicular sides. You do actually believe they had any system at all which could pull off that type of masonry in that day and age?"
A simple easy method to do this would be two string lines and for straight lines and a plumb line for verticals. To get square you run a line from corner to corner, if you run it on the other corners and it's the same length it means the object is square. So I just solved one of your problems using string. Think outside the box a little please

Tsurugi's picture

It's one thing to frame out a box shape using string.
It's another thing entirely to make a rectangular cube-shaped object where the surfaces are truly homogeneous and flat to a high degree of precision, all the angles are correct, and correctly oriented relative to each other.

String and eyeball reckoning will not do that job.

Graham Hancock is closer to the truth? He gets away with this because he doesn't (and hasn't) provided any proof. The same can be said for Ancient Aliens, Erich von Däniken, or any of those other pseudo scientists who write and talk, but provide zero proof. Anyone can write a book and provide a theory, but if you cannot include solid evidence and proof with your theory then all you have is a nice story, or a novel. Science has strict rules, and the only theories that are "accepted" are those that pass all of those tests. If one cannot pass the tests of the scientific method then one will only receive scorn, and the scientific community will simply be able to refute anything you say; hence, Hancock, Bauval, Wilcock and West are making millions from speculation and belief without providing any sound evidence.

This is not to say that the likes of Hancock, Bauval, Wilcock or West are all wrong, but it does say that they will never be accepted by the scientific community until they provide evidence and proof as required by the scientific method.

Tsurugi's picture

Science doesn't operate on "proof". Proof is for math, or courtrooms.

Science operates on evidence for, evidence against, and falsification.
Falsification is a concrete disproof of an idea. There is no equivalent opposite--i.e., concrete proof of a theory--because to prove something as absolutely true requires that everything be known...otherwise there may be falsifying evidence 'round the corner.

You can gather years worth of supporting evidence, but it often only takes one damning fact to falsify a theory for good. A mountain of supporting evidence does not constitute "proof".

So no, Hancock does not supply proof of his ideas. He also clearly presents his ideas as the speculations of an informed layman, never coming anywhere near declaring them to be "proven fact". This is easily ascertained when reading his work.

What he does do is provide ample amounts of what he believes is supporting evidence, much of which he pulls directly from the hallowed halls of academia and the peer-reviewed and accepted works of academics. His sources are exhaustively and thoroughly cited throughout.

The reason his ideas are shunned and ridiculed has nothing to do with his methodology, or his reasoning.

Please provide the ‘proof’ that Science has provided that these blocks were quarried and laid by the Romans. I’ve researched arguments for and against, as in Hancock’s latest work on the matter, and I’m afraid to say that the proofs and logical assessment he provides far outweighs that of current accepted archeaological dogma. Have you actually read any of his work Canuck? The only proof academia provides to support Roman excavation of these blocks is that it ‘fits’ in their immoveable and infallable construct of ancient history. Zero additional enquiry required apparently – No YDB global cataclysm that could have wiped out an advanced civilisation capable of working with rocks like this.

The reason Hancock, Bauval, West etc will never be accepted by the scientific community has nothing to do with the scientific method and everything to do with years and years of dogmatic spoon-feeding in certain scholarly circles that academics have been forced to endure. In a time when the true scientific method of calculated enquiry is required, it is sorely missed. There are many, many examples where ‘fringe science’ has become real science. I’ll happily summarise Hancock’s findings at Baalbek here for you (and others commenting here) if you haven’t actually read his full hypothesis. 

Rumple Stiltskin, why are you spreading false information about Graham Hancock? He has NEVER proposed that aliens or ET’s carved/created some of the world’s most ancient monuments. Perhaps you’re confusing him with Erich von Daniken? Hancock has always purported that the large blocks at Baalbek were quarried by man, an advanced human civilisation that flourished in pre-deluge/cataclysm times. 

Above all else, the Romans were pragmatic. Why would they bother to create a labor intensive situation when the same structural results could be approximated by a; smaller blocks or b; poured concrete. That was not Roman style. As far as the credibility of this sight or its contributors go I do believe this site does not claim to have the answers but rather is a place to ask the questions that arise whenever reason looks upon the discrepancies in the postulations of mainstream science.

John, I applaud your summation... pragmatism personified....


Mark, nothing has been proven. It is just speculations and theories that the romans have built it. Unfortunately there is NO way today to date the stones, therefore there cannot be any proof...
And in my opinion the speculations are totally wrong...

John, Those megaliths should be possible to date with zirconium isotope dating. It seems, that this dating method is not being used much these days. Probably because it have been showing the "wrong" dates (being to old). To do this kind of dating, it would require a sample from one of the hidden sides of one of the megalith:s, prefferably the lower side.

Tsurugi's picture

Oh, Hancock is a "discredited authority", is he? How so?

As for the Romans being responsible for construction of the Ba'albek foundation, I've read the published papers most often cited in support of that idea. The entirety of actual on-site evidential support for the Romans being the foundation architects consists of one piece of graffito found on a fallen bit of stonework, and a vague stylistic correlation of the Ba'albek foundation stones to those of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

The graffito, based on its content, is dated to the "correct" period(i.e., the period in which the paper's authors want to place construction of the Ba'albek site), but because it was found on a fallen piece of masonry, the date of the graffito cannot be tranferred to the structure with confidence.
In any case, the fallen stone containing the graffito was part of the temple structure, not the foundation, so even if it was found in situ, it only correlates to the temple, and no one is disputing that the Romans built that.

The stylistic similarities with giant blocks in the Temple Mount foundations is very interesting indeed, but nevertheless fails to strongly connect Rome to the Ba'albek foundation for the simple reason that it isn't at all clear who was responsible for building the Temple Mount foundation.
It is known that Herod commissioned a lot of work on the Temple Mount. Repair and expansion work, mainly. But it isn't clear where the original Temple Mount stonework ends and Herod's begins, see, so it is usually just assumed that the more advanced or difficult-looking stuff is from Herod's time, because earlier work by definition is less advanced......

Is it beginning to come clear just how ridiculous this is? Temple Mount is known to predate Rome, but was expanded and repaired by Rome. At both Ba'albek and the Temple Mount, the largest blocks are found at the lowest(and thus oldest) levels. The megaliths in the core of the Temple Mount are nevertheless assumed to be Roman work, despite their location and despite having clear differences in style and technique from the blocks in the newer expansions. (In fact, the facing of the outermost blocks appears to be an attempt to emulate the appearance of the core blocks, which doesn't make sense if they are both the work of Roman masons.)
So the core blocks of Temple Mount are attributed to Rome, which flies in the face of all logic and turns what otherwise would be clear sequences of events into fuzzy puzzles filled with question marks. The alternative, that there existed a pre-Roman civilization with engineering capabilities that were unmatched by Rome at its height, is "absolutely out of the question". So logic be damned, Temple Mount Megaliths are Roman. Ba'albek Megaliths look like Temple Mount Megaliths, therefore Ba'albek Megaliths also Roman! Nobels for everyone.

Still, I do not dispute that Romans may have built Ba'albek's foundations. I merely dispute the certainty with which the idea is held in mainstream academia And yes, most "serious scholars" do accept it was the Romans(or possibly the Phonecians). So what? Appeals to authority are not a valid argument. The fact is, there is no evidence linking Rome to the Ba'albek foundation.

To put it another way, the ONLY thing that links Rome to the Ba'albek foundation, is the extremely strong and passionate desire of some in the Archaeological establishment for them to be linked.

Meanwhile, lack of actual hard evidence of that link will continue to intrigue people and cause alternative ideas to be voiced. Ok?

P.S. The Romans had concrete. Why would they futz around with huge stone impossiblocks?

Yes, A nice summary of the problems.

The foundations of both the Temple Mount and Baalbeck are clearly of a different era and a different style. It is so obvious they are not Roman, that only an imbeceil would say they are.


I wish there was an upvote function on the commentary here at Ancient Origins

Romans did not have nothing to do with this temple ! This temple was built specifically on a hexagonal map that includes also other ancient sites like Giza plateau, Jerusalem, Sinai Peninsula, Petra, even Sodom and Gomorrah ! So, predates the romans with many hundreds of years, maybe thousands !

" It has been definitively proven that the trilithon stones are of Roman origin and do not predate the Roman era"

I am yet to see such evidence. Wuld you care to share it with us?

There's always one. I like the way you are attempting to discredit Graham with your opening statement. You believe this pseudo fact will linger in our ears long enough for your tenuous proof to gain verisimilitude with anyone who knows little about Baalbek other than it is one of those words with a double "a" in it. Crafty.

Stone quarrying of megalithic blocks was far easier than what you have been lead to believe. Hot rock fractures when cold water is thrown against it. That is how the Great Pyramid was broken into in 40AD

However the ancients used solar furnaces similar to what Archimedes used in the defense of Syracuse. All documented in Locked Gates, The Riddle Lords Secrets

Tsurugi's picture

It isn't so much the quarrying as it is the moving and placing.
Even the moving and placing is not totally inconceivable in and of itself. The problem starts with the straightjacket of linear development, which so often puts us in the ridiculous position of trying to understand how a given structure was built using a pre-assumed level of advancement. It's ridiculous to do it that way, makes much more sense to examine the structure and attempt to divine the techniques used to build it based on actual evidence, and from there gain some understanding of the level of development of the civilization in question.

But no, that might result in evidence that development is extremely nonlinear, and next thing you know Atlantis becomes a credible possibility!

Not that the linear development straightjacket has done any better. It provides the fuel for Ancient Alien ideas, after all. Impossible to build that pyramid with nothing but toothpicks and dedication, but to suggest they had miter saws along with the toothpicks is unacceptable.
Therefore aliens.

Please excuse my robot voice its all I can afford but "IF" you watch this video you will see that it was far simpler to quarry megalithic block than what you have been told. There was no need for high tech equipment or super hard metal tools.

>> Hot rock ad water

Oh, brilliant.... I would like to see you try that technique, and see what happens. Nicely cut stones?? I don't think so....

Come back when you have any idea what you are talking about.



Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Top New Stories

The old packhorse bridge in Carrbridge, Scotland
The oldest surviving packhorse bridge in the Scottish Highlands, the "coffin bridge" at Carrbridge in Inverness remains one of the most significant. Built in 1717, this packhorse bridge is located near the city of Inverness, capital of the Highlands, and was erected in an arch from "tooled rubble…springing from natural rock abutment".

Myths & Legends

Was the Heretic Pharaoh Akhenaton in Fact the Father of Modern Monotheism?
This passage may read like a passage from the Old Testament of the Bible; but, this is a quote from the Hymn of Aten, a work by Pharaoh Amenhotep IV better known as Akhenaton. This so-called heretic king was the only known Pharaoh in Egyptian history who believed in a monotheistic doctrine when most of the ancient world adhered to polytheism.

Human Origins

Was the Heretic Pharaoh Akhenaton in Fact the Father of Modern Monotheism?
This passage may read like a passage from the Old Testament of the Bible; but, this is a quote from the Hymn of Aten, a work by Pharaoh Amenhotep IV better known as Akhenaton. This so-called heretic king was the only known Pharaoh in Egyptian history who believed in a monotheistic doctrine when most of the ancient world adhered to polytheism.

Ancient Technology

Left side view of the Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan.
Teotihuacan’s Lost Kings, a television special, took an hour long look at the great city, its inhabitants, and the excavation of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, (also known as the Feathered Serpent Pyramid.) The program revealed evidence of advanced engineering built into a tunnel system, and placed directly underneath the Pyramid.

Ancient Places

The old packhorse bridge in Carrbridge, Scotland
The oldest surviving packhorse bridge in the Scottish Highlands, the "coffin bridge" at Carrbridge in Inverness remains one of the most significant. Built in 1717, this packhorse bridge is located near the city of Inverness, capital of the Highlands, and was erected in an arch from "tooled rubble…springing from natural rock abutment".

Our Mission

At Ancient Origins, we believe that one of the most important fields of knowledge we can pursue as human beings is our beginnings. And while some people may seem content with the story as it stands, our view is that there exists countless mysteries, scientific anomalies and surprising artifacts that have yet to be discovered and explained.

The goal of Ancient Origins is to highlight recent archaeological discoveries, peer-reviewed academic research and evidence, as well as offering alternative viewpoints and explanations of science, archaeology, mythology, religion and history around the globe.

We’re the only Pop Archaeology site combining scientific research with out-of-the-box perspectives.

By bringing together top experts and authors, this archaeology website explores lost civilizations, examines sacred writings, tours ancient places, investigates ancient discoveries and questions mysterious happenings. Our open community is dedicated to digging into the origins of our species on planet earth, and question wherever the discoveries might take us. We seek to retell the story of our beginnings. 

Ancient Image Galleries

View from the Castle Gate (Burgtor). (Public Domain)
Door surrounded by roots of Tetrameles nudiflora in the Khmer temple of Ta Phrom, Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Cable car in the Xihai (West Sea) Grand Canyon (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Next article