This article introduces and discusses new discoveries made in the colossal ruins at Baalbek, Lebanon, and the possibility they are evidence of a past supercivilization or, at least, technically advanced civilization of “prehistory.”
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.
A panorama of ancient Baalbek, seen from a nearby hill.
The ruins are the Roman temples of Bacchus (foreground) and Baal-Jupiter.
How old are the ruins?
Back of the temple of Baal-Jupiter. Smaller stones of Roman date are haphazardly placed on top to form a medieval fortress.
At the bottom of the picture, between the 2 trees, a man contemplates their size.
Can you see how small he is compared?
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
One stone left in the quarry, undressed yet. They are great, perfect rectangles.
This is a picture of the largest worked stone on earth. Some have estimated it to be 2,000 tons.
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.
What the original edifice must have looked like—a massive platform
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.
The great stones continue on this side as well, though their substructures are still buried.
The Roman temple falls far short of these blocks,
another indication they are not designed for the temple but predate it considerably.
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.
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.
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.
Excavating deeper, the other great mystery was found. Perfectly cut, though smaller, stones were found. The megaliths were not designed as the foundation of the original building, but were meant to be the top. Why? What for? The stones of the Roman temple can be seen built behind and on top of them.
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?