H OYNEΣΚΟ παραδέχτηκε ότι οι μεγαλιθικοί ογκόλιθοι του Μπάαλμπεκ ΔΕΝ τοποθετήθηκαν από τους Ρωμαίους

[Αρίστος]

There are absolutely no records in any Roman or other literary sources concerning the construction methods or the dates and names of the benefactors, designers, architects, engineers and builders of the Grand Terrace. The megalithic stones of the Trilithon bear no structural or ornamental resemblance to any of the Roman-era constructions above them, such as the previously described Temples of Jupiter, Bacchus or Venus. The limestone rocks of the Trilithon show extensive evidence of wind and sand erosion that is absent from the Roman temples, indicating that the megalithic construction dates from a far earlier age. Finally, the great stones of Baalbek show stylistic similarities to other cyclopean stone walls at verifiably pre-Roman sites such as the Acropolis foundation in Athens, the foundations of Myceneae, Tiryns, Delphi and even megalithic constructions in the ‘new world’ such as Ollyantaytambo in Peru and Tiahuanaco in Bolivia.

...............

Michel Alouf, the former curator of the ruins, once wrote of the Trilithon: in spite of their immense size, they [the Trilithon stones] are so accurately placed in position and so carefully joined, that it is almost impossible to insert a needle between them. No description will give an exact idea of the bewildering and stupefying effect of these tremendous blocks on the spectator'.

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/m ... on.200342/

.

Οι πρωτοι επωνυμοι αρχαιολογοι και λογιοι που πηγαν στο Μπααλμπεκ πιστευαν οτι τη μεγαλιθικη βαση ΔΕΝ την εκτισαν οι Ρωμαιοι. Με απλα λογια η ΟΥΝΕΣΚΟ ξαναγυρισε στο τι λεγαν αυτοι.


There is, however, tantalising evidence to show that some of the earliest archaeologists and European travellers to visit Baalbek came away believing that the Great Platform was much older than the nearby Roman temples. For instance, the French scholar, Louis F licien de Saulcy, stayed at Baalbek from 16 to 18 March 1851 and became convinced that the podium walls were the `remains of a pre-Roman temple'.(39)

Far more significant, however, were the observations of respected French archaeologist Ernest Renan, who was allowed archaeological exploration of the site by the French army during the mid nineteenth century.(40) It is said that when he arrived there it was to satisfy his own conviction that no pre-Roman remains existed on the site.(41) Yet following an indepth study of the ruins, Renan came to the conclusion that the stones of the Trilithon were very possibly `of Phoenician origin',(42) in other words they were a great deal older that the Roman temple complex. His reasoning for this assertion was that, in the words of Ragette, he saw `no inherent relation between the Roman temple and this work'.(43)

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/m ... on.200342/

.

[Αρίστος]

Αναλυτικα το θεμα της αναντιστοιχιας μεταξυ της διαβρωσης των μεγαλιθικων ογκολιθων της βασης και του λατομειου με τις λειες μικροτερες πετρες της ρωμαικης κατασκευης.



b) The limestone courses that make up the outer podium base - which, of course, includes the Trilithon - are heavily pitted by wind and sand erosion, while the rest of the Temple of Jupiter still possesses comparatively smooth surfaces. The same type of wind and sand erosion can be seen on the huge limestone blocks used in many of the megalithic temple complexes around the northern Mediterranean coast, as well as the cyclopean walls of Mycenean Greece. Since all these structures are between 3000 and 6000 years of age, it could be argued that the lower courses of the outer podium wall at Baalbek antedate the Roman temple complex by at least a thousand years.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/m ... on.200342/

.

[Jimmy81]

Τα φόρουμς δεν είναι επιστημονικές πηγές. Ας διαβάσουμε πρώτα μια έρευνα τεκμηριωμένη από γεωλόγους για τους ογκόλιθους του Μπάαλμπεκ και μετά βλέπουμε για τι επιπέδου διάβρωση μιλάμε.