Horses Domesticated 9,000 Years Ago.

Of course, it is also foolish to try and reject something simply because of where the information came from, without seeing the true source.

The quote on Wikipedia is from the book À propos du trilithon de Baalbek, Le transport et la mise à l’oeuvre des mégalithes, by noted archaeologist Jean-Pierre Adam. And if you do even a little basic research, he does talk about the Trilithon, which is the large stones in the wall of the structure. Not the arch. To make these, they simply have to be dragged into place, not lifted at all.

http://digital.films.com/play/NAB7PM

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Stone_of_the_Pregnant_Woman

http://jarod-rhoades.suite101.com/the-mystery-of-the-baalbek-foundation-stones-a337996

So thank you for rejecting the information, simply because I located a convient source in English. Next time, try looking at the real source, not just where it was located.

Because if you are rejecting this, you are also rejecting all the research on this by Jean-Pierre Adam, who is recognized internationally is the greatest expert on the location you are talking about.

I also am very cautious about useing Wikipedia. That is why I first use it for a search for information, then I check the sources given in the article itself. And almost all of the Wikipedia article on the stones is directly taken from the work of Mr. Adam.

 

No.. the stones weren't cut where they were found.. however the quarry is only a short distance away.

 

Other sources.................

 

the largest stone is still in place where it was quarried, it's still attached to the bedrock...

 

I've seen wiki articles that were absolute frauds, it is never trustworthy...

don't believe go take a night class at any respectable uni when they ask you do a paper list as primary source of info and back to me and let me know how that works out for you...

if I can't find another search other than wiki I won't use it...but there's always another source if I look hard enough...

 

Are you quite sure?

When I was there the guides said otherwise.

http://www.historicaltravelguide.com/the-ancient-roman-temple-at-baalbek.html

What baffles scholars till today is how the quarrying was and transportation of such massive stone blocks carried out at that time, when it may even not be possible today, in spite of our technological advancement.

 

And notice how much I emphacize going to the original source. Useing Wiki as your source is foolish, especially if you have to back up your claim. However, checking the sources used in the article when they are accurate is soemthing very different. You are rejecting it out of hand, while totally ignoring the source material.

So go ahead and stand on your high horse if it makes you feel superior. And ignore all the other references (even your own) that are based on the work of Jean-Pierre Adam. They all say the same thing. Personally, I happen to reject the pseudo-science that Al Gore often puts in his books, but that does not mean that his references are nessicarily bogus. Just the spin he puts on their results.

But it's ok, because I am loving how you tap-dance around the facts by ignoring them because you do not like one reference, or the facts behind them.

 

I am sure it is possible, it all depends on how much manpower you can put into it, and not worry as much about safety. Things that are unmoveable by modern machines can often be moved by the ancients by simple brute force.

You almost never see structures made in the modern era with 2.5 ton stones. But the Great Pyramid is made up of over 2 million of them. Sure we can move them, but why? We just use poured concrete if we need blocks that big. But they had huge labor pools. so putting hundreds if not thousands of people on ropes and pulleys to move them was not an issue.

Plus their motives were very different. It is believed now that most laborers in the ancient megastructures were actually volunteers. Since most of these buildings had religious significance, to them it is believed it was a type of tithe service. And they could take decades or even centuries to build a single structure.

If such a structure was attempted today, am sure it would be shut down immediately. OSHA, Labor Unions, ADA requirements, and building standards would prevent them from happening. But I am sure if somebody actually got the number of people required, they could move things that modern equipment can't.

And we do have equipment that can move over 3,000 tons in weight. We just so rarely need to move such massive items, that the equipment is almost never built. But the capability is there if it is really needed.



And when you figure the machine itself weighs in at 3,000 tons, it is even more impressive. It is essentially moving 6,000 tons, including it's own weight.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui-ehJlGM1Q"]Space Shuttle Era: Crawler Transporter - YouTube[/ame]

 

Yes. Apparently the pyramids were national volunteer projects....

This is pretty interesting:

History of Concrete
and the Nabataeans
http://nabataea.net/cement.html


Early History and Development of Cement

The Romans are generally credited as being the first concrete engineers, but archaeological evidence says otherwise.

Archaeologists have found a type of concrete dating to 6500 B.C., when stone-age Syrians used permanent fire pits for heating and cooking. These fire pits, built from area limestone, showed a primitive form of calcining on the exterior faces of the limestone rocks that lined the fire pits and lead to the accidental discovery of lime as a fundamental building material. The newly discovered technology was widely used in Syria, as central lime-burning kilns were constructed to supply mortar for rubble-wall house construction, concrete floors, and waterproofing cisterns.

 

How much would it weigh if it were finished & in place lol ? & How many millions would it cost to finish it put it in place today?>

 

How many men to move an immense stone of a thousand tons ? & They were Raised Platform Stones built thousands of years prior to the Roman Era...

 

i'm hardly ever 100% sure but two sources I found agree on that, I should've put in a link sorry...

of course they can move it today, far more difficult moves have been accomplished, the biggest building I believe was a fragile 8 stories tall at 11,000 tons, a compact 1,200 solid block would be quite simple in comparison with today's technology...

for the technology of the day moving the blocks a balbeek was impressive

 

I have put in 4 links so far.. which nobody seems to have read.

 

the number of people required maybe surprisingly small, even back then the key would still be simple mechanical tools, levers/ rollers/wedges and such....

I haven't any source that give a date to the move so a claim of thousands comes from thin air...there needs to be artifacts found with and directly related to the stones in order to date them....

 

yes contrary to bible stories claiming they were built by jewish slaves, the work force was relatively small and professional/paid and well looked after with the best medical care of the day...

still it was the romans that really made extensive use of concrete, perfecting water proof concrete and concrete that would cure under water...

 

The raised platform stones (I assume you are talking about the arch) was not "thousand tons". It was around 300 tons, not 1,000 tons. This is the only one that would need to have been "lifted" anywhere, and a simple dirt ramp would have been enough.

For the others, they were not lifted anywhere, simply dragged into place. And the log and sled had been known for thousands of years before this was built, as was the friction reducing quality of sand.

I am sure that if the giant Trilithon stones were ever turned over, on the bottom would be ample evidence of their being dragged into place.

 

Well.. the Naboteans used concrete as did the people of Dilmun..

 

Actually, I think they get most of the credit because of the extensive use they made of it. There is often a vast difference between who events something, and who makes common use of it.

A great many things we know today were originally invented in China. However, they often never really made use of them, and they were then reinvented elsewhere at a later time.

In China, gunpowder had been around for over 300 years before it was turned into a weapon. And it never saw wide-spread use until another 200 years later when it spread to Europe. And it was much the same way with a great many other things.

While I have no doubt that cement was used earlier, nobody before them did it like the Romans. It is even known as the "Roman Architectural Revolution", because the use allowed them to stop the use of stone in making their structures. Like the Panthenon, the aqueducts, and the port of Caesarea.

The earlier uses seem to be more like the use of adobe, stucco and mortar then what is considered today as "concrete".

 

Timeline of the Development of Cement

Cement has been around for at least 12 million years. When the earth itself was undergoing intense geologic changes natural, cement was being created. It was this natural cement that humans first put to use. Eventually, they discovered how to make cement from other materials.


12,000,000 BC Reactions between limestone and oil shale during spontaneous combustion occurred in Israel to form a natural deposit of cement compounds. The deposits were characterized by Israeli geologists in the 1960's and 70's.

3000 BC Egyptians used mud mixed with straw to bind dried bricks. They also used gypsum mortars and mortars of lime in the pyramids. Chinese used cement like materials to hold bamboo together in their boats and in the Great Wall.

800 BC Greeks, Crete & Cyprus used lime mortars which were much harder than later Roman mortars. The Nabataeans possibly made waterproof cisterns in the Arabian deserts during this time.

300 BC Babylonians & as Syrians used bitumen to bind stones and bricks.
300 BC Nabataeans begin to build cisterns with waterproof cement in Arabia, many of which still work today!

http://nabataea.net/cement.html

 

all very interesting but there is a little confusion here, cement and concrete are not the same thing but people tend to interchange the terms...

cement is an ingredient that is used to bind materials together, not the same as concrete

romans were the experts at concrete, I don't of any culture that rivaled their ability until modern times...

the pantheon was concrete...

 

from the various links i've come across the romans are credited with the invention of concrete

 

Oh of course.. brain f*rt...

 

I am only speaking of the trilithon stones of which one respondent to this thread already claimed were in the 800 ton range (My quote of 1000 to 1400 tons) is also claimed by archeologists . Where you get the 300 tons is lost to this thread

 

and I've seen estimates of 450 1,200 tons...not that it matters we can all agree they're still d*** big rocks, regardless the estimated weight and a considerable challenge to the technology of the day

 

& Archeology has issues with the Dates of the earlier Platform (Including Largest Megalithic worked Stones in Middle East & perhaps the world ) predating the earliest Egyptian Dynasties by Thousands of Years & Even pre Dating Sumer ...