Talk:Baalbek Stones

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name[edit]

Any chance of more information on the local legend for which the stone was named? GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 07:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC) –-- I know eh? I doubt anyone is going to be satisfied with 'wow a large stone', not with such an interesting name. 174.0.171.197 (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC) are there any scientific theories on how this stone was made or for that matter moved? I imagine it being a nearly impossible task to move a 1000 ton block, even with todays machinery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.74.191 (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no material evidence that these two blocks are of Roman origin. Their creators are totally uknown. 80.237.67.10 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are some Latin marks on the stone IIRC. The real evidence, though, is that the nearby Baalbek temple complex (800 m distance) was built in Roman times and that many such gigantic monoliths were used there, for example in the trilith (700 t each). Since Baalbek did not witness construction activity even remotely approaching the Roman level until well into the 20th century, the identification of the two giant monoliths as Roman is actually pretty certain and uncontested. That is if you do not favour an outright alien origin. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i see that some members of wikipedia editors are engaged in vandalism, claiming that stone of a pregnant stone is of roman origin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:26:A07:16:0:0:1 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


This stone is featured in a movie and in a TV show. Shouldn't that be listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.88.167.219 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement that only morons think the stone is Roman[edit]

only moron can claim that this stone, and others of similar size are of roman origin. romans never used stones of that size, and especially not granit ones, where there are other less dense stone materials. i'm from lebanon, and all the local archeologists, historians and people claim it's about 9000 years old. The problem with official history is that it likes to deny and falsify all the facts that doesn't fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.66.201 (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then you won't be happy with Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources, such as the one you removed, say about a subject, not local opinion. See WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If you can find a source meeting the criteria described in those links, in this case an archaeologist published reliably by our criteria, you can add differing opinions, but you can't just remove ones reliably sourced. Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source that satisfy your criteria? And what is your criteria? Some group of archeologist came, made some measurements and than claimed that it's a roman stone, just because part of the whole complex is roman temples. And it fits your criteria because you can cite it. And of course you can't cite anything in arabic because you don't know and you don't want to explore further. Of course, the fact that romans didn't use stones heavier than 200 tons for building doesn't bother you, after all, in your head the difference of 1000 tons is irrelevant, as long as you have some source to cite. Moron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:26:a07:16::1 (talk • contribs)

Apparently the same editor given the language. Dougweller (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

apparently you are out of arguments so you just refer to my language as you think it proves a point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:26:A07:16:0:0:1 (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any "arguments" from you, just assertions. if you have scholarly sources that argue for the 9000BP date, then please provide them. It is perfectly acceptable to use Arabic sources, but they have to be from accredited scholars. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what arguments you see for roman stone? the fact that some frenchman came here, made some measurements and proclaimed it to be roman stone? Accredited scholar? It's all relative. In lebanon such "scholars" are laughing matter. And since lebanese scholars are at least on the site, still exavating, i still see them as more reliable source than some frenchman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.193.149 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the difference between you and me is that you claim it's a roman monolith and don't accept anything else. you have nothing to substantiate it. nothing.one frenchman that came here and proclaimed it a roman stone???? hillarious. how many times scientist were wrong? on the other side, i claim that we do not know who made it. i don't claim aliens, giants, ancient civilizations, or anything else. I just say i don't know. you don't know. that moron frenchman doesn't know. even local archeologist who know the most, they don't know. but at least i don't claim that i'm sure of anything. the fact is that pottery was excavated near and it was dated 9000 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.193.149 (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless an alternative reliable source, rather than original research, is offered, the edit warring and personal insults will entail a request for page protection. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to look at the top of the talk page you will see some clear arguments given by User:Gun Powder Ma. It's close to the site of a major Roman building noted for its massiveness, which is a pretty clear argument. You are apparently rejecting the claim that it was made by a technologically advanced civilisation known for its building and engineering feats, in favour of one that it was made by, what, Neolithic people with stone tools? - people who have apparently left not trace of their existence and are not known to have created anything comparable. Paul B (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you really have to sink so low to defend something that cannot be defended. you claim: "this is a roman stone because it's close to other roman stones". WHAT OTHER STONES? trilithon? how do you prove that is made by romans also? because it's close to roman temple? what you want to say that whole baalback site is made only by romans? such an ignorance is really horrendous. and you complain that i called you morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.193.149 (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC) and by the way, how can you edit wikipedia when you don't even know how to read properly. find where i said "in favour of one that it was made by, what, Neolithic people with stone tools?" I said "i don't know". please refer to your 1st grade elementary book with letters to understand what other people write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.193.149 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is pointless, since the IP:93.136.193 hasn't offered any reliable sources for their claim, while the claims of Roman origin is well-cited in the article. And please refrain from personal attacks, it isn't furthering your cause, quite the opposite in fact. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ignorance, it's common sense. It's how history is done. You make judgements based on style, construction methods, dating etc. It's based on detailed knowledge built up over years of study. Comparable stones appear in the main temple base. Where else do you think they would quarry them? They sensibly quarry from nearby. There's nothing remotely "mysterious" here. Apparently you are the one who can't read your own statement. You wrote "i'm from lebanon, and all the local archeologists, historians and people claim it's about 9000 years old". That puts it during the Stone Age (Neolithic). If people who follow common sense are "morons", then it's difficult to know what word for mental incapacity we have left for the view you propound. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you guys are so pathetic that it's really horrible. what style and construction methods do you find to prove that it's roman stone? and you asked me for sources...lol...there is one in wikipedia...right what i'm talking about:

Tell Baalbek

There has been much conjecture about earlier levels at Baalbeck with suggestions that it may have been an ancient settlement. The German expedition in 1898 reporting nothing prior to Roman occupation.[1] Recent archaeological finds have been discovered in the deep trench at the edge of the Jupiter temple platform during cleaning operations. These finds date the site Tell Baalbek from the PPNB neolithic to the Iron Age. They include several sherds of pottery including a teapot spout, evident to date back to the early bronze age.[2] Previous excavations under the Roman flagstones in the Great Court unearthed three skeletons and a fragment of Persian pottery dated to around 550-330 BCE. The fragment featured cuneiform letters and images of figurines.[3]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.193.149 (talk) 19:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted again. If there are reliable contradictory sources, the proper procedure will be to include them and make note of the varied interpretations, rather than blanking of existing sources, which is disruptive. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


limestone?

This is just evidence that there was settlement at the site before the Romans, which is obvious to a....moron. It has nothing to do with quarrying massive stones. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that this is Roman isn't especially controversial, though it's again been removed. Other publications accept it [1]. The persistent removal weighs more toward vandalism than content dispute. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

limestone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.193.149 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


limestone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:26:A07:16:0:0:1 (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

9000 years old?[edit]

The TV program Ancient Aliens on the History Channel has argued this. On the episode entitled “Sacred Places,” ancient astronaut theorists claim that the massive stone blocks comprising the base of the temple complex at Baalbek are 9,000 years old. Other sources say these were made by giants 9000 years ago, others say Cain did it, or a mysterious sea-going race that existed 9000 years ago. I really would like to see some evidence that Lebanese archaeologists make this claim as I'd be interested in who they think did it. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there are quite a few books that trot out the aliens theory. You might enjoy some you tube videos expounding the topic too. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's the mentality of a catolic church in 12 century. I never said anything about aliens. You try to connect me with that, a method of discrediting. It's the most pathetic method, used usually by secret services to discredit political opponents. I spoke to local archeologists who certainly know better than some french who visited lebanon once, and they say 9000 years old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:26:A07:16:0:0:1 (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman vs Oriental vs Cyclopean Baalbeks[edit]

Just found an article[2] published in the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians which is fascinating. Sample quote "The Lebanese antiquities ministry initiated the clearance of the basilica and the probing of the tell to search for remnants of pre-Classical Baalbek, to show that the true character of the site was indigenous and that the Roman visual elements were an insignificant veneer over an entirely different cultural product." The author doesn't try to say who built it. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find, and merits at least a parenthetical mention. If further credible sources are found that challenge the Roman theory then the lede can be changed to reflect diverse scholarship. 99.137.210.226 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole crapload of stuff about Baalbek, it being a UNESCO World Heritage site and all that. My impression from their summary and a few quick looks at other sources is that there was a much older but pretty minor settlement long before the Romans went on their massive quarrying and monument-building spree; I found one reference to an older temple. Surely Baalbek suggests that there once was a shrine there. Unfortunately the crapload includes some real crap of the ancient astronaut variety that seems to crop up any place there are cyclopean stoneworks. I gather that there is some claim that there is a much older stone platform upon which the Roman temples site.
The granite claim of our IP editor, BTW, is surely bosh. The geology is against it: there's vulcanism around Greece and the Aegean but not further south and west. Jerusalem stone is a limestone, for instance, of a particularly fine-grained quality. Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crediting the Romans for the Thrilithon and the 1000ton stones seems premature given there are absolutely no records of the Romans ever moving anything that large. In fact there are records where an attempt was made on a stone whose weight, at best estimates, was under 500 tons and the gave up. Research the Karnak Obelisk and you will see how Augustus finally gave up and decided to move two lighter obelisks. I would think it appropriate to at least note this as reasonable skepticism to the Roman origin for the larger blocks at Baalbek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.184.50 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources say and NPOV. A big difference here is that these stones were moved downhill. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the stone in question hasn't been moved. One could hypothesize that the reason it is still in the quarry is because it proved impractically large. Still, as DW says, we would need a good source for the claim that "they didn't make it because there's no proof they ever moved anything that large." Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Oh look, i was vandal first and now you realize i'm right. But still you won't remove your absurd claim that' it's a roman stone. What a pathetic creatures you are. By the way, if you actually knew anything about hystory, you would realize that "vandalism" and "vandal" are not bad terms at all. They had sophisticated culture when they settled in north africa. It's the catholic church that made them look bad. How can you even edit wikipedia history when you know nothing of history?

No one said you were right. You seem to have comprehension trouble. Everyone knows who the Vandals were. That does not change the meaning of the word. You can be as "hysterical" as anyone with a womb, and pathetic without making anyone feel sad at all. Paul B (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes you and your editors did say i'm right indirectly, you are only uncapable to say it directly.

And it's a granite stone. why did you erase the rest of my text? oh you don't like ph.d. chemist to contradict you on the chemistry of the stone? So just erase. Most pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:26:A07:16:0:0:1 (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not a PhD chemist; on Wikipedia, you're just another dog. And if you aren't a chemist of whatever level or better still a geologist standing on the rock, your professional opinion isn't, well, professional. Indeed, if you were professional, you would already understand the need to refrain from such unfounded pronouncements. Find us a qualified authority and cite him; quit injecting your own apparently unfounded assertions. Mangoe (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one disputes that some people have tried to make out that These Things Are Really Really Ancient. It's a commonplace claim in nationalist pop-archaeology all over the world. It's just wrong, that's all. Surely such an intellectual superstar as yourself knows how to find and cite sources. Paul B (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cricle crops,jfk, roswell, foofighters ... Its the same shit all over again. Poor answers for a covered truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎81.39.145.39 (talk • contribs)

Stone type.[edit]

Is it granite or is it limestone? Currently, it says both (under Location).Piltdown Yaren (talk) 11:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Monolith[edit]

The consensus is not absolute among researchers that the monolith is Roman. Nevertheless it is an assumption in most sources. I changed the language a tiny bit to reflect this and have added a reference which contains a good review of the current consensus. I don't want to start an edit war as this seems to have been done already several years ago, but seeing the above felt the need to mention the change here. Please review. 73.162.191.94 (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find actual archaeologists to use as sources, maybe, but Hancock doesn't claim to be an archaeologist and I don't think any archaeologists take him seriously. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baalbek_Stones&oldid=1205575224"