I’m not persuaded by the archaeological case that the megalithic foundations of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek, Lebanon, were the work of the Romans. There’s no doubt that the Romans could move very large blocks of stone, and there’s no doubt that they were responsible for the classical majesty of the temple itself, but I’m presently working on the assumption that they built it on top of a megalithic platform that had already been in place for thousands of years. The western side of that original (and I believe remotely ancient) megalithic platform is shown in the collage of photographs with this post. On top of six megaliths, in the range of 400 tons each, are prominently positioned three gigantic megaliths weighing approximately 800 tons each. I am aware that megaliths even larger than this (e.g. the so-called Thunder Stone of St Petersburg) have been moved and positioned on flat ground in historical times) but the moving and positioning of three 800 ton megaliths to a height of 18 or 20 feet above the ground as is the case at Baalbek is a problem of a completely different order. I suggest this requires careful consideration rather than simply saying “the Romans did it” as archaeology is at present inclined to do.
I have many reasons for this view, to do with the possibility of a lost civilisation that I will be exploring in depth in “Magicians of the Gods”, the sequel to “Fingerprints of the Gods” (to be published October 2015). However to consider just a single point here we need only turn to the quarry at Baalbek where a number of even larger megaliths (but clearly of the same type as the 800-ton blocks under the Temple of Jupiter), were left in situ by whoever conceived it possible to build with megaliths on this scale. If it was the Romans who quarried and moved everything than we have to ask ourselves why at least two huge blocks in the range of 1,000 to 1,200 tons each (see The mystery of Baalbek Post 1 of 2) were left in the quarry at all.
The conventional answer is that the Romans, having quarried these exceptionally large blocks, found that they could not move them and simply abandoned them. But that explanation makes very little sense. If the argument that the Romans were responsible for the megalithic platform is correct then we know that they went on to build an extensive temple complex dedicated to Jupiter using smaller blocks of stone. Surely their first source for the multiple smaller blocks they needed would have been the huge megaliths that, according to the argument of mainstream archaeology, they had discovered they could not move from the quarry? The Romans were practical people who would not allow work that they had already so painstakingly done to go to waste. Rather than opening up fresh quarry faces, wouldn’t they have used those massive, already almost completely quarried 1,000-ton-plus blocks and simply sliced them up into smaller more moveable megaliths for the construction of the rest of the temple?
It’s really puzzling that they didn’t do so and therefore the fact that these gigantic, almost finished blocks remain in the quarry and were never sliced up into smaller blocks and used in the general construction of the Temple of Jupiter, suggests to me very strongly that the Romans did not even know they were there. Most probably they had been buried under many metres of sediment for many thousands of years when the Romans appeared on the scene. They made use of the megaliths that were already in place on the already remotely ancient sacred site that would become the Temple of Jupiter — a handy, massive and convenient platform upon which they could build their temple — but they knew nothing of the fully cut and shaped but unused megaliths lying deeply buried in the quarry.
By Graham Hancock, author of Fingerprints of the Gods: The Evidence of Earth’s Lost Civilization