Baalbek Temple Complex (Part 1 – An Introduction)

THIS is my main obsession and passion within the topic of  megalithic structures.  Three 800-ton limestone ashlars (the so-called Trilithon), cut and moved from the limestone quarry about a half-mile away (with no sign of a constructed road ever discovered), lifted or ramped up to a height 26 feet above ground level where they were final-cut and finished such that its seams are impervious to sliding a razor blade between its joints. 

They were to be the middle layer of the original temple’s podium. Below them is the lower layer of that podium containing twenty-seven stones weighing in at approximately 350 tons each. The temple complex (described below) is attributed entirely to Rome by orthodox history. However, Rome never built with stones of this size anywhere in its history (more to come on that later). Also, Baalbek was nearly 1,500 miles away – located between two mountain ranges. Why would Rome commit resources to a remote area that far away from its founding city, and why would they choose to use stones much larger than anything they had ever constructed – before or since?

The mystery drives the questions. Question Everything.

I first heard of Baalbek in 1998 while reading Graham Hancock’s “Fingerprints of the Gods.” It wasn’t until early 2005 that I bought my first publication on the subject: “History of Baalbek” by Michel M. Alouf (1999 edition).  I was blown away by the accomplishments of whoever built this ENORMOUS podium, as well as the subterrains in the temple complex! 

In addition, as I did research on this incredible structure during 2007 I found a forum post originally from September 1996 & November 1998 about Baalbek (which still exists) . It was a reply to some posts that claimed the podium of the Jupiter Template in Baalbek was an ancient alien space port (which I don’t believe.) In those posts, an individual, Frank Doernenburg, stated that he had read all the original German archaeological publications from the 1898-1904 excavations , and he felt there was nothing worthy of extraordinary note regarding the podium nor its construction.

Following are a handful of Mr. Doernenburg’s claims . . . 

Claim #1:

“The three blocks used weight about 800 tons each, the heavy, unmoved block weights about 1200 tons.”

“The stones in Baalbek are not as heavy as claimed by many authors. The three actually moved weigh just under 800 tons each, and only the not-moved block in the quarry weighs about 1000 tons.”

Claim #2:

“The quarry for the blocks lies higher then the temple, about 15 meters. Distance to the platform: about 600 meters, but to get round a ditch the way had to be about 1100 meters long”

“The stones were transported over a path only 600 meters length and about 15 meters *downhill*. The quarry is 1160 meters high, and the temple 145 meters. So it was easy to keep the stones on an even level to their final resting place and it was uneccesary to lift them about 7 meters as some authors claim.”

Claim #3:

“The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building.”  [1996]

“Because of its construction. Its a typical Roman honeycomb-brick-construction. Underneath the forum is a labyrinth of brick walls and chambers, filled to support the weight with shards and other compact trash. All of roman origin. Only beneath the temples on top of the forum are fundaments to the bedrock to support their weight. And in typical roman fashoin, to conceal the flimsy inner construction an outer wall of monoliths between 50 and 800 tons each was placed around the construction so that it lookes massive. But this is only an outer appearance, the whole construction is so unstable, that any decent space ferry would simply break through the ceiling and land in a heap of roman shards.” [1998]

Claim #4:

“The trash you can read about the temple comes mostly from a book from 1864 (“Voyage autour de la mer morte” by Felicien ce Saulcy) and an article from a professor Modeste Agrest, who based his story on a book “published in Paris in 1898” – long befor any serious dig was done. These sources were used by authors like Daeniken and Sitchin. The first real investigation from 1904/1905, published 1921 (Wiegand, Ballbek, 3 bde, ), is “forgotten” by these guys”

All these claims are worthy of further investigation, but Claim #3 was particularly curious and didn’t seem to make sense. “Typically roman honeycombed” construction. What exactly is that? What does it mean? What does it look like? What other Roman construction through their history displays this type of approach? Did the original archaeological report describe it thus? I needed to find out.

I was driven to determine if his arguments were valid, since he spoke with such authority. So, I found details about the original excavation publications and:

1. They were published in 1921 and in German (which I don’t speak)
2. They were extremely rare, and housed primarily in  university libraries around the world – none of them any closer than 300 miles from me in Chicago.

I then established a goal to obtain as many publications, papers, and artifacts related to Baalbek as possible – and educate myself thoroughly about the site. Hopefully, being able to acquire a copy eventually of the original German archaeological publication on their findings, somehow translate it, and find out if Mr. Dornenburg was talking from a genuine point of expertise, or was he bloviating?

I’ve since accumulated about 75 books – – vintage & modern – including archaeological publications (from both German and French excavations), lots of albumen photos, lantern slides, and very early architectural diagrams.

Finally in 2019 I was able to acquire the original German excavation publication, “Ergebnisse der Ausgraben un Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905 (Text & Tafeln [Plates]).”

It’s been nearly 20 years since I read Mr. Doernenburg claims, but using current tools online, I’m working to translate it to English. I will finally find out soon whether Mr. Doernenburg was the expert he claimed to be. So far, based on the progress I’ve made, his proclamations appear to be relatively empty and misplaced.  His claim #1, however, appears to be fairly correct. The other claims – we shall see.

More to come in future parts of this topic.

Proceed to Part 2