Baalbek: Mystery of the Trilithon Stones

For regular videos on ancient cultures and forgotten civilizations, please subscribe. If you would like to support the channel and become part of our ancient history fan community, visit patreon.com slash worldofantiquity. Baalbek today is a small town at the foothills of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range, on the highest point of the Beqaa Valley in Lebanon. The town's origins go way back, and the ruins of the ancient parts of the settlement can be seen in many areas of the town. Some of these were uncovered over the last 130 years, but others have been exposed since ancient times, and have never been out of the public mind. The most spectacular part of the site is the Qala Complex, sometimes called the Acropolis, which includes the so-called Temple of Bacchus, and the huge sanctuary for Jupiter Heliopolitanus, which contains not only the Jupiter Temple itself, but courtyards and hallways and all other kinds of architecture. But part of the sanctuary that has attracted the attention of many are the three massive stone blocks that form the middle layer of the Western Temple podium, together called the Trilithon. These megaliths, measuring 13 by 13 by 66 feet, and estimated to weigh almost 800 tons apiece, are to date the biggest known building blocks used in ancient times. There are many local legends about the temple's origins. Some say Cain, the son of Adam, built it to hide from God's wrath. Some say giants built it at the command of Nimrod, and it came to be called the Tower of Babel. Others say that King Solomon built it as a palace for the Queen of Sheba. Archaeologists, on the other hand, say the stones were put in place here during the Roman period. But you'll find many independent researchers challenging this conclusion. How strong is the case for Roman placement of the stones? Let's take a look. And maybe, after we consider the evidence, you'll be in a better position to make a judgment as to whether archaeologists know what they're talking about, or whether they're full of baloney. Myths of ancient history is aimed at dispelling common misconceptions about the past. If you're interested in ancient history, forgotten civilizations, and enigmas from antiquity, I encourage you to subscribe to the channel. And if you find this particular video valuable, please hit the like button, and comment below with your favorite takeaway. And feel free to ask any clarification questions that you may have. The earliest excavations took place at Baalbek between 1898 and 1903 by a German expedition. And archaeological research has continued there ever since, except during the Lebanese Civil War between 1975 and 1990, when that was pretty much impossible. More recently, since 2004, ongoing archaeological study undertaken by a collaborative research project of the German Archaeological Institute, the Brandenburg Technical University, and the Lebanese Antiquities Department at the Lebanese University have provided more information and insight into the history of the site. Let me give you a quick overview. There was a settlement at Tel Baalbek as far back as the Stone Age. The first German archaeological expeditions didn't find anything before the Roman period, but later expeditions found Persian, Bronze Age, and even Neolithic artifacts. The Neolithic remains were found at the edges of the tel and indicated that the settlement from that time was small and that it most likely extended underneath the temple complex. A shaft was excavated in the middle of the Acropolis and, sure enough, the remains of the original settlement were found underneath, thus confirming that the temple complex was built on top of it. The artifacts underneath indicated that the original settlement was inhabited continuously from the pre-pottery Neolithic period into the Iron Age. Written records describing the area during the Iron Age make no mention of Baalbek. The Assyrians ruled over this area for a time, but there's no record of Baalbek in their records, even in a tribute list of Shalmaneser III from the 9th century BCE, which delineates a bunch of cities in this region. No Baalbek. Baalbek definitely existed at that time, but it may have been so minor that it didn't merit mentioning. Same thing during the time of Babylonian, Persian, and Greek Hellenistic rule. Silence. Since the Iron Age settlement is small and we don't hear about the place, archaeologists are inclined to think it was of minimal importance. The Romans took over when the Roman general Pompey conquered the region. Strabo, a Roman geographer of the late 1st century BCE and early 1st century CE, described this area in detail, but he never says anything about any great structures. The Great Temple of Jupiter was built after that. How do we know? Well, we can date the Temple of Jupiter rather precisely. A graffito left by one of the stonemasons on top of one of the column shafts has a date of August 2nd, 60 CE. This means that the temple was nearing completion at that time. Many people don't know why the archaeologists working on the site believe that the trilithon stones specifically were put there by the Romans. Yes, the stones are part of the giant podium that holds up the Temple of Jupiter, but couldn't they have been there already when the Romans decided to construct the temple? Well, here are the reasons archaeologists have concluded that the trilithon was made by the Romans. First, the whole sanctuary was built on top of the original settlement. Since the settlement was inhabited continuously from Neolithic times until the Iron Age, that means the sanctuary must have been constructed after that. There's no other viable conclusion, unless you think that the people built an open-air village underneath the temple, but that would be impossible, obviously. It appears that when the tell was architecturalized, the residents were forced to move into the surrounding hills or into the plain. The tell was then only for cultic activity. The podium, which includes the trilithon, must therefore have been put there between the time the settlers moved and before the Romans built the Temple of Jupiter. That means it has to be Hellenistic or early Roman. Excavations under the floor of the great courtyard revealed the remains of an older floor, which was about 16 feet lower, and revealed evidence also of monumental construction, an earlier stairway, walls, and a freestanding podium monument. These indicate an earlier sanctuary entrance on the eastern side. More archaeological research is planned, so further finds are forthcoming, but one thing's for sure, the sanctuary that you can see today was not the first one. Underneath the six huge columns of the Temple of Jupiter that are still standing is a monumental podium, which has been dubbed Podium 1. Archaeologists believe it comes from a time earlier than the temple that now sits on it. Why? Well, an important thing to note is that the temple is a peripteral temple. That means the cella, or inner chamber, is surrounded by a porch with columns on all four sides. We call this colonnaded porch a peristasis. In this case, the position of the colonnades, flush in the north and south but removed from the edge on the western side, is unusual and awkward, which means that they made an adjustment to the standard design. The reasonable conclusion is that the podium was originally made for a different kind of temple, and the newer peripteral temple had to be adjusted to fit it. If you compare the masonry of Podium 1 with that of Podium 2, the one with the trilithon in it, you'll notice that even though they are both made of limestone, Podium 1 is made of significantly smaller ashlars, which were formed into a regular and attractive grid. The wall was built without mortar, and the ashlars were cut very precisely, leaving almost no gap in the joints. Drafted margins are visible on the stones. That's a narrow dressed border around the face of the stone. These characteristics, the careful cutting of the ashlars, and their finely smooth drafted margins, finely cut, indicate they were meant to be visible on the outside. So even though parts of the podium were subsequently covered up, that was not the original intention. The row of headers underneath the bases of the columns don't have drafted margins or flat boss, which suggests that they are from a later phase. The earlier podium consists of 11 courses of masonry above the old floor level. The lowest and highest courses were laid as stretchers, that's bricks laid the long way. The rest of the courses were laid in alternating rows of headers and stretchers. Headers are the ones that go the short way. But now here is something super interesting. At the eastern end, the drafted margins and even surfaces of the blocks suddenly stop, and the ashlars become irregular. Headers start sticking out willy-nilly from what earlier had been a perfectly level vertical surface, but the stretchers continue another 32 feet, where they stop, and then after that the stretchers become significantly smaller. When archaeologists observed this, they surmised that the eastern end of the podium had to have undergone some modification to accommodate the new temple. And this may have been because podium 1 originally had wing walls. So recently, they opened up the area in between, and lo and behold, they were right. Branching off in between the 6th and 7th column of the Roman temple, right between the older podium and the newer giant podium 2, were the remnants of the wing walls. So that's how they figured out that the original podium was T-shaped, and these wing walls were later entirely integrated into the podium of the next phase of construction. This T-shaped terrace was at least 16 feet higher than the temple and the original platform. So that means it must have been built after the village had been there. That means podium 1 of Baalbek comes from either the Hellenistic period or the early Roman period. Some archaeologists have noted that podium 1 bears a striking resemblance to what remains of the Temple of Jerusalem built by King Herod of Judea, which was completed in 20 BCE. The masonry is similar enough that it could have been the same construction staff that worked on both temples. Is it possible that King Herod sponsored the project at Baalbek? A reasonable supposition is that it was constructed at the foundation of the colony of Beritus, Beirut, around 15 BCE, whose territory included this hill. We don't need to get into that for the purposes of this video, so I'll leave a link to an article on the subject if you would like to explore further. Because no architectural fragments of an original temple on podium 1 were found, archaeologists think that the project was abandoned and the temple was never built. Just the terrace. Then, sometime later, a new major construction effort to monumentalize the temple complex was undertaken and the unfinished sanctuary construction was incorporated into the master plan. And this is where we get to the trial-a-thon. Here is the western temple podium, 39 feet high. If you notice, there are several layers of masonry and the stones kind of get bigger as we go up, which is unusual. But the trial-a-thon is there, you can see, with the biggest stones. There are actually three walls of podium 2 that go around podium 1, like a big giant U, around podium 1. Now, it's a few feet away from podium 1, but it's clear that podium 2 is trying to hide podium 1. Now, let's entertain the idea for a moment that this temple podium predates podium 1. Is that feasible? Well, it would suggest that the makers of podium 1 decided that they didn't want to use this podium, the big one, and instead chose to go through the hassle of building an entirely other podium on the inside of this one, and made the wall attractive to look at without ever intending for the wall to be seen, and oriented the same way as podium 2, just a few feet away from it. But instead of using podium 2, which is stable and ready to go, they made another one. What kind of builder would ever make such stupid decisions? On the other hand, if we assume that the makers of this podium, podium 2, wanted to build something bigger and grander than the one that existed, we would expect to see exactly what we're seeing. They built this around the older podium, hiding it in its inconvenient shape, but still using as much of it as they could. Did you know that on top of one of the trilithon stones there's a drawing of the plans for the Temple of Jupiter? Yeah. Foremen on Roman sites often copied the architects' plans by scratching onto parts of the building close to the spot that they were intended for. They knew either that the sketch would be covered over later, or smoothed out. Because the Temple of Jupiter also was never completed, we have found all kinds of etchings all over the complex, and this is just one of them. Anyway, on the southernmost of the three trilithon blocks is a large etching of the plan for the pediment of the Temple. Larger stones, which are still sitting in the quarry, were meant to cover this one up, but they never were brought here. This suggests that the trilithon stones were part of the Roman plan, and the ones in the quarry also were. Mind you, it doesn't prove it, but it does suggest it. Did you know that below the base was discovered part of a column drum? Yeah. And the drum is the same type as the drums that were used in the columns in the Jupiter Temple. That means that the drum must have been there already when the stones were put there, including the trilithon. Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that the Romans dug underneath the Temple podium to place the column drum there. By having pieces of the Jupiter Temple below the trilithon, and the drawing on top of the trilithon, we can be reasonably certain that the trilithon stones were put into place contemporaneously with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter. In summary, we have three supports for Roman placement of the trilithon. 1. The existence of a village underneath the sanctuary. That dates the beginning of the sanctuary to the Hellenistic period or later. 2. The fact that podium 1 apparently predates podium 2 means that podium 2, which includes the trilithon, is not the earliest part of the sanctuary. 3. The existence of Roman material both on top and below the trilithon suggests that the placement of the trilithon was synchronous with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter. Okay, so now that you know why archaeologists date the trilithon to Roman times, let's consider a video, which is concerned mainly with arguing against dating the trilithon to Roman times. As you know, this series reacts to popular YouTube videos dealing with ancient history. When I typed in Baalbek into the search bar and sorted by number of views, this video by Amazing Stock came up as number 1 in English. 1.3, almost 1.4 million views. It's titled, Historians Are Forbidden to Go Here Baalbek Building Technologies That We Can't Repeat. I was disappointed to discover that he never once discusses how historians are forbidden to go to Baalbek. He doesn't even bring it up. So it looks like the first part of the title is only clickbait and has nothing to do with the video. And you already know, of course, that historians are welcome at Baalbek. The second part of the title about us not being able to repeat the Baalbek building technology, he does briefly mention that, but most of the video is designed to make you doubt that the Romans put the trilithon in place. I'm going to warn you ahead of time that he doesn't address any of the evidence I just gave you. He doesn't consider the stratigraphy of the site, the order of construction, inscriptions, construction drawings, or any of the means that archaeologists have used to date the levels. He has chiefly only one argument. And this is it. The Romans, he says, did not possess the technology to move those trilithon stones. Now, most people would consider the existence of a structure that is solidly dateable to Roman times sufficient evidence in and of itself of the Romans' ability to make it. I mean, there it is. There's your evidence. The natural response to the information that the Baalbek site is giving us is to say, wow, this is an amazing feat of Roman engineering. You have to give kudos to those Romans. But amazing stock does not respond that way. But still, he may have some irrefutable evidence that will change our minds. If he can demonstrate convincingly that it was impossible for the Romans to have put the stones there, that would be solid enough to overthrow everything else. I mean, if they couldn't do it, they couldn't do it, right? So, was it impossible? Let's see what he says. Scientists have a hard time describing the history and geology of Baalbek. Wait, I have to stop him already. I'm assuming that when he says scientists, he means archaeologists? Because later in the video, he uses the word scientists again, and he definitely means archaeologists there. Scientists have a hard time describing the history and geology of Baalbek. This claim appears incredible after we've just considered a small sample of what archaeologists have said about the site. I haven't seen any evidence of difficulty. Maybe he means that there continue to be unanswered questions about the site. But, of course, that can be said about any site. So, it's just a weird way to put it. I expect he's saying this so his audience believes there's a great need for a new explanation. But, no, archaeologists are not having a hard time. The official story is that the temples and buildings here were put together by the ancient Romans. But the Romans were never known to work with stone blocks as massive as this. Yes, as we've seen, archaeologists working on this site have attributed much of the work here to the Romans. But, it's not an official story. Because there's no authoritarian body that governs archaeologists and tells them what they have to say. So, that's a strange choice of words. But, here we have his first argument. The Romans were never known to work with stone blocks as big as this. Well, actually, that's not really an argument, I guess, right? It's no more an argument than saying, uh, this architect never built a building this tall before. Or, this runner never ran this fast before. I mean, it implies that records can never be broken. Now, it's very possible that Amazing Stock is not using this as an argument. But he's just pointing out how unusual this was. And, indeed, that is agreed by all. It's unusual. The Romans did not commonly work with stones this big. Even at this location. The real question is, though, could they have moved them if they wanted to? In recent years, the mystery has become even deeper. Fresh excavation work was carried out in 2014. Work that very few people know about. And, based on the results of that work, the credibility of the Roman origin story looks even worse than it did before. He's referring to an excavation of the quarry outside of Baalbek in June 2014. Conducted by a team from the German Archaeological Institute. Under the supervision of Marguerite van Ess and Janine Abdul-Massad from the Lebanese University. During which, a large stone was found in the quarry, twice the size of one of the trilithon stones. More on that in a minute. Their size is notably heavy, yes. But the complexity? They're rectangular blocks. This is complex. This is basic. Faced with the size and complexity of the blocks here, the only thing we're able to assume is that while moving around lumps of rock weighing 1,000 tons or more would be a difficult operation for modern builders, it was a walk in the park for the builders of our ancient cities. It would seem we've either lost some vital building technology over the past few centuries, or our ancient ancestors were much more resourceful and clever when it comes to construction than we are. Why does Amazing Stock think that moving these blocks was a walk in the park for the ancient builders? Can you see by looking at them that it was super easy to put them there? There could have been a lot of blood, sweat, and tears that went into moving them. He has no way of knowing. I often hear claims like this. Oh, it would be difficult for us to move these, even today. Later on he goes further and says it would be almost impossible for modern technology. But he doesn't provide any proof to demonstrate this, other than that we don't do it anymore. The fact is we can move blocks like this. Do we want to when we don't have to? Of course not. If there's an easier way, modern technology will invent it. But we can do it. There's a quarry close to the town of Baalbek in which it's the famous Stone of the South, also known as the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, weighing in at over 1,050 tons. It's one of the largest stone blocks ever quarried by human hands. Okay, now this stone has been exposed and known for a while. I believe it's estimated to be about 993 tons. But yes, one of the largest stone blocks ever quarried, or I should say almost quarried. Now archaeologists have found another stone in the quarry, and it's over one and a half times larger and heavier than the Stone of the South. Just how did the people of the time go about rendering stone blocks this huge? Yes, this new stone was discovered and estimated, had it been completed, that it would have weighed about 1,673 tons. Keep in mind that unlike the trilithon stones, neither this stone nor the Stone of the South were ever finished or moved. He then introduces the trilithon stones, providing their measurements, and then he says this. Despite their monolithic size, they were somehow moved to the top of a hill, which is 22 feet above sea level. The Baalbek complex may be 22 feet above sea level, but the quarry is not at sea level. So don't interpret his words to mean the stone had to be moved upwards 22 feet. It didn't. Going back to the Stone of the Pregnant Woman for a moment, you can find that in a natural limestone deposit, which is around half a mile from the temple. Based on its design, it would appear that it was intended to be the stone that would complete the temple's platform, but it never moved from the quarry. The 65-foot-long, 13-foot-high stone is still partially buried in the ground at one end, but offers no clues about how it was quarried or how anybody intended to move it. The archaeologists say it provides plenty of clues about how it was quarried and how it was intended to be moved. An analysis of the tool's impacts on the rock shows that several quarrymen were simultaneously working to separate the block from the bedrock, and that vertical trenches were dug on three of the four sides of the block using extraction picks. The trench enabled the quarrymen to stand inside it for deeper and easier cutting. The faces of the megalith are well-shaped on three sides, but on the unfinished western side, you can see a reference line carved on the upper face of the stone. There's a similar line drawn on the northern side of the megalith underneath as well. The quarrymen would follow the reference line when shaping the stone. There are a large number of carved holes, some square some round, on the stones and on the floor of the quarry, which indicate where wooden pins were inserted and ropes were tied to hold the stone in place while the detachment work was being done. See this crack along the bottom? We know from elsewhere that the Romans detached stones from bedrock by digging a small narrow and shallow trench at the base of the block and then they would put wedges into it and hammer them until a crack appeared along the entire width of the stone. This crack is evidence of that. You can see here that a trench had begun to be dug from the highest part of the stone underneath. As they worked their way forward they would have put rollers underneath that fit the size of the trench. In 2014 a circular trace of wear was uncovered on the rock that indicates the action of a capstan which was a rotating mechanism that would be attached to pulley blocks and placed on both sides of the stone. It's been calculated mathematically that 16 of these capstans, each with 4 pulleys and each one operated by 32 men, would have been able to move the stone. Yet inexplicably, despite all this evidence Amazing Stock has told over a million viewers that the stone offers no clues as to how it was quarried or intended to be moved. It was while attempting to find out more about this massive stone that it's new larger brother was found during the 2014 excavations. It's lying right underneath the stone of the pregnant woman. This newly discovered stone is an absolute titan. It weighs approximately 1,650 tons. It's enormous. It is. The archaeologists estimate 1,673 tons. So, even heavier. At the same time this new stone was discovered, the research team also located 15 small caves within which human remains had been buried. They date back to the time of the Byzantine Empire and so they give us a small clue about when the work on the south stone and it's bigger sister was being carried out. Amazing Stock seems to be suggesting that the work on the stone was carried out during the time of the Byzantine Empire, which is later than I think he wants to date the work. So, it's confusing to hear him say that. The caves were also in use earlier than that. We'll be happy to hear. The cave cut in the eastern quarry face of Area 3 shows traces of a possible workshop related to a forge. The remains of a furnace and pieces of iron slag indicate it was probably installed for the maintenance of the extraction tools. The larger stone block is 20 feet wide and tall and around 63 feet long. It was a research team from the Laboratory of Alternative History led by the famous scientist Andrey Yurovich Sklyarov who made the discovery. Amazing Stock is confused. The Laboratory of Alternative History a group that was I think it no longer exists, but it was devoted to the search for physical evidence of an advanced prehistoric civilization. They visited Volbeck in 2009, 2014, and 2016, but they only took photos and measured things with a tape measure. They didn't discover the stone under the stomach of a pregnant woman nor did they claim to. Neither did they excavate anything. The head of the lab, Andrey Sklyarov, now deceased, was apparently an experimental physicist but he never was famous. Amazing Stock, sadly, gives no credit to the team from the German Archaeological Institute who did make the discovery. The discovery was made after the team noticed a very thin slit, which looks like an incision just below the south stone. Now they've noticed it here at the south stone, they've also seen an almost identical incision made in the stone steps at Volbeck. The photos that Amazing Stock is showing don't appear to show the slit that he's talking about, either on the stone in the south or on the steps, so I can't really address this point. I even went to the site of the Laboratory of Alternative History and couldn't find a single reference to the slit. Then I found their YouTube channel and watched a video in which they did a complete overview of their investigations at Volbeck and nothing about the incision. Which is weird, because Amazing Stock says they are the ones who discovered it. They did refer to the crack along the bottom of the stone, which I already referred to as created by the Romans, driving in wedges on one side. But the Laboratory of Alternative History suggested that the crack was natural. Geologists have tried to claim that this is just a natural fracture in the stone, caused by years of pressure. But if that's true, then the presence of similar natural fractures in both structures is quite a big coincidence. What else could it be, then? Alien technology, as some of the more extreme conspiracy theorists like to believe, or common in regular rock carving skill? If it's the latter, then those skills are anything but common and regular today. It would probably have amused the workers of the time to know that scientists would be tearing their hair out trying to work out how all of this was done thousands of years later. I really wish I could comment more on this, but Amazing Stock doesn't cite the geological studies or even name the geologists, so I have no way of checking. There are a few theories, though. Some people believe the entire block was cast as one stone and then left to harden. Another stone was then cast and placed on top of the first, leaving a tiny slit where the two were joined. Others feel that the stones were cast together, but there was an imperfection in the casting process. That meant that when the casting plate was removed, a tiny gap was left. Both things are possible in the case of the steppes, but doesn't explain the strange arrangement we find in the vicinity of the south stone. We know that many of our viewers are keen researchers and theorists, so we invite you to put forward your ideas in the comments. This is one of the strangest sections of the video. The narrator assumes for the whole video that the blocks were quarried, and of course they were. They're in a quarry, after all, and direct evidence of quarrying is clearly visible on the blocks. But here he discusses two theories by some people, who he never names, that assume that the blocks were cast, you know, poured into a mold, and befuddled. In the same quarry of the Stone of the South, you'll also find another unfinished megalith, although this one isn't as well known and isn't quite as large. It's called the Stone of the North, and further work had been performed on this stone before the construction process was abandoned. Large, flat bricks have been carved from the Stone of the North, and taken to Baalbek, which begs the question of how? I think he means raises the question of how, not begs the question. But anyway, how do you think bricks were carved from the stone? You guessed right. Regular, run-of-the-mill iron carving tools. Andrei Kutsenov, who also works with the Laboratory of Alternative History, took some measurements at the site. His findings were surprising. The lowest of the blocks that make up the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter are 65 feet higher above sea level than the limestone quarry where the rocks were cut. That means that the ancient workers at this site not only dragged rocks which weighed hundreds of tons half a mile across the land, they also raised them up above the height of a modern six-story building. It might even be further than that. Earlier, Amazing Stocks said the temple was 22 feet above sea level. Here he says the temple is 65 feet higher than the quarry. That would put the quarry 43 feet below sea level. There's something wrong with his math. So I checked the measurements. Turns out that the lowest part of the quarry is higher in elevation than where the trilithon sits. The stones, therefore, would have been moved downhill, not uphill. We don't believe that the rocks which make up the trilithon came from the highest parts of the quarry. It's highly likely that they came from much further down. The lowest part of the quarry is still higher than the temple floor. To sum up all this information one more time, we have two blocks of quarried rock half a mile away from Baalbek, which weigh over 1,000 tons. They've both been carved perfectly and evenly using unknown tools. The tools used are well known. I think he has a different definition of perfection than I do. We also have stones weighing 800 tons which were moved uphill for half a mile before they were installed on site at the temple of Jupiter in Baalbek. This would be almost impossible even with modern technology. Based on what we know of the people who lived here at the time, they had no tools capable of doing the job. It's no wonder that science prefers not to think about Baalbek too much. I think having looked at the evidence, you can probably spot the numerous errors in what he just said. First, the stones were moved downhill. Second, modern tech can move stones of this size. Third, the ancients had the tools capable of doing the job. And fourth, archaeologists have been studying the site of Baalbek since 1898 with the only interruption during the Lebanese Civil War. Occasionally, a scientist will come forward with a theory and try to explain how they believe this incredible task was done. They have some great ideas, but their ideas usually overlook critical aspects of the process. One of the most important studies on this subject is by Jean-Pierre Adam, written in 1977. It's in French, but if you know French and want to read it, I'll leave a link. Amazing Stock shows some of Adam's illustrations in his video. So at first I thought he was going to address Adam's theories, but he doesn't really get into it at all. Some, for example, say that the stones were built elsewhere and then moved downhill to Baalbek, and that the reason the north and south stones have been abandoned in the quarry is that the workers realized that they had no way of moving them. If that's true, though, where is the quarry that's uphill from the temple? Nobody has ever found one. The quarry is located on the slope of the Anti-Lebanon mountain range, southeast of the temples, and covers about 25 acres. The extraction area around the Stone of the South is just one sector of it. There were, in fact, four extraction areas. We have evidence of monolith extraction from the bedrock in Area 1. Area 2 is currently buried under a huge quantity of mining waste, but it appears that it, too, was used to extract huge monoliths in deeper trenches than Area 1. Area 3 is where the Stone of the South is. Area 4 is located in a depression and has huge quantities of extraction waste. It's where the Stone of the North is located. All four areas are higher in elevation than the temple foundations. Another idea is that the blocks were moved or dragged along on a series of wooden rollers, but there are problems with this idea, too. Loading the south stone onto rollers like this would be impossible because it isn't horizontal. It's sitting on a slope with a 30 degree incline. He doesn't say where he got his figure from, but the archaeologists who studied the site measured the slope as approximately 15.5 degrees, not 30, descending towards the northwest. And guess what's towards the northwest? The temple! It slopes towards the temple! So I ask you, how is that a problem for rollers? On top of that, where is the road that the wooden rollers would have moved across? There's no road between the quarry and the temple now, nor any signs that a road has ever existed there. Is Amazing Stocks suggesting that a temporary construction road would still be there after 2,000 years? I'm sorry, but it's just not reasonable to suppose that there would still be evidence here of a dirt road that was used for a few months back in the first century. Also, with such a method of transport, there would have been some damage to the rocks, leaving them cracked or uneven in places. That isn't the case here. What would the stones have bumped into? Wouldn't the Romans have cleared the way beforehand? He seems to be assuming that the Romans would have worked very carelessly and sloppily and smashing into random objects on the way, not making any effort to protect the stones from damage. The masonry is so tight that you cannot even slip a needle between the stones. The Romans did amazing work, didn't they? You have to give them credit. You can go around with a needle testing a lot of their masonry around the Mediterranean and get the same results. The Mussolini obelisk in Rome is frequently cited by scientists who support the idea of wooden rollers, but the comparison is laughable. The largest of the stones in the Mussolini obelisk is 300 tons, less than half the size of the stones in the foundations of the Temple of Jupiter. Also, the stones were delivered to Rome using a road. To say the same method was used at Baalbeck is as absurd as suggesting the giant stones were transported by balloons. He keeps talking about that temporary road which he believes should still be there. This is a good example of a straw man argument. Is the moving of the Mussolini obelisk the best example of people moving large stones on wooden rollers? No. Amazing Stock is deliberately using an example with stones that weigh less than the trilithon stones so that he can point out that they weigh less. This is a bronze horseman monument depicting Peter the Great in St. Petersburg, Russia. See that huge stone underneath it? It's called the Thunder Stone and it weighs 1,250 tons, heavier than the trilithon stones. It was moved in the 1770s from Finland to Russia by sea and then over land for four miles without modern technology using only human power, rollers, and cap stands. These are the tools that were available to the Romans. How the stones were transported is a major question, but it isn't the only one we need to consider when it comes to Baalbeck. Let's go back to that strange incision below the south stone again. It's so perfectly carved and yet we're supposed to believe that this was the work of laborers working with brass tools? How? Guess how many scientists have said that brass tools were used on these stones? You're correct. Zero. Everyone agrees that iron tools were used, so why is he complaining that he's being forced to believe that brass tools were used? I have no idea. He never says where he gets his information from. If we were attempting to perform this kind of work in the here and now, we'd use giant chainsaw-like tools to perform the carving for us. Note the shape of the cutting attachment which does all the work. It's natural to assume that this is a modern design, but we're not so sure. Something that looks very like those cutting attachments turns up in ancient art and sculpture all over the world. Wait. If we were looking for evidence that saws were used at Baalbeck, wouldn't we be looking for saws at or near Baalbeck? Why are we going all over the world? These are museum exhibits from Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Notice anything familiar about them? Why do these animal carvings appear to have cutting saws on their heads or on the tails of these items found in a burial site in El Cano, Panama? Even if Amazing Stock could show us actual saws for cutting stone, even then, we have no connection with Baalbeck unless they were from the time period that the Baalbeck stones were quarried and in the region. He could have just stopped after showing us the modern saws. They're no further removed from Baalbeck than these things are. But these aren't even real saws! I really was hoping that he was going to show us the tools, but he's showing us figures that have elements that somewhat resemble saw teeth? Yikes! It's not just animal either. These ancient paintings seem to depict humanoid stone cutters, wearing a mask as if they were welders and carrying circular saws. Such images also appear on the vessels of the ancient Mayans. Let's look at that again. These ancient paintings seem to depict humanoid stone cutters, wearing a mask as if they were welders and carrying circular saws. Such images also appear on the vessels of the ancient Mayans. Well, you can interpret art pretty much however you want, I guess. A lot of people do that. They compare the art to things that they know instead of looking at it in context. I hope that alligator doesn't cut himself. Think about the design and shape of those cutting implements, and then look at these photographs from Baalbeck. You can see the way the stones have been cut, the intricacy of the design, and the perfection of the carving. These furrows are deep and parallel, and the traces of stonework left in them are the same traces that we find when modern drilling machines have been put to work. And we see the same traces when we see iron hand tools put to work. We see them not only at Baalbeck, but at the sites of other ancient megaliths all over the world. It looks clear to us, but apparently all the stories about ancient machine operators are a work of fiction, and people really did carve these stones using nothing but primitive brass tools and their own sheer strength. By the way, there's a YouTube channel that shows you how stone was cut in ancient times by actually doing it on camera. I'll link a pertinent video for you below. Anyway, has anything I've said here changed your mind about the origins of the trilithon stones? Am I missing an important piece of evidence? Please leave a comment and let me know. Thank you for watching. If you're interested in seeing more of these kinds of videos, please like the video to vote yes. Thanks. See you next time.