> It is clear from thread title that one of your
> points is Baalbeek is older than Roman. I think
> that is established.
> It is not absolutely clear that you are attempting
> to reconstruct the history of the 'who' and 'when'
> of the site.
I have no idea when it was built or by who. All I can say is it seems like sometime before 500BC and after 8000BC. All things considered, likely in the 3rd millennium.
> It seems however that you are proposing :... pre
> bronze age ancient tell> Solomon > Romans
No. The question is were the megalithic components at Baalbek built before the Romans? For some, looking at pictures of big stones and making up whatever isn't enough so we look for actual evidence. In this case, we have an account in a book of the Bible written in c. 500BC that seems to be referring to a massive temple at Baalbek which they even give measurements of some of the blocks, the largest apparently 15ft long. Not quite Trilithon size but to compare these numbers to the upper podium the Temple of Jupiter was built on these numbers probably jibe more closely.
> What T'Bird was attempting to suggest was who the
> heck was Solomon? Was he real and was he an
> Israelite king?
As far as the OP is concerned-who gives a shit? The Biblical tale gives us an event horizon of dating, regardless of Solomon, at c.500BC which of course would predate the Romans. I even say later in the OP that I do not think Solomon built the foundations of Baalbek or the Temple Mount. I thought this would be a given here, but it should go without saying Solomon is portrayed as a larger than life character of which many of his deeds are contrived efforts to create a greater posterity for the Hebrew nation, a common theme in the Bible.
> As you likely know the basis for the 6C
> attribution to book of Kings is that the very
> little if at all archaeologically attested
> Solomon and David were not written about (although
> perhaps oral tradition) until after Babylonian
> captivity. In the process incorporating other
> Arabic Assyrian Babylonian folklore myths like
> Gilgamesh to come up with the Noah story etc.
Of course, which we do not really care about the archeology in this context just the days of the story which by all accounts is c.500BC. The Book of Kings is also found in the Septuagint which at worst dates to the 2nd century BC. Sorry, I just don't get the twitterpation here.
> Moreover the biblical timeframes for said Kings
> (father and Son) circa 12C BCE predate the current
> place we/internationally recognise as Jerusalem
> I do not wish to subscribe to academia.
Uh, ok. That is your right I suppose, but what we must subscribe to is the evidence.
> I suspect
> the reference to 8000BC is contained in the linked
> Could you breiefly expound the basis of that
> dating herein. Please.
The earliest neolithic period at Tell Baalbek has been dated to c.8000BC. The artifacts found there are consistent with this dating.
> This is a native Egyptians thesis on the origins
> of the Israelites predominately from an Arabic
> scholarly perspective. It is not in anyway
> "religious" nor did I find it biased. I make no
> endorsement other than it is extremely interesting
> if not compelling and recommend it to all
> interested in ancient history.
I'll take look when I get a chance. Thanks.
> Lee, in view of your passionate interest and
> project in reconstructing the Mesopotamian
> connection to Egypt and Levant I reckon it would
> be invaluable to see the non Westernised
> perspective on the matter. It may have been
> someone called or know mythically as Solomon but
> who was he?
As interesting as that may be, for the purposes of establishing a baseline that the megalithic components of Baalbek predate the Romans, I do not care at the moment. Regardless of whether he actually built what is referred to in Kings or they are just cataloging what they saw and just said Solomon did it, the fact is either way if Kings is reffering to Baalbek then this would be at the very least eye witness testimony that the megalithic component existed at their time which would be centuries before the Romans.
I have offered three examples here as evidence of an older Baalbek:
1) Book of Kings
2) Recent archeology
3) Epic of Gilgamesh.
The only point of this thread is to establish an older Baalbek with, I don't know-"evidence", yet all anyone here wants to talk about is the bullshit minutia of their confirmation bias and every single comment is negative like I just punched their dog. I am giving evidence that Baalbek predates the Romans and this is a bad thing exactly? Who gives a shit if Solomon was real or did what the Bible says-all that matters is that they talked about this megalithic place c.500BC-before the Romans. Who gives a shit whether the Epic of gilgamesh is a "real story" or what exactly was the cedar forest in the original tales (for now)-the fact is the Babylonians referred to some interesting shit in the cedar forest of Lebanon c.1800BC that kind of sort of maybe sounds like to me it may be referring to the megaliths found at Baalbek. The archeology confirms that there was an occupational presence at or below the foundations dating to c. 8000BC and later at c.2400-2000BC. You all can do whatever you like with that information, the point for me was to establish some sort of factual basis for saying the megaliths of Baalbek are older than the Romans instead of just looking at pictures of big blocks and making up whatever because no one thinks the Romans could do it or not. Come on people.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-18 01:50 by Thanos5150.