Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
[snip]



> But so if
> you agree with me that Romans likely didn't do
> that work,

How do you figure it is I who am agreeing with you? Among most other things, I doubt you even knew what Baalbek was before you got here. The idea the foundations of Baalbek predate the Romans has been around for over a century doctor, so please do not even further delude yourself by attempting to claim some kind of authority or original thought here.

> that all that means is that you're as
> guilty of "naysaying" as I am, in which case I
> suggest you take that up with Stower.

What it means is once again you have no clue what you are talking about and are just spinning your BS to avoid taking responsibility for yourself.

Martin called you out on Baalbek as yet another example of you having nothing positive to back up your claims no different than anything else which he explicitly attached the caveat of "whoever" built them to avoid the very confusion you are trying to impose.

There is a big difference between "naysaying", which in your case means knowing nothing yet still opposing everything for no other reason than it does not confirm your bias, and noting archaeological contextual contradictions which is part and parcel of the field to determine provenance.

And further to be distinguished is that while I am open to the possibility the megaliths of Baalbek may predate the Romans, you inanely uncritically argue that all of Baalbek is older including all things that are otherwise Roman. To quote Graham again:
“You’d have to be a fool to argue that the Romans didn’t make and raise up those columns, or the pediments above them, because it’s completely obvious on stylistic grounds, and on the basis of comprehensive archaeological research, that they did". Considering the epic dust up of that conversation I have a feeling he was specifically referring to you as you are the only person I have ever known idiotic enough to suggest such a thing.

Me, on the other hand, because I am a normal human being, understand that talking out my ass and naysaying everything from a position of ignorance is not enough and instead seek positive evidence to prove a claim hence why, among other things, I explore the presence of the Phoenicians who preceded the Romans at the site and possible examples of literary evidence of their existence prior to the Romans namely the Epic of Gilgamesh. As I noted from a previous discussion, even Unesco acknowledges that the "Roman construction was built on top of earlier ruins":

Quote

The importance of this amalgam of ruins of the Greco-Roman period with even more ancient vestiges of Phoenician tradition, are based on its outstanding artistic and architectural value. The acropolis of Baalbek comprises several temples. The Roman construction was built on top of earlier ruins which were formed into a raised plaza, formed of twenty-four monoliths, the largest weighing over 800 tons.

Don't have an interest in wasting time repeating and/or further explaining the nuances, but needless to say the connections between Byblos, and by extension the Bekaa Valley as well as Syria to the north, are of paramount importance to our understanding of the formation and early Dynastic state. Who built the megaliths of Baalbek or when I cannot say, though I would choose the Romans or even the Annunaki long before the non-human/different human species OLC millions of years ago that you propose.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 18-Apr-17 00:56 by Thanos5150.