Nexus - 1603 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

slopes away on all sides, making it a puzzle as to how cranes or any other lifting devices could have been positioned. There are no traces of ancient ramps leading to the acropolis. Was this platform built by the Romans, as some archaeologists believe, or was it already in place when the Romans arrived to take advantage of it? If not Roman, then how old is it? Even more puzzling is the fact that the megalithic portion of these ruins was never finished (Ragette, 1980). What halted the construction? Were the builders interrupted by some tremendous cataclysm? If the Romans really built the platform, why couldn't they also move the monolith still in the quarry? And if they "finished" the project by building the beautiful temples, why would they have wasted the effort expended to cut out this huge monolith, yet fail to use it? In spite of what some "authorities" have indicated, the platform is thousands of years older than the Roman temple built upon it, as indicated by the extreme weather erosion exhibited on the surfaces— totally absent on the temple ruins above. Early archaeologists were firmly of the opinion that the platform was far older than the Roman temple built upon it. Louis Félicien de Saukey, a French archaeologist who visited Baalbek in 1851, believed the platform to be pre-Roman. Even the famous scholar Ernest Renan (who intended to prove that the entire complex was Roman) came to agree with earlier opinion after investigating the ruins. Not only did Renan clearly regard the weather erosion as a deciding factor, he could find "no inherent relation" between the Roman temple and its megalithic foundation (Ragette, 1980). His personal investigation resulted in a complete reversal in his attitude towards the megalithic portion of these ruins. "Modern" archaeologists have a hard time conceiving that people living thousands of years before the Romans had the know-how to manipulate such massive stones, so they call on flimsy archaeological data to convince themselves that it is all Roman. platform, why couldn't they also move the monolith The Egyptian Sphinx still in the quarry? And if they "finished" the project by I have two old history books in my personal library building the beautiful temples, why would they have which have photographs of the Egyptian Sphinx wasted the effort expended to cut out this huge covered with sand: one in which the Sphinx is covered monolith, yet fail to use it? up to the neck in sand (West, 1904), and another which In spite of what some "authorities" have indicated, shows the Sphinx with the "chest" only partly the platform is thousands of years older than the excavated (Myers, 1904). People used to speculate as Roman temple built upon it, as indicated by the _ to what the body of the Sphinx might look like. extreme weather erosion exhibited on the surfaces— Of course, we now know that the body of the Sphinx totally absent on the temple ruins above. is lion-shaped. But why a lion? John Anthony West Early archaeologists were firmly of the opinion that | and Graham Hancock, who allege that the Sphinx may the platform was far older than the Roman temple _ have been sculpted by non-Egyptians circa 10,500 BC, built upon it. Louis Félicien de Saukey, a French _ say there is good reason for this, and it doesn't have archaeologist who visited Baalbek in 1851, believed anything to do with the historical Egyptians. They the platform to be pre-Roman. Even the famous _ explain that the Sphinx has been covered in sand for scholar Ernest Renan (who intended to prove that the most of its long history, and why not? If it weren't entire complex was Roman) came to agree with earlier continually being cleared by modern workers, it would opinion after investigating the ruins. Not only did _ be buried up to its neck in sand in less than 50 years. ™ : = - - The shifting sand has to be fought back on almost a day-to-day basis. So, if it has been under the sand for most of its existence, why is it so weathered? West called upon a colleague, Dr Robert Schoch, professor of geology at Boston University, to evaluate the nature of the erosion of the Sphinx. After careful investigation, Schoch concluded that the "weathering" of the Sphinx was done by water, rather than by wind and sand as commonly believed; that it was first created during the alluvial period toward the end of the ice age when Egypt was experiencing copious amounts of rainfall; and that the Sphinx must be at least 7,000 years old—a conservative estimate by his own admission (Schoch, 1992). He presented his findings to a large forum of geologists, and his conclusions that the weathering ee A Fens patterns evident on the Sphinx were Massive foundation stones form the base of the platform at Baalbek. the result of water erosion, rather than wind, were generally accepted. 40 * NEXUS APRIL - MAY 2009 www.nexusmagazine.com