Sign up for email updates!



Share this!

Just under thirty miles to the East is Gobekli Tepe’s sister site, Karahan Tepe. Archeologists have only barely begun to tap into the mysteries of this secondary location (only 1 percent of it has been excavated), but at this early point, we see that much of its features are strikingly similar to those of Gobekli Tepe. Some experts believe it is even older.[i] (The details we know about this second site are so similar to those of Gobekli Tepe that this section will be refreshingly short.)

Right away, we see the remains of serpents everywhere in stone.

At the top of the third chamber is the image of a long, slithering viper, which mysteriously matches to startling detail the same shape of the black Great Rift in the middle of the Milky Way (i.e., “the heavens”…note that for later). The “tail” of the Great Rift connects to another, different constellation, known as Serpens Cauda (literally “Snake Tail”). The astrological links are certainly fascinating, especially in light of their serpentine nature.

However, the central draw of Karahan Tepe—for both tourists and archeologists—is the “phallus room,” where it is believed that the builders gathered for spiritual rituals or prayer. In Structure AB, eleven stone “phalluses” (male reproductive organs) appear to be growing upward from the stone floor, standing in a cluster with little room between them, each measuring about six feet tall. Overlooking these structures is a peculiar stone character, whose head is around two or three times larger than that of a human. A website put together last January by one of the site’s excavators describes this menacing face in an article called, “Strange Phallic Pillars at Karahan Tepe,” under the section titled, “The bearded head with a serpent’s body at Karahan Tepe.” This source states the carving is of a “human head, [with] a beard and a snake-like body that extends toward the right, parallel to the ground.” This head, the author goes on to say, “becomes illuminated during the winter solstice. The sun shines through the [doorway] to Structure AD and lights up the face.”[ii]

The pattern of snakes, gods, and astrological phenomena is increasing. But who might this character be?

Hugh Newman—video producer, author of books on ancient-Earth mysteries, worldwide explorer, frequent guest on History Channel programs, and researcher of giants, giant legends, and their links to megaliths—in a video he created representing his theory regarding the identity of the bearded snake man, says it’s likely to be:

Enki, the great Sumerian god…of virility, god of water, also the god of wisdom as well, [who was believed to have] given virility to everything: the water, the lands, the farms, the people, abundance in every possible way…and Enki is related to the serpent. His symbol is the serpent rising up a caduceus [staff], much like the rising serpent here [in Karahan Tepe].[iii]

Enki was a well-known Anunnaki—a god of great strength mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh (the earlier-referenced ancient Sumer-Babylonian account of the great deluge that the Bible refers to as the Flood of Noah’s day). As readers of our past books are well aware, “Anunnaki” is another name for the offspring of fallen angels and human women called Nephilim in the Bible. Could this theory be correct? Could this bearded snake god—here depicted as supervising, surveying, protecting, drawing sacred attention to, or “watching” the phalluses of Karahan Tepe’s ritual cult room—be the Watcher known as Enki? Is there some connection between this serpentine figure and the bearded man in robes who visits other ancient cultures and teaches esoteric wisdoms and technology, like those worshiping Feathered Serpent gods Viracocha and Quetzecotl?

And what was that about Enki being the god of water? Does “water” link to “serpent” in some way? Hmmm…wasn’t there something about a water serpent in the Bible? (Some of you see where this is going. For those who may not, the answer comes in chapter 8: “Lucifer’s Fall and the Extinct Animals of the ‘Void.’”)

In any case, just about the time archeologists began believing we had answers for Gobekli Tepe—as insufficient as those answers may have been—the excavation of Karahan Tepe has reset the whole game and forced us to travel backwards yet again.

Back to the old, serpentine drawing board…

Really, I can’t blame some of these OOPArt researchers who keep going back to the Ancient Astronaut theories. Though I don’t agree with their “astronauts-created-mankind” conclusions in the slightest, mysteries can be explained away by an imaginary, superior race of beings who can float in on UFOs and deliver an all-you-can-eat buffet to their workers from faraway lands. Sure, it’s ridiculous to many, but at least it answers the otherwise unanswerable questions…

But what if there was another answer that didn’t need to rely on aliens?

Boncuklu Tarla to Reset the Game Again?

Just under two hundred miles to the east of Gobekli Tepe is yet another excavation site in Turkey that is home to T-shaped pillars like those found in its sister predecessors, Gobekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe. Its name, Boncuklu Tarla, means “field of beads,” which is a fitting label considering the surprising number (currently more than a 150,000 and climbing) of handmade jewelry pieces unearthed in this third relative site up to this point. As yet, the endeavors of the archeologists since this location’s discovery in 2008 have resulted in only an estimated 5 percent excavation (the digging officially began in 2012).

Unlike the others, our fascination with Boncuklu Tarla is not about serpents (although the earliest jewelry discovered here does involve a number of pieces that are serpentine); it’s the dating of the location that has people buzzing: Archeologists are reporting that Boncuklu Tarla is older than Gobekli Tepe by one thousand years.

According to a Turkey news source, Anadolu Ajansi (“Anatolia Agency”), this place is “one of the first settled areas of humanity and shows that the first people settling here were believers.” Believers in what, we’re not sure, but there is no doubt—Ibrahim Ozcosar, rector of nearby Artuklu University, says—the inhabitants were religious.[iv] From the same article, we read that Ergul Kodas, prized archeologist of Artuklu University and the excavation’s chief supervisor, agrees with other professionals in his field when he says Boncuklu Tarla is “around 12,000-years old,” a conclusion supported by the dating of revealed “temples, religious places,” and “a 26-inch…long human statue dating back 12,000 years.”[v]

Regarding evidence of intelligence, Boncuklu Tarla has a functional, “11,800-year-old sewer system,” as well as “eight-story historical buildings reaching up to seven meters in height,”[vi] though little information on these details has been released to the public at this time. Kodas told Anadolu Ajansi that his team was “only able to unearth a certain portion of the sewer system,”[vii] so we can imagine there will be forthcoming reports in the near future regarding how a Pre-Neolithic cluster of hunter-gatherers could manage a feat of ingenuity that, until now, we believed to be a very recent development of humanity’s history. When those details do surface, I wonder if there will be an explanation regarding the ancients’ apparent obsession with bull heads and horns delicately set up in a similar worship fashion as those in the forthcoming discussion on the location of Catalhoyuk, and if Boncuklu Tarla’s archeology team will link that in some way to a religion behind the snake beads of the inhabitants’ jewelry.

But in any case, if Karahan Tepe forces experts to expand their philosophical approaches to early hunter-gatherer travelers in this area of the world, then so, too, do the discoveries of this much older, and incredible, site.

It resets the game…again.


Since 1956, Baalbek (often spelled “Baalbeck” or “Baalbec”) has been home to “the oldest and most prestigious cultural event in the Middle East,”[viii] known simply as the “Baalbeck International Festival.” Although this annual summer event suffered great decline, followed by temporary cessation, between 2006 and 2007 as a result of political instability, by 2008, it had “regained its place in the line of the most prestigious international festivals with varied and excellent [Lebanese] cultural quality programs performed by great artists inside the magnificent Baalbeck Acropolis.”[ix] A curious outsider traveling major Roman historical sites for the first time will find the attention-grabbing sights, sounds, celebrations, and almost explosive energies bursting from the seams of this small location—spanning less than three square miles. It’s a tourism force to be reckoned with. Among the appearances of and performances by internationally acclaimed stars of the music, television, and film industries, as well as many celebrated stage performers, one might struggle to find time to breathe, let alone rest, in this town that never sleeps every June through August.[x]

However, when September rolls around, the tent stakes are pulled and the droves of vacationers return home from the lively festival. Even then, and despite how deserted and forgotten the area looks in pictures of crumbling temple ruins, Baalbek continues to welcome an almost never-ending stream of spectators all year round. Scholars, historians, architects, and archeologists continue to name Baalbek one of the greatest mysteries in world history for its monumentally scaled temple ruins and enigmatic findings at the nearby quarry.

Known by early inhabitants (ca. 334 BC after Alexander the Great’s victory in the Near East) as “Heliopolis”—which translates to “City of the Sun” from the Greek helios (“sun”) and polis (“city”)—Baalbek was one of the most prevalent sanctuaries in the Roman Empire, and its structures are some of the most well-preserved standing today. Much discussion has centered around theories that the town may have been an ancient settlement predating Roman rule by centuries at least, and recent pottery fragment finds along the trench channeling the Jupiter temple now date the site to between the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B Age (or PPNB, representing the latter stages of the Stone Age before mankind could craft pottery, approximately 8000 BP [Before Present] and 6000 BCE) and the Iron Age (approximately 1200 BC–AD 550).[xi] Several skeletons and some pottery from Persia were discovered under the Roman flagstones, indicating additional settlement evidence dating to around 550 BC.[xii]

The largest confirmed ancient stone building block on Earth at the time of this writing (but see note about Mount Shoria later in this chapter) was found in Baalbek by German archeologists in the middle of 2014 at the quarry of a building site at which gigantic stones had been used for the podium of the enormous Temple of Jupiter (built later on by the Romans atop the original mound construction, Tel Baalbek). This unfathomable monolith measures in at 64 feet (19.6 meters) in length, 19.6 feet (6 meters) wide, and 18 feet (5.5 meters) high, and it’s estimated to weigh 1,650 tons (3,300,000 million pounds).[xiii]

Prior to the unearthing of this giant rock in 2014, one of the largest quarried stones on Earth had been the Stone of the Pregnant Woman (Hajjar al-Hibla), also located in Baalbek, which protrudes from the ground at a sloping angle directly alongside the even larger stone. There are several stories and claims behind the name of this rock. One tells of a pregnant woman who duped the Baalbek inhabitants into believing she held the secret behind lifting and moving the rock in one piece. In trade for her secret, they would feed her and the baby in her womb and take care of all her prenatal needs, but after her child was born, no hidden truths emerged, and the stone has remained tilted out of the ground ever since.[xiv] Another story suggests that jinn—the Arabian and Islamic mythical beings made of smokeless, yet corporeal, fire—assigned their pregnant women to move the stones, and when one such jinn heard the news that Solomon had died, she excitedly dropped it to the ground where it still lies.[xv] Yet another rumor lingers around the locale that the name originated from the stone’s ability to increase the fertility of any woman who touches it.[xvi] Whatever the true origin of its name, the Stone of the Pregnant Woman (weighing just over 1,000 tons [approximately 2,205,000 pounds]) is estimated to have required more than forty thousand laborers to move it,[xvii] though the sources that suggest this number seldom seem to provide a convincing answer as to how that would have been accomplished with the building technology of the time regardless of the number of available work hands. It is so close to its newly found and massive counterpart that a fascinated voyager to Baalbek can reach out and touch two of the largest stones on earth at the same time. (Note that there is a third stone across the road from these, more vast than the Stone of the Pregnant Woman, but not as enormous as the most recent find by the Germans in 2014.)

In photographer Daniel B. Shepp’s The Holy Land Photographed from 1894, we read that the Stone of the Pregnant Woman has been a mystery for hundreds of years already:

Taken as a whole, the ruins of Baalbec are among the grandest in the world. Nowhere is there evidence of more exquisite workmanship. To an antiquarian they are the study of a lifetime.… Before us is one lying in the quarry, whence it had been hewn. It measures sixty-nine feet in length, thirteen feet in breadth and thirteen feet three inches in thickness.… It is accurately squared and trimmed on three sides, showing that it was the custom of the people to dress the stones while quarrying them. There has been much speculation as to how stones like this were quarried and moved into their positions, but no satisfactory theory has been advanced. There is a peculiar absence of inscriptions in connection with all these massive ruins, hence we are left in much doubt and darkness.[xviii]

Dear Daniel Shepp, we are still, almost 130 years later, “left in doubt and darkness.”

There are many theories, sometimes heatedly debated, regarding who carved the monoliths of Baalbek (both those left at the quarry and the base stones of the Temple of Jupiter known as the “trilithon”), when they were created, for what purpose, and how they were transported. Because we know the Romans responsible for building the uppermost portions of the Temple of Jupiter (as well as the Heliopolis temples of Bacchus and Venus in the Baalbek temple complex over two centuries) based on biographical Roman engineering documentation ordered during the Roman Empire, it seems, for many, quite rational to assume the Romans were responsible for the larger stones in this area as well.

Visiting that possibility, and focusing only on the Temple of Jupiter, we will start at the top and work our way down. In order to understand my take on the Romans’ involvement with the monoliths, some knowledge is needed of their usual building practices.

Columns and Cornerstones

Fifty-four columns were raised in the original Temple of Jupiter structure, involving blocks weighing up to sixty tons each (120,000 pounds). Each cornerstone weighed more than 100 tons (200,000 pounds), and they were hoisted to 62.34 feet (19 meters) above ground surface.[xix] The method used for the top of the temple construction could in part be attributed to the Greco-Roman man-operated treadwheel pulleys (pentaspastos or polyspastos, depending on the number of men required to operate them), the tools and techniques of which were well documented by engineers Vitruvius (De Architectura 10.2, 1–10) and Heron of Alexandria (Mechanica 3.2–5).

The maximum weight these early cranes could lift and carry when operated to the maximum capacity of their design, and with a full crew, did not usually exceed 6,000 kilograms (13,228 pounds).[xx] Mathematically, this would mean that the machinery—when used alone—fell shy of the capability of lifting a single cornerstone of the temple by a little under a staggering 200,000 pounds.

The most likely explanation for the additional weight lifting and maneuvering for the top of the Tower of Jupiter—often mentioned by historians and architects today (and discussed in historical accounts associated with the raising of the Lateranense obelisk of the Circus Maximus [Ammianus Marcellinus 17.4.15] ca. AD 357)—points to the installation of lifting towers (Mechanica 3.5), used in tandem with early capstans (horizontal rotators) fixed upon the ground around the lifting tower. The capstans each contributed less weight-lifting efficiency than did the treadwheel pulleys, but they required fewer men (or animals) to function, and more of them could be placed upon the ground when needed, offering increased leverage overall than the pulleys alone. If more weight was required to lift an individual stone, more capstans would be installed on the ground around a lifting tower, and so on.

The average capacity of the joined capstans in tandem with a lifting tower of this era has been estimated at 7.5 tons per capstan,[xxi] and the method of lifting by capstan was via attachment to lewis iron holes in each stone. For example: a 60-ton architrave block (one of the stones placed near the top of the Roman columns) from the Tower of Jupiter, discovered with eight lewis iron holes, delivers this equation: 8 capstans x 7.5 tons per capstan = 60 tons capacity. The architrave blocks in the Jupiter tower weighed up to 60 tons, so the capstan/lifting tower combination theory is certainly feasible for the tower stones when inflated for more weight, even for the over-100-ton cornerstones.

With enough capstan and lifting-tower installations scattered about, and with the assistance from treadwheel pulleys on the lighter stones, the placement of the Tower of Jupiter columns above the original and far more ancient foundation stones could be explained and easily attributed to Roman ingenuity.

Below the columns, however, is the trilithon (three extremely large and heavy monoliths, resting between the Tower of Jupiter and the Tel Baalbek mound). This is where we first begin to run into the heated debate regarding the whos and hows of this so-called Roman architecture.


The first theory (most often associated with Arabian lore involving the “magician” works of Solomon, and therefore taken less seriously than theories involving Roman origin) can be seen in another image caption from Daniel B. Shepp’s The Holy Land Photographed. In regard to the trilithon, Shepp says:

Even more wonderful to many than the ornate ruins of the temples, is the masonry of the outer walls of Baalbec. Here are the three largest stones ever used in architecture.… One of these is sixty-four feet long, another sixty-three feet eight inches, and the third sixty-three feet. Each is thirteen feet high and thirteen feet thick. To these dimensions must be added the fact, that they have been built into the wall fully twenty feet above the ground [note that Shepp is referring to the measurement from the stones to the ground as it lay in 1894, prior to further depth revealed in archeological digs, which increased that measurement later], and the further fact that the quarry from which they were taken is fully a mile distant. Those who identify Solomon with the buildings of Baalbec, connect these stones with the narrative in I Kings VII [1 Kings 7:10]: “And the foundation was of costly stones, EVEN GREAT STONES, stones of ten cubits, and stones of eight cubits.” The Arabs believe that Solomon was a magician, and by a magic word, moved these giant slabs.[xxii]

Yet, it goes without saying that most great minds that approach the mystery of the trilithon will disregard the idea that Solomon transported the stones by magic.

Considering other mainstream theories, we almost immediately land on the arguments put forth by French archeologist Jean-Pierre Adam, author of the 1977 scholarly article, A Propos du Trilithon de Baalbek. Let transport et la miseen oeuvre des megaliths (“Concerning the Trilithon of Baalbek: Transportation and the Implementation of the Megaliths”).[xxiii] Adam’s approach to the mystery involves a look at the Thunder Stone, a giant boulder (one and a half times the weight of the trilithon blocks of Baalbek [1,250,000 kilograms; 2,755,778 pounds])[xxiv] that makes up the base of the “Bronze Horseman” (aka the Statue of Peter the Great) in Saint Petersburg, Russia.

The composition of the Bronze Horseman statue was ordered by Catherine the Great in an attempt to inflate her position as Peter the Great’s rightful heir. Beginning the planning for the statue in 1766, the Thunder Stone was found in the deep marshlands of Lakhta, just a few miles from the Gulf of Finland, in 1768. Greek engineer Marinos Carburis agreed to oversee the moving of the stone and began the intimidating trek as soon as manpower resources were in place.

The stone was transported approximately four miles (six kilometers) within two years over both land and water. Most land transportation took place during a nine-month period by four hundred men using ingenious roller tracks and capstans; water transportation required a gigantic barge built specifically for carrying the Thunder Stone, with a warship on each side of the barge for additional support. The capstans were put into motion using only human hands; no oxen or cattle of any kind were used for the moving project. The operation was observed by thousands of witnesses in the company of Catherine the Great, herself, while the boulder sat atop the ball-bearings-like roller tracks designed by Carburis. The tracks would be assembled in front of the stone, the stone would be pulled by the crews at the capstans to the front of the tracks, and simultaneously the tracks at the back would be disassembled and carried to the front, where they were reassembled for further transport—one centimeter at a time.

Because the distance between Lakhta and the Senate Square of St. Petersburg is about four miles, and the distance from the trilithon to the quarry in Baalbek is only about 800 meters (2,600 feet)—and because the Thunder Stone is larger than the trilithon stones—Jean-Pierre Adam finds moving the trilithon stones an even lesser feat than moving the Thunder Stone when hypothetically applying the same or similar transportation methods.

Understandably, this comparison inspires that “aha” moment for many researchers and is considered a feasible explanation for the potentially applied physics of the brightest minds in ancient Roman engineering. Jean-Pierre Adam presents an interesting theory, for sure, and one that has gained immense following as a result of the Temple Mount structure ordered by Roman client King Herod the Great in Jerusalem, Israel, which is home to base stones weighing close to the same weight as those of the trilithon at Baalbek. The Temple Mount stones (the largest of which is 630 tons) remain unchallenged as having Roman origin, so many suggest with good reason that the stones of Baalbek would have only required a slight increase in construction efforts to accomplish. Further, many assume the three monoliths left at the nearby quarries represent a point at which the Romans bit off more than they could chew, so to speak, cutting and shaping stones that ended up later to be more than their machinery could move. This would explain not only why the stones were abandoned at the quarries, but also why the monolith across the road from the Stone of the Pregnant Woman shows deep, squared cuts on one end, as if the Romans acknowledged their inability to move the stone and therefore decided to cut it into smaller stones until it was of manageable moving size. (Note, however, that the stone with the rivets cut on one end also has imperfections, so for just as many people as there are who assert that the Romans cut it down to a size they could lift, an equal number claim the stone was merely being cut to preserve quality and avoid the evident risk of cracks quickly appearing in a foundation stone.)

Left wanting in this “aha” theory, however, is any documentation whatsoever by the Romans that they would have used this Thunder Stone method of transportation for the trilithon stones when all other building practices were so well documented during their heyday…

The Romans were a proud and brilliant people who left our world with many records of what they accomplished and, in many cases, of how they accomplished those feats. The records have been thoroughly researched and studied for hundreds of years. And, sure, a Roman building that followed known patterns of the day may not have revolutionized the world, so the masterminds behind it may not have felt the need to keep track of everything they built. But had Roman architects accomplished something as grand as moving the trilithon stones at Baalbek, it seems likely they would have made absolutely sure that the rest of the world knew about their achievement. We cannot attribute this stone-moving method (as well as the other methods mentioned by Adam in his study) to their book of tricks without also asking why they wouldn’t have been intelligent enough to record such an accomplishment.

And, of course, as an even more important argument against Roman origin, as stated earlier in this chapter: There have been discoveries from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic era within the soil along the channels of the Temple of Jupiter that point to this site predating the Romans by centuries. At this point, the completely absent entry of proud Roman architects who would have had every reason to revel in their triumph—alongside scientific dating showing the trilithon was situated where it stands hundreds of years before the Romans entered the picture—is a final nail in the coffin of all conjecture involving Roman resourcefulness as the means by which the trilithon was assembled.

On the tail of the prevailing theories of Roman attribution come thoughts perpetuated by archeologists that the trilithon stones were of Greek origin for use as a retaining wall in soil-erosion circumstances. Again, we have no record of this, but we also have no reason to believe the Greeks—despite their impressive ingenuity that we see evident in their amphitheaters and other structures—would be capable of achieving more than the Romans in relation to moving stones that weigh hundreds and hundreds of tons. If it’s hard enough for us to believe the builders of Gobekli Tepe became worse—not better—at raising pillars over time, why would we rule out Romans for the trilithon at Baalbek and then accept the Greek explanation when we know that nearly everything the Greeks accomplished was passed down to, and exceeded by, Roman culture?

Other ideas have surfaced throughout the decades. Some are sensational and even altogether incredible. For instance, there’s one proposition that says the Romans would have built a Nile-like river that carried the trilithon stones by boat when there doesn’t seem to be enough solid evidence that a river of that magnitude ever existed that close to these structures. On and on the Roman-origin explanations seem to arrive, each one supported by its own list of professionals, and each one eventually challenged by just as many or more well-respected archeologists. Skeptics chastise those who attribute the monoliths to ancient extraterrestrial activity or the giants of Genesis, saying that just because we can’t find origin in human life, we turn all too quickly to the supernatural for explanation. Sometimes these comments are delivered with extreme sarcasm, flowing to the tune of: “We can’t understand how ancient humans could have done it, so, yeah, why not? Let’s just say the aliens did it.” Believers in the supernatural chastise the skeptics in turn, questioning their outright denial of the possibility of supernatural activity or a pre-Adamic race when there remain to be found any other solid explanations as to how ancient humans could have accomplished more than our historical records have ever indicated.

But whatever the theory, the fact remains that the origins of the trilithon and quarry stones at Baalbek remain unknown and have baffled researchers and archeologists for centuries. Without documentation by a race or people as to the materials and methods used, as well as the purpose behind the structures in Baalbek, the answers may always be obscured, and speculation may always engender even further mystery.

Note, however, that there is one historical document we have yet to visit in this chapter, which seems to give just as likely an explanation as the speculated “ancient humans.” The Bible is respected, even by many nonbelievers, as a historical document, and one that has proven time and time again to connect the dots where other sources have failed. This was the source reflected in the 1860 diary of the Scottish diplomat and writer David Urquhart, whose mind was “paralyzed” by “the impossibility of any solution” involving how, why, and who engineered the original construction at Baalbek. Urquhart’s only conclusion was that the temple had to have been built by those megalithic masterminds of the days of Noah:

There was here, therefore, not one of the elements combined at Memphis, Babylon, Nineveh, or any of the seats of empire, of the ancient or modern world [but] ruins, surpassing in their indications and evidences of greatness anything to be found in those ancient capitals, to an extent which defies all calculation, leaving the imagination itself stranded on a bank of mud.

On the top of this comes a third riddle; how these works were interrupted. They are not merely not concluded, but they are stopped at the very beginning.…

Was it a foreign invasion? Was it an irruption of savages? Was it a “confusion of tongues?” What could it have been?…

My first exclamation, on looking down into the quarry, had been “There were giants in the earth in those days.”…

The builders of Baalbeck must have been a people who had attained to the highest pinnacle of power and science; and this region must have been the centre of their dominion. We are perfectly acquainted with the nations who have flourished here or around, and their works; they are the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Canaanites, and Jews. These complete the catalogue of ancient empires, and this work is none of theirs.…

It was only on my way back, and when the tomb of Noah was pointed out to me by the wayside, that it occurred to me that there might be something in Emir Hangar’s story, and that the stones of Baalbeck had to be considered as some of “those sturdy fellows that the Deluge could not sweep away.” This, then, was a remnant of that pride and presumption, which had brought the waters over the face of the earth.[xxv]

Could there be something to Urquhart’s train of thought that actually provides more answers than it poses further inquiry? Is it even possible that there would be “sturdy fellows” that the Flood of Noah’s time “could not sweep away”? Is that what the passages in the Bible mean that say there were giants upon Earth in the generations following Adam “and also after that” (Genesis 6:4)? Were there giants who went down with, and then reemerged after, the Flood? And if so, could they, or something similar, have existed before Adam? Could we be looking at an even more ancient race from the “void” era before the first human was formed in the image of God?

As some of the pottery fragments predate humanity’s pottery days, at the very least we know this site was visited by some race of beings circa 8000 BC—before both Adam and the Flood of Noah—which likely means the builders of the Trilithon were pre-Adamic, intelligent, technologically advanced in construction methods, and extremely strong!

UP NEXT: Russian Megaliths of Mount Shoria

[i] “Revolutionary Karahan Tepe” September 14, 2022, Archeology Worldwide, last accessed May 5, 2023,

[ii] “Strange Phallic Pillars at Karahan Tepe,” January 17, 2023, Techzelle, last accessed May 5, 2023,; emphasis added.

[iii] “Karahan Tepe, Megalithic Supercivilization 11,400 Years Ago, New 3D Scans, Megalithomania,” 2:35–3:15, YouTube video uploaded by MegalithomaniaUK on December 10, 2022, last accessed May 5, 2023,

[iv] Ibrahim Ozcosar, as quoted in: Gunes, Muhammed Furkan, “Ancient Site Older than Gobeklitepe Unearthed in Turkey: Discoveries at Boncuklu Tarla in Southeastern Mardin Are around 1,000 Years Older than Those in Gobeklitepe, Says Professor,” April 12, 2019, updated May 12, 2019, Anadolu Ajansi, last accessed May 29, 2023,

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Sincar, Halil Ibrahim and Ali Murat Alhas, “Archaeologists Unearth Ancient Settlement in SE Turkey: Sewer System Dating Back 11,800 Years, Over 20 Architectural Structures Found in Mardin Province,” July 11, 2019, Anadolu Ajansi, last accessed May 29, 2023,

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] “History,” The Baalbeck International Festival Official Website, last accessed January 19, 2015,; note that this site has been changed since we first recorded this quote in our study of Baalbek in 2015.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] The spread of COVID-19 also staggered the success of the festival, though, at this time, there are efforts to return it to its glory days. Therefore, any present information regarding the festival, its attractions, and its practices of safety in large crowds will only reflect the operation of this event in the midst of a worldwide pandemic, and is not representative of how the festival has performed in the recent past or how it is expected to succeed in the near future.

[xi] Matthiae, Paolo, Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Wiesbaden, Germany; Harrassowitz Verlag Publishers, 2010), 210.

[xii] Jidejian, Nina, Baalbek: Heliopolis, “City of the Sun” (Beirut, Lebanon; Dar el-Machreq Publishers, 1975) 15.

[xiii] MacIsaac, Tara, “Largest Known Ancient Megalith Discovered—Who Really Made It?” December 20, 2014, Epoch Times, last accessed January 27, 2015,

[xiv] Ruprechtsberger, Erwin, M. Vom Steinbruch zum Jupitertempel von Heliopolis/Baalbek (Libanon) [From the Quarry to the Jupiter Temple of Heliopolis/Baalbek (Lebanon)] (Linzer Archäologische Forschungen: 1990) 30: 7–56.

[xv] Hanauer, James Edward, Folk-lore of the Holy Land: Moslem, Christian and Jewish (London; Gerald Duckworth & Company: 1907), 74.

[xvi] Paul Doyle, Lebanon (Buckinghamshire, England; Bradt Travel Guides: 2012), 213.

[xvii]Ibid., among other sources with the same claim.

[xviii] Shepp, Daniel B., The Holy Land Photographed (Chicago, IL: Globe Bible Publishing, 1894) 109.

[xix] Coulton, J. J., “Lifting in Early Greek Architecture,” The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Volume 94 (London; Hellenistic Society: 1994) 16.

[xx]Dienel, Hans-Liudger; Meighorner, Wolfgang, “Der Tretradkran,” Publication of the Deutsches Museum (Technikgeschichte series) 2nd ed. (Bavaria, Germany; München: 1997) 13.

[xxi] Lancaster, Lynne “Building Trajan’s Column,” American Journal of Archaeology 103 (3) (Archaeological Institute of America: 1999) 419–439.

[xxii] Shepp, Holy Land Photographed, 110.

[xxiii] Original article appeared in: Syria 54:1–2 (1977): 31–63.

[xxiv] Michael Heiser, “Transporting the Trilithon Stones of Baalbek: It’s About Applied Physics, Not Ancient Aliens,” August 23, 2012,, last accessed January 29, 2015,

[xxv]David Urquhart, The Lebanon: Mount Souria. A History and a Diary, Volume 2 (London; Thomas Cautley Newby: 1860), 374–377.

Category: Featured, Featured Articles