How did the Romans move the stones?

The question of how the Romans moved the Trilithon stones has been the subject of much speculation. The types of speculation encountered were discussed in a French article which provides two top-down pictures of the newly-unearthed stone at Baalbek, worth a viewing.

To be quarried, the blocks were cut on three sides, leaving the solid base of the rock. It would then be gradually released, replacing the rock by logs. The block, thus supported until the time it is fully detached, could then have been towed to the site by the shift system on a flat floor specially arranged. Cables and pulleys driven by the workers would have to maneuver the block.

Successful trials have been replicated, but they were unable to move the same mass far. Indeed, the trials faced different problems: the effectiveness of bearings (logs) under such a load; the strength of the cable to pull the mass; finally, the cohesion of a crowd as large as that required for this effort.

These assumptions are based on numerous traces of traction and hoist which are still visible on some blocks of Roman temples, but not on huge blocks prior to this time …

One thing is sure, if the trilithon blocks could be moved, [unless they were supported along their midsections, their midsections] would have collapsed under their own weight …

See the two top-down pictures of the 2014 excavation beside the Stone of the Pregnant Woman at the beginning of this French article.

For two more views of the newly-unearthed stone, see this link.

A Wikipedia article has weighed in on this topic:

The quarry was slightly higher up[22][23] than the temple itself so no lifting was required to move the stones the 800 meters (2,600 ft) to the temple. In 1977, Jean-Pierre Adam made a brief study suggesting the large blocks could have been moved on rollers with machines using capstans and pulley blocks, a process which he theorised could use 512 workers to move a 557 tonne block (approximately 243 tonnes lighter than the trilithon blocks).[22][24] Archaeologists date the temple to the Julio-Claudian period, the first two centuries AD.[25] The podium, foundations and an earlier stairway are described by archaeologists as a “huge pre-Roman construction”.[26]

Source: Wikipedia on Baalbek.

Ancient history and religion scholar, Michael Heiser, has weighed in on this topic in an article summarizing a technical treatise by Jean-Pierre Adam, “A propos du trilithon de Baalbek. Le transport et la mise en oeuvre des megaliths.” Heiser’s article thus provides a path for in-depth review of the physics involved. His illustrations are helpful, and his extract from Adam’s discussion of the work of the 1st Century B.C. Roman architect and engineer, Vitruvius, demonstrates Vitruvius’s thoughts on the Trilithon movement problem:

Vitruvius cites two anecdotes relating to the construction . . . He sank both ends of “column each iron bolts made of Swallow-tailed and are sealed” with lead, having taken the precaution to put in the pieces of wood cross-sectional “dirty iron rings, in which bolts came in as” hubs. In addition, he strengthens his machine by attaching the two “pieces of oak ties, so that when the horse pulling the” bolts turned so easily into the rings, all the “shafts of the columns rolled easily on land to their destination.”

The second transport means for the megaliths described by Vitruvius . . . consisted of wheels twelve feet (approx. 3.60 m) and “locked both ends of the architraves in the middle of the wheels.” He put “as bolts and iron rings, so that when the horse,” pulling the machine, put the bolts in, the iron rings were “turning the wheels. Thus, the architraves, which were in the wheels “as axles, were dragged and taken on the spot.”

Later, Heiser provides Adam’s calculations and summary of how the Trilithon stones could have been moved. After a discussion of how 800 oxen could be utilized, Adam turned to a simpler, human power, approach:

Despite the apparent simplicity of this [oxen] energy source, we prefer to look to the human powered, with which the weakness in muscle is compensated by the extreme technical elaboration of the device multiplier used. In the event of a traction provided by the duration of the capstans, movement is a bit longer, since it multiplies the distance traveled by the load, in favor of the force and must ensure the in place and anchor machinery. The advantage of this method lies in the extremely small number of workers needed and the greater accuracy of the progression, allowing rigorous implementation of blocks the one above and beside the other. . . . Each capstan bar with four men using it would make 24 in total. . . . The force exerted directly by the capstan 24 men and six bar is at 20 kg per man of 480 kg. Taking center force application to 1.70 m from the center of rotation and a radius of drum of 10 cm, this force becomes (by a form winch) 8160 kg.

Four cables of hemp, each providing four tons of traction, wind around the drum and by acting on the load through a hoist with two pulleys, generate a power of 16,320 kg of the machine; 13,056 kg reduced power by the coefficient of friction. Six of these machines, involving 144 men and providing traction power of 78,336 kg must allow, with a margin of excess power always useful, the transportation of each block of trilithon.

See Heiser’s chosen diagrams here.

Chris White has added his assessment of Vitruvius’s ideas and how the lifting of the Trilithon stones up 20 feet might have been accomplished:

The ancient Roman writings of Marcus Vitruvius Pollio describe in detail many of the Roman technological advantages like pulleys, which would reduce the force needed by half for each pulley used. He even described their ingenious way of moving stones[18] by constructing huge oak wheels on either end of the block, whether they were round, like pillars or huge rectangular stones like the Trilithons; they would then be pulled by oxen to the site.

So what about the lifting of the Trilithon stones at Baalbek?

Some make the point that the Trilithon stones do not have “Lewis Holes” in them like many of the other Roman stones at Baalbek. Lewis Holes is the name for the holes the Romans would drill in stones for lifting with their cranes…yes, the Romans had cranes.[19][20] And although their cranes only had a five ton capacity, often they would combine many of them together, which would obviously give them greater capacity.[21]

So why don’t these three stones contain these holes like all the rest of the stones at Baalbek? Well first of all, I wouldn’t be so sure that they don’t, no one has ever seen what is on the ends of these stones. It may very well be that they decided against a straight up or dead lift of the trilithon stones because of their weight, and instead decided to lift up only one side of the stone.

Source: Ancient Aliens Debunked.

Next Page: Video and text: What did the Baalbek temple complex look like?