Posted: February 26th, 2023

Egyptian Pyramids

Please answer these questions in paragraph form using my included article, and outside sources. Please paraphrase instead of quotation marks. Please make it about 700 words long.

a) What kind of questions should be answered in any theory of pyramid construction?

b) What major problems arise in ramp theories?

c) What are the current mostly accepted theories of pyramid construction?

d) How does each theory address the main question(s) in pyramid construction? Jean Pierre Houdin

OF THE SEVEN WONDERS of the ancient
world, only the Great Pyramid of Giza remains.

An estimated 2 million stone blocks weighing an
average of 2 1/2 tons went into its construction.
When completed, the 481-foot-tall pyramid was the
world’s tallest structure, a record it held for more
than 3,800 years, when England’s Lincoln
Cathedral surpassed it by a mere 44 feet.

We know who built the Great Pyramid: the
pharaoh Khufu, who ruled Egypt about 2547–2524
B.C. And we know who supervised its construction:

Khufu’s brother,
Hemienu. The
pharaoh’s right-hand
man, Hemienu was
“overseer of all
construction proj-
ects of the king”
and his tomb is one
of the largest in a
cemetery adjacent
to the pyramid.

What we don’t
know is exactly
how it was built, a
question that has
been debated for
millennia, The ear-
liest recorded theo-
ry was put forward
by the Greek histo-
rian Herodotus,
who visited Egypt
around 450 B.C.,
when the pyramid
was already 2,000

years old. He mentions “machines” used to raise the
blocks and this is usually taken to mean cranes.
Three hundred years later, Diodorus of Sicily wrote,
“The construction was effected by mounds”
(ramps). Today we have the “space alien” theory—
those primitive Egyptians never could have built
such a fabulous structure by themselves; extrater-
restrials must have helped them.

Modern scholars have favored two basic theo-
ries, but deep in their hearts, they know that neither
one is correct. A radical new one, however, may

How to Build a Pyramid

Hidden ramps may solve the mystery of the
Great Pyramid’s construction.

BY BOB BRIER

“How to Build a Pyramid” by Bob Brier. Reprinted with permission of ARCHAEOLOGYmagazine, Vol. 60 , #3,
www.archaeology.org. Copyright © The Archaeological Institute of America, May/June 2007.

The 5th- century B.C. Greek historian Herodotus suggested that cranes were
employed to life the blocks of the Great Pyramid in the same way that the shadouf,
seen in a tomb p ainting from Deir el-Medina, was used to lif t water for irrigation.

2 How to Build a Pyramid

provide the solution. If
correct, it would demon-
strate a level of planning
by Egyptian architects and
engineers far greater than
anything ever imagined
before,

THE EXTERNAL

RAMP AND

CRANE THEORIES

The first theory is that a
ramp was built on one side
of the pyramid and as the
pyramid grew, the ramp
was raised so that through-
out the construction,
blocks could be moved
right up to the top. If the
ramp were too steep, the
men hauling the blocks
would not be able to drag
them up. An 8-percent
slope is about the maxi-
mum possible, and this is
the problem with the sin-
gle ramp theory. With such
a gentle incline, the ramp
would have to be approxi-
mately one mile long to
reach the top of the pyra-
mid. But there is neither
room for such a long ramp
on the Giza Plateau, nor
evidence of such a mas-
sive construction. Also, a
mile-long ramp would
have had as great a vol-
ume as the pyramid itself,
virtually doubling the
man-hours needed to build
the pyramid. Because the
straight ramp theory just
doesn’t work, several
pyramid experts have
opted for a modified ramp
theory.

This approach sug-
gests that the ramp

According to the new theory , an
external ramp was used to build the
lower third of the pyramid and was
then cannibalized, it s blocks t aken
through an internal ramp for the
higher levels of the structure.

How to Build a Pyramid 3

corkscrewed up
the outside of the
pyramid, much
the way a moun-
tain road spirals
upward. The
corkscrew ramp
does away with
the need for a
massive mile-
long one and
explains why no
remains of such a
ramp have been
found, but there
is a flaw with this
version of the
theory. With a

ramp corkscrewing up the outside of the pyra-
mid, the corners couldn’t be completed until the
final stage of construction. But careful measure-
ments of the angles at the corners would have
been needed frequently to assure that the cor-

A microgravimetry survey of the
Great Pyramid in the 1980s yielded
the enigmatic image at right. Less
dense areas (indicated in green)
seem to correspond to an internal
ramp proposed by Jean-Pierre
Houdin (diagram). Below , wooden
hoist s on notches lef t in the edge of
the pyramid could have been used to
turn blocks onto the next p art of the
internal ramp.

4 How to Build a Pyramid

ners would meet to create a point at the top. Dieter
Arnold, a renowned pyramid expert at The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, comments in his
definitive work, Building in Egypt: “During the
whole construction period, the pyramid trunk would
have been completely buried under the ramps. The
surveyors could therefore not have used the four
corners, edges, and foot line of the pyramid for their
calculations.” Thus the modified ramp theory also
has a serious problem.

The second theory centers on Herodotus’s
machines. Until recently Egyptian farmers used a
wooden, cranelike device called a shadouf to raise
water from the Nile for irrigation. This device can
be seen in ancient tomb paintings, so we know it
was available to the pyramid builders. The idea is
that hundreds of these cranes at various levels on
the pyramid were used to lift the blocks. One prob-
lem with this theory is that it would involve a
tremendous amount of timber and Egypt simply
didn’t have forests to provide the wood. Importing
so much lumber would have been impractical.

Large timbers for shipbuilding were imported from
Lebanon, but this was a very expensive enterprise.

Perhaps an even more fatal flaw to the crane
theory is that there is nowhere to place all these
cranes. The pyramid blocks tend to decrease in size
higher up the Great Pyramid. I climbed it dozens of
times in the 1970s and ’80s, when it was permitted,
and toward the top, the blocks sometimes provide
only 18 inches of standing room, certainly not
enough space for cranes large enough to lift heavy
blocks of stone. The crane theory can’t explain how
the blocks of the Great Pyramid were raised. So
how was it done?

THE INTERNAL RAMP THEORY

A radical new idea has recently been presented by
Jean-Pierre Houdin, a French architect who has
devoted the last seven years of his life to making

The complexities of the Great Pyramid’ s design and construction could not have been deciphered without
the aid of 3-D imaging sof tware

How to Build a Pyramid 5

detailed computer models of the Great Pyramid.
Using start-of-the-art 3-D software developed by
Dassault Systemes, combined with an initial sug-
gestion of Henri Houdin, his engineer father, the
architect has concluded that a ramp was indeed used
to raise the blocks to the top, and that the ramp still
exists—inside the pyramid!

The theory suggests that for the bottom third of
the pyramid, the blocks were hauled up a straight,
external ramp. This ramp was far shorter than the
one needed to reach the top, and was made of lime-
stone blocks, slightly smaller than those used to
build the bottom third of the pyramid. As the bottom
of the pyramid was being built via the external
ramp, a second ramp was being built, inside the
pyramid, on which the blocks for the top two-thirds
of the pyramid would be hauled. The internal ramp,
according to Houdin, begins at the bottom, is about
6 feet wide, and has a grade of approximately 7 per-
cent. This ramp was put into use after the lower
third of the pyramid was completed and the external
ramp had served its purpose.

The design of the internal ramp was partially
determined by the design of the interior of the pyra-
mid. Hemienu knew all about the problems encoun-
tered by Pharaoh Sneferu, his and Khufu’s father.
Sneferu had considerable difficulty building a suit-
able pyramid for his burial, and ended up having to
construct three at sites south of Giza! The first, at
Meidum, may have had structural problems and was
never used. His second, at Dashur—known as the
Bent Pyramid because the slope of its sides changes
midway up—developed cracks in the walls of its
burial chamber. Huge cedar logs from Lebanon had
to be wedged between the walls to keep the pyramid
from collapsing inward, but it too was abandoned.
There must have been a mad scramble to complete
Sneferu’s third and successful pyramid, the distinc-
tively colored Red Pyramid at Dashur, before the
aging ruler died.

From the beginning, Hemienu planned three
burial chambers to ensure that whenever Khufu
died, a burial place would be ready. One was carved
out of the bedrock beneath the pyramid at the begin-
ning of its construction. In case the pharaoh had
died early, this would have been his tomb. When,
after about five years, Khufu was still alive and
well, the unfinished underground burial chamber
was abandoned and the second burial chamber,
commonly called the Queen’s Chamber, was begun.
Some time around the fifteenth year of construction

Khufu was still healthy and this chamber was aban-
doned unfinished and the last burial chamber, the
Kings Chamber, was built higher up—in the center
of the pyramid. (To this day, Khufu’s sarcophagus
remains inside the Kings Chamber, so early explor-
ers of the pyramid incorrectly assumed that the sec-
ond chamber had been for his queen.)

Huge granite and limestone blocks were need-
ed for the roof beams and rafters of the Queen’s and
King’s Chambers. Some of these beams weigh more
than 60 tons and are far too large to have been
brought up through the internal ramp. Thus the
external ramp had to remain in use until the large
blocks were hauled up. Once that was done, the
external ramp was dismantled and its blocks were
led up the pyramid via the internal ramp to build the
top two-thirds of the pyramid. Perhaps most blocks
in this portion of the pyramid are smaller than those
at the bottom third because they had to move up the
narrow internal ramp.

There were several considerations that went
into designing the internal ramp. First, it had to be
fashioned very precisely so that it didn’t hit the
chambers or the internal passageways that connect
them. Second, men hauling heavy blocks of stones
up a narrow ramp can’t easily turn a 90-degree cor-
ner; they need a place ahead of the block to stand
and pull. The internal ramp had to provide a means
of turning its corners so, Houdin suggests, the ramp
had openings there where a simple crane could be
used to turn the blocks.

There are plenty of theories about how the
Great Pyramid could have been built that lack evi-
dence. Is the internal ramp theory any different? Is
there any evidence to support it? Yes.

A bit of evidence appears to be one of the
ramp’s corner notches used for turning blocks. It is
two-thirds of the way up the northeast corner—pre-
cisely at a point where Houdin predicted there
would be one. Furthermore, in 1986 a member of a
French team that was surveying the pyramid report-
ed seeing a desert fox enter it through a hole next to
the notch, suggesting that there is an open area close
to it, perhaps the ramp. It seems improbable that the
fox climbed more than halfway up the pyramid.
More likely there is some undetected crevice toward
the bottom where the fox entered the ramp and then
made its way up the ramp and exited near the notch.
It would be interesting to attach a telemetric device
to a fox and send him into the hole to monitor his

6 How to Build a Pyramid

movements! The notch is suggestive, but there is
another bit of evidence supplied by the French men-
tioned earlier that is far more compelling.

When the French team surveyed the Great
Pyramid, they used microgravimetry, a technique
that enabled them to measure the density of differ-
ent sections of the pyramid, thus detecting hidden
chambers. The French team concluded that there
were no large hidden chambers inside it. If there
was a ramp inside the pyramid, shouldn’t the French
have detected it? In 2000, Henri Houdin was pre-
senting this theory at a scientific conference where
one of the members of the 1986 French team was
present. He mentioned to Houdin that their comput-
er analysis of the pyramid did yield one curious
image, something they couldn’t interpret and there-
fore ignored. That image showed exactly what Jean-
Pierre Houdin’s theory had predicted—a ramp spi-
raling up through the pyramid.

Far from being just another theory, the internal
ramp has considerable evidence behind it. A team
headed by Jean-Pierre Houdin and Rainer

Stadlemann, former director of the German
Archaeological Institute in Cairo and one of the
greatest authorities on pyramids, has submitted an
application to survey the Great Pyramid in a nonde-
structive way to see if the theory can be confirmed.
They are hopeful that the Supreme Council of
Antiquities will grant permission for a survey.
(Several methods could be used, including powerful
microgravimetry, high-resolution infrared photogra-
phy, or even sonar.) If so, sometime this year we
may finally know how Khufu’s monumental tomb
was built. One day, if it is indeed there, we might
just be able to remove a few blocks from the exteri-
or of the pyramid and walk up the mile- long ramp
Hemienu left hidden within the Great Pyramid.

Bob Brier is a senior research fellow at the C. W
Post Campus of Long Island University and a con-
tributing editor to ARCHAEOLOGY. For more
on how the Great Pyramid was built, visit
www.archaeology.org.

Ancient Heavy Transport, Methods and Achievements
Author(s): Robert F. Heizer
Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 153, No. 3738 (Aug. 19, 1966), pp. 821-830
Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stable URL:

http://www.jstor.org

/stable/1719186
Accessed: 03/01/2010 21:27

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Science.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1719186?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aaas

19 August 1966, Yolume 153, Number 3738

Anciexlt Heavy Transpol
Methods and Achievemen

Transport of heavy stones provides evidence of
socio-economic types of ancient societi

Robert F. He

Modern engineering and energy re-
sources are so great ,that the task of
transporting a 1 OOO-ton weight teday
would constituite no particular problem.
But in times before the wheel and
steam or internal-combustion engines
were known, such transport could have
been accomplished only with human or
animal energy aided by such simple
friction-reducing devices as sledges,
gliders, or rollers, and equally uncom-
plicated lifting or raising devices such
as inclined ramps and levers. That great
stones weighing hundreds of tons were
moved by some ancient societies is well
known, but the means which were em-
ployed are less well understood.

Recent histories of (technology and
engineering ( 1 ) usually mention only
in passing the remarkable examples of
long-distance moving of stones weigh-
ing scores or hundreds of tons in bioth
the Old and the New World in ancient
times. Perhaps this is either because
.. . .s . . nlstorlans ol: englneerlng are unaware
of the information buried in the anthro-
pologic,al literature (2) or because they
are relusctant to enter into an in-
vestigation which involves so much
speculation.

Physical and Historical Evidence

Several kinds of information are
available. First are the great stones
themselves which still lie unfinished in
the quarry, such as the 1 1 68-ton un-

19 AUGUST 1966

finished granite obelisk
and the uncompleted vc
ues on Easter Island (4
many linown examples
which were aband-oned
between their source an
tination. A good exam]
red porphyry blocks w
to over 100 tons that
clifT of Cerro Buena Ne
they were cut, and the f
taytambo, 5 kilometers
unfinished fortress was
attacked by thle Spania
nando Pizarro, brothe
Pizarro, in 1534, and w
today marks the poinl
Inca construction aeti
gressed at the,time of tl
quest. Unfinished or a
such as these provide l
ful information, since
project is usually easi
than a completed one.

The main source- o
heavy transport in a
course, stones that wz
moved to their intenc
and placed in their int
Into ,this category in t
fall the score or more o
tured human heads, ste]
of basalt weighing up
assignable to the Olmes
southeastern lowland oi
1st miliennium B.C. (

ton andesite statues ass
early phases of Teotihu

SCIE: NCE:

among which are the 217-ton Idolo de
Coatlinchan, the largest stone sculpture
a,ttempted by the prehistoric peoples of
the New World, and the 24-ton Diosa

rtS de Agua (9); the ignimbrite ja.mbs and
lintelsS weighing up to) 26 tons, em-

ltS ployed in the temple constructions at
Mitla in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico
(10); the 60-ton Stela

and the several

the 30-ton zoomorphic altars at the Maya

ies site of Quirigua, Guatemala; and the- * largest of the Aztec-period sculptures of
Mexico, such as the famous “calendar

izer stone” weighing 24 tons. In South
America are the 200- to 300-ton stonles
used in constructing the Inc!a fortresses
at Sacsahuaman above Cuzco (Fig. 1)
(11, 12) and at Ollantaytambo, about

at; Aswan (3) 50 kilometers from Cuzco, in the valley
rlcanic tuff stat- of the Urubamba (Vilcanota) River
t 5). lNhere are (6). In the Old World, the number of
of large stones ancient stone monumenits weighing 50
along the route tons or more (some. as much as 1000
d intendled des- tons) is so large that they cannot be

ple is the great listed here. Examples are the granite
reighing from 2 ob!elisks of the 18th and l9th dynasties
lie beitween the at Luxor, quarried at Aswan and
gra, Peru, where brought down the Nile on boats (13,
ortress of Ollan- 14); the two 1000-ton Colossi of Mem-
away .(6). The non (the Greek name. for Amenhotep

s unsuccessfully III) brought up the Nile from quarries
rds under Her- at Silsileh, near Cairo (13, pp. 96-97),
r of Francisco which stand on the plain of Thebes;
rhat can be seen the huge stones in some of the tomb
t to which the chambers, passagewaysS and relieving
ivity had pro- arches over ¢he chambers ‘(15); in
he Spanish Con- Greece, the jambs, lintels, and sills of
rrested projects the Lion Gate at M.ycenae, land at the
particularly use- same site the.s,tones weighing 120 tons?

an interrupted used as doorway lintels in some of the
ier ,to interpret tholos tombs, especially that of the

Tomb of Agamemnon (16); in France,
f evidence for Spain, and the British Isles, the hun-
Lntiquity is, of dreds of huge stones, some weighing
ere successfully over 100 tons, used as menhirs or
Jed destinations walling ( orlthostats ) and roofing ( cap-
ended positions. stones) in the megalithic tombs (vari-
the New World ously called dolmens, chambered tombs,
>f colossal sculp- passage graves) (17-Z9); and in
lae, and “altars” England, the impressive megalithic con-
to 3 6 tons and structions -a,t Avebury anel Stonehenge
c culture of the (20n 21). The largest stone transported
f Mexico of the by the megalithic peoples of western
t 8); the multi-
ociated with the The autlior is Professor of Antldropology and

Coordinator of tlie Arcliaeological Cltesearch Fa-
acan In Mexlco cility at the Urliversity of California, Berkeley.

821

– . peoples could have moved the stones
– u for megalithic tombs and wrote,

; These stones are a consequence of dis-
n l n ! turbance that the land has suffered as a

i $ w result of the many floods, tremors, inun-

S S t dations and volcanic eruptions by which
i – | L its entire surface has been disfired.

E E E | E Another belief, which according to
= = | Camby (29) was held by several 18th-

s 1 century students of megalithic remains,

.w r was that the Druids possessed a highly
z 7 _ : advanced knowledge of mechanics, the
s s ,.st..t,.,.. facts of which were later lost, which
[1 s enabled them to move megaliths. Ear-
8<<i lier explanations had postulated trans-
t port by giants of superhuman strength

v x or by fairies (17, pp. 16-18; 30). For
i instance, Saxo Grammaticus wrote,

….. … .. < .. ……..

> .- about A.D. 1200,

That the country of Denmark was once
sahuamans cultivated and worked by giants is aflirmed

by the enormous stones which are in the
barrows of the ancients. Should any man
question that this was accomplished by

rn experi- sUperhuman force, let him look to the
tops of certain mountains and say, if he

attempted knows how, what man has carried such
to 4 tons, immense boulders up to their summits.
tonehenge For anyone considering this marvel will
od a work note that it is inconceivable how a mass,

scarcely, or but with difficulty, movable
s and re- upon a level, could have been raised to
ing a 12- so mighty a peak of so lofty a mountain
a 25-ton by mere human effort, or by the ordinary
gradually exertion of human strength.

as it w,as Another prescientific explanation was
stones (4, that the stones could will themselves to
z involved move or to remain immovable on the
ection of ground, as was belieed in Europe and
aising up- Polynesia (4, p. 369; 31), as well as in
,tonehenge Mexico (32 ) and Peru (33 ), where

stones abandoned between the quarry
must be and their destination are called piedras

rpothetical cansadas (tired stones).
Posnansky The perfect fitting together by the
two 100- Incas of irregularly shaped stones with
at “Puma as many as ten joints was done by a
te of Tia- process which is not understood toclay.
, Bolivia, Since blocks of stone weighing many
acting as tons could not have b.een liflted up and
prepared taken down repeatedly to test their fit,

zcks (Fig. it seems probable to me that some sort
been sug- of template was used, but no evidence
m Karelia or report of such devices is known. The
In pedestal stone joining is so remarkable that it
eat placed aroused the interest of the Spaniards,
running in and in response to their inquiries in
t. Another the 16th century they were told that
ble theory the stones were “softened” and thus

that the made easy to work by application of
^ of which the juice of certain red leaves. This ex-
ted not by planation is surely folkloristic, notwith-
mic erup- standing the fact that polyhydroxypoly-
that made carboxylates of certain plants can serve
andes ( 17, as chelating agents to weather stone
ze ancient and thus make it easier to work (34).

Fig. 1. One of the large, closely fitted limestone blocks in the fortress of Sac!
near Cuzco, Peru. Weight exceeds 200 tons. [Photo by author]

Europe is the 382-ton Grand Menhir
Brise at Locmariquer, Brittany.

Other sources of information, of
great importance but limited in quan-
tity, are pictorial representations of
great stone sculptures being transported
by water or dragged on land by gangs
of men. These are known from Egypt
and Assyria, and most of these paint-
ings or low-relief sculptures are well
known because they have been often
reproduced and discussed. In addition,
written records from Egypt and the
eastern Mediterranean area provide use-
ful, brief accounts of particular feats
of heavy transportation, and there are
documents in which reference is made
to a particular aspect of the process,
such as numbers of men employed, the
use of a ship or sledge for transport,
or the employment of slave labor.

Still another source of information is
ethnographers or early chroniclers who
h,ave recorded the techniques employed
for extracting large blocks of stone
from the quarries and the means by
which recently living primitive peoples
(who are, in effect, modern megalithic
culture groups) have transported large
blocks of stone and raised them in.to
position. Such accounts are available
for some still-living peoples of the
Himalayan provinces, Indonesia, and
Madagascar, as well as for the Aztecs
of Mexico and the Incas of Peru at
the time of the Spanish Conquest (see
Fig. 2).

Some hints of how the problems of
moving and raising extremely heavy
pieces of stone were solved in ancient

822

times also come from modex
ments. Atkinson, for instance,
to move replicas, weighing up
of the “blue stones” used at Sl
(20 ), and Heyerdahl organize
crew of 180 Easter Islanderr
corded their success in dragg
ton statue and in setting up
fallen statue by levering it
and building up under it, <
raised, a blocking of small s
22 ) . Other investigations have
scale models, as in the er
Egyptian obelisks (23) and r
right the sarsen shafts of S
(24) .

Observations of this sort
distinguished from purely hy
suggestions such as that of ]
(25), who believed that the
ton blocks of red sandstone
Punka,” a section of the sit
huanaco on Lake Titicaca.
were pushed on stone balls
ball-bearings running over a
roadbed of dressed stone blc
3 ) . This theory may have
gested by the transport fror
to St. Petersburg of a 600-to
of a statue of Peter the Gr
-on.top of iron cannonballs r
grooved iron tracks (26, 27)
example of a highly improba
is Wolffs suggestion (28)
statues of Easter Island, some
weigh 70 tons, were transporl
men but by periodic volca
tions, a suggestion rather like
in the 18th century by Deslc
p. 16), who did not belie

SCIENCE, VOL. 153

Recent and Ancient Transport

Examples of the moving or erection
of large stone sculptures or obelisks
from recent times can provide useful
hints of the kinds of problems that
were faced and solved in ancient times.
Reference here is to the removal from
Luxor, Egypt, to the Place de l!a Con-
corde, Paris, of a 230-ton granite obel-
isk by the French marine engineer Le
Bas, which required 6 years (1830-
1836) of labor (Fig. 4) (26, chapter 3);
and to the dragging for 3 -kilometers
and the erection at Seringapatam, In-
dia, in 1895, of the 20-meter granite
obelisk weighing 35 tons (13, p. 103;
35) .

Egyptian obelisks were moved effi-
ciently to London by Dixon in 1877
and to New York by Gorringe in 1879
(76, chapters 2, 4; 36). The Paris obel-
isk was transported in a specially built
ship, the Louqsor, which had a remov-
able bow. The shaft was run into the
ship lengthwise and the bow bolted on.
The London obelisk was encased in a
watertight steel cylinder which was
towed behind a steamer from Alexan-
dria. The New York obelisk was taken
into the hold of the ship through a
hole cut in the iron plate bow.

The desire of foreigners to acquire
these outstanding examples of Egyptian
stone-working is not limited to the last
century, as is indicated by the dozen
Egyptian obelisks taken to Rome by
the emperors Augustus, Caligula, and
Constantine II (dimensions, weights,
and locations of all known Egyptian
obelisks are given in 26, p. 145) .
The remarkable engineering accomplish-
ments of the Romans are evidenced not
only by their transport of the Egyptian
obelisks but also by the 1000-ton
blocks employed in the temple of Jupi-
ter at Baalbek, and the 350-ton granite
capstone of the tomb of Theodoric at
Ravenna (37). The largest existing
finished Egyptian obelisk now stands
before the Basilica of St. John Lateran.
It weighs 510 tons, and about A.D. 357
it was brought by Constantius to Rome
from Alexandria, where it had been left
in A.D. 330 after having been moved
down the Nile from Thebes by Con-
stantius’s father, Constantine the Great.
There are Roman records of the trans-
Mediterranean shipping and erecting of
obelisks (26, p. 156; 38). Assurbanipal
(the Sardanapalus of the Greeks), an
Assyrian emperor who captured and
sacked Thebes in 663 B.C., brought
from there two obelisks which together

19 AUGUST 1966

Fig. 2. Two stages of litter,transport of a large stone in the Himalayan area. [From 51

.. . sest . % t. . ss

‘s ^”‘” ‘3, ti,’i’ss,*A.,.,S ,r’,.,2._N’,

X;- r

Fig. 3. Hypothetical means of transport of the 1 OO-ton block of sandstone at
Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, with the use of stone “ball-bearings.” [From 25]

823

isk of Queen Hatshepsut which was
108 cubits ( about 65 meters ) long. It
has been calculated that such a stone,
to withstand the internal stress when
moved, would have had to weigh 11,000
tons (23, p. 106; 40). No evidence of
this obelisk exists now, however, and
the report is either an error or a gross
exaggeration.

The difficulties of moving and erect-
ing obelisks even with the advantages
of steel cables, heavy ropes, windlasses,
and pulley blocks are amply demon-
strated by the illustrated accounts of
Fontana (26, chapter 5; 41 ), who in
1585 moved and set up the 5 1 0-ton
Vatican obelisk which had been brought
to Rome by Caligula (Fig. 5); by Lay-
ard’s spirited description of the removal
of the colossal bull and lion sculptures
from Nimrud to the banks of the Tigris
(42); by-Major Bagnold’s raising and
transport of the 600-ton statue of
Rameses II at Memphis (43); and by
the moving of the 21 7-ton Idolo de
Coatlinchan to Mexico City in 1964 on
a specially built trailer, weighing 45
tons, supported by 112 pneumatic-tired
wheels and powered with four tractors
(44).

The methods anciently employed for
raising very heavy stones such as col-
umn drums, wall blocks, or architraves
were probably simple ones whose exe-
cution depended primarily upon a large
human labor force. In Peru, inclined
earth ramps were employed on which
heavy stones were dragged, and there
is a record that the cathedral in Cuzco
was built by Inca workmen using such
ramps (45, vol. 92, p. 262). It is sup-
posed that the imposing Hypostyle Hall
at Karnak, with its jmmense columns
and heavy stone spans, was erected by
filling the interior of the hall with earth
as the construction grew in height, and
that the stones were raised by drawing
them up inclined ramps laid against the
exterior (15, p. 91). The same method
for raising the 2.5-ton limestone blocks
that form the hearting of the Giza
pyramids is mentioned by Herodotus,
who wrote that the ramp which ex-
tended from the Nile to the pyra-
mids was 1000 meters long, 10
meters wide, and 16 meters high (46).
The techniques believed to have been
used to set the 50-ton Stonehenge sar-
sens upright (21) are remarkably like

those reported from recent times for
setting up in their sockets the cedar
logs used in the large houses of the
Clayoquot tribe of Vancouver Island
(47).

SCIENCE, VOL. 15

Fig. 4. Erection of the 230-ton Paris obelisk in 1837. [From Magasin Pittoresque, 1837]

weighed 75 tons, and set them up out-
side a temple at Nineveh (26, p. 154).

Classical authors wrote about the
moving of stone monuments of such
weight that the accounts must be either
wholly im!aginary or great exaggerations
of actual events. Herodotus, for in-
stance, reports a monolithic chapel
weighing about 50()0 tons brought from
Aswan to the temple of Laitona at Buto
in the Nile delta (39). Diodorus

Siculus, who wrote in the middle of
the 1 st century B.C., tells of Queen
Semiramis of Assyria (probably to
be identified as Sammuramat, wife of
Adad-Nirari III, 81 s782 B.C. ) who
“quarried out a stone from the moun-
tains of Armenia which was 130 feet
long and 25 feet wide and thick,” and
which she caused to be brought to
Babylon on a raft. An 1 8th-Dynasty
Egyptian inscription mentions an obel-

tEv …

Fig. 5. Erection, directed by Fontana, of the 51 O-ton Vatican obelisk in 1585, with
the use of 40 windlasses, 907 men, and 75 horses. [From 41]

824

Human Energy Expenditure

Probably there is a limit to the
weight of a stone which can be carried
on a litter of poles or with shoulder
poles and rope slings. A 5-ton stone
would require such a heavy and cum-
bersome litter that it would be more
practical to drag the stone with ropes
on a sledge (that is, a modified litter).
At La Venta, Mexico, in 1955, we
found that basalt columns weighing be-
tween 1.5 and 2.0 tons could be carried,
though with difficulty, by 35 men using
shoulder poles and rope slings support-
ing the stones (Fig. 6; 48, plate 9). In
1943, in the moun!tains of Colombia,
35 men under the direction of H. Leh-
mann managed, with difficulty, to trans-
port on a litter a stone sculpture weigh-
ing 1 ton (Fig. 7) (49). A week was
required to carry this stone 7 kilo-
meters, the slowness being due to rain
and the need to cut a trail through the.
forest. In Madagascar, stones weighing
more than 2 tons were dragged,
and smaller ones were carried on a
litter of poles borne by 50 men (50).
Stones on the island of Nias and in the
Himalayan area appear, from descrip-
tions of the litters and reports that 300
or 400 men were engaged as bearers,
to have been somewhat heavier, but
their weighos and dimensions are unfor-
tunately not recorded (Sl, 52 ) . Here
the mountainous terrain must have pre-
cluded, or at least discouraged, the
dragging of large stones.

It has been proved that heavy stones
were transported by water. Wall reliefs
in the temple of Queen Hatshepsut at
Thebes show two huge granite obelisks
laid base to base on a lighter that had
been specially built for the purpose.
The lighter was towed by a flotilla of
30 smaller craft (53). It is believed
that these obelisks, which were quarried
at Aswan and weigh 370 tons apiece,
were loaded on a lighter floated into a
canal leading from the Nile. After the
canal was blocked off, the lighter was
packed in earth, loaded from the bank,
and then, after the earth packing vvas
removed, floated off again (23, p. 64;
13, pp. 9v95). Another possible meth-
od of loading an obelisk onto a ship
was employed by Ptolemy Philadelphus
(286-247 B.C.), who dug a canal under
the obelisk, leaving it suspended with
each end resting on the bank of the
canal. Two boats, each loaded with stone
blocks, were brought beneath the s,tone
shaft, the blocks were removed, and as
the boats rose in the water they sup-

19 AUGUST 1966

Fig. 6. Carrying a 1.5-ton stone column with poles
Mexico, in 1955. [Photo by author]

ported the obelisk (26, pp. 15>155).
The two colossi of Memnon at Thebes
were moved on the Nile, and, in the
words of the sculptor, “I caused to be
built eight ships whereupon the statues
were carried up the river” (13, p. 96).
The earliest Egyptian pictorial records
of heavy transport by water are the re-
liefs from the causeway of Wnis (Unas),
dating from the 5th Dynasty ( about
2400 B.C.), which show large planked
barges bearing two granite columns
about 1 meter in diameter, 5 meters
long, and each weighing about 100

tons, lashed to sledges ( Fig. 8 ) ( see
54) .

Another pictorial example of water
transport is that of the colossal human-
headed bull sculptures which stood at
the gates of the palace of Sennacherib
in Nineveh. These great limestone
blocks, weighing over 30 tons, are
shown resting on heavy wooden sledges
sitting on large rafts which were towed
on the Tigris from,the quarries at Bala-
tai (now Eski Mosul), some 35 kilo-
meters away. In other reliefs, gangs of
slaves (prisoners of war) draw the

……. + ::: R4’iJs *+r^zflj;;jo :: ……………………………………………. – A_a i_

Fig. 7. Litter transport of a l.O-ton andesite statue in Colombia, 1943. [Photo by
H. Lehmann, Musee de l’Homme, Paris]

825

Mexico, some of which weigh nearly
40 tons (7).

A well-known tomb pfainting, now
destroyed, from E1 Bersheh Egypt, dat-
ing from the 12th Dynasty, shows 168
men dragging a 6()-ton alabaster statue
of a noble named Djehotihetep on a
sledge (Fig. 10) (58). Opinions diSer
as to how accurate the painting was in-
tended to be, some sltudents believing
that an impression of a great crowd of
men drawing on the ropes was intended
(13, p. 92; 59) arld others (56 60)
arguing that the exact number of drag
gers is shown and that the sledge was
running on greased wooden planks
which were “the beginnings of a mod-
ern technique, namely, lubricated flat
machine-surfaces.’ Egyptian and Assyr-
ian records of heavy transport are
abundantS and are illustrated by one ex-
ample (61, p. 73) referring to the As-
syrian king, Sennacherib (704-681
B.C.) :

Hittite people [Syrians], plunder of my
bow, I settled in Nineveh. Mighty ships
after the workmanship of their land, they
built dexterously. Tyrian, Sidonian and
Cyprian sailors? captives of my hand, I
ordered to descend the Tigris with thenz
[bull statues l and come to land at the
wharves of Opis. From Opis where they
drew them up on land, they dragged
them on sledges.

Fig. 8. Barge carrying granite columns for the pyramid complex of Wnis at Saqqara,
Egypt. Fifth Dynasty) about 2400 B.C. [From 54]

sledge with a breast sling or bricole
attached to the heavy ropes fastened to
the sledge which runs on the ground
over short logs laid lengthwise as sta-
tionary gliders, not as rnoving rollers
(Fig. 9 ) . From the time of Layard,
who discovered and first published these
reliefs over a century ago (39 55) most
scholars have accepted the view that
cylindrical wooden. rollers were used to
move the bull statues, but this interpre-
tation is questioned by Davison (56),
who ‘believes that the round wooden
pieces are friction-reducing sleepers laid
beneath the runners in the direction of
the sledge m,ovemen.t.

Much has been said about the use

of wooden rollers for moving heavy
stones in prehistoric times, but rnost of
this seems to be conjecture. Wooden
rollers require a firm surface to move
uponS and very heavy weights would
crush such wooden pieces. The use of
wooden rollers cannot be demonstrated
for any stone-m-oving culture in the
New World, and at best the evidence
is weak for pre-Roman Old World so-
cieties. The blue stones of the inner
circle of Stonehenge were almost cer-
tainly brought by water from their
source in the Prescelly Mountains in
Wales (20 p. 99; 57) anfil transport
by water is considered practic!ally cer-
tain for the La Venta monuments in

F;g. 9. Assyrian transport of a winged bull statue weighing about 30 tons. From a sculptured limestone panel dating from the
8th century DB.C. discovered at Nineveh by Layard. [From 423

826
SCIENCE, VOL. 153

t k k :

w–_ffi N22a%WD&Dk JS

J S- _ }

ffi ff WAtu:AlSEet ASw X
,RlRlA-tWtS

s- i- # r- # t –

Fig. 10. Dragging the 60-ton alabaster statue of Djehutihetep. From a 1 2th-Dynasty tomb painting at El Bersheh, Egypt, about
1800 B.C. [From J. G. Wilkinson, The Manners and Cllstoms of the Ancient Egyptians (London, 1878)]

A number of groups in southeast
Asia, Africa, and Oceania have, until
recent times, moved large stones which
they set upright as me;morials for the
dead or built into tombs similar to the
megalithic graves ( dolmens) of western
Europe. Good-accou-nts of the placing
of stones weighing several tons on a
heavy sledge made of a forked tree
which was dragged by ropes or vines
attached to it have been published for
the Nagas (62, 63), the Khasis (64),
and for the people of Malekula and
Tonga (65, 66), Madagascar (50, pp.
63-64; 67), Nias (68), and Sumba
(69). One of the best of these accounts
(69) describes how an ll-ton block of
stone was dragged on a heavy wooden
sledge over a distance of 3 kilometers
by 525 men in 2 days. The slab was
then pulled up an inclinled plane made
of heavy logs and brought into final
position as the capstone of a tiomb.

Ramps of earth, known to have been
widely employed in ancien,t times bo!th
in the Old sand New Worlds, are usually
thought of as the simplest and most
commonly used means of elevating
heavy stones serving as upright col-
umns, stelae, tomb covers, or archi-
traves.

CCalculations of numbers of men
required to pull the ropes attached to a
sledge running over the ground de-
pend upon the kind of sledge used,
the weight of the stone being borne,
the use of log or plank sleepers laid
either at right angles like railroad
ties or as gliding rails in line with
the direction of movement, the slopes
encountered, and the distance from the

19 AUGUST 1966

quarry ( 7, 8, 10, 70 ) . By considering
examples providled by modern mega-
lith movers and using known data on
human energy ( 13, 71, 72 ), attempts
have been made to determine how
many men were required to move cer-
tain multi-ton stones (73). Animal pow-
er was not used for drawing heavy
weights in ancient.times beca.use, it is
believed5 adequate harnessing methods
were not dleveloped until the 1 0th
century A.D. (74). Although a horse
has 15 times the pulling power of a
man, the pre-lOth-c!entury neck harness
chloked the animal so that it could
exert only about one-quarter of its
strength (71, pp. 82-86). In Roman
times it had been determined that the
ratio of food consumed by the horse
and man was 4: 1, and because this was
about the same ratio as the relative
power output iof the horse and man,
the use of draft animals rather than
men would have had no economic ad-
vantage if, as was the case, there was
a plentiful supply of manpower (71).

Socio-economic Implications

An important but difficult problem
in connection with preliterate or pre-
historic civilizations is whether public
works in which great stones were em-
ployed can be taken as evidence of the
existence of a class-differentiated so-
ciety. I believe that in those societies
which engaged in transport of sub-
stantial numbers of stone monuments
of colossal size there existed a devel-
oped system of superordinate authority,

and that these tasks were performed
through the -exercise of control over
the population by the ruling group. The
evidence from Assyria from the 7th
and 8th centuries B.C. supports this
interpretation ( 75 ), a.nd ithe same is
.true of the absolute authority exer-
cised by the Egyptian pharaohs, at
whose orders the obelisks, tomb cham-
bers, colossal statues, temples, and other
constructions were quarriedg shaped,
transported, and ereclted. For Mycenae,
with its cyclopean walls, great tholos
tombs, and the deep shaft graves ex-
cavated in the last century by Schlie-
mann (16), the evidence points to the
existenice of powerful leaders. For the
megalith.ic Europeans of the 2nd and
3rd. millennia B.C., the actual evidence
for all-pow-erful leaders is less clear,
but some au,thorities (20, p. 165; 18,
p. 32; 76) have in.terpreted the mega-
lithic tombs and “temples” such as
Stonehenge as evidence of a strongly
class-structured socielty.

Similar arguments, although admit-
tedly not based on direcit evidence,
are proposed for the Olmec culture
of the 1 st millennium B .C. in south-
eastern Mexico (77, 78) and the cul-
ture of Teotihuacan, Mexico, during
the first five centuries A.D. ( 79, 80 ) .
There is no doubt that.the Aztecs (81)
and the Incas ( 11, 82 ) had strongly
differentia.ted class structures. Agricul-
turists are or have be!en in the past,
movers of multi-ton stone monuments.
This practice is lacking among pre-
agricultural hunting, fishing, and plant-
collecting societies. .An established
farming economy permi.ts and en-

827

.\waw

Sles

courages-through an assured food
supply, long periods of leisure be-
twteen crop harvesting and planting,
population expansion, and eraft splecial-
ization (V. G. Childe’s ;’Neolilthie
flRevolution’ ) development of civili-
zation to a degree which is impossible
in food-clollecting societies (833 84).

The transport of huge stones most
often has a religious or memorial
zurpose (85), for such stones com-
nonly are sculptured to represent ac-
twal persons or deities or are integral
elements o£ relig;ous structures. La
Yenta? with its stone tnonuments, was
a sacred ceremonial center, and the
Olmec colossal heads there are believed
to be portraits o:E great chiefs or
priests, colossal statues of the 18th
and 1 9th dynasties in Egypt repre-
sent Amenhotep III and Rameses IIS
personifications of the sun god th/e
human-headed colossal bull statues of
Assyria show the face of the emperor
and were demonstrably located at the
gates to serve as supernaturaiL pro-
tectors of the palace; and most of the
stones which ;today are dragged b-y
troupes of villagers in the Himalayas,
VMelanesia, Madagascar and Indonesia ,§
are erected as memorials to thle dead.
These southeastern Asiatic groups can
scarcely be characterized as class-struc-
tured societies. When they move and
set up a storle as a rnemorial to a dead
ancestor ( the stone serves the secon-
dary purpose of inlltlencing the spirits
-to bring big harvests), the work is done
by membSers of men’s organizations
(clllbs ) or by large numbers of co-
esident villagers? and although these

stones are relatively large, they seem
rarely to weigh more than 10 o:r 12
tonsn There is rlo compulsion to pro-
rride help in tnoving .stones, and every-
one who aids is fed by the family
whose ancestor is being honored. Cases
are reported 7here the amount of food
required was so great that the project
had to lbe abandloned, or where as
much as S or 6 years were needed to
move a large stone because the surplus
:5vod required had to lbe periodically
regathered (659 p. 362 679 p. 103;
69). Thus these stonestransport events
in southe!asbern Asia and Madagascar
are family-orientedS cooperative proj-
ects which are paid for in :food given
to the workers This is an “individual-
ized’ activity where a single stone is
moved and is different from the much
more complex organized work in
volved, fo-r example in the building of
the fortriess of Sacs,ahuaman in Peru
or St!onehenge in England. Where grea,t

82B

numbers of very large stones are trans-
ported {:o one place, presum.ably some
direction is being exercised. The giant
sculptured phallic monuments at Dim-a-
pur in what is now Naga territory-
were made by ‘4skilled labour which
only a powerful prince in the plains
could command” (63). Dimapur mon-
uments are larger than the stones moved
lby Naga villagers in recent times.

Kapl!an (86) argues that huge con-
structions such as the earth- or rubble-
filled stone-faced pyramids of Meso-
america are not necessarily evidence
*of centralized authority and the exer-
cise of labor direction and cvntrol of
large populations. On the other hand,
thc magnitude and quantity ,of stone
and earth required for some of these
pyramids (87) and indications that the
Pyrlamid of the Sun at T!eotihuacan
uras built as a single shor.t-term proj-
ect imply that more than casual vol-un-
teers showed up for the stone-cutting,
earth-carrying, and odd duties, that a
svell-planned engineering program was
devised and prosecuted by a Iarge
labor forlce of specialisits (stonemasons,
earth-bearers, engineeroverseers ) S and
that the work was carried out on a

planned wand regular basis :1 do not
stlggest that ther;e was actual compul-
sion- in the form of gangs of laborers
working under the la.shS but rather
that some strong persuasion-perhaps
unques.tioning obedience to an author-
ity which indicatled what it wished and
expected to be done resulted in suc-
cessful large-scale cooperative work
projects ( 79, 88 ) . The old view that
th!e pyramids of Egypt wtere built by
slaves .toiling under the whips of over-
seers has given way to the belief that
farm,ers and craftsmen performed the
work, the farmers “working on the
job in payment of taxes during the
season of the [Nile] inundation. when
agricultural work was impossible any-
way” (89).

A similar view of the theocratic so-
ciety of the La Venta Olmecs in the
New World has beien proposed ( 78,
90). Lopez dle Gomara’s account of
the Cortesian conquest of Mexico
(91) presents evidence of the unques-
tioning obedience [Linne (92) felici-
tously called this the Mexican trait
of “submissive religiosity’ I displayed
by the Aztecs whose heroic and hope-
less defense of their city of Tenoch
titlan for inorfe than 3 months ranks
as one of the most remarkable ex-
amples of voluntary and unbending
allegiance to a ruler in all human
history Perhaps this undeviating ae-

ceptance of authority is the key to
understanding the nature and strength
of the motivating idea referred to
above, which has long characterized
the aboriginal socielties of Meso-
america. This kind of relationship be-
twelen the general populzation and those
who held the power may have also
been characteristic of some) perhaps
mostX of the ancient Old World civili-
zations. Slaves or prisoners did serve
in some societies (Egypt, Assyria, Per-
sia ) as the main source of human
labor, but these were the exception
and not the rule.

A generally acceptable definition of
civilization has not yet belen achieved.
S. Piggott defines civilized societies as
“those which workeSd out a solution to
the problem of living in a rellatively
permanent community, at a level of
technological and social development
above that of a hunting band . . . and
with a capacity for storing information
in the form of written documents or
their equivalent.” Sanders ( 93 ) has
recently written that “archaeologists
define civilizations in terms of excel-
lence of techn!ology, and especially by
the presencfe of mlonumental architec-
ture…. More significant, however,
are the social and economic implica-
tions of these telchnological achieve-
ments. They aregalways the product of
a large, organized human society with
marked occupational specialization and
social stratification.” Within the gen-
eral purview of these definitions, one
can argue that transport and use of
multi-ton stones in architecture and
sculpture are the pralplable evidence of
the exercise of authority in socially
sFtratified populations, and, whether
those societies were literate or not,
that these impressive monuments were
often intended to memorialize the per-
son or deity represented, or in whose
name the construction was erected, the
point here being th!at with civilization
there comes a desire, as well as a
means, of leaving a record for the
future (94). If it is to be maintained,
power must be exercised and demon-
strated, and one of the ways which
cer;tain societies devised toward this
end, from Neolithic times on, was to
secure, transport, and erect stones
weighing many tons.

Conclusions

That more and larger stones were
transpo!rted over a much longer time
span in the Old than in the New

SCIENCE, VOL. 153

20. R. J. C. Atkinson, Stonehenge (Hamish Ham-
ilton, London, 1956).

21. , Stonehenge und Avebury and Neigh-
bouring Monuments (H. M. Stationery Office,
London, 1959 ) .

22. T. Heyerdahl, Historia 146, 15-24 (1959);
Aku-Aku (Allen and Unwin, New York, 1959).

23. R. Engelbach, The Problem of the Obelisks
(Unwin, London, 1923).

24. E. H. Stone, Stones of Stonehenge ( Scott,
London, 1924 ) .

25. A. Posnansky, Tiahanacu: the Cradle of
American Man (Augustin, New York, 1946).
The two stones measure 8.5 by 5.0 by 3.2
meters and 8.5 by 2.2 by 2.0 meters respec-
tively.

26. H. H. Gorringe, Egyptian Obelisks (Gorringe,
New York, 1882), pp. 8-9.

27. Another possible source of the idea is T.
Zammit, Prehistoric Malta (Oxford Univ.
Press, London, 1930), pp. 10, 85. The lime-
stone balls of Malta are, however, clearly
too soiTt to have been used in this fashion.

28. W. Wolff, Island of Death; a New Key to
f;ster Island’s Culture through an Ethno-
psychological Study (Augustin, New York,
1948), p. 161.

29. Cambry, Monuments Celtiques ou Recherches
sur le Culte des Pierres (Paris, 1805 ) .

30. L. V. Grinsell, The Ancient Burial-Mounds
of Britain (Methuen, London, 1936), chap. 3.
Montfaucon in 1719 was an exception in
attributing the construction of megalithic
tombs toi people of normal size.

31. H. Roussel, Ann. Sacres-Coeurs No. 309
(1926) .

32. C. Navarrete, Pap. New World A7chaeol.
Found. 7, 10 (1960); D. Duran, The Aztecs,
D. Heyden and F. Horcasitas, Eds. and
translators (Orion, New York, 1964).

33. P. Gutierrez de Santa Clara, A History of the
Civil Wars in Peru (1544-1548) and of Other
Elvents in the Indies (Libreria General de
Victoriano Suarez, Madrid, 1905 ), vol. 4,
pp. 550-551; M. Murua, A History of the
Origin and Royal Genealogy of the Incan
Kings of Peru ( Santo Toribio Institute of
Mongrovejo, Madrid, 1946), p. 110.

34. A. Schatz and V. Schatz, Com post Sci. 1965
19-26 (spring 1965).

35. A. Kennedy, Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh 9,
307-316 (1821).

36. E. A. W. Budge, Cleopatra’s Needles and
Other Egy ptian Obelisks ( Religious Tract So-
ciety, London, 1926 ) .

37. A. Neuberger, The Technical Arts and Sci-
ences of the Ancients (Macmillan, New York,
1930), pp. 398-399.

38. P. Carriou, Bull. Soc. Pre’Stist. Franc. 55,
444-445 (1958).

39. A. Layard, Discoveries in the Ruins of
Nineveh and Babylon (Harper, New York,
1853), p. 116.

40. R. Engelbach, Ancient Egypt 4, 100-102
(1922).

41. D. Fontarla, Della Transportatione dell’ obe-
lisco Vaticano, et delle fabriche di nostro
Signore Papa Sisto V (Rome, 1590).

42. A. Layard, Nineveh and Its Remains (Put-
nam, New York, 1 840 ), pp . 63-85.

43. A. H. Bagnold, Proc. Soc. Biblical Archaeol.
10, 452-463 (1888).

44. “Ancient rain god on the move,” Lif e 57,
89-90 (11 Dec. 1964).

45. B. Cobo, A Hisfory of the New World (Li-
brary of Spanish Author6 from the Formation
of the Language until the Present, vols.
91-92, Madrid, 1956) .

46. D. Dunham, Archaeology 9, 159-165 (1956).
47. V. A. Koppert, Catholic Univ. Amer. An-

thropol. Ser. No. 1 ( 1930) .
48. P. Drucker, R. F. Heizer, R. J. Squier, Bull.

Bur. Amer. Ethnol. 170, plate 9 (1959).
49. H. Lehmann, Marco Polo 27, 13-24 (1957).
50. A. Grandidier and G. Grandidier, Histoire

Physique, Naturelle et Politique de Mada–
gascar (Imprimerie Nationale, Paris, 1917),
vol. 4, p. 63.

51. A. L. Lewis, Materiau.c Iist. Primitile Nat.
Homme ser. 2, 7, 185-187 (1876).

52. S. Dillon Fipley, Nat. Geog. Mag. 97, (No.
1), 35 (1950), shows 60 Nepalese bearers
carrying a Mercedes sedan weighing perhaps
1.5 tons on a litter.

53. E. Naville, Deir el-Bahri (Egyptian Explor-
ation Fund, London, 1898).

54. S. Hassan, Z. Sgypt. Sprache Altertumskurtde
80, 136-139 (1955).

55. A. Layard, Monuments of Nineveh (Murray,
London, 1853 ), ser. 2; C. J. Gadd, The
Stones of Assyria (Chatto and Windus, Lon-
don, 1936) .

56. S. St. C. Davison, Technol. Culture 2, 11-16
(1961).

57. Although earlier suggestions had been made
of the source of the blue stones, the matter
was first definitely settled by H. H. Thomas,
Antiquaries J. 3, 239-260 (1923).

58. P. E. Newberry, El Bersheh (Egyptian Ex-
ploration Fund, London, 1893 ), part 1.

59. I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt
(Penguin, Baltimore, 1961), p. 56.

60. A. Badawy, Deut. Akad Wiss Berlin Mitteil.
Inst. Orientforsch. 8, 325-332 (1963).

61. D. D. Luckenbill, The Annuls of Sen7zacherib
(Oriental Institute, Chicago, 1924), vol. 2.

62. C. von Furer-Haimendorf, The Naked Nagas
(Thacker, Spink, Calcutta, 1962), chap. 2;
J. H. Hutton, The Angami Nagas (Macmillan,
London, 1921), pp. 232-233, 345-347, 40S
406; L. W. Shakespear, History of Upper
Assam, Up per Burmah and North Eastern
Frontier (Macmillan, London, 1914), pp.
89-90.

63. J. H. Hutton, J. Roy. Anthropol. Inst. 52,
242-249 (1922).

64. P. R. T. Gurdon, The Khasis (Macmillan,
London, 1914), pp. 111-113, 144-155.

65. J. Layard, Stone Men of J!Jalekula (Chatto
and Windus, London, 1942 ); description of
coral memorial stone weighing about 32 tons.

66. W. C. McKern, Bishop Mus. Bull. 60, 65
(1929).

67. R. Linton, Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Anthropol.
Ser. 22, 182-185 (1933); H.-M. Dubois, Trav.
Mem. Inst. Ethnol. 34, 666ff. (Paris, 1938).

68. E. Schroder, Nias: Ethnographische, Geo-
graphische en Historische Aanteekeningen en
Studien (Brill, Leiden, 1917), pp. 113-114.

69. J. Roder, Paideuma 3, 84-87 (1944-49).
70. Quarry sources are best determined by com-

parative petrographic studies. For examples,
see F. Alfeld Bol. Soc. Geol. Peru 19, 33-34
(1946); H. M. Fischer, Mineralogie als Hilf-
;issenschaft fur Archaologie, Ethnologie u.s.w.
mit Speciallen Bezuchtsichtigung Mexikanischer
Sculpturen ( Stuttgart , 1 877 ); H. E. Gregory,
A7ner. J. Sci. ser. 4 41, 1-100 (1916); A.
Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and In-
dustries (Arnold, London, 1962); F. W. Shot-
ten, in Science in Archaeology, D. Brothwell
and E. Higgs, Edst (Thames and Hudson,
London, 1963 ), pp. 482-488 ; F. S. Wallis,
Endeavour 14, 146-151 (1955); G. Wilkinson,
Practical Geology and Architecture of Ireland
(Murray, London, 1845).

71. R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology
(Brill, Leiden, 1955), vol. 2.

72. “Earthmoving by Manual Labour and Ma-
chines,” United Nations Flood Control Ser.
No. 17 (Bangkok, 1961 ); O. T. Mason,
A7ner. Anthropologist 2, 21-46 (1889).

73. In addition to works referred to in 2, 4, 9,
13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 56, see T. Kagami-
yama, Bull. Fac. Literature Kyushu Univ. 3,
(1955); I. Takahashi, Rep. Archaeol. Res.
Dept. Literature Kyoto Univ. 14 (Kyoto,
1937) .

74. Comm. Lefebvre de Noettes, La Force Mo-
trice Animale a Travers les Xges (Paris, 1924);
Anthropologie 36, 297-308 (1926); Bull. Soc.
Franc. Pedagogie 30, 31-42 (1928). W. Wat-
son, China (Praeger, New York, 1961 ), p.
93, states that itl China the chest and shoulder
harness was known in the 1 st century B .C.

75. J. Laessoe, People of Ancient Assyria (Rout-
ledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1963 ) .

76. V. G. Childe, The Dawn of European Civit-
ization ( Knopf, London, 1947 ), pp. 302-303;
S. Piggott, The Neolithic Cultures of the
British Isles ( Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam-
bridge, 1954), p. 94; R. E. M. Wheeler,
Prehistoric and Roman Wales ( Clarendon
Press, London, 1925), pp. 102-103.

77. R. F. Heizer, A.mer. Antiquity 26, 215-222
( 1960 ) .

78. , Kroeber Anthropol. Soc. Pap. 25,
43-58 ( 1961 ) .

79. R. Millon, B. Drewitt, J. A. Bennyhoff,
Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 55, 35 ( 1965) .

80. E. Wolf, Sons of the Shaking Earth (Univ.
Of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1959 ) .

81. G. Vaillant, Aztecs of Mexico (Doubleday,
New York, 1941 ) .

82. P. A. Means, Trans. Conn. A cad . Arts Sci.
27, 407-469 (1925).

83. R. J. Braidwood alld C. A. Reed, Cold Spring
Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 23, 19-32 ( 1957) .

84. G. Clark and S. Piggott, Prehistoric Societies
(Knopf, Nesv York, 1965 ), chaps. 8, 9.

85. S. Piggott, J. Roy. Inst. Brit. Architects, ser.
3, 63, 175-1 81 ( 1956) .

86. D. Kaplan, Southwestern J. Anthropol. 19,
397-410 (1963). A clear distinction should be

829

World is obvious. The earlier arrival
of the peoples of the Old World at the
level of cultural development gen-
erally termed “civilization” accom-
panied as it was by a superior tech-
nology (95), goes far to account for
this fact. Similarities, even identities,
in techniques employed in transport-
ing heavy stones (for example, sledge,
ramps) or beliefs about stones (for
example, that stones can will them-
selves to move or remain fixed) are
taken to be fortuitous and indepevnd-
ent convergences of.the same genre as
those cultural parallels recently pointed
out by Caso (96) and Rowe (97).

References and Notes

1. J. K. Finch, The Story of Engineering
(Doubleday, New York, 1960); R. S. Kirby,
S. Withington, A. B. Darling, F. G. Kilgour
Engineering in History (McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1956); C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard,
A. R. Hall, A History of Technology (Oxford
Univ. Press, London, 1954 ), vol. 1; M.
Daumas, Ed., Les Origines de la Cililiza-
tion Technique (Presses Universitaires de
France, Paris, 1962); L. S. de Camp, The
Ancient Engineers (Doubleday, New York,
1963 ) .

2. In addition to citations below, see J. Fer-
gusson, Rude Stone Monuments in All
Countries (Murray, London, 1872); G. Daniel,
The Megalith Builders of Western Europe
(Hutchinson, London, 1958); R. J. C. Atkin-
son, Antiquity 35, 292-299 (1961); B. S.
Browne and R. J. C. Atkinson, ibid. 37,
140144 (1963); P. A. Hill, Scieatce 133, 1215-
1222 (1961); J. E. Watkins, Smithsonian Inst.
Ann. Rep. 1898, 615-619 (1899).

3. R. Engelbach, The Aswan Obelisk (Institut
Francais d’Archeologie Orientale, Cairo, 1922).

4. W. Mulloy, A. Skjolsvold, C. S. Smith, in
The Archaeology of Easter Island, T. Heyer-
dahl and E. N. Ferdon, Jr., Eds. (Forum
Publishing House, Santa Fe, 1961), vol. 1.

5. S. Routledge, The Mystery of Easter Island
(Hazell, Watson and Viney, London, 1919).

6. J. O. Outwater, Archaeology 12, 26-32 (1959);
E. G. Squier, Peru, Incidents of Travel and
ExplorAtion (Macmillan, London, 1878).

7. H. Williams and R. F. Heizer, Contrib. Univ.
Calif. Berkeley Archaeol. Res. Facility 1,
1-40 (1965).

8. M. W. Stirling, Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol.
138, (1943).

9. R. F. Heizer and H. Williams, Contrib. Univ.
Calif. Berkeley Archaeol. Res. Facility 1,
55-70 (1965).

10. W. H. Holmes, Field Columbian Mus. An-
thropol. Ser. 1 (No. 1) (1897); H. Williams
and R. F. Heizer, Contrib. Univ. Calif.
Berkeley ArcZlaeol. Res. Facility 1, 41-54
(1965).

11. J. H. Rowe, Bull. Bur. Amer. Ethnol. 143
(vol. 2) 183-330 (1946).

12. C. O. Becker, Trans. Newcomen Soc. 21,
129-138 (1943); V. W. von Hagen, A Guide
to Sacsahuaman, the Fortress of Cusco (Guild
New York, 1949).

13. F. M. Barber, The Mechanical Triumphs of
the Ancient Egyptians (Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trubner, London, 1900).

14. C. D. J. Bell, Ancient Egypt 1934, 107-114
(1934). These obelisk barges were the largest
boats constructed up to that time. See also
C. V. Solver, Mariner’s Mirror 26, 237-256
(1940); – , ibid. 33, 39-43 (1947); G. A.
Ballard, ibid. 27, 290-306 (1941); – , ibid.
33, 158-164 (1947).

15. S. Clarke and R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian
ANAsonry (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1930).

16. A. J. Wace, Mycenae (Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, 1949 ) .

17. G. Daniel, The Prehistoric Chamber Tombs of
France (Thames and Hudson, London, 1960).

18. F. Niel, Dolmens et Menhirs ( Presses Uni-
versitaires de France, Paris, 1961 ) .

19. J. Dechelette, Manual d’Arche’ologie Pre’his-
torique Celtique et Gallo-Romaine ( Picard,
Paris, 1908 ), vol. 1.

19 AUGUST 1966

made between piece-work constructions such
as Mesoamerican earth or stone rubble pyra-
mids, and moving of multi-ton stones. Huge
eartllwoSrks can be built in a snort time by
many workers, or in a longer period by fewer
workers. Unless we have a fairly clear idea
of the construction time involved, it is only
guesswork to suggest the number of man-
days involved per month or per year. But
with a 10()-ton stone a minimum number
of workers were necessarily involved, and it
is for this reason that I believe transport of
colossal stones offers a more definite avenue
of inquiry into the energy organization of
prehistoric societies. When numbers of
megalithic stone monuments were moved by
one people, it can be assumed that a large
group effort was involved. DespiteH the per-
suasive arguments of Kaplan that the “chief-
dom” type of society operating with an agri-
cultural economy may have achieved such
impressive construction projects as exist at
Teotihuacan or at the major sites of the Olmec
and Maya cultures in Mexico and lowland
Guatemala, I consider the question of societal
type still an open one until more precise in-
formation is available. It is difficult in any
case to see Teotihuacan and Tikal as merely
religious capitals of chiefdoms.

87. The La Venta pyranlid contains about 140,000

cubic meters of earth, the stone-faced Pyra-
mid of the Sun at Teotihuacan about 840,000
cubic meters, and the Pyramid of the Moon
at Teotihuacan about 210,000 cubic meters
of rubble.

88. A. Palerm, Pan. Amer. Union Social Sci.
Monograph 1, 2842 (1955); Ga Cowgill,
Southwester)t J. Anthropol. 20, 145-159
( 1964) .

89. R. J. Forbes, Man the Maker (Schuman,
New York, 1950), p. 44; W. A. Fairservis,
The Ancient Kingdoms of the- Nile (Crowell7

New York, 1962), pp. 80-81.
90. M. Coe, The Jaguar’s Childres1 ( New York

Graphic Society, New York, 1965 ), p 122,
thinks that 31mec Society was not organized
on a theocratic basis but rather, like that of
the Maya, was controlled by “secular lords
who drew their power from lineage and from
conquest.”

91. F. Lopez de Gomara, Cortes, L. B. Simpson,
Ed. and Transl. ( Univ. of California Press,
Berkeley, 1964).

92. S. Linne, Ethnogr. Mus. Sweden, Publ. No. 7
( 1942) .

93. W. T. Sanders, The Cultus al Ecology of the
Teotihuacan Valley (Pennsylvania State Univ.,
University Park, 1965).

94. A point made earlier by J. W. Fewkes,
Snithsonian Inst. Misc. Coll. 61 (No. 6), 4

cubic meters of earth, the stone-faced Pyra-
mid of the Sun at Teotihuacan about 840,000
cubic meters, and the Pyramid of the Moon
at Teotihuacan about 210,000 cubic meters
of rubble.

88. A. Palerm, Pan. Amer. Union Social Sci.
Monograph 1, 2842 (1955); Ga Cowgill,
Southwester)t J. Anthropol. 20, 145-159
( 1964) .

89. R. J. Forbes, Man the Maker (Schuman,
New York, 1950), p. 44; W. A. Fairservis,
The Ancient Kingdoms of the- Nile (Crowell7

New York, 1962), pp. 80-81.
90. M. Coe, The Jaguar’s Childres1 ( New York

91. F. Lopez de Gomara, Cortes, L. B. Simpson,
Ed. and Transl. ( Univ. of California Press,
Berkeley, 1964).

92. S. Linne, Ethnogr. Mus. Sweden, Publ. No. 7
( 1942) .

93. W. T. Sanders, The Cultus al Ecology of the
Teotihuacan Valley (Pennsylvania State Univ.,
University Park, 1965).

94. A point made earlier by J. W. Fewkes,
Snithsonian Inst. Misc. Coll. 61 (No. 6), 4

(1913), who wrote, “Monoliths, as expressions
of a desire to perpetuato the memory or to
commemorate past events, are naturally
found only where the race had arrived at a
self-consciousness of its own power.” G.
Clark and S. Piggott, Preh-istoric Societies
(Knopf, New York, 1965), p. 158, discuss
the theme of the “Neolithic enlargement of
the conceptual horizon in terms of an in-
creased [time] perspective.”

95. A. L. Kroeber, A Roster of Civilizations and
Culture (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1962). See especially pp. 73-86, “Presences
and absences: Old and New World civiliza-
tions. ”

96. A. Caso, Cuadernos Amer. 6, 147-152 (1965).
97. J. H. Rowe, Amer. Antiquity 31, 334-337

(1966) .
98. Acknowledgement is made to the Guggenheim

Foundation for a fellowship during 1964, to
the Miller Institute for Basic Research in Sci-
ence for a professorship in the fall of 1964,
to the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthro-
pological Research and to the National
Geographic Society for travel grants in 1963
and 1964 in connection with field studies on
the subject of this paper. The data for this
article have been drawn from a much larger
collection being prepared for a book to be
published by A. Knopf, Inc.

95. A. L. Kroeber, A Roster of Civilizations and
Culture (Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago,
1962). See especially pp. 73-86, “Presences
and absences: Old and New World civiliza-
tions. ”

96. A. Caso, Cuadernos Amer. 6, 147-152 (1965).
97. J. H. Rowe, Amer. Antiquity 31, 334-337

(1966) .
98. Acknowledgement is made to the Guggenheim

stressed the importance to diSerentia-
tioln of changes in (i) enzyme activi-
ties (1); (ii) RNA metabolism (2); (iii)
gene activation (3); (iv) levels of spe-
cific substrates (4, 5); or (v) inhibitors
(6). At any of these levels of control
the rate of a reaction critical to mor-
phogenesis may be influenced. Since
disagreement and confusion frequently
arise from unexpressed (and usually un-
known) discrepancies in the definitions
of the -words d igerentiation, morpho-
genesis, and development, they are used
interchangeably in this discussion for
the sake of variety; their meaning in
the particular context should be clear.
If diSerentiation were always so com-
plex as to simultaneously involve each
of the types of control summarized
above, it would indeed be difficult to
analyze them all at this stage of our
knowledge. For example, in view of the
role of the gene in controlling the rate
of an enzymic reaction necessary to
differentiation, it is clear that its ac-
tion is distant and indirect, being me-
diated throiugh RNA templates, through
enzymes, and through substrates. Sin e
partial control of morphogenesis could
(and does) occur independently at these
“lower” levels, the extent of their con-
tribution must be understood before we
can clarify the role of selective gene
activation.

As an example of the dependellcc
of one level of control upon another,
let me summarize two cases in which
interpretation of data at the enzyme
level was completely dependent on
knowledge of alter-ations at the sub-
strate and inhibitor level.

SCIENCE, VOL. 153

Entities are not to be multiplied

WitslOUt necessity .-OCKHAM
The correct hypothesis for the solu-

tion of a problem often turns out to
be the least complicate-d one that can
be thought of at the time. Experience
has taught us that “nature operates in
the shortest way possible,” and that
the least complex explanation usually
corresponds to reality. This, of coiurse,
depends on how complicated the prob-
lem really is, and on how close we
are to its solution. The investigator
tnay be unaware that the shortest way
possib]e is in fact long and tortuous,
and may cling to the security of an
oversimplified interpretation which in-
terferes with a search for relevant new

The author is an associate biochemist at the
Huntington Laboratories of Harvard University
at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

830

Entities are not to be multiplied

WitslOUt necessity .-OCKHAM
The correct hypothesis for the solu-

The author is an associate biochemist at the
Huntington Laboratories of Harvard University
at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

830

facts and avoids recognition of the
complexity of the prolblemi In dealing
with icomplicated phenomena wh;ch
are brought about by varied and. in-
dependent forces, searching for a sin-
gle cause or trigger mechanism can
only delay our eventual understanding
of the problems involved. Differentia-
tion !appelars to be such a pheniomenoln
and, with Ockham’s permission, we
shall now proceed, out of necessity, to
m.ultiply entities; show ithat thley are
all required; and even sugges.t that
their very number is an essential aspect
of diSerentiation.

Relatively few processes of morpho-
genesis are both simple enough and
at present, well enough studied to al-
low an analysis of more than one of
the responsible entities (or causes) itls
volved. Many investigators have

Multiple Causes and
Controls in Differentiation

The variety and interdependence of these causes
may be essential to the stability of morphogenesis.

Barbara E. Wright

Multiple Causes and
Controls in Differentiation

The variety and interdependence of these causes
may be essential to the stability of morphogenesis.

Barbara E. Wright

Article Contents

p. 821

p. 822

p. 823

p. 824

p. 825

p. 826

p. 827

p. 828

p. 829

p. 830

Issue Table of Contents

Science, New Series, Vol. 153, No. 3738 (Aug. 19, 1966), pp. 803-910

Front Matter [pp. 803-820]

Letters

HUAC: Academic Challenge [p. 813]

Who Judges the Teachers? [pp. 813-814]

The First Computers [pp. 814+816]

Industry Does Retrieve Information [p. 816]

New Channels for Grants [pp. 816-817]

On Using Inferential Statistics [p. 817]

Political Realities and Educational Needs [p. 819]

Ancient Heavy Transport, Methods and Achievements [pp. 821-830]

Multiple Causes and Controls in Differentiation [pp. 830-837]

Interpretation of Some Organic Photochemistry [pp. 837-844]

News and Comment

Educational Deductions: IRS Wants to Tighten Up [pp. 845-846]

Dogs and Cats: Humane Treatment Legislation Nears Passage [p. 846]

News in Brief [p. 847]

“Bootlegging”: It Holds a Firm Place in Conduct of Research [pp. 848-849]

Announcements [pp. 849-850]

Report from Europe

United States Looks at Swedish Shipbuilding Technology [pp. 850-851]

Book Reviews

Review: The Sixth Column [pp. 852-854]

Review: Food Crops in India [p. 854]

Review: The Nature and Functions of Sleep [pp. 854-855]

Review: Elementary Plant Physiology [p. 855]

Review: Reaction to a Crisis [pp. 855-856]

Review: Papers in Archeology [p. 856]

Review: Chemistry of Seawater [pp. 856-857]

Review: Thinkers Incorporated [p. 857]

New Books [pp. 857-858]

Reports

Artifacts in Polarimetry and Optical Activity in Meteorites [pp. 859-861]

Antarctic Pack Ice: Boundaries Established from Nimbus I Pictures [pp. 861-863]

Radiocarbon Content of Marine Shells from the California and Mexican West Coast [pp. 864-866]

Magnesium in Sea Water: An Electrode Measurement [pp. 866-867]

Rare Earths in Hawaiian Basalts [pp. 867-869]

Potential Freshwater Reservoir in the New York Area [pp. 870-871]

Thermal Recrystallization of Precipitated Zinc Sulfide [pp. 872-873]

Undersea Air Supply [pp. 873-875]

A Chemically Stratified Lake in Alaska [pp. 875-877]

Electrolytic Dissolution of Iron Meteorites [pp. 877-880]

Source of Lead-210 and Polonium-210 in Tobacco [pp. 880-882]

Pancreatic Carboxypeptidases: Activities in Zinc-Deficient Rats [pp. 882-883]

Cylindrical Inclusions in the Cytoplasm of Leaf Cells Infected with Tobacco Etch Virus [pp. 883-884]

Blood Gases: Continuous in vivo Recording of Partial Pressures by Mass Spectrography [pp. 885-887]

Antibody Formation in Nonimmune Mouse Peritoneal Cells after Incubation in Gum Containing Antigen [pp. 887-888]

Terminology of Cell-Water Relations [pp. 889-890]

Infrared Study of the Hydroxyl Bands in Clinoamphiboles [pp. 890-892]

Selection of Sucrose-Dependent Escherichia coli To Obtain Envelope Mutants and Fragile Cultures [pp. 892-894]

Effect of Temperature on the Life of Soap Bubbles, and Their Solidification at Low Temperature [pp. 894-895]

Heterogeneity of Template RNA in Adrenal Glands [pp. 896-897]

Retrograde Amnesia: Effects of Handling and Microwave Radiation [pp. 897-899]

Speech Duration Effects in the Kennedy News Conferences [pp. 899-901]

Acute Phase Protein in Serum of Women Using Hormonal Contraceptives [pp. 901-902]

Magnesium Pemoline and Behavior [p. 902]

Meetings

Allergies: Ecological Approach [p. 903]

Shock Metamorphism of Natural Materials [pp. 903-906]

Diseases of Laboratory Animals [p. 906]

Back Matter [pp. 907-910]

Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00