Aji^-. 26, 1875J 



NATURE 



337 



The genius for dealing with large masses in building did not 

 pass away with the pyramid builders in Egypt, but their descen- 

 dants continued to gain in mechanical knowledge, judging from 

 the enormous blocks which they liandled with precision. When 

 the command of human labour was unlimited, the mere trans- 

 port of such blocks as the statue of Rameses the Great, for 

 mstance, which weighed over 800 tons, need not so greatly ex- 

 cite our wonder ; and we know how such blocks were moved 

 from place to place, for it is shown on the wall paintings of 

 tombs of the period which still remain. 



But as the weight of the mass to be moved is increased, it 

 becomes no longer a question of only providing force in the shape 

 of human bone and muscle. In moving in the last century the 

 block which now fonns the base for the statue of Peter the Great, 

 at St. Petersburg, and which weighs 1,200 tons, force could be 

 applied as much as was wanted, but great difficulty was experienced 

 in supporting it, and the iron balls on which it was proposed to 

 roll the block along were crushed, and a harder metal had to be 

 substituted. > To facilitate the transport of material, the Egyp- 

 tians made solid causeways of granite from the Nile to the 

 Pyramids ; and in the opinion of Herodotus, who saw them, 

 the causeways were more wonderful works than the Pyramids 

 themselves." 



The Egyptians have left no record of how they accomplished 

 a far more difficult operation than the mere transport of weight — 

 that is, how they erected obelisks weighing more than 400 tons. 

 Some of these obelisks must have been lifted vertically to place 

 them in position, as they were by Fontana m Rome in later 

 times, when the knowledge of mechanics, we know, was far 

 advanced.* 



The practice of using large blocks of stone either as monoliths 

 or as forming parts of structures has existed from the earliest times 

 in all parts of the world. 



The Peruvians used blocks weighing from 15 to 20 tons, and 

 fitted them with the greatest nicety in their cleverly designed 

 fortifications.* 



In India large blocks were used in bridges when the repug- 

 nance of Indian bujlders to the use of the arch rendered them 

 necessary, or in temp>les, where, as in the Temple of the Sun at 

 Orissa, stones weighing from 20 to 30 tons form part of the 

 pyramidal roof at a height of from 70 to 80 feet from the ground.' 

 Even as late as the last century, Indians, without the aid of 

 machinerj', were using blocks of granite above 40 feet long for 

 the doorposts of the gateway of Seringham, and roofing blocks 

 of the same stone for a span of 21 feet.* 



At Persepolis, in the striking remains of the palaces of Xerxes 

 and Darius, more than one traveller has noted the great size of 

 the stones, some of which are stated to be 55 feet long and 6 to 

 10 feet broad. 



So in the Greek temples vi Sicily, many of the blocks in the 

 upper parts of the temples an? from 10 to 20 tons weight. 



The Romans, though they did not commonly use such large 

 stones in their own constructioi.<3, carried off the largest obelisks 

 from Egypt and erected them .it Rome, where more are now 

 to be found than remain in Egypt. In the temples of Baalbek, 

 erected under Roman rule, perhaps the largest stones are to be 

 found which have been used for liuilding since the time of the 

 Pharaohs. The terrace wall of on ? of the temples is composed 

 of three courses of stones, none of which are less than 30 feet 

 long ; and one stone still lies in th«^ quarry squared and ready 

 for transjiort, which is 70 feet lonjj and 14 feet square, and 

 weighs upwards of 1,135 'o"s, or ne.irly as much as one of the 

 tubes of the Britannia Bridge. 



I have not meniiontd dolmens and menhirs, rude unhewn 

 stones often weighing from 30 or 40 to«s, which are found from 

 Ireland 10 India, and from Scandinavia to the At'a^, in Africa. 

 To transpoit and erect such rude masseb required httle mecha- 

 nical knowledge or skill, and the opeMtion has excited more 

 wonder than it de?crves. Moreover, Fergusson has gone far to 

 show that the date assigned to many of tliem hitherto has been 

 lar too remote ; mos.t, and possibly all, of those in northern and 

 western Europe having been erected since t.\ie time of the Roman 



' Kondelet's "Traite de I'Art de BSlir," voL i. p. 73. 



^ Herodotus, bk. ii. c. 124. 



3 For obelisk erected at Aries, 1676, see RonH.olet's " L'Art de Batir," 

 vol. 1. p. 48. Its weight was nearly 200 tons, and it was suspended vertically 

 by light ships' roasts 



* Fergujson's " History of Architecture," voL ii. p. 779 ; Squier, " Peru," 

 p. 24. 



5 The Temple of the Sun was built i337-x28a A. D.— Hunter's " Orissa," 

 vol. i pp. 288, 297. 



6 Ferguison's " Kude Stone Moutunents," p. 96. 



occupation. And to this day the same author shows that men- 

 hirs, single stones often weighing over 20 tons, are erected by hill 

 tribes of India in close proximity to stone buildings of elaborate 

 de.«ign and finished execution, erected by another race of men. ^ 



For whatever purpose these vast stones were selected — whether 

 to enhance the value or to prolong the endurance of the build- 

 ings of which they formed a part — the tax on the ingenuity of 

 those who moved and placed them must have tended to advance 

 the knowledge of mechanical appliances. 



The ancient Assyrians and Egyptians had possibly more know- 

 ledge of mechanical appliances than they are generally credited 

 with. In the wall paintings and sculptures which show their 

 mode of transporting large blocks of stone, the lever is the 

 only mechanical power represented, and which they appear to 

 have used in such operations ; nor ought we to expect to find 

 any other used, for, where the supply of human labour was un- 

 limited, the most expeditious mode of dragging a heavy weight 

 along would be by human power ; to have applied pulleys and 

 capstans, such as would now be employed in similar undertak- 

 ings, would have been mere waste of time. In some countries, 

 even now, where manual labour is more plentiful than mecha- 

 nical appliances, large numbers of men are employed to trans- 

 port heavy weights, and do the woik in less time than it could 

 be done with all our modern mechanical appliances. In other 

 operations, such as raising obelisks, or the large stones used in 

 their temple palaces, where human labour could not be applied 

 to such advantage, it is quite possible that the Egyptians used 

 mechanical aids. On one of the carved slabs which formed part 

 of the wall panelling of the palace of Sardanapalus, which was 

 built about 930 years before our era, a single pulley is clearly 

 shown, by which a man is in the act of raising a bucket — pro- 

 bably drawing water from a well.* 



It has sometimes been questioned whether the Egyptians had 

 a knowledge of steel. It seems unreasonable to deny them this 

 knowledge. Iron was known at the earliest times of which we 

 have any record. It is often mentioned in the Bible, and in 

 Homer ; it is shown in the early paintings on the walls of the 

 tombs at Thebes, where butchers are represented as sharpening 

 their knives on pieces of metal coloured blue, which were most pro- 

 bably pieces of steel. -^ Iron has been found in quantity in the ruined 

 palaces of Assyria ; and in the inscriptions of that country fetters 

 are spoken of as having been made of iron, which is also so 

 mentioned in connection with other metals as to lead to the sup- 

 position that it was regarded as a base and common metal. 

 Moreover, in the Great Pyramid a piece of iron was found in a 

 place where it must have lain for 5,000 years. * The tendency of 

 iron to oxidize must render its preservation for any long period 

 rare and exceptional. The quality of iron which is now made 

 by the native races of Africa and India is that which is known as 

 wrought iron ; in ancient times. Dr. Percy says the iron which 

 was made was always wrought iron. It is very nearly pure iron, 

 and a very small adaition of carbon would convert it into steel. 

 Dr. Percy says the extraction of good malleable iron directly 

 from the ore "requires a degree of skill very far inferior to that 

 which is implied in the manufacture of bronze."' And there is 

 no great secret in making steel ; the natives of India now make 

 excellent steel in the most primitive way, which they have 

 practised from time immemorial. When steel is to be made, the 

 proportion of charcoal used with a given quantity of ore is some- 

 what larger, and the blast is applied more slowly than when 

 wrought iron is the metal required. ^ Thus, a vigorous native 

 working the bellows of skin would make wrought iron where a 

 lazy one would have made steel. The only apparatus required 

 for the manufacture of the finest steel from iron ore is some clay 

 for making a small furnace four feet high, and from one to two 

 broad, some charcoal for fuel, and a skin with a bamboo tuyere 

 for creating the blast. 



The supply of iron in India as early as the fourth and fifth 

 centuries seems to have been unlimited. The iron pillar of Dellii 

 is a remarkable work for such an early period. It is a single 

 piece of wrought iron 50 feet in length, and it weighs not less 

 than 17 tons.'^ How the Indians forged this large mass of iron 

 and other heavy pieces which their distrust of the arch led them 

 to u.se in the construction of roofs, we do not know. In the 



' Fergu.sson's " Kude Stone Monuments," pp 461-465. 

 ^ Layard's " Nineveh and its Remains;," vol. ii. p. 31. 



3 Wilkinson's "Ancient Egyptians*," vol. iii. p. 347. 



* Vyse's " Pyramids of Gi^eh," vol.i. p. 275. 



5 Percy's " Iron and Steel," p. 873. 6 Ibid. p. 259. 



^ Fergusson's " Hi.story of Architecture," vol. ii. p. 460; and " Rude 

 Stone Monuments," " " 



India,' vol. i. p. 169. 



1-3. Cunningham's " ArcheoTogicad Survey of 



