Real Exam Questions and Answers as experienced in Test Center

CPSM1 Braindumps with 100% Guaranteed Actual Questions | https:alphernet.com.au

CPSM1 Foundation of Supply Management Questions Answers | https://alphernet.com.au/
Sun, 05 Jun 2022 23:46:00 -0500text/htmlhttps://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/obelisk/qanda/ Past questions and answers

Questions and answers from previous weeks of the Viewer Challenge.

Monday 7th December

Question:

"We must leave exactly on time - From now on, everything must function to perfection." Whose words were these, spoken to a station-master and quoted in 1939, part of the mythology that the trains always ran on time under Fascist dictatorships?

Answer:

MUSSOLINI

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 2nd December

Question:

Which village near Vienna is the site of the hunting lodge where the Habsburg crown prince Rudolf and his paramour Mary Vetsera commited suicide in mysterious circumstances in 1889?

Answer:

MAYERLING

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 25th November

Question:

What name is that of an Arian Christian Germanic people who maintained a North African kingdom in the 5th and 6th centuries and who, under their king Gaiseric, sacked Rome in 455?

Answer:

VANDAL

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 7th October

Question:

In cytogenetics, what term describes the entire chromosomal complement of a cell which may be observed during mitotic metaphase?

Answer:

KARYOTYPE

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 30th September

Question:

'In the darkening twilight I saw a lone star hover gem-like above the bay.' This was the last diary entry of which explorer, written on January 5th 1922 at Grytviken in South Georgia?

Answer:

ERNEST SHACKLETON

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 23rd September

Question:

Sao Vincente, Boa Vista and Santiago are among the islands of which republic? It gained its independence from Portugal in 1975, has a population of around half a million, and is situated around 600 kilometres from the coast of West Africa.

Answer:

CAPE VERDE

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 16th September

Question:

'The Strangest Man' by Graham Farmelo is a 2009 biography of which scientist, who applied Einstein's Theory of Relativity to quantum mechanics in order to describe the spin of an electron? In 1933 he shared the Nobel Prize for physics with Erwin Schrödinger?

Answer:

PAUL DIRAC 

__________________________________________________________________________________

Monday 9th September

Question:

Often featuring in photographic illusions caused by forced perspective, which structure was begun in 1173 as the third and final structure of its city's cathedral complex? Designed to be 56 metres high, improvements to the foundations since 1990 have diminished its distinctive aberration.

Answer:

THE LEANING TOWER OF PISA

To the extent it is applicable, this service complies with the BBC’s Code of Conduct for Competitions and Voting.

Mon, 08 Dec 2014 16:42:00 -0600 en-GB text/html https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3l7TpNwQ10gNVcnMjZjSY6j/past-questions-and-answers

CPSM1 Questions Answers - Foundation of Supply Management Updated: 2024

Here is the bests place to get help pass CPSM1 exam?
Exam Code: CPSM1 Foundation of Supply Management Questions Answers January 2024 by Killexams.com team

CPSM1 Foundation of Supply Management

This course focuses on management and improvement of supply chain processes and performance. It will be valuable for students who would like to pursue a career in consulting or take a position in operations, marketing or finance functions in a manufacturing or distribution firm. They explore important supply chain metrics, primary tradeoffs in making supply chain decisions, and basic tools for effective and efficient supply chain management, production planning and inventory control, order fulfillment and supply chain coordination. They will also investigate Topics such as global supply chain design, logistics, and outsourcing, several other latest supply chain innovations.

The class format includes lectures, case discussions, guest speakers, and simulation games. The content covers both quantitative and qualitative materials. The cases will feature high-tech companies as well as firms in more traditional industries such as apparel and manufacturing.



Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) is the first and leading not-for-profit professional supply management
organization worldwide. Its 47,000 members in more than 90 countries around the world manage about US$1
trillion in corporate and government supply chain procurement annually. Founded in 1915 by practitioners, ISM
is committed to advancing the practice of supply management to drive value and competitive advantage for its
members, contributing to a prosperous and sustainable world. ISM empowers and leads the profession through the
ISM® Report On Business®, its highly-regarded certification and training programs, corporate services, events and
the ISM® Mastery Model®. The ISM® Report On Business®, Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing, are two of the
most reliable economic indicators available, providing guidance to supply management professionals, economists,
analysts, and government and business leaders.



CPSM Certification Overview

The CPSM is globally recognized as the gold standard of excellence for supply management professionals, in
both the manufacturing and non-manufacturing sectors. The designation is transportable across industries, job
roles and regions, providing designation holders with flexibility and mobility.
The CPSM is for forward-thinking supply management professionals who desire to demonstrate a broad
understanding of the components of the profession. The program emphasizes the major competencies of supply
management. Those earning the CPSM will attain a greater understanding of end-to-end supply management
and be better positioned to positively impact their organization.



CPSM Eligibility Requirements

Earning a CPSM designation requires you to take and pass three exams, which can be taken in any order:

• Supply Management Core

• Supply Management Integration

• Leadership and Transformation in Supply Management

Candidates must have three years of full-time, professional supply management experience (nonclerical and
nonsupport) with a bachelors degree from a regionally accredited institution or international equivalent or five
years of full-time, professional supply management experience (nonclerical and nonsupport) without a qualified
bachelors degree.

All applicable experience must be in a professional position where the primary function is supply management.
Professional experience is usually defined as positions with decision-making authority and where independent
judgement is exercised. ISM does not require a candidate to work in all areas of supply management or be in a
management position. Proof of work experience is not required from those with a current C.P.M. certification.
ISM will evaluate work experience for candidates unsure if their current or previous positions are considered
applicable. The evaluation is optional, and there is a nominal charge.
The work-experience evaluation process allows a candidate to submit work experience documentation prior
to taking exams. ISM will return an evaluation to the candidate indicating if the experience is acceptable.
Candidates with acceptable experience should submit the evaluation with their original certification application
after they have passed the exams.



- Assess stakeholder needs and organize into sourcing plans 5

- Analyze and advise on feasibility of internal customer requests 3

- Analyze potential sources of products or services 7

- Determine methods to process requirements for goods or services based on cost, 5 timing, existing contracts and competitive bidding, as appropriate

- Conduct analyses to develop insourcing or outsourcing strategy 5

- Identify and implement technologies to support supply management 4

- Leverage spend through the identification, development and execution of 5 sourcing strategies

- Implement strategic sourcing plans aligned with organizational and stakeholder objectives 5

- Prepare solicitations for competitive bids, quotations and proposals with 6 pertinent specifications, terms and conditions

- Evaluate competitive offerings to identify the overall best offer for a product or service 5

CATEGORY MANAGEMENT

- Create a category management plan to meet the organizations key objectives 5

- Execute a category management plan 5

NEGOTIATION

- Prepare negotiation plan that aligns with organizational objectives 5

- Prepare and develop strategies and tactics for negotiations 4

- Lead, conduct and support negotiations with suppliers 5

LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL

- Manage the preparation of contracts/purchase orders 5

- Award contracts to suppliers 3

- Administer contracts and/or purchase orders from award to completion or termination 5

- Perform or obtain legal review of contracts and other supply management documents 4

- Generate and follow supply management processes to ensure legal compliance 4

TASK TASK DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT

- Develop provider qualification plans to assure components, materials 4 and suppliers meet specified requirements

- Develop and manage effective relationships with suppliers 7

- Conduct provider performance evaluations 5

- Conduct regular business reviews with suppliers 4

- Identify opportunities and benefits for rationalizing the supply base 4

- Identify opportunities to drive provider innovation 3

- Develop and implement provider exit strategies 3

- Review provider performance against negotiated service level agreements (SLAs) 4

- Resolve invoice and payment problems 2

- Act as a liaison between suppliers and functional areas to ensure accurate 4 information, documentation and product flow

- Work with suppliers to identify constraints and implement value-added processes 3

COST AND PRICE MANAGEMENT

- Develop cost management program strategies for purchases 5

- Perform cost/benefit analyses 4

- Conduct spend analysis to determine strategies for specific categories 5

- Track and validate cost savings and cost avoidance 4

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

- Prepare and/or administer a supply management department budget 3

- Develop financing strategies for purchases 3

- Verify that sufficient reporting exists 3

TOTAL 180 (including 15 unscored*)

* Included are 15 statistical data research questions which are unscored (not included in your final exam score)



Supply Management Integration Exam

TASK TASK DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

SUPPLY CHAIN STRATEGY

- Develop and/or implement a material or service standardization program 5

- Implement requirements planning to align supply management activities 7 with organizational strategy

- Implement operations planning, scheduling and inventory control processes 6 to ensure optimum use of resources

- Structure the supply chain in support of the organizations business strategy 7

SALES AND OPERATIONS PLANNING – DEMAND PLANNING

- Incorporate the use of sales, inventory and capacity forecasts in the planning 6 of materials production to better meet strategic objectives and goals

- Conduct demand planning 4

SALES AND OPERATIONS PLANNING – FORECASTING

- Analyze and report on market conditions, benchmarks and industry 5 trends to internal stakeholders

- Develop supply forecasts in light of economic and technological trends 5

- Plan and communicate sourcing and supply strategies based on forecasted data 6

- Manage forecasted data with suppliers 5

- Calculate and report forecast accuracy 4

SALES AND OPERATIONS – PRODUCT AND SERVICE

- Participate in new product or service development in support of marketing efforts 5

- Participate in product-service ramp-up and/or ramp-down strategies and implementation 5

- Create systems and process improvements to help the organization meet sales goals 5

QUALITY MANAGEMENT

- Develop and/or administer a provider quality certification program 4

- Develop measurements for quality improvement 4

- Implement continuous improvement processes within the supply chain 6

TASK TASK DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

LOGISTICS AND MATERIAL MANAGEMENT

- Design transportation and distribution policies and procedures to 4 ensure optimum flow of materials

- Manage transportation, invoicing and documentation functions to 4 ensure regulatory compliance

- Manage the resolution of delivery/receiving problems 4

- Analyze provider transportation costs 5

- Develop and/or implement a warehouse management system 5

- Conduct network design and optimization to support the business model, 5 increase productivity and lower operating costs

- Oversee the day-to-day operations of a warehousing function 4

- Develop and/or implement an inventory management system 5

- Coordinate and/or monitor the movement of equipment and assets within the organization 3

- Expedite/de-expedite orders 3

- Develop and/or execute plans and metrics to reduce risk of shortages 4

- Identify cost-effective packaging that meets requirements 3

- Conduct investment recovery activities for surplus/obsolete materials 4

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

- Perform project management activities 8

TOTAL 165 (including 15 unscored*)
Foundation of Supply Management
ISM Foundation Questions and Answers

Other ISM exams

630-005 C.P.M. Module 1: Purchasing Process
630-006 C.P.M. Module 2: Supply Environment
630-007 C.P.M. Module 3: Value Enhancement Strategies
630-008 C.P.M. Module 4: Management
CPSM Certified Professional in Supply Management (CPSM)(Foundation)
CPSM1 Foundation of Supply Management

Thousands of test takers search for updated CPSM1 dumps online but there are few companies that really have updated CPSM1 dumps. They oftely recommend people to view their CPSM1 demo pdf before you buy so that you can be confident that you have found updated and valid CPSM1 dumps that have real exam questions and answers. Othewise, you will waste your money and time. Just be careful.
ISM
CPSM1
Foundation of Supply Management
https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/CPSM1
Question: 120
Which of the following is NOT the group of International Commercial Terms?
A. Group E
B. Group F
C. Group C
D. Group K
Answer: D
Question: 121
Terms where the seller is responsible for delivering the goods to a carrier named by the buyer
is the:
A. Group E
B. Group F
C. Group C
D. Group K
Answer: B
Question: 122
The supply management professional may use which mean to resolve the logical conflicts?
A. Litigation
B. Negotiation
C. Acceptance
D. All of the above
Answer: D
Question: 123
When both parties end a negotiation feeling content with what they have bargained, this is
referred to as:
38
A. Procurement scheme
B. win-win proposition
C. Superior intention
D. Disputed proposal
Answer: B
Question: 124
Organizations that perform freight auditing are called:
A. Traffic consultants
B. Auditing consultants
C. Transportation consultants
D. Service consultants
Answer: A
Question: 125
Which of the following is the area of concern to logistics?
A. Inventory
B. Transportation
C. Customer service
D. All of the above
Answer: D
Question: 126
A measure of velocity of total inventory movement through the organization, found by
dividing annual sales by the average aggregate inventory value maintained during the year is
called:
A. Inventory proceeds
B. Inventory turnover
39
C. Inventory yield
D. Inventory return
Answer: B
Question: 127
The costs of logistics services should be determined; these costs plus an added value or markup
becomes the:
A. Transfer price
B. Productivity cost
C. Operational price
D. Professional supply cost
Answer: A
Question: 128
A scoreboard is simply a form of performance measurement and management that records the
ratings from a performance evaluation process.
A. True
B. False
Answer: A
40
For More exams visit https://killexams.com/vendors-exam-list
Kill your exam at First Attempt....Guaranteed!

ISM Foundation Questions Answers - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/CPSM1 Search results ISM Foundation Questions Answers - BingNews https://killexams.com/pass4sure/exam-detail/CPSM1 https://killexams.com/exam_list/ISM Questions and answers

Who can file an application?

Non-profit organizations in Switzerland planning a project in their funding areas of work integration, career entry or learning and qualifications.

We will gladly accept your application if your project meets their foundation’s support criteria. If you have any questions, please contact the Foundation Office in advance.

Thu, 19 Apr 2018 01:57:00 -0500 en text/html https://www.ubs.com/global/en/ubs-society/foundations/social-issues-education/questions-and-answers.html
6 Questions A Foundation Board Should Ask Its CEO

Serving on the board of a philanthropic foundation isn’t just about approving grants. It’s about being a good steward of resources and sharing responsibility for the foundation’s impact. Too often the focus tends to be on board meeting preparation and the efficiency of these meetings. Take a moment to break from the routine and consider asking your foundation CEO these questions to help the organization focus on the big picture.

1. How does this fit within their strategy?

Let’s say your CEO announces, “We’re going to engage in a county-wide campaign to increase public transportation.” That sounds like a great idea, right? Who could be against public transportation? That’s not the real question — the question needs to be “why?” Asking “why” is not implying that an idea is bad — it’s getting to the substance of why your foundation must specifically be involved in this work. How does it fundamentally help meet your mission? What is the documented strategy where this work fits? Asking “why” helps your CEO and staff revisit the overall purpose of the work and keeps you focused on the long game.

If you don’t have clarity on your strategy, then it’s easy to get lost on what I call the bandwagon byways — all the shiny philanthropic objects that come flying at you: equity, trauma-informed care, emotional intelligence, collective impact, etc. These are all important, but you need to examine them against your strategy and see whether they will help you get to your desired future state. And if you have no strategy, you need one.

2. What’s their progress on their strategic plan?

When was the last time you looked at your foundation’s strategic plan? Do you know how to locate it? If your answers to those two questions are “I don’t know” and “Nope,” then you need to talk with your CEO. There’s a lot of work during the run-up to quarterly board meetings, but often a large break in communication and thinking in between. Strategic plans should be living and present. At every meeting, you should be looking at your goals, strategies and accomplishments and be able to say, “Here’s where they are, and here’s where this new effort fits into it.” Every foundation’s strategic plan needs to be relevant and present so that everyone is aligned and working toward the same vision.

3. How much time do staff spend preparing for board meetings and what does that cost?

I have worked with foundations on projects that absolutely stalled because of an upcoming board meeting. Staff members will say they’re not available for three weeks because they’re preparing. If your board meetings are held four times a year, you’re wasting a total of 12 weeks simply doing meeting prep. That’s three months! And it doesn’t even include the recovery period when staff are exhausted and unproductive, trying to get through a backlog of 300 emails. If you, as a board member, were to calculate the hourly rate of that meeting prep and add 25% for benefits, you would be horrified to understand how much it costs to pull off a board meeting.

The point is to figure out what the board really needs to know. Ask your CEO what changes you can make internally to make meetings more efficient and a better use of time. Maybe the staff has authority to approve grants up to a dollar amount outside of board meetings. Is it necessary to print out each grant application along with a one-page summary, a paragraph summary and a one-sentence summary? Reduce the writing, copyediting, printing and more.

4. What can they do to reduce the cycle time of grantmaking?

In today’s constantly changing environment, it’s becoming even more important for funders to be nimble and responsive. Due diligence remains critical, but you need to find ways to help your foundation streamline the process so you can get more investments to more groups in need. Here are some examples:

Consider rewriting your lengthy grant application to only ask for information you truly need. If it’s not going to help you evaluate an investment, don’t ask for it.

Think about the practices you’ve created to be a good steward that might be increasing time spent unnecessarily. For example, site visits are a great way to see work firsthand, but you aren’t required to do them and they certainly don’t need to take an entire day. Try inviting all applicants to have a meet and greet with the CEO and board members instead.

Letters of intent were created as a way to avoid too many grantees from filling out the long application, but many have now just ended up adding yet another step in a lengthy grantmaking process. If it’s not adding value, remove it.

Talk to your CEO about approving grants on a rolling basis instead of quarterly. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation makes grants on a rolling basis up to and including $1M with only president — not board — review, allowing them to be both responsive and timely in meeting needs.

5. Are they taking enough risks?

Foundations need to be comfortable with risk. This doesn’t mean to forgo due diligence, but it does mean a recognition that not all investments will have the expected result. But in order to support innovative ideas and create transformational change, funders should be willing to take prudent risks. Create an analysis to put your idea through each time to evaluate the risks: cost/benefit, whether it fits strategically with what you’re trying to do, how hard it would be to implement, etc. A wonderful resource to better understand the risk to spur innovation in this field scan, Fostering Innovation in Philanthropy.

6. How can they be more helpful to you?

One of the best ways to find out how to support your CEO is to simply ask. Foundation CEOs are often trying to make it easy on the board and hesitate to let them know anything is wrong. Staff are so busy keeping the balls in the air that they don’t think about ways the board could help.

There are plenty of ways for board members to provide support outside of the quarterly board meeting. Maybe your foundation is getting involved in a collaborative project that has become political and created disagreement—show up at the local City Council meeting to share your support. What doors could you open for your foundation simply by introducing your CEO to 10 people? Take opportunities to anticipate what might be different in the future of your community and anticipate needs. Do you foresee that a large local industry may move or shutter operations? Will a boom in births mean a future strain on community schools? What can your foundation do now to prepare for that?

Many board members are concerned about pushing back on the ideas that foundation staff and CEOs create. Yes, you should trust your CEO and staff and their knowledge of what’s happening on the ground. But so you can all be better connected to the mission and remember what you’re trying to accomplish together. As a board member, your job is to be a good steward of resources and share the responsibility of the foundation’s work. Don’t forget that sometimes that means asking the tough questions.

Additional Reading

Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:18:00 -0500 Kris Putnam-Walkerly en text/html https://www.forbes.com/sites/krisputnamwalkerly/2018/09/24/6-questions-a-foundation-board-should-ask-its-ceo/
7 Vital Questions In Uncertain Times—And How To Answer Them

Panic is a familiar—if unwelcome—emotion for many of us. It is also an unsustainable one. Like a state of excitement, it is too psychologically exhausting to maintain a sense of panic for long. What goes up must come down.

Great leaders intuit that panic is not a healthy foundation for decision-making. So they don’t participate in it. Instead, they make choices that are mindful of the medium to long-term impact on their organizations, or simply delay them for a calmer time. They remain grounded, knowing that what matters most is not what is happening now—but what happens next.

Unforeseen events have a habit of changing how they each relate to the world: their wants, needs, expectations, assumptions and frames of reference. In the light of a new dawn, people tend to seek different answers to the questions they have about their lives. In turn, this changes the demands they place on organizations—with corresponding impacts on markets, categories, competitive sets, products and services, and so on. And someone, something, somewhere, will emerge to satisfy that demand.

So, when panic subsides, opportunity resides. But how do you turn this to your advantage? What sort of questions should you be asking yourself and your team?

Here are seven that, in their practice, they have come to regard as non-negotiable when leading through change. If you can answer them well—which is to say, in a compelling, relevant and distinctive way—then you are all set for the road ahead. If you can’t, it’s time to stop panicking, and start planning.

Q1. Over the next 6 months, what does victory look like?

At the heart of this question is “what does it for us mean to win?” Both the timeframe and the terminology are key.

Entrepreneurial leaders in particular are often good at defining the next week and the next decade—but not the intervening period. But, during times of upheaval, the art of strategy is to plan for the medium term. 6 months is an ideal window—not so short as to feel reactive, not so long as to feel abstract or to create the potential for (further) unanticipated disruption.

How to answer it: in terms of what denotes “victory”, it is worth noting that, psychologically-speaking, we tend to aim for the bars that they set for ourselves. This means that setting them high is advisable. If you set your bar at survival, you may achieve that bar but are unlikely to exceed it by any significant margin. But if set your bar at thriving—to outperform every expectation that you would normally set for your organization—you might find that it maximises your chances of both survival and growth. So: recalibrate your ambitions, and work out what “thriving” means for you.

Q2. How do they expect customer wants and needs to change?

No-one can predict the future, and anyone who claims to be able to do so is a charlatan (hey, futurists). But, in the face of change, it is possible to generate sensible hypotheses about how you expect the nature of customer demand to change. Because demand drives economies, this is essential for any medium to long-range planning work.

How to answer it: start by consulting the history books. For example, major social, political and economic shocks tend to presage an increase in collectivism—which has interesting implications for businesses that service a world in which the individual has often been sovereign. What might this mean for your organization?

It is worth paying attention to your own history as well—which is to say, your own career history and the history of your business. How have you observed customer need changing before—and responded to it? Remember that all things are cyclical; today’s trends will likely have shown up in some shape or form in the past.

Q3. Why is their offering still attractive and compelling in this new reality?

“Why bother?” is an uncommon question in business—and among the most useful. It can bring clarity to almost any situation, from the small (“why bother with this meeting?”) to the existential (“why bother being in business at all?”).

In light of the hypothetical shifts in demand that you have predicted, why do you expect your customers to bother with your offering?

How to answer it: write down a one-line justification, and review it honestly with colleagues and peers (preferably those with no dog in the fight). If the answer wouldn’t inspire an averagely sentient member of your target audience to reach for their wallet right there and then, it might be time for a rethink. Many value propositions fall at the “value” hurdle.

What’s more, note that any new offering must be authentic—which is to say: true to your business and your brand in the eyes of its audience. If the customer wouldn’t expect you to do it, then your go-t0-market strategy will be fraught with risk.

Q4. How would they describe their strategy to a 10-year-old?

Very few strategies are fully fit for purpose. A common reason for this is a lack of simplicity, which points to a lack of clarity in thinking and design.

How to answer it: get reductive. It might sound patronising to advocate explaining your strategy in words that a child can understand, but doing so will force clarity of communication. In turn, this will signpost where plans are woolly or flawed.

On a related note, avoiding business jargon is helpful for employee communication and motivation in general. Do you need to “optimize revenue flows via improved channel synergy,” for example, or just do a better job of selling to your audience, no matter when and where they shop? One of these statements is far more credible and emotionally engaging than the other (although a quick skim of many strategy presentations would indicate that they might disagree on which).

Q5. Do their people have the goods - both attitude and skill - to deliver their strategy?

Leaders—particularly entrepreneurial ones—often have a sixth sense about consumer demand and how to take advantage of it.

But these good intentions often collapse in execution because the organization hasn’t built the competencies, structures or processes to be able to keep the promises it’s making. Almost overnight, the business stops being good at delivering its core product or service and instead becomes mediocre at delivering a new one—a surefire recipe for poor performance.

Times of change also have a habit of upsetting people and draining their energy. Understand: however good your ideas might be, a team of people that is tired or jaded because of latest or historic experience will lack the resources to deliver anything new. Good strategy pays attention to such human factors when appraising feasibility.

How to answer it: go back to basics. Competency frameworks and employee engagement surveys often provide plenty of insights about how stable your foundations are.

Q6. What's the main thing that could go wrong over the next 6-12 months?

Success often relies on being able to anticipate failure. While crystal balls are once again in short supply, as you look to the near future it is possible to generate hypotheses about what might go wrong with your strategy. Perhaps you are exposed on a huge client relationship. Perhaps you have a track-record of burning cash on unsuccessful innovation. Perhaps your team aren’t able to cope with ambiguity, and end up falling into unnecessary conflict.

How to answer it: get ahead of the future. Perform a pre-mortem, and consider how the insights should influence your strategy.

Q7. Water flows around obstacles - what makes your business capable of adapting in this way?

Taoist philosophy suggests that nature has its own unique way of ensuring balance in all things—and that the art of successful living is not to resist occurrences, but instead to adapt to them like water, flowing effortlessly in keeping with the natural order.

Successful organizations behave like water—which is to say, they are almost endlessly adaptable. They don’t resist political, social, technological or economic change. Instead, they work with it, remaining open minded and flexible.

In your organization, the source of your adaptability might be cultural, structural or procedural—or (most likely) a combination of all of these elements. How are you building this capacity? What steps can you take over the next 6-12 months to foster it?

How to answer it: convene your senior team for an open discussion on organizational adaptability. (In 98% of firms, this will be the first time such a conversation has happened.) Map where you’re strong, and build from there.


These questions are not easy to answer well. But, in the face of significant change, it is essential to do so.

Start by getting your leadership team together to discuss them. Be on your guard for assumptions or groupthink. Push yourselves hard. Engage help where necessary.

Finally, when the going gets tough, remember that these seven questions—and the answers to them—are also building vital muscle memory. When the world changes again you will be better placed to handle it. And, looking back over the last twenty or so years, only one thing is for certain: constant change is the new normal.

Mon, 06 Apr 2020 18:27:00 -0500 Phil Lewis en text/html https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillewis1/2020/04/07/7-vital-questions-in-uncertain-times-and-how-to-answer-them/
Armstead Discusses Starting a Foundation, Podcast Hosting and Answers Fan Questions | 49ers You've Got Mail Podcast

Defensive lineman Arik Armstead joined the 49ers "You've Got Mail" podcast presented by Delta Dental to discuss his fourth-straight nomination for the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award, reflect on starting his own podcast and answer fan-submitted questions.

Fri, 29 Dec 2023 04:35:00 -0600 en-US text/html https://www.49ers.com/audio/arik-armstead-walter-payton-foundation-podcast-youve-got-mail
College Presidents Under Fire After Dodging Questions About Antisemitism

Support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T. eroded quickly on Wednesday, after they seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question during a contentious congressional hearing: Would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews?

Their lawyerly replies to that question and others during a four-hour hearing drew incredulous responses.

“It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: Calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything they represent as a country,” said a White House spokesman, Andrew Bates.

Josh Shapiro, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said he found the responses by Elizabeth Magill, Penn’s president, “unacceptable.”

Even the liberal academic Laurence Tribe found himself agreeing with Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, who sharply questioned Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay.

“I’m no fan of @RepStefanik but I’m with her here,” the Harvard law professor wrote on the social media site X. “Claudine Gay’s hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends.”

In their opening remarks, and throughout the hearing, Dr. Gay, Ms. Magill and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. all said they were appalled by antisemitism and taking action against it on campus. When asked whether they supported the right of Israel to exist, they answered yes, without equivocation.

But on the question of disciplining students for statements about genocide, they tried to deliver lawyerly responses to a tricky question involving free speech, which supporters of academic freedom said were legally correct.

But to many Jewish students, alumni and donors, who had watched campus pro-Palestinian protests with trepidation and fear, the statements by the university presidents failed to meet the political moment by not speaking clearly and forcefully against antisemitism.

“It should not be hard to condemn genocide, genocide against Jews, genocide against anyone else,” Governor Shapiro said on Wednesday in a meeting with reporters. “I’ve said many times, leaders have a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity, and Liz Magill failed to meet that simple test.”

“There should be no nuance to that — she needed to deliver a one-word answer,” he added.

By Wednesday afternoon, a petition calling for Ms. Magill’s resignation had grown to more than 3,000 signatures. Marc Rowan, the chief of Apollo Global Management and the board chair at the Wharton School of Business at Penn, asked the board of trustees to rescind their support for Ms. Magill.

“How much damage to their reputation are they willing to accept?” he wrote in a letter to the trustees.

Governor Shapiro, who is a nonvoting member of Penn’s board, urged the trustees to meet soon. University sources, speaking on background, said that efforts were underway to hold a board meeting by phone this week. The university did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Much of the criticism landed heavily on Ms. Magill because of an extended back-and-forth with Representative Stefanik.

Ms. Stefanik said that in campus protests, students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.

Ms. Stefanik asked Ms. Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”

Ms. Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”

Ms. Stefanik pressed the issue: “I am asking, specifically: Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?”

Ms. Magill, a lawyer who joined Penn last year with a pledge to promote campus free speech, replied, “If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.”

Ms. Stefanik responded: “So the answer is yes.”

Ms. Magill said, “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”

Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: “That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?”

In response on Wednesday, Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, did not mince words. “President Magill’s comments yesterday were offensive, but equally offensive was what she didn’t say,” he said in a statement. “The right to free speech is fundamental, but calling for the genocide of Jews is antisemitic and harassment, full stop.”

Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, described the testimony as “a significant fail.”

“There is no ‘both sides-ism’ and it isn’t ‘free speech,’ it’s simply hate speech,” he said in a statement. “It was embarrassing for a venerable Pennsylvania university, and it should be reflexive for leaders to condemn antisemitism and stand up for the Jewish community or any community facing this kind of invective.”

On Wednesday evening, Ms. Magill apologized for her testimony.

“In that moment, I was focused on their university’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable,” she said in a video. “I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It’s evil — plain and simple.”

She added, “In my view, it would be harassment or intimidation.”

She also said that Penn would “initiate a serious and careful look at their policies.”

Both Dr. Gay and Dr. Kornbluth were asked the same series of questions about genocide.

Dr. Gay echoed the idea that it “depends on the context” whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated Harvard’s conduct rules.

Dr. Kornbluth at first replied, “I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on their campus.”

Representative Stefanik interjected: “But you’ve heard chants for intifada.”

Dr. Kornbluth said: “I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.”

Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that the three presidents were “legally correct.”

“It does depend on context,” Mr. Creeley said. But he added that it was frustrating “to see them discover free speech scruples while under fire at a congressional hearing,” rather than in a more principled way.

It was the invocation of context that angered many Jewish groups.

“We are appalled by the need to state the obvious: Calls for genocide against Jews do not depend on the context,” Penn Hillel said in a statement.

Jacob Miller, the student president of Harvard Hillel, said that “the testimony yesterday was a slap in the face, because there was a very easy clear right answer and she opted not to say that.”

Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager and Harvard alumnus, called on all three presidents to resign, citing the exchanges over genocide.

“It ‘depends on the context’ and ‘whether the speech turns into conduct,’ that is, actually killing Jews,” he wrote on X. “This could be the most extraordinary testimony ever elicited in the Congress.”

“They must all resign in disgrace,” he continued. “If a CEO of one of their companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour.”

M.I.T. did not respond to requests for a comment. But on Wednesday, Dr. Gay tried again in a new statement.

“There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students,” Dr. Gay said. “Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten their Jewish students will be held to account.”

Her statement did not say what would constitute a threat, or whether chants of “There is only one solution: intifada, revolution” would meet the definition, as Ms. Stefanik argued during the hearing.

Campbell Robertson contributed reporting.

Tue, 05 Dec 2023 10:00:00 -0600 en text/html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/us/harvard-mit-penn-presidents-antisemitism.html
Questions and Answers

You will undertake placement activity within General Practice and Secondary Care (usually hospitals) to enable you to cover the core areas you will need to work as a Foundation Doctor, to include Medicine, Surgery, General Practice, Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Psychiatry, and specialities such as ENT, Ophthalmology and Musculoskeletal medicine.

You will also cover clinical activities such as radiology and pathology, and Palliative care.

You will have the opportunity to undertake Student Selected Components, which can provide more in-depth placement in areas such as radiology, oncology, clinical genetics and many others, which students find helpful as they start to explore future career options.

Thu, 16 Feb 2023 02:53:00 -0600 en-GB text/html https://www.ulster.ac.uk/faculties/life-and-health-sciences/medicine/study/course/questions
Questions & Answers
Secrets of Lost Empires

Questions & Answers

Live Event Q & As | Additional Q & As | List of Questions

Live Event


Question: In the NOVA about Stonehenge, the A-frame you made had the ropes that the volunteers pull higher than the ropes connected to the rock, and in the NOVA about the obelisk, you had the ropes at the same level. Wouldn't it be easier if you had the A-frame like in the NOVA about Stonehenge? ~Justin

Answer: Yes, it would. That's one of the lessons they learned out of both these operations. If the A-frame had been higher, and in fact even if the pullers in the obelisk operation had been higher, they might have gotten more lift out of the pole. As it was in the obelisk operation, the pole wasn't getting much lift at all, it was actually probably pulling the obelisk down into the turning groove.


Question: Will it be possible to hear a discussion of the obelisk containing the code of Hammurabi? Is the obelisk containing the code of Hammurabi still in existence? ~J.T.

Answer: The code of Hammurabi is on a much smaller obelisk. This is not my area of specialty, but it's not what they raised in any quantity. It contains cuneiform text.


Question: Would the Egyptians have used elephant power to raise the obelisk? They were excellent builders and had a great understanding of mechanics. It seems to me that elephants would be cheaper and less troublesome than slaves, as well as pound per pound much more powerful than men. ~Marshall

Answer: No, the evidence is that elephants did not exist in Egypt after the late Dynastic period or into the Dynastic period, say after 2900 B.C. So they were never common, although they may have been brought in by pharaohs like Thomoses III. He also created a zoo in the Karnak temple. Elephants were never common in Egypt like they are in India today, so they were never part of the construction. It is the case that cows were used and they do have evidence of that, but in moving something as big as the obelisk it was most probably people power.


Question: What was the general attitude of the 200 men who were working on site, the common man's attitude to this project, if you will? ~James

Answer: Well, the attitude of the 200 men working on their site was one of great enthusiasm. They were really into this operation. There was a real team spirit. I don't know if you can notice it in the film, but when the obelisk was successfully tipped and then slid down into a turning groove, the men from Luxor, who are mostly around the obelisk itself, began chanting "Luxor, Luxor, Luxor!" And all the men from Aswan, who were mostly the pullers, began chanting "Aswan, Aswan, Aswan!" So there was a real esprit de corps, a real camaraderie among the team. It was almost like a great sports event where they had won a championship.


Question: What was the time period you had to raise the obelisk? ~Grayson

Answer: Well, I think all told, the whole production was about three weeks. So a good week of that was taken up with preparations of various kinds. To raise the obelisk itself, they maybe had two weeks. And so it was a very short time period indeed. That's why they think with more time, they probably would have successfully gotten it up, but unfortunately, modern production schedules don't match ancient pharaohs' schedules.


Question: Why not use a pulley on level ground to gain a mechanical advantage for the pullers? ~Travis

Answer: Well, they often get questions of why they don't use pulleys in pyramid building or obelisk raising, and one very critical piece of information here was given by Roger Hopkins on the production. He said a pulley is only as good as a wheel is as good as its axle. In other words, they didn't have iron or steel at this period, and for a pulley really to work, you need a very strong axle. A pulley is essentially a wheel. For wooden pulleys or various other kinds of pulleys it just didn't work. They probably had something like the pulley as early as the Middle Kingdom, several hundred years before the New Kingdom, but it was not as powerful as it needed to be if they made it out of steel or iron.


Question: Why not anchor the base in the groove stone with a team pulling in the opposite direction to the lift? ~Kevin

Answer: Well, if I understand the question correctly, this is essentially what Martin Isler had envisioned, that you basically bring the obelisk up to the turning groove and you park it in the turning groove, and then you have men pulling it to an upright position after it's been leveled high enough so the pull has some effect. That's one of the two principal ideas for how you raise an obelisk. And there are definite problems with that. It worked for Martin Isler's obelisk, which was two to three tons, but for a 450-ton obelisk, you don't have that much more room to do levering on the point end of the obelisk. And as you saw on the film, they have a great deal of difficulty just getting a 40-ton obelisk levered high enough so that the pull has some effect. It would have been exponentially more problematic for a 450-ton obelisk.


Question: Do you think having more people pulling to try to erect the obelisk would have made a difference? ~Andrea

Answer: Well, I don't think more people pulling would have made a difference, unless they had gotten them to a higher platform, where the pull had more lift, or unless they had used their A-frame on a higher platform so that the ropes would have had more lift. Otherwise, I think what was happening in their situation is that the pullers were simply pulling the obelisk down towards the obelisk rather than getting their lift out of the pull.


Question: Have you considered a rising road bed level on the lever side of the obelisk, also decreasing the height of the A-frame and extending ropes, as the pharaohs had many more than 200 willing participants? ~Pete

Answer: Well, it certainly is true that they had more willing or unwilling participants than 200. They could have had as many participants as they wanted. The thing is, the whole arena of operation is restricted by the space that is there in front of the great temple pylons or gateways, like in front of the Luxor temple. But any number of configurations can be tried, it just has to fit within the space available, and that includes the number of pullers. For example, in the Luxor temple, where Ramses raised two of the biggest obelisks of all times, and only one remains today, it is not that far from the temple to the river. And they know that the men were pulling on the river side because the turning groove is on the land side. So you've got to take all these different factors into consideration, and they set limitations for how many men, the length of the roadway, and therefore, the height of the roadway and so on.


Question: How many finished obelisks are there in existence now? Were they cut from the same type of stone? Is there any indication about who the sculptors were? ~Jeunesse

Answer: Well, I simply don't know off the top of my head what the total number of finished obelisks may be in Egypt today, although that might be known in the book, "Obelisks, the Skyscrapers of Ancient Egypt." I'm sure they could look it up. The obelisks are mostly of red granite. But there are a number of obelisks from other types of stone. There are a few limestone ones, sandstone ones, and some quartzite obelisks. The makers of the obelisks, that is the overseers in charge and the craftsmen, never signed their work, and this was usually the case in ancient Egypt, that the fine craftsmen, whatever the masterpiece may be, including a masterpiece statue of a pharaoh, they never signed their work. It was not so much the creation of any one of a particular artist, it was more of divine object that was created on behalf of this divine king. It is the case that there are only about four or five obelisks still standing in Egypt in their original sites.


Question: You need to raise the obelisk on a ramp to a height where the center of gravity is at its final height, then secure a frame at the center of gravity, which can be used to pivot the obelisk, which is now balanced at its center of gravity to a vertical position. ~Richard

Answer: Well, that's a good suggestion. I think what the questioner is suggesting is that the frame be actually on the obelisk side of the erection pit rather than the A-frame that they put on the pulling side of the erection pit. Now, if you had some kind of a frame or a windblast kind of tying off of the obelisk, like Martin Isler had, then you could just simply pivot it, you know. That could work. I would be interested in the details of how the frame would be composed. Would it be wood? How would the turning be effected? Again, they don't have pulleys, they don't have cogs, they don't have gears. So it's an interesting suggestion, they need more details.


Question: How different was the scale of the pyramid building from the scale of the obelisk quarrying and raising? ~Mark

Answer: The scale of pyramid building is totally different than that of obelisk raising, especially if you're talking about the early period of pyramid building, the first three or four generations. That's when they built the gigantic pyramids. That was a humongous task. It was building a geological structure with human power, you know, something on the scale of a small mountain. The obelisk is more of a single object and a single event. The obelisk is no less daring, because you have this huge piece of stone, a solid piece of stone, and of course, if you've already put the decoration on and in the erection attempt the whole thing breaks, it's a lot of labor wasted. And so it's a very daring kind of operation. Whereas the pyramid of course is many small operations, many blocks over the better part of probably a generation. The obelisk is a single daring feat of engineering.


Question: Don't you think that they would have come up alongside of the river in order to allow the pullers have the room to move it and then do the hole under the stones supporting it by three stones or so? You could then build a boat or many boats under the stone and let it float out into the river and reverse operation into the end. ~Zoe

Answer: Intuitively they all feel that some kind of ballast and boat operation must have been involved in both loading the obelisk and unloading it. That is, where you use water, water seeking its own level. For example, Roger's idea, which didn't get very well illustrated in the film because of his problems with his little model sinking and so on, his idea was if you, for example, had a slipway and you brought the boat loaded with the obelisk into the slipway and the obelisk was loaded on these cross-beams, you could bring the boat in, put ballast on the boat so that you sink the boat down, the cross-beams catch on the edges of the slipway and, therefore, you've off-loaded the boat. You simply pull the boat out from underneath the obelisk. Roger wanted the obelisk to be loaded in a similar operation, but reversed, where you take balance lost off the boat, the boat floats up on the water until it lifts up on the obelisk on his cross-pole. When you actually try these things, there are numerous difficulties, and the boat boondoggle is something they want to re-examine when they go back to try to do an obelisk.


Question: Is there any symbolism involved with the shape of the obelisk? ~Mary

Answer: Well, there is a symbolism involved in the shape of the obelisk. It probably symbolizes the rays or shaft of the sunlight coming down. It's interesting, at the top of the hatchet's obelisk, she shows herself, Themoses III, giving gifts up. There's the inscription that the upper part of her obelisks were gilded with electrum, a combination of silver and gold. So basically, what you had is the top of the obelisk, where she shows herself in the company of the gods, gilded with blazing medal, so it was actually like the sun reflected off this electrum. So the symbolism of course is a shaft of light that reaches up to where any pharaoh is co-mingling with the divine beings. There's probably also... it's a little bit more convoluted and indirect, but there's also more a phallic observation relating to the sun God Othom.


Question: Instead of using pullers to have to work over their heads, why don't you use a technique called a Spanish Windlass? The rope is anchored at some strong fixed object. By then twisting a looped rope, a tremendous pulling force can be applied over the A-frame by a few people. ~Bernard

Answer: Well, Bernard, they did actually use a Spanish Windlass in Martin Isler's technique, not so much to pull the stone horizontally into an upright position, but if you look closely at Martin Isler's position in the film, he had Spanish Windlasses going off to either side of the obelisk, where the rope was twisted after it, was tied around the butt end of the obelisk, where it was parked in the turning groove. Isler used this to control the movement of the obelisk from left to right, that is, so that it would not move to either side as it was being lifted. So that, as it was being lifted, it was held firmly in place right on its pedestal, right with one edge right in the turning groove. To use a Spanish Windlass actually to move the obelisk horizontally or to raise it upright is an interesting suggestion. But it implies a very long, a very long length of rope, a lot of twisting, and some kind of a platform where all this can be carried out.


Question: How did you calculate the number of men needed to man the ropes? ~Grant

Answer: You know, I can't answer that specifically, because basically they left it up to Ali el-Gasab. Others have asked why they didn't use equations—how many men were needed to raise the obelisk and so on? Ali, who is no longer with us in this world because he passed away this last year, but Ali was literate, and he had worked with heavy monuments all his life, at least 40 years. He knew how to figure how many men he needed, and he had a specific way of calculating how many pullers were required and how many were required on the obelisk-side of the erection pit. Just exactly what his calculations were, I can't tell you, but they know that Ali was calculating.


Question: Why were there no women involved? ~Kathy

Answer: Well, actually, there were women involved. Cheryl Haldane, who was in the film, is an archaeologist from Texas A&M, and I'm not sure if the question is aside from Cheryl Haldane, why there were no women involved in their production, or why there were no women involved in ancient Egypt? Those are two different questions of course.


Question: Why not use a variation on hydraulics? If the ropes were fastened down, isn't it possible to wet them, tighten them, let them dry and shorten, place solid rock under the slightly lifted obelisk and repeat? After all, it's the desert. ~John

Answer: Well, you know, tricks like that, wetted ropes, dry ropes and so on, I wouldn't put it past the ancient Egyptians to have used any kind of technique such as John suggests. It was amazing to us to see how Ali el-Gasab's men tried anything and everything to get that obelisk to move, get it to tip and then get it upright. They tried rollers, they greased the rollers. It was very by crook or by hook. As I said earlier, Ali did much calculating, how many men he needed. As you saw in the film, he made a scale model of it, once the operation was under way, they just attacked with a ferocity and with a spirit that really has astounded us all. And anything and everything went at that point. Now, if wetting the ropes, allowing them to dry and wetting them again worked, they would have used it, any trick they could have used to get the job done.


Question: The process so far seems correct, however, I might suggest the use of timber braces anchored to the ground and lift the obelisk from the backside as they do in the "barn raising" method. ~Len

Answer: That's a very interesting suggestion. Not being Ali el-Gasab and not being the engineer on the project, it sounds good to me. I'd like to know more details.


Question: Did you try the counterweight idea that was suggested by the owner of the quarry? ~Jeff

Answer: No, they didn't try the counterweight idea that was suggested by Hamada, the owner of the quarry. It looked good. It looked good in his model. The problem with counterweight methods in obelisk raising or pyramid raising is you have to deal with the weight that's commensurate with the obelisk or with the heavy stone blocks in pyramid building, and it's almost as though you're doubling your operation, because somehow you have to get the counterweight way up there, too, in Hamada's method, in a height in its own sandbox, where then, when you release the sand, the counterweight sinks and you release the obelisk. So in counterweight, the methods for lifting pyramid stones or obelisks, you have to deal with the problems of getting the counterweight itself to a significant height so that it can then sink and raise it to the height that you want, raise and sink the weight that you want to raise. In both pyramid building and obelisks, you're kind of faced with the same problems, raising the original weights itself.


Question: Why didn't workers stand on the levers when they became too high to reach in order to utilize their weight to increase the downward force on the lever? ~Peter

Answer: Peter, that's a very interesting observation, and I've seen men do that. I've seen them climb up on to these heavy levers, stand on them. But they were using levers the size of railroad ties, although maybe twice as long. They were the same thickness as a railroad tie, and it wasn't just the fact that the levers were getting too high for the men to grab hold of, it was also that maybe six inches from their butt end, the levers are snapping like toothpicks. And this is a very sobering observation, because their obelisk is 40 tons. And yet, given the shape of obelisks, a 400-ton obelisk is not going to deliver you that much more room to lever, and you're not going to be able to use levers that are that much bigger, because men can't get ahold of them. So if their railroad tie-sized levers are snapping like toothpicks on a 40-ton obelisk on its point end, what's going to happen on a 450-ton obelisk, even if the men were standing on them? Of course it's not—it's kind of a precarious place to stand up on a lever. Even if they were standing on them, levering begins to look a little bit inadequate to the job of the very big obelisks that they know were successfully erected by the ancient Egyptians.


Question: What other obstacles did you and your colleagues face, not including the problems of transporting and testing? ~Aaron

Answer: That's a very good question. The film focuses on transporting and raising, and mostly on raising. One of the big problems they faced, which must have been a problem faced by every ancient overseer, was finding a big enough patch of granite where they could quarry an obelisk, even with modern means, without there being fissures and cracks in it. It was a hard job just to find a big enough patch of uniform granite that they could take out a 40-ton obelisk. Think how much they must have searched and done trial trenches and probes to find a good patch of granite where they could get a 400, 300-ton obelisk. That's just one problem. They spent many, many days, actually weeks, looking through the quarries to find a good patch of granite.


Question: Wouldn't a series of A-frames beginning at the top of the obelisk and being succeeded by a taller A-frame, as the first for the job and so forth, cement the levers that could be filling in the space behind the obelisk with rock and dirt to the point at which the center of gravity is over the base and the obelisk was standing by itself? Would this work? ~Lee

Answer: Well, Lee must be an engineer, because Lee has just anticipated what some of the engineers we've already consulted have suggested for Obelisk II, that with a series of A-frames you're getting a series of poles, almost like when you lever a heavy weight and you get purchase with your lever, you get some rise out of the load, you secure that rise by putting in rocks underneath it, then you get more purchase, more leverage and so on. This has already been suggested, a series of A-frames, and it's one of the things they're going to try in Obelisk II.


Question: Would it be possible to create a supporting cage-like structure at the bottom of the obelisk made from wood? This would have to be strong enough to withstand an impact into the bottom of the pit. Once in, with the extra angle while the men were pulling, it could be set on fire, a wood version of the sand pit. The only problems I see are the speed of the barn and how much heat the obelisk could withstand. Good luck. ~Sarita

Answer: That's an amazingly creative suggestion. I'm not sure what would happen in that case. One thing I would just note is that heat will spoil the surface of granite, and they showed that in the film, where Roger started dressing the surface of granite by creating a fire over it, and you see those big flakes pop off. So that's one thing you might have to worry about. You might have to worry about the heat creating cracks through the granite as well. Cracks are feared by every granite worker. Even their 40-ton obelisk, as they were pulling it out of the quarry, a very hairline crack appeared and every worker noticed it. Quarry owner Hamada went into a panic, and so I don't think he'd want to do anything, including heat, and the differential between heat and cold that would cause the granite to crack.


Question: It might be easier to slide the obelisk down a concrete ramp to the anchor stone rather than drop it, using sand and creating guess work. That way, a short, lightweight wooden test obelisk could be used to work out the proper alignment between the obelisk and anchor stone. It might also be easier to create a raised hill behind the obelisk so that the A-frame would rest above the obelisk. The pullers would be on the down slope of this hill. What do you think? ~Geoff

Answer: Well, the last part of Geoff's suggestion sounds like the kind of thing they were trying in a very cursory way at the end of the project with the A-frame. And it's a good suggestion. I do think that the pullers have to be on a ramp that's high enough and the A-frame has to be high enough that they're getting lift out of the pole, something that we've talked about in other questions.


Question: Could not triangular wedges in alternation—small to large, with the small making room for the large—be used from the rear to lift the obelisk? ~Tim

Answer: This suggestion of Tim's is really a good and very insightful suggestion. When they were doing "This Old Pyramid," they found that wedges were one of the most useful tools of all. They actually recreated ancient Egyptian wedges, where the ancient Egyptians put handles on the wedges. And there's nothing better when you've gotten a little bit of lift out of a three-ton block than sticking a wedge in, and you can stick a wedge in underneath to secure your lift, the lift you've gotten out of it when you have a handle on it. And also, when they were moving the obelisk that weighed 40 tons, the obelisk was so heavy it was literally crushing the rather thin rollers that they were using. One of the ways that the workmen would get some lift out of the obelisk is to get the pressure up off the rollers to pound in wedges with sledgehammers. Wedges are just marvelous little things, and it's a very good suggestion. I think it's something they probably used in an ad hoc way, not to raise the obelisk to its final height or to a height where they could pull it upright, but wedges are very powerful little tools and very handy for a lot of lesser operations.


Question: Weren't slaves used in Egyptian times to move the obelisks? ~Matt

Answer: Well, were slaves used? It is the case there was slavery in ancient Egypt. Mostly slaves were domestic slaves, though, in households. The image they have from biblical stories and so on, of masses of slaves doing great labor projects, is probably not very accurate. Or the image they have, for example, from the film "The Ten Commandments," where the masses of the Hebrew slaves are raising the obelisks and doing other tasks is probably not accurate. There were specialists who were involved in these operations, but it is the case that prisoners of war could be assigned to working the granite in Aswan. And they do know that being sent to the granite was a punishment for various kinds of crimes. When it actually comes to raising the obelisk and pulling it, they probably would not have assigned that operation to slaves. Slaves would more have been involved in the quarries for shaping the granite, that very hard, pounding work. The real raising of the obelisk, when it was successfully quarried, after it had been successfully transported to the religious capital, and after it had been decorated with its hieroglyphs, was certainly not entrusted to people who were enslaved, it was probably entrusted to specialists and workers who had the same kind of spirit that their men showed from Aswan and Luxor.


Question: When are you going back to Egypt to try this again? ~Becky

Answer: Well, the plans now call for us being back in Egypt with another team down in Aswan in February and March for their second attempt of raising the obelisk, using ancient Egyptian tools, techniques and operations.


Question: Were the pyramids built at around the same time as the obelisk?

Answer: No. In fact, the gigantic pyramids that are most popular in most people's imaginations were a good 1,200, 1,300 years before the giant obelisk was raised. That shows you how long Egyptian civilization lasted. The pyramids belonged to the Old Kingdom, and the obelisks belong to the New Kingdom. In between Tutankeman and the pyramid of Kufu is more than 1,200 years.


Question: Did your experience trying to raise the obelisk, but failing, deliver you any ideas about how to do it better? ~Karl

Answer: Yes, it gave us many ideas about how to do it better. For one thing, if they had had a higher ramp which is to say a deeper turning pit, they would have gotten more lift from the tipping operation. That is to say that when they brought it over the edge of the ramp and tipped it down into the pit, and then slid it down that one side of the pit down to the turning groove, if their ramp had been higher on that side they would have gotten more lift out of the tipping operation. If the ramp had been higher on the other side, they would have gotten more lift out of the pulling. And if we'd used an A frame and the ramp had been higher on the other side it would have achieved more lift as well.


Question: Have any obelisks ever fallen over? ~Mary

Answer: Of a series of obelisks that once stood in the great Karnak temple, eight or nine must have fallen over or have been removed. Engelbach, the British engineer who wrote the major study of the unfinished obelisk at Aswan chided the ancient Egyptians for not having better foundations underneath the pedestal on which the obelisk sat and he blamed this for some of the obelisks having fallen over. In addition to obelisks of course being forcibly removed, like the one in front of the Luxor temple that was the mate to the one that still exists, a whole number of obelisks must of fallen over (about eight or nine). It's thought that one of the principle reasons they fell was earthquakes and not so much the bad foundations that Engelbach pointed to. They know that there's been at least one earthquake if not more that caused considerable damage in the Karnak temple, not just to the obelisks but to the giant pillars and architrazes.


Question: How was the bottom side of the obelisk (attached to the quarry) freed from the granite? ~Angela

Answer: The first question they know the answer to with a fair degree of probability because they have spines of—if not obelisks—long granite blocks that have been snapped off. The evidence from the quarries is that just as they channeled around the obelisk simply by pounding the granite to create these separation trenches or channels, so also they channeled in underneath. That must have been a really difficult operation. It was difficult enough for workers to sit in the trench pounding all day as narrow as it is (as you saw in the film), but to actually start pounding the face of the granite in underneath the obelisk to free it up must have been really difficult, but that seems to be what they did. When the two sides came close enough so that there's simply a spine of natural rock still attached, then they got great levers and probably levered from one side to snap the obelisk off that spine. The evidence is that there are spines that exist in the quarries where they've snapped off blocks after channeling in and under them from both sides.

Additional Q & As


We regret that Mark Lehner will not be able to respond to any additional questions; he has been called to Egypt to partake in a ceremony celebrating the completion of the conservation of the Great Sphinx on the Giza plateau.

Question: A smaller version of the obelisk had been raised by draining sand from underneath it. If there were stops in the movement of the obelisk, such as poles placed in layers through the sand, wouldn't that solve some of the problems in positioning the obelisk at the right point to meet the turning groove? ~Stacy

Answer: Stacy, you know that might. In all fairness, they didn't do a completely fair test of the sandbox method. The sandbox idea was first suggested by Engelbach, which as you know, weighs about 1168 tons. Engelbach's idea was not that it would be a box, but that it would be more like a funnel. And the bottom of the funnel would be the same size as the base of the obelisk itself so that the obelisk would have nowhere to go but down to that base. It wouldn't be able to get askew and stuck like it did in Roger's sandbox. The sides of the funnel would have been sloping and smooth, and I don't know that you would have needed stops. One of the main problems with Engelbach's sandbox or sand funnel is that the obelisk would get stuck even more than it did in Roger's sandbox. Of course then, you also have the problem, as Hamada pointed out, of men underneath the very heavy obelisk, 450 tons or whatever, taking the sand out. Our sandbox, anyway, in the film, was not a completely of what Engelbach was suggesting.


Question: Somebody recently proposed that the ancient Egyptians might have harnessed wind power to raise obelisks, using giant airfoils or kites. What do you think of that notion? ~Rosemary

Answer: I don't think it's very likely that the Egyptians harnessed wind power to raise obelisks. There's no suggestion in the historical or archaeological record that they created such contraptions or that they had the technology that would have been required for aerial lifting devices like that—something powerful enough to raise something as heavy as 300 or 400 tons.


Question: The same small canal that was built to float the stone to the site could be used to fill a large pool that is built higher as the water level rises. Animal skin bladders attached to the obelisk would gently float the stone upright. This method would "baptize" the stone in the holy water of the Nile as well as provide an aqueduct and reservoir for the workers and city. It's just a theory but it seems plausible. ~Dustin

Answer: It was probably beyond the Egyptian's hydraulic technology to have a series of locks that would raise the obelisk on water or just raise the water itself as high as they needed to get it to set it upright. Water lifting was always very limited in ancient Egypt from the known evidence. In the Old Kingdom pyramid age, water lifting was by means of shoulder poles with pots slung over the pole. By the 18th dynasty, by the New Kingdom, that is by the time of obelisks they could lift water with something called a chaduf which is a huge lever with a water receptacle on one end and a counter weight on the other. By that means, they lifted water from canals into fields so that they could be perennially flooded. But a system of locks like those that pass ships through great canals like the Panama canal or through the barrages in Egypt today were probably beyond the means of the ancient Egyptians. The water displacement would also have to be significant to float that obelisk and that's a factor in how they transported it on the boat but to do it with animal hides you'd have to have considerable displacement and it's very unlikely that they had those means so that they did it in that way.


Question: How did 400 tons of granite get on to the sled? ~Adam

Answer: This question reflects one of those operations that they tend to overlook when they launch into programs like building pyramids and raising obelisks, trying to replicate the ancient Egyptians' technology. It is indeed very difficult as they found out in "This Old Pyramid" to load a sled with a block of stone weighing many tons. The first time they tried this they rolled a stone over to the sled and then onto the sled but because it didn't land on the sled on dead center, it actually pushed the sled down into the sand and the sled was sticking up into the air and the stone of course was chewing the wood and splintering it. So how you load something like 400 tons or 456 tons, the weight of the heaviest obelisks that they know (other than the unfinished ones) onto the wooden sled is a very good question and it would be excellent to try to replicate that in their next shot at doing an Egyptian obelisk. One idea is you could tie the sled to one side of the obelisk, so that the obelisk is firmly lashed to the sled and then you could simply turn the whole assembly, sled and obelisk over very carefully and slowly by levering. But it must be a delicate operation to do that with so much weight and not to completely crush and splinter the sled.


Question: I'm just curious why an engineer was not included on the erection team. In 30 minutes I calculated all the forces and geometries necessary to raise the obelisk using sophomore level engineering skills. I estimate that with two wood structures (similar to the one used in the team's last ditch attempt) and a platform capable of supporting 1/4 the obelisks weight the obelisk could be lifted with between 150 and 300 men (assuming each could generate a pull equal to his weight). The Egyptians are famous for their fantastic engineering feats. Isn't it foolish to try to duplicate them without extensive knowledge and understanding of the field? ~Dan

Answer: Our purpose was not to test how they could raise an obelisk, or even how sophomore-level engineering math would help us raise an obelisk, but how the ancient Egyptians might have done it. Now it may be in fact that they had engineering and that because they didn't have engineers on the team they were ignorant of engineering skills and calculations that the ancient Egyptians might have done. In their next attempt they still want to stick to the task - not of completely replicating an ancient Egyptians obelisk project (cause they can't do that without replicating the entirety of Egyptian society) but we'd like to once again try out particular tools, techniques, and operations like loading a sled, like the tipping operation, like raising it up on its pedestal. But they will have, in addition to hands-on know how, an engineer on the project. So they will always be checking that the engineering skills they bring to bear when we're testing a particular tool, technique, or operation are not exceeding the bounds of what was available to the ancient Egyptians.


Question: Are there any ancient records at all, however obscure or fragmentary, on how obelisks were raised? ~Antonio

Answer: They have no manuals for obelisk erection in ancient Egypt. And there are no explicit scenes showing all the workmen that would have been required to raise an obelisk. What they do have are symbolic scenes of the king raising obelisks, because in a sense all these assembled people and all these workers were an expression of the king's personal body and might. So rather than showing all the workers doing it they show the king doing it and then of course it's just a symbolic representation; the king has a rope around the obelisk and he is ritually pulling it up. It looks very easy of course because the king in fact in such scenes is nearly as tall or taller than the obelisk that's shown. They have the Ansatasi Papyrus where one scribe chides another one about his level of skill in figuring out various kinds of operations, one of which is raising a colossal statue of the king (not an obelisk), but it makes some kind of an obscure reference to compartments containing sand which is why those who favor the sandbox method point to this. But aside from that Papyrus and the symbolic representations, what we're left with is the evidence on the ground in the way of the obelisk bases, the turning grooves, the evidence of the unfinished obelisk in the quarry and the evidence of the obelisk that is still standing in Egypt from ancient times.


Question: Is there any danger that when you manage to tip the obelisk into its upright position that it will topple over the other side from its momentum? ~Howard

Answer: Yes. One of the things they did not learn from their experiment is whether, even if they had successfully raised that obelisk, it would have stood. When they quarried the obelisk from the quarry using modern means, it was a bit banana shaped and one of the things that must be required for an obelisk to stand upright successfully with no attachment, simply standing on its own is that it be plum - that is that the vertical axis of the obelisk be straight and that the center of gravity in that direction be fairly centered within the body of the obelisk so that the weight isn't distributed to one side or the other. The other point is that the vertical axis of the obelisk has to be fairly perpendicular (I would imagine) to the base. Now the base of an obelisk is fairly small. If you have bumps and dimples in the base of the obelisk, it's going to make it unsteady. So all those conditions have to be met and the interesting question is, how did the ancient Egyptians quarrying the obelisk by means of channels that they were pounding out and then pounding it under and snapping it off at the spine, during all of that how did they achieve an obelisk that met all of these specifications.


Question: Did all the effort that went into building these massive monuments, like the pyramids and the obelisks, use up so many resources that it was detrimental to society? ~Jack

Answer: No, probably not. Certainly not with obelisks. By the time that obelisks were set up Egyptian society was populous enough and complex enough that raising the obelisk and quarrying it and transporting it and then raising it was really probably drawing on a large number of workers and resources but not so many that it was actually a drain on society. Of course the pyramids are different, especially the gigantic pyramids of the early part of the pyramid age, like the pyramid of Khufu at Giza. It's so huge that it must have drawn on resources nationwide. But an interesting possibility is rather than it draining resources, it actually had a nation-building effect for Egypt because it was a socializing process where people were brought from villages and communities throughout the land to the center where they saw this Cecil B. De Mille epic of hundreds, probably thousands of people working on this common project. And the evidence they have is that most of these laborers were seasonal and they worked for a certain stint, a certain period of time, maybe a month, and then they were spun off and replaced. Certainly there were skilled workers who were there permanently. But to come into such a labor project, to see instead of a few hundred people in your village thousands of people, to be part of a nationwide project, and then to be spun off again and return to your home - it must have been a very powerful socializing experience. And rather than it being detrimental to Egypt as a nation it actually may have helped build Egypt as a nation.


Question: It seems like working on a project like raising the obelisk or building a pyramid would be, while hard, very rewarding. Can you think of any projects today that would generate a similar feeling? ~Mary

Answer: You know, it's hard to think of projects today that would have a similar feeling, because society is totally different today than it was then. One of the most revealing operations in NOVA's ancient technology series, I think, is the Incan bridge-building operation, where the different families go out on the hillside and they pick grass and they weave their grass into segments of twine, and the different families combine their segments or lines of twine into rope, and on the day of building the bridges, the different families combine their rope into big cables that the different villages donate to the bridge, so that the bridge is really an intertwining or an interweaving of all the different families, households, and villages of that particular culture. There's some evidence that in ancient time, monuments were built the same way, and that pyramids in ancient Egypt were built by the turning out of labor from teams from different communities. So when they actually raise something like an obelisk, not only did you have the enthusiasm and the excitement that they had from teams from Luxor and a whole other team from Aswan chanting and celebrating, but you had teams from all over the country.


Question: What is the significance of the writing on the sides of the obelisk? ~Jen

Answer: Well, the writing varies. For the most part, it is the names and titles of the kings who raised the obelisk. Kings have five different names and various titles, and so that's by and large what would decorate the sides of the obelisk, as well as images of these kings giving offerings to the gods. As I said in an earlier question, the obelisk kind of raised the king's image up into the heavens, and being gilded with a combination of gold and silver, called Electrum, and that blazing in the sun, the king's image is literally combined with the images of the gods up there in the sky as well as the King's names, all aglow and glittering in Electrum. Hatshepsut, on her obelisk, added something else. She added the whole story of how she sent a team out to quarry the obelisk, transported, raised it at the temple of Amman; that's in addition to her story about how she went about raising these monuments.


Question: When you go back, how many methods will you try? And will you have the same amount of time and other constraints as you did last time? ~Gene

Answer: Well, they don't know for sure yet. We're still in the process of talking about that. It would be nice to try to do a little thinking so that their attempts to replicate an ancient Egyptian operation are not constrained by a modern film and production budget and time schedule, so that they at least deliver ourselves enough time to try one or two or three things as thoroughly as possible. One of the things we'd like to try in the future is not just different ways of raising the obelisk, we'd actually like to try to construct some kind of a boat that would test how they might have transported the obelisk down the river of Aswan.


Question: Did working on this experiment make you feel at all like you were able to get inside the minds of the ancient Egyptians? ~David

Answer: Well, that's a good question. I'm not sure they can get inside the minds of the ancient Egyptians, but let me tell you that whatever the thoughts may be of popularizing ancient technology by trying these replications of tools, techniques and operations, whatever shortcuts they might have to take for a modern, popular film production, nothing beats actually getting your hand on limestone blocks that way, two or three tons in building pyramids. We're actually getting face to face with the granite in raising an obelisk. That's one of the real values of these productions. In the film on obelisks, you saw a bunch of men down in that trench that actually defined and separated the unfinished obelisk. Until you actually get down in that trench with a dolerite pounder that weighs five kilograms, and you just for a few minutes swing it up and down with your arms, you can't appreciate what human labor really went into creating the monuments they see all over Egypt. They didn't get so much in the minds, but they saw the physical bedrock reality that they had to deal with—what motivated them, what gave them their spirit of accomplishment, what gave them the spirit that they saw in the men from Aswan and Luxor who worked for just three weeks on this project.


Question: What do you think accounts for people's fascination for all things Egyptian, especially the pyramids? ~Francesca

Answer: That's one of the most profound and difficult questions that anyone could be asking. I've worked with the monuments of ancient Egypt for 25 years now. I've spent years and years with the pyramids, I've lived in Egypt for 13 years straight before coming back to the United States, and still I don't know the complete answer to that question. There's something about ancient Egypt that has a pull on everyone in the modern world, not just Americans, the Europeans, Japanese, people worldwide. Various answers that I've tried out and worked to some extent, but aren't completely satisfying, include that the Egyptians were terrific designers. Something about the way they depicted the human being, pyramids, the temples, the obelisks, they were just great designers in an architectural sense.

I think also part of the attraction of ancient Egypt is that it's so very old. It's one of the earliest civilizations on their planet. And it's so very big. Everything they did in their monuments is big. The pyramids, the obelisks, the temples, the statues, and they were able to do these very big things because they had easy access to hard and soft stones, limestone, granite, other kinds of stone. And so they could build these colossal monuments in stone that survived the ages. Whereas other civilizations, like the Sumerians, built in mud brick, so they don't see their accomplishments as much.

Even in ancient times when the Greeks and Romans came to Egypt, they were astounded by these skyscrapers. It's as though you walked into Manhattan or something for ancient times. These days, as civilization races towards some kind of a future, we're not sure what, with such dramatic changes over such short periods—automobiles, skyscrapers, computers—I think we're filled with a lot of anxiety as to where we're going. I think when they look back to times over the horizon, when they feel a little bit lost in their own civilization, there's something very appealing about this lost ancient Egyptian civilization. Maybe we're looking for some kind of an answer for what we're going through now. It's hard to know. There's no quick easy answer to that question.


Question: Do you know if there are any obelisks in private collections? ~Jon

Answer: Well, if there are obelisks in private collections, I don't think they're as big as the biggest obelisk that Ramses II made. I don't think there are any obelisks hiding in private collections anywhere. Obelisks started out as very small monuments. Some of the oldest obelisks they know about are about knee-high. They're made out of limestone and they were put in front of the tombs of prominent households in the Old Kingdom, noblemen and so on. There could be small obelisks like that that could be in private collections.


Question: When did the society that was responsible for building the obelisk come to an end and what caused its downfall? ~Maura

Answer: The society that was responsible for building the obelisk was that of ancient Egypt. One easy way to think of this is that ancient Egyptian civilization lasted from 3000 B.C. to 30 B.C. That's about when Cleopatra IV died. However, the heyday of obelisks was in the 18th Dynasty, Egypt's age of greatest empire, and that came to an end about 1000 B.C. So the empire gradually dissolved. Other great powers were on the rise, the Assyrians and later the Persians and of course the Romans, and just exactly why it fell into demise is a complicated question. It's one of the kinds of questions that archaeologists write Ph.D. dissertations about.


Question: Do you think the Egyptians knew that the granite was extremely durable and chose it for that reason or was it just the material they had available to them? ~Marc

Answer: No, Marc, they certainly knew that granite was durable. As a matter of fact, granite probably had a very definite symbolic magical significance for them. Just why the different kinds of hard stone and soft stone that they built in were chosen for various monuments they aren't sure. There's enough to suggest, though, that there were magical reasons that we're missing, that granite had a definite magical purpose, as did alabaster, limestone, and the black granite and other hard stones like dolorite. So there was probably a symbolic reason for the stone that was chosen.


Question: Why was the obelisk seated into the turning groove at a 32-degree slope? Was it because the breaking system was not adequate? Solve this problem so that you can begin the raising from a 45-degree or greater start point. Now, how about some camels, oxen, horses, or elephants for some real power? Good Luck, and Aloha from Maui!!! ~Gregory

Answer: Yeah, OK, you�re right. They should have had the obelisk at more than 32 degrees. Next time they hope to have it more like 45 or even steeper. And they recognize that that's one of the problems. We'll try to correct it next time. Camels and elephants are out, because the ancient Egyptians didn't have camels and elephants. But they did have oxen, although probably in a delicate operation like moving the obelisk they would have not have entrusted it to oxen, they would have used manpower.


Question: It seems to me if you can not pull the thing up why do you not just push it up? I would tend to think that if you applied force to the other side of the obelisk it could possibly go up easier than if you pulled on it from the side you are. By the way I loved the sand trap ideas. ~Craig

Answer: I'm not sure what Craig means by pushing it up. It depends on how the obelisk comes in on the other side, the opposite side from the pullers. If it comes in lying down or nearly lying down like Martin Eisler had it, then you can't push it. It's a question of lifting. And even if it comes in at a 32-degree slope or so, the way they did the big obelisk in the film, it's still a question of lifting, not pushing. And the lifting, of course, has to be done with levers. So I'm not quite sure what Craig means by pushing.


Question: The ancient Egyptians were the most prolific stone movers in history. Is there any written history on how they may have moved massive stones over large distances? I remember seeing a show on TV where the stones were set in place by dragging them over a hole filled with sand, the sand was then removed through an access tunnel, and the stone was slowly set in place. The effort required (by any method) to move the Stonehenge stones over a 20-mile distance would have negated any method of raising them that would have been considered a gamble. Although your system worked, I believe the stones were set into place with some type of dampening agent to ensure that the stones were not damaged. What do you think? ~Lowell

Answer: Is there any written history on how they may have moved massive stones over long distances? The only depiction they have of moving a very massive weight any distance is from the Middle Kingdom, the 12th Dynasty: a tomb of a man named Jahuti Hotep. And there is a scene in his tomb, or there was a scene, it's very badly damaged now, of, I believe it's 172 men pulling a very heavy, large, colossal statue. The statue is estimated to have weighed 54 tons. So you have long lines of men going off in different ropes. That's the only scene depiction they have. They have text mentioning people who went to quarries to get stones for pyramids, stones for obelisks, stones for monuments, and in a number of cases they have specifications of the boats that were built. I think there's a man named Aneni who went to fetch an obelisk for Thutmoses I, and he records, I believe, the construction of a barge to transport it, that's about 3/4 the length and width, that is the width is about 3/4 the length. And so they have inscriptions like that, but nothing real detailed.


Question: What is the estimated time (months, years) that it took the ancient Egyptians to erect an obelisk (e.g., the largest one), from the first chip in the quarry to the final touches of the upright piece? ~Jon

Answer: Hatsupsut records that it took her seven months to build her obelisk in Karnak. I believe that would be the pair of which one is still standing. And if I recall correctly that is the total time she says it took to quarry, remove, transport and raise the obelisk, seven months.


Question: Rather than using a ramp composed of two straight sections, why not use a parabolic curve in the second part of the ramp? The parabolic part might help move the obelisk around since the contact surface is reduced (though you'd need a much stronger sled) and as the drop rate could be controlled, it gives a better chance for the obelisk not to break upon landing on the base. Furthermore, that might help position the obelisk closer to vertical—then it would be easier to pull to its completely vertical position. What do you think? ~Steven

Answer: A parabolic curve, indeed, would reduce the amount of contact between the obelisk and the ramp down to the pedestal. But it probably would have been a bit difficult to construct that parabolic curve out of mud brick, for example, or stone rubble, or mud brick compartments filled with stone rubble and debris, or filled with sand. And it's unlikely that they would have built in stone simply to create a parabolic curve, since most of the materials they used for secondary constructions, like ramps and embankments and so on, were mud brick and debris.


Question: How did the Egyptians make the giant mounts of dirt? ~John

Answer: Well, they probably transported most of the material simply with men carrying baskets, the way workers carry dirt on excavations today. It may seem astounding that they could have carried enough debris, sand or dirt, for making these huge embankments and ramps and so on. But in fact, that's what they did. And they did it on a regular basis, not only for raising large monuments, but for creating the dikes and canals on which Egypt's irrigation, agriculture depended. So they were very used to moving dirt, which they did for their basic infrastructure all the time.


Question: My husband and I sail a 42-foot sloop. On their mainsail, they have a multiple-block system that allows me (at 130 lbs.) to adjust their mainsail with one hand. The Egyptians were accomplished boaters. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Egyptians may have had similar technology? If so, could you use it with your A-frame structure to lift the obelisk? ~Heather

Answer: I believe it's very true that there should be important clues in their nautical technology. I, myself, am not a boat person. So I'm not totally conversant with a multiple block system, which is what Heather is suggesting. But the A-frame, for example, that's been suggested as a gaining, as allowing the Egyptians to gain a mechanical advantage in lifting the obelisk, the A-frame and the way it operates may have been very similar to the way they see masts operating on early boats, which are very narrow kinds of A-frames, in fact. It's not a single piece. It seems to be two pieces, with cross pieces like a very narrow A-frame. And I think the end plate is a very good one, that the way they raised these heavy masts and other aspects of nautical technology probably holds clues as to how they did heavy weights like obelisks. In their next production, they hope to be having not only an engineer, but also an ancient boat specialist on the scene. Not just to try various ways of transporting the obelisk on a boat, but maybe also to deliver us insight into lifting operations, as Heather suggests, on land, for raising these heavy weights.


Question: Weren't a lot of obelisks put up two at a time? If so, then couldn't a lowering platform for one obelisk be used as a raised level workman platform for the second obelisk? Efficient use of mud-brick with no need for A-frames. ~Dennis

Answer: Weren't a lot of obelisks put up two at a time? Well, whatever ramps and embankments they used for raising one obelisk probably were used for two when the obelisks were put up in pairs. And quite often they were. In their operation they had a great pit between two ramp sections. And the pit—of course at the bottom of the pit, you had the base of the obelisk. And the pit was for the tipping and then raising operation. They would have had to move the pit, obviously, or else had two pits, but that was no problem. They could have filled them in. So yes, indeed, they could have built one great ramp embankment system, sloping up from both sides, or to either side of the temple pylon, with this great entrance. And when they wanted to, they probably would have had to have raised the obelisk then in sequence, doing the farthest one first, putting it down into its pit, if that's the method they used. And then there it stood, you see. And then the other one from the direction that the obelisks were being brought in, would have been brought in and set up. Obviously, you couldn't have one obelisk standing and being in the way of the other one. That would imply that if they did use one ramp embankment system, it also suggests something about the order in which the two obelisks were put up.


Question: I have a book called "Babylon Mystery Religion—Ancient and Modern" by Ralph Woodrow that includes a chapter on obelisks. On chapter five, page 34, the obelisk at St. Peter's Square at the Vatican is depicted in an old drawing being raised inside an elaborate giant scaffold-like structure surrounding the obelisk lifting with ropes from the top. I can't tell, but pulleys, which certainly increase the mechanical advantage, may be at the top of the structure. Would this technology have been available to the Ancient Egyptians? ~Chris

Answer: There is some evidence that the Egyptians had a pulley-like device as early as the Middle Kingdom. Whether these pulleys would have been useful in moving heavy weights like obelisks is doubtful, because as Roger Hopkins points out, a pulley is a wheel, and the wheel is only as good as its axle. And until you have iron and steel you just can't get a strong enough axle to have a pulley taking and distributing weight on the scale of 400 and 300 tons, which is what the largest obelisks weigh.


Question: Could the structures shown near the obelisk have been used to erect them? A drum connected to the nearby structure could be used to wind up a rope, thereby lifting the obelisk into position. This would require the technology of turning the drug (or roller) as the method of propulsion (like a come-along) instead of pulling the object with ropes and using the rollers only as a way to reduce friction. Did they have this technology? ~Ed

Answer: While it's been suggested that the structures near the obelisk might have been used to erect them, some people have suggested in fact that the temple pylons, the great front wall of the temple that stood right behind the obelisk, or in front of which the obelisks were raised, that that pylon could have been used as a lifting platform for ropes and men. The problem is that the turning grooves aren't on that side of the pedestals of the obelisks. The turning grooves are usually perpendicular to the front of the temple, so that the obelisks were brought in alongside the temple, front temple wall. It's probable then that none of the giant statues or the front wall of the temple was very useful in raising the obelisk—that temporary banks, embankments and ramps would have been used.


Question: Do you believe the ancient Egyptians saw the obelisks as holy? Also, as I watched your show someone said that the ancient cities were built to last through eternity. What was the logic behind that question? Did the Egyptians actually believe their empire would last forever? ~James

Answer: Well, did the Egyptians believe their empire would last forever? Yes, they did. They expressed that wish again and again. They believed their empire, their temples, the great Karnak temple and these obelisks would stand forever. They had two words for "forever." One was djet, which means permanently forever. And the other is Neheh, which means continuously forever, for all the cycles of time. In other words, forever and ever. Now I mean somebody who might have been a skeptical person in ancient Egypt might have wondered if in fact that was the case. And they do have some skeptical literature from the ancient Egyptians themselves. Once their civilization had lasted from 2,000 years or more, they began looking back and seeing some of the earlier structures that their ancestors had built already in ruins. So they weren't dummies. They could see that things fell apart. It's an interesting question though, because they could ask it about ourselves. Has any of us thought whether the World Trade Towers in New York City are supposed to last forever? What is the planned obsolescence of a skyscraper? What is the planned obsolescence of say, Manhattan or downtown Los Angeles? Do they think these things will last forever?


Question: Make an A-frame, put the crossbar 3/4 of the way down. Then attach ropes to the obelisk (at the top) and to the A frame (at the top). Now attach more ropes to the crossbar, have your volunteer crew pull these. This will increase your leverage and multiply your pulling power 3 times. This should be more than enough to right the obelisk. (name withheld by request)

Answer: Well, they certainly believe that there are many more possibilities with either one or multiple A-frames, and that they can in fact, increase their leverage and gain a greater mechanical advantage. And that's one of the things that we're going to be trying when they go back to continue to try to raise the obelisk.


Question: Could the wooden support that the obelisk rests on, as it is dragged to its resting point, have wheels at its base (somewhat like a dolly), so when it is in the tilting slot or groove, it would be easier to put upright (like their arm and elbow), then when it's in position, burn the support dolly at the same time making settling adjustments. (name withheld by request)

Answer: Well, here they have a suggestion about wheels again, that maybe it could have been on some kind of platform and then it was wheeled into place. Once again they come back to the notion, as they were talking about with pulleys. A pulley is a wheel, and it's like all wheels, the wheel is only as good as its axle. And in order to carry really heavy loads, wheel systems like great semi-trucks and so on, have very powerful axles, to say nothing of their engines, and so on. But the axles and the frame of a flatbed truck, a mach truck or a semi with very heavy weight—they're very powerful. Of course it's made out of hard iron and steel. Without iron and steel it's hard, I believe, to make a wheel system that will carry a heavy load. That's not to say the Egyptians didn't have the wheel. They certainly did. It's just that it was not adaptable to carrying very heavy loads, because they did not have that, they were not that fluent in the use of iron, and certainly they did not have steel. Iron really comes in in a big way about the 26th Dynasty. That's the earliest that it's there in a big way. They have examples of iron before that. So iron is not really there, prevalent much before say 525 B.C.


Question: I think if they used a column or wheel of significant weight to roll down a ramp a precise distance and speed with said wheel or column winding up pulling ropes as it travels. I think diameter of wheel plus weight of wheel plus angle of said ramp, plus using A-frame would lift obelisk. ~Marc

Answer: Marc is talking about a wheel again, but I think it's a slightly different suggestion. It's not so much a suggestion of using a wheel with an axle. But another idea is to make heavy stones themselves wheels of sorts by putting wood pieces against the sides of the stone block for example, the wood pieces being rounded so that when you put four of them around four sides of a block, you actually created a wheel out of the block, and then you can roll it along. I mean that's more feasible with stone blocks for pyramids, but probably not feasible at all for a long tapering obelisk. I'm not sure if that's what Marc is suggesting, but it reminds me of that suggestion at any rate.


Question: I would like to throw in my two cents about how to float the obelisk. Did you forget that the Nile is only recently the victim of human flood control? Ancient solution: build a drydock on the flood plain. Tie a barge off atop the drydock. Load the obelisk during the dry season. Wait for the floods—float away. Tie up at a similar facility down river. Wait for waters to recede. Unload the obelisk. Stone/rock piers aside the drydock would help in on/off loading. ~Saxon

Answer: Well, we're back to that suggestion they were suggesting earlier about building a drydock on the flood plain. And I think it's a very good suggestion. And it's something that it would be nice for us to try. In order to try this, since the Nile basin of which I spoke, the flood basin that held the water for six to eight weeks out of every year when the Nile flooded its banks, these basins no longer flood. The dikes and levees of course are no longer in repair because just the high dams, the Egyptian Nile Valley no longer floods. So in order to test this idea, which I think is a good one, we'll have to create their own drydock in their own little basin and somehow try to have it flooded. It could be a whole operation involving pumps and so on. We'll see what they can do when they get back to Aswan.


Question: On the show, the obelisk is left unraised. Was the obelisk ever raised? The show is several years old; have there been any new discoveries that show how the ancients raised a 400-ton obelisk? (name withheld by request)

Answer: Will the obelisk ever be raised? I don't know that there have been any new discoveries about how they raised obelisks. The interesting thing is that most of the theories were already on hand before they did their show. It's very rare, if ever, that people have done the kind of experimental archaeology where you actually go out and pull these heavy weights and raise them and so on. I'd like to emphasize again that in the shows, this whole pyramid and obelisks that they did with the ancient technology series with NOVA they were not doing 100 percent replications of ancient pyramid building or obelisk raising. They were trying specific tools, techniques and operations to gain greater insight and I think they did. I don't think they can actually make much progress on new theories without that kind of experimentation. Nobody has ever tried to raise an ancient Egyptian obelisk using the ancient tools, techniques and operations before. And I know that they haven't done it since, or at least as far as I know no one has. That may be one of the reasons why there have been no new insights in the few years since they did the obelisk film. Our hope is that we'll come up with some new insights and possibly even some new theories when they go back to Aswan and deliver it another try.

Secrets of Lost Empires Home | Stonehenge | Inca | Obelisk | Colosseum | Teacher's Guide


Editor's Picks | Previous Sites | Join Us/E-mail | TV/Web Schedule
About NOVA | Teachers | Site Map | Shop | Jobs | Search | To print
PBS Online | NOVA Online | WGBH

© | Updated November 2000





CPSM1 pdf | CPSM1 questions | CPSM1 resources | CPSM1 teaching | CPSM1 exam Questions | CPSM1 history | CPSM1 approach | CPSM1 Free PDF | CPSM1 information search | CPSM1 tricks |


Killexams exam Simulator
Killexams Questions and Answers
Killexams Exams List
Search Exams

Source Provider

CPSM1 Reviews by Customers

Customer Reviews help to evaluate the exam performance in real test. Here all the reviews, reputation, success stories and ripoff reports provided.

CPSM1 Reviews

100% Valid and Up to Date CPSM1 Exam Questions

We hereby announce with the collaboration of world's leader in Certification Exam Dumps and Real Exam Questions with Practice Tests that, we offer Real Exam Questions of thousands of Certification Exams Free PDF with up to date VCE exam simulator Software.