Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3475e3479

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Applying GIS tools to define prehistoric megalith transport route corridors: Olmec
megalith transport routes: a case study
Leslie C. Hazell a, *, Graham Brodie b
a
FILAS, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia
b
Melbourne School of Land and Environment, Melbourne University, Dookie, Victoria 3647, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Applying spatial data management and analytical tools is an accepted method for investigating potential
Received 7 March 2012 settlement patterns. This study applied Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to the study of
Received in revised form Preclassic Olmec megalith transport in Mesoamerica. The GIS slope gradient tool was used to identify
16 May 2012
potential transport corridors with gradients of less that 1:10, which defines the limit of human effort
Accepted 17 May 2012
needed to control these stones as demonstrated in ethnographic and replication experiments by various
researchers. These outcomes were also used to refine transportation methods and likely start points that
Keywords:
would be used to cross lowlands near to the San Lorenzo centre of Olmec society.
Olmec
Megalith transport
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
GIS analysis
Slope gradient

1. Introduction aspects of this complex undertaking. In Mesoamerica transporting

Stone use is enduring evidence of the industry, enterprise and
resource of prehistoric cultures. Transporting large stones or
megaliths was a pivotal part of this prehistoric industry. The
methods and routes that were chosen for this undertaking continue
to be the subject of debate and have given rise to considerable
speculation. The sources for stones were often distant from their
final position and the routes that were used to retrieve the stones
traversed difficult terrain or open seas (Hazell, 2011). The sources
and routes often bypassed, what to modern eyes, may seem to be
suitable stones and more convenient sources; so adding significant
logistical issues to the problem of stone retrieval.
A limited material and often fragmented, archaeological record,
limits any endeavours to determine the methods and routes that
were used to undertake these monumental activities. To overcome
this, ethnographic examples are often cited (Ayres and Scheller,
2001; Dillon, 2004; Heyerdahl, 1958; Souden, 1997) and replica-
tion experiments (Atkinson, 1960; Ayres and Scheller, 2001;
Richards and Whitby, 1997; Van Tilburg, 1995) are also used as
a basis for research.
Experiments have limitations because the conditions under
which they were conducted may differ substantially from those
encountered by ancient cultures and are unlikely to replicate all
* Corresponding author. 105 Lewis Road, Tatong, Victoria 3673, Australia.
Tel.: þ61 3 5767 2353.
E-mail address: leshazell@activ8.net.au (L.C. Hazell).
megaliths involved technological knowledge, logistical expertise
(Diehl, 2007) and significant resources to overcome terrestrial
features and e according to some e oceanographic hurdles (Coe,
2000; Stuart, 1993; Velson and Clark, 1975). While some aspects of
replication experimentation are inappropriate it is still possible to
use human physical capabilities, identified in replication experi-
ments and corroborated by ethnographic observations. These sour-
ces have been adopted as part of Geographic Information System
(GIS) analyses in order to identify viable and sustainable land route
options and transportation methods (Ayres and Scheller, 2001;
Erasmus, 1965; Heyerdahl, 1958; Horvath and Finney, 1976; Irwin
et al., 1990; Richards and Whitby, 1997; Schiffer and Skibbo, 1987).
This Mesoamerican investigation of Preclassic (1800 BCe
400 BC
) Olmec society megalith transportation includes these
and other challenges including limited field survey access to the
large areas involved and securing sufficient funds to study such an
extensive site; therefore another technique was required to study
this geographically extensive transport problem. The focus of this
study was on land transport of megaliths used in sculptures known
as the Colossal Heads, ten of which were found at San Lorenzo.
Large numbers of stones, most weighing between 6 and 26 tonnes,
were moved to this area and also to La Venta, which was another
major and later Olmec complex. For this research a mean mass of
twenty tonnes has been adopted.
This paper documents our use of GIS technology to determine
whether viable land routes and methods, which comply with
human power capability calculations and terrain conditions, can be

0305-4403/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.015
3476 L.C. Hazell, G. Brodie / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3475e3479
established. The outcomes derived from this work were able to
show that ancient Olmec could have transported stones by land
in contrast to the more favoured open water and river routes.
However, it went further by defining some transport methods
because ground conditions also precluded the use log rollers, sleds
and wheeled vehicles, even though the wheel was known to Olmec
society, as evidence of wheeled toys demonstrate (Charnay, 1974).
The distances involved are considerable, and the terrain is
challenging, with swamps, floodplains and rivers, many of which
are seasonal. From their source near Cerro Cintepec in the Tuxtla
Mountains to their final destination at the Preclassic centre of San
Lorenzo is a straight line distance of around 80 km across this
difficult landscape (Coe, 2000: 68). Importantly gradient analysis
using the GIS software allowed us to establish a potential transport
corridor from which the Olmec could begin to cross the lowlands.
Transportation methods were also defined by gradient and related
road structures needed to support this activity. For this reason, our
GIS matrix included soil types and their distribution, as existing
archaeological evidence shows significant earth structures associ-
ated with the San Lorenzo complex.
1.1. Preclassic Olmec
Olmec society had a significant sphere of influence and is often
described as the “Mother culture” (Benson, 1981; Benson and de la
Fuente, 1996; Coe, 1965, 1981; Coe and Diehl, 1980; Cyphers, 1996;
Puche et al., 1996). Archaeological surveys and excavation projects
have shown that Olmec society built complex centres at different
sites during their florescence. They rose in prominence in about
1500 BC and then declined again by 600 AD (Coe, 1965, 1970, 2000;
Coe et al., 1967; Coe and Diehl, 1980; Stirling, 1943, 1965). Their
“heartland” dominated much of what is now known as Veracruz
State in Mexico.
The “Olmec heartland”, which is accepted as the Olmec sphere
of social, political and economic influence, was an area of some
16,000 km2. The Olmec traded in obsidian and jade, neither of which
occur naturally around Olmec centres. Trade pathways, while suit-
able for precious mineral trade, would not necessarily suit megalith
transport; however trade in precious materials suggests that regu-
larly used pathways may have existed during Olmec times.
Olmec society moved many large stones for stelae, altars or
thrones and sculptures. Amongst the hundreds of stones that were
used for different purposes, the largest known stone was La Venta 1,
which weighed about 40 tonnes (Clewlow et al., 1967; Clewlow,
1970). At San Lorenzo near Tenochtitlan extensive raised plat-
forms, numerous mounds, stelae, altars and stone sculptures, known
as Colossal Heads, have been found (Benson and de la Fuente,
1996; Clewlow et al., 1967; Clewlow, 1970, 1974; Pohorilenko,
1996; Stuart, 1993).
1.2. Colossal Heads
Most of the seventeen Colossal Heads weigh between 6 tonnes
and 26 tonnes. They vary in height from between one and a half
metres to nearly 3 m; their circumference varies from just over 3 m
up to nearly 6 m (Clewlow et al., 1967) and each stone has a human
face carved into it. The distinctively individual features of each
stone’s carved face, arguably links each of the Colossal Heads to an
Olmec ruler (Clewlow et al., 1967; Stirling, 1965). The stones are
generally accepted as being sourced near the foothills of the Tuxtla
Mountains (Williams and Heizer, 1965). Ten of these stones have
been found on or in gullies on the San Lorenzo Plateau. Some heads
are believed to have been reused altar stones, perhaps pointing to
their value and linked to difficulties in acquiring these stones
(Cyphers, 2006; Porter, 1990).
Any direct land route would encounter swamps and perennial
floodplains (INEGI, 1985, 1986, 1999). The existence of these natural
obstacles endorsed argument for water transport of these mega-
liths (Cyphers and Ortiz, 2000; Cyphers and Zurita-Noguera, 2006,
Tamayo and West, 1964).
It is known that the Olmec used canoes for trade, whether these
would be suitable for megalith transport is uncertain (Anawalt,
1992; Callaghan, 2003; Dillon, 1975; Edwards, 1978). Analyses of
waterborne options highlighted serious limitations of the most
likely watercraft known at the time these stones were moved. A
study of rafts and multi-hull dugout canoes (Hazell, 2003), based on
performance observations, structural integrity, and stability under
significant loads, combined with human capability studies
(Baumeister, 1967; Hazell, 2011; Henderson and Haggard, 1925;
Horvath and Finney, 1976; Severin, 1988) of maximum human
power and sustained effort (Doran, 1971, 1978; Edwards, 1965;
Kent, 1958; Ling, 1970; Muckle, 1975; Walton, 1906; West, 1961) has
questioned whether waterborne options for moving these mega-
liths would be viable or reliable. Even if the Olmec did use water
transport for moving these stones from their source to final desti-
nation, establishing land based pathways from their source points
in the foothills of the Tuxtla Mountains to suitable water staging
sites would still require analysis of large tracts of land.
With the considerable area involved and limited access, the use
of GIS allowed a viable, cost effective research methodology for this
aspect of the research.
1.3. Land based megalithic transport
The region between the source in the Tuxtla Mountains and final
destination on the San Lorenzo Plateau is characterized by many
rivers, seasonal swamps and floodplains which are subject to
inundation during wet seasons or are permanently under water
(Cyphers, 2008; Cyphers and Ortiz, 2000). The use of land routes to
avoid these constraints during drier months, or using strategies to
overcome inundated areas, has already been suggested (Cyphers,
2006). Besides these landform challenges, manpower needs must
be considered for transportation methods.
Gradient is an important constraint when moving large stones.
This constraint will limit the ability of humans to move the Colossal
Heads across the landscape, irrespective of whether these mega-
liths are being hauled down hill, where there is a need to control
their descent, or when they are being hauled uphill to isolated
pockets of higher ground to avoid uncertain conditions. Gradient
also plays an important part in the final stages when hauling them
onto the San Lorenzo Plateau itself. Therefore slope gradient anal-
yses were used to link pathways from the higher ground to
potential routes across the low country.
2. GIS analysis strategy
Although swamps, rivers and floodplains were recognised
obstacles, the GIS analysis began by examining gradients from
sources at Cerro Cintepec (Williams and Heizer, 1965) or nearby
(Grove et al., 1993) in the Tuxtla Mountain foothills. Controlling the
stones, while descending these slopes, is difficult with the area
characterised by many steep gullies. Conversely providing adequate
motive power to drag the stones uphill also defines acceptable
routes. To establish manpower parameters on routes, ethnographic
(ArchaeoNews, 2004; Harmon, 2005; Mladjov and Mladjov, 1999),
historical and experimentation examples of human power capa-
bilities and sustained effort expectations (Richards and Whitby,
1997; Van Tilburg, 1995) were adopted. These analyses suggested
a gradient of 1:10 defined the limit of human effort needed to
control these stones so that the combined power of a work party
 L.C. Hazell, G. Brodie / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3475e3479
can be effectively coordinated. This was also demonstrated in
ethnographic and replication experiments (Heyerdahl, 1958;
Richards and Whitby, 1997). Therefore potential routes identified
by applying the GIS slope analysis, were based on gradients that did
not exceed 1:10 at any point. Subsequent cross checking showed
that the routes identified in the GIS study mirrored modern roads
or tracks.
2.1. Establishing a spatial data set for GIS analysis
GIS have been used for many spatial analyses (Longley et al.,
2005; Romero-Calcerrada et al., 2008; Zhijun et al., 2009). In this
instance though, by using an appropriate spatial database, GIS can
provide a valuable insight into different aspects of any prehistoric
society, particularly when archaeological evidence is limited and
terrestrial features are likely to have played a part in the activity.
We used ArcView 3.2 GIS software, and its associated 3D Analyst
extension, to create and digitise geographic themes.
The data set was primarily established from survey mapping at
scales of both 1:250,000 (INEGI, 1984, 1986, 1997) and 1:50,000
(INEGI, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2003). These
maps were scanned, georeferenced and used to create themes of
contours, rivers, swamps, soil types and vegetation. Lowland
country, intersecting with possible routes and encompassing the
region surrounding the San Lorenzo/Tenochtitlan plateau, was
included. The GIS database also included La Venta, thus allowing
future analysis of transport routes to that site.
The initial digitising procedure was undertaken using a HP
5100c flatbed scanner with a default scan speed for high quality
scans. Resolution was set at 150 dots per inch (DPI). Even with the
larger scale of the survey maps, each map required at least four and
sometimes six A4 scanned sheets, which needed to be geolocated
Fig. 1. Spatial model of the Olmec sites showing the overland routes identified during the GIS study.
3477
and joined in the GIS. This process became a potential source of
accumulative errors.
All scans were enhanced using Adobe Photoshop 7 to improve
legibility and associated accuracy during digitisation. Points on
contour lines were digitised with changes in direction and inter-
mediate points as frequently as possible to minimize error (Douglas
and Peucker, 1973). Nevertheless this stage added another potential
source of error. Our interpretation of specific features such as
contour position and value imposed limitations on final accuracy of
the spatial data set.
A Triangular Irregular Network (TIN) surface model of the
landscape was generated from the contour data. Assembling this
data as a surface model was a necessary precursor to applying
a slope gradient analysis of the landscape to identify pathways of
suitable gradient for land transport.
2.2. Results of the GIS analysis
From the spatial analysis, based on slope analysis and circum-
navigation of major obstacles in the flood plain, two possible
overland routes for transport of the Colossal Heads were identified
(Fig. 1). To adopt other less direct routes would require crossing
gullies and associated rivers with constant changes of direction
while controlling the stones. Within the projected pathway
corridor, the Olmec Llano del Jicaro workshop site described by
Gillespie is situated (Gillespie, 1994).
2.3. Some comments on applying GIS technology to determine
possible transport routes
The management advantages of a GIS database are well known
(Longley et al., 2005) but its application for this research should be
3478 L.C. Hazell, G. Brodie / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3475e3479
explained. The regional nature of the Olmec stone transport
imposed more extensive use of preparatory scanning and data
processing than might otherwise be the case for a less extensive
project. In addition, the resolution or interpretation quality
required to generate the terrain model of the Olmec heartland
became a compromise between practicalities of managing file sizes
and the need for reasonably accurate data. Larger files allowed clear
image processing but required extensive handling to exchange and
interpret the data.
The type of analysis that has been proposed in this paper could
be undertaken empirically or by simply reading the contours on
the map to trace likely routes that showed minimal grades;
however this would have relied on visual assessment of the
contour spacing or measuring and calculating the grade along
a multitude of potential pathways. This is further complicated
because the foothills near the stone source are complex land-
forms, reflecting their volcanic origins and access permission from
landholders is uncertain (Chase, 1981; Nelson, 1990; Williams and
Heizer, 1965).
The surface model was developed using current topographical
maps of the area. Without ground-truthing, our interpretation and
digitising is subject to the tolerances and accuracy of the source
survey maps. This potential source for error was recognised in this
assemblage process and in subsequent analyses of the Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) associated with the slope analysis tools
(Hageman and Bennett, 2000).
2.4. Limitations associated with GIS application to this research
A major limitation in this study was the process of data acqui-
sition. Digitising such extensive landscapes is always a challenging
undertaking. Without access to large scale remote sensing tech-
nologies, this study relied on the digitisation and interpretation of
topographical land survey maps. Errors in interpretation of contour
lines occur and may have influenced the gradient analysis; however
the points of shallowest gradient in the landscape correspond to
those parts of the digitised map, which are easiest to interpret
accurately. To control a twenty tonne stone on steep downward
slopes would have been impractical, as replication and historical
observation have illustrated (Dillon, 2004; Heyerdahl, 1958;
Richards and Whitby, 1997). Additionally there is strong correlation
between corridors, identified by this study, and modern roads in
the general area. Therefore the choice of potential transport paths,
based on gradient analyses has some validity and could be used
with confidence as part of ongoing investigation.
3. Conclusion
The outcomes presented in this paper are not final solutions to
the stone transport problem. While our use of GIS was able to
highlight the value of using GIS software and using its extensions
for studying prehistoric cultural activity, the corridor outcomes
linked to gradient viability established other important results.
Firstly this corridor could be linked to the known Olmec workshop
at Llano Del Jicaro and secondly, the viable gradients indicated such
gradients could only be traversed by dragging stones in contact
with the ground. In this regard the slope gradient tool has provided
a useful insight into potential pathways and viable transport
methods that may have been used by the ancient Olmec to move
their Colossal Heads from their source at or near Cerro Cintepec to
their final destination on the San Lorenzo Plateau.
We have noted limitations in its use and demonstrated how this
technology contributed to this research by defining areas of interest,
and establishing a starting point for investigating routes across the
lowlands between San Lorenzo and the Tuxtla Mountains. A GIS
matrix encompassing geographical features such as vegetation,
swamps and floodplains are common themes a linked to settle-
ment patterns for example. In our research though, these features
were barriers and their complexity and their area, indicated
a matrix was ideally suited for looking at transport routes. In this
mode the tools could also be applied to investigating trade routes
for example.
Acknowledgements
LCH thanks La Trobe University library staff for access to
resources and his wife Dianne for her continued patience, support
and constructive comments.
References
Anawalt, P.R., 1992. Ancient cultural contacts between Ecuador, West Mexico and
the American Southwest: clothing similarities. Latin American Antiquity 3,
114e129.
ArchaeoNews, 2004. Megalithic Tradition Is Preserved in Indonesia. Stone Pages,
5th June 2004 ed.
Atkinson, R.J.C., 1960. Stonehenge. Penguin Books, Mitcham, Victoria, Australia.
Ayres, W.S., Scheller, C.J., 2001. Experiments in Stone Transport Status Architecture
and Tool Stone on Pohnpei, Micronesia. To appear: Pacific Archaeology: the
Legacy of Richard Shutler, Jr.
Baumeister, T. (Ed.), 1967. Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, seven ed.
Mc Graw-Hill Book Company, New York, London, Sydney.
Benson, E. (Ed.), 1981. The Olmec & Their Neighbors. Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library, Washington, DC, USA.
Benson, E., de la Fuente, B., 1996. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. National Gallery Of
Art, Washington, USA.
Callaghan, R.T., 2003. Prehistoric trade between Ecuador and West Mexico. Antiq-
uity 77, 796e804.
Charnay, D., 1974. Wheeled "toys". In: Deuel, L. (Ed.), Conquistadors without
Swords: Archaeologists in the Americas. Schocken Books, New York,
pp. 175e186.
Chase, J.E., 1981. The sky is falling: the San Martin Tuxtla volcanic eruption and its
effects on the Olmec at Tres Zapotes, Verucruz. Vinculos 7, 53e59.
Clewlow, C.W., Cowan, R.A., O’Connell, J.F., Benemann, C., 1967. Colossal Heads of the
Olmec Culture. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Clewlow Jr., C.W., 1970. Comparison of Two Unusual Olmec Monuments. June 1970
ed.. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Clewlow Jr., C.W., 1974. A Stylistic and Chronological Study of Olmec Monumental
Sculpture. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Coe, M., 1965. The Olmec style and its distribution. In: Willey, G. (Ed.), Archaeology
of Southern Mesoamerica. University Of Texas Press, Austin Texas, USA,
pp. 739e775.
Coe, M., 1970. The Archaeological Sequence at San Lorenzo, Tenochtitlan, Veracruz,
Mexico. June 1970 ed.. University of California Department of Anthropology,
Berkeley.
Coe, M., 1981. Gift of the river: ecology of the San Lorenzo Olmec. In: Benson, E.
(Ed.), The Olmec and Their Neighbours. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collections, Washington DC.
Coe, M., 2000. Mexico. Thames & Hudson, London, UK.
Coe, M., Diehl, R., Stuiver, M., 1967. Olmec Civilization, Veracruz, Mexico: dating of
the San Lorenzo phase. Science 155, 1399e1401.
Coe, M.D., Diehl, R.A., 1980. In the Land of the Olmec: the Archaeology of San
Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. University of Texas Press, Austin USA.
Cyphers, A., 1996. Reconstructing Olmec life at San Lorenzo. In: Benson, E.B.d.L.F.
(Ed.), Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. National Gallery of Art, Washington,
Washington USA.
Cyphers, A., 2006. Re: Olmec stone transport. In: leshazell@cnl.com.au (Ed.), Mel-
bourne, Australia.
Cyphers, A., 2008. Prehistoric floodplains. In: LCH (Ed.), San Lorenzo, Tenochtitlan.
Cyphers, A., Ortiz, M.A., 2000. Geomorphology and ancient cultural landscapes of
Southern Veracruz. In: Ahler, S.R. (Ed.), Mounds, Modoc, and Mesoamerica:
Papers in Honor of Melvin L. Fowler. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers,
Springfield, Illinois, pp. 99e110.
Cyphers, A., Zurita-Noguera, J., 2006. A land that tastes water. In: Lucero, L.J.,
Fash, B.W. (Eds.), Precolumbian Water Management. University of Arizona
Press, Tucson, pp. 33e50.
Diehl, R., 2007. De cómo los reyes olmecas obtenían sus cabezas colosales, XXIX
Coloquio de Antropología e Historia Regionales Colegio de Michoacán. Zamora,
Michoacán, México.
Dillon, B.D., 1975. Notes on Trade in Mesoamerica. Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley.
Dillon, P., 2004. Indonesia: Megalithic Arts Struggle On.
Doran, E., 1978. Seaworthiness of sailing rafts. Anthropological Journal of Canada 16,
17e22.
 L.C. Hazell, G. Brodie / Journal of Archaeological Science 39 (2012) 3475e3479
Doran, E.J., 1971. The sailing raft as a great tradition. In: Riley, C.L., Kelley Charles, J.,
Pennington Campbell, W., Rands Robert, L. (Eds.), Man across the Sea. Univer-
sity of Texas Press, Austin Texas, pp. 115e138.
Douglas, D.H., Peucker, T.K., 1973. Algorithms for the reduction of the number of
points required to represent a digitized line or its caricature. The Canadian
Cartographer 10, 112e122.
Edwards, C.R., 1965. Aboriginal Watercraft on the Pacific Coast of South America.
University of California Press, Berkerley, Los Angeles.
Edwards, C.R., 1978. Pre-Columbian maritime trade in Mesoamerica. In:
Navarette, L. (Ed.), Papers of the New World Foundation, pp. 199e209.
Erasmus, C., 1965. Monument building: some field experiments. Southwestern
Journal of Anthropology 21, 277e301.
Gillespie, S.D., 1994. LLano del Jicaro: an Olmec monument workshop. Ancient
Mesoamerica 5, 231e242.
Grove, D.C., Gillespie, S.D., Ponciano, O.C., Hayton, M., 1993. Five Olmec monuments
from the Laguna de los Cerros hinterland. Mexicon 15, 91e95.
Hageman, J.B., Bennett, D.A., 2000. Construction of digital elevation models for
archaeological applications. In: Westcott, K.L., Brandon, J.R. (Eds.), Practical
Applications of GIS for Archaeologists. Taylor & Francis, London UK, pp. 113e127.
Harmon, D.b.P., 2005. Qala Yampu Project: Tiwanaku Experimental Archaeology.
Hazell, L.C., 2003. Using environmental constraints, human power capability and
technological performance as parameters to investigate transport of megaliths
using canoe rafts by Olmec society in Pre Classic Mesoamerica. In:
Steinbrenner, L., Cripps, B., Georgopoulos, M., Carr, J. (Eds.), 36th Chacmool
Conference: Flowing through Time. The Archaeological Association of the
University of Calgary University of Calgary, pp. 56e67.
Hazell, L.C., 2011. An Investigation of Olmec Water and Land Megalith Transport
Methods and Route Options, Historical and European Studies e Archaeology. La
Trobe, Melbourne, p. 320.
Henderson, Y., Haggard, H.W., 1925. The maximum of human power and its fuel.
American Journal of Physiology 72, 264e282.
Heyerdahl, T., 1958. Aku-Aku. George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, England.
Horvath, S.M., Finney, B., 1976. Paddling experiments and the question of Polynesian
voyaging. In: Finney, B. (Ed.), Pacific Navigation and Voyaging. The Polynesian
Society Incorporated, Wellington, pp. 47e54.
INEGI, 1984. Coatzacoalcos: Carta Edafologica, first ed.
INEGI, 1985. El Progreso, first ed.
INEGI, 1986. Coatzacoalcos: Carta Hidrologica de Aguas Subterraneas, first ed.
INEGI, 1987. Agua Dulce, 2a ed.
INEGI, 1988. Chinameca, second ed.
INEGI, 1990. Juan Diaz Covarrubias, second ed.
INEGI, 1996. San Juan Volador.
INEGI, 1997. Coatzacoalcos: Carta Topográfica, second ed.
INEGI, 1999. Coatzacoalcos, first ed.
INEGI, 2000. Las Chopas, first ed.
INEGI, 2003. San Andrés Tuxtla, first ed.
Irwin, G., Bickler, S., Quirke, P., 1990. Voyaging by canoe and computer: experiments
in the settlement of the Pacific Ocean. Antiquity 64, 34e50.
Kent, J.L., 1958. Ships in Rough Water. Thomas Nelson and Sons. Ltd., London,
Edinburgh, UK.
3479
Ling, S.-S., 1970. A Study of the Raft, Outrigger, Double and Deck Canoes of Ancient
China, the Pacific and the Indian Ocean. Institute of Ethnology Academia Sinica,
Republic of China, Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan.
Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J., Rhind, D.W., 2005. Geographical
Information Systems and Science. John Wiley & Sons.
Mladjov, R.V., Mladjov, I.R., 1999. This side up. Discovering Archaeology, 90e93.
Muckle, K., 1975. Naval Architecture for Marine Engineers. Butterworth & Co,
London, England.
Nelson, S.A., 1990. Volcanic Hazards in Mexico e a Summary. In: Univ. Nai. Auton.
Mexico, Inst. Geologia 9, pp. 71e81.
Pohorilenko, A., 1996. Portable carvings in the Olmec style. In: Benson, E.B.d.L.F.
(Ed.), Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. National Gallery of Art, Washington USA,
pp. 119e131.
Porter, J.B., 1990. Las cabezas colosales olmecas como altares resulpidoes: "multi-
lación," revolución y reesculpido. Arqueología 3, 91e97.
Puche, M.C.S., Gonález De La Vara, Fernán, Karina, R., Durand, V., 1996. Daily life in
Olmec times. In: Benson, E.B.d.L.F. (Ed.), Olmec Art in Ancient Mexico. National
Gallery of Art, Washington USA, pp. 35e39.
Richards, J., Whitby, M., 1997. The engineering of stonehenge. In: Cunliffe, B.R.C.
(Ed.), Science and Stonehenge. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Romero-Calcerrada, R., Novillo, C., Millington, J., Gomez-Jimenez, I., 2008. GIS
analysis of spatial patterns of human-caused wildfire ignition risk in the SW of
Madrid (Central Spain). Landscape Ecology 23, 341e354.
Schiffer, M.B., Skibbo, J.M., 1987. Theory and experiment in the study of techno-
logical change. Current Anthropology 28, 595e622.
Severin, T., 1988. The Ulysses Voyage. Arrow Books Ltd., London, UK.
Souden, D., 1997. Stonehenge. Collins & Brown.
Stirling, M.W., 1943. Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Smithsonian Institution
Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington DC USA.
Stirling, M.W., 1965. Monumental sculpture of Southern Verucruz and Tabasco. In:
Willey, G. (Ed.), Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica. University of Texas
Press, Austin, Texas, USA, pp. 716e738.
Stuart, G.E., 1993. New light on the Olmec. National Geographic, 88e114.
Tamayo, J.L., West, R.C., 1964. The hydrography of Middle America. In: West, R. (Ed.),
Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press, Austin, USA,
pp. 84e121.
Van Tilburg, J.A., 1995. Moving the Moai: transporting the megaliths of Easter
Island. Archaeology 47, 34e43.
Velson, J.S., Clark, T.C., 1975. Transport of Stone Monuments to the La Venta and San
Lorenzo Sites. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley
USA.
Walton, T., 1906. Know Your Own Ship, tenth ed. Charles Griffin and Company
Limited, London, UK.
West, R.C., 1961. Aboriginal sea navigation between Middle and South America.
American Anthropologist 63, 133e135.
Williams, H., Heizer, R.F., 1965. Sources of Stones Used in Prehistoric Mesoamerican
Sites. University of California Archaeological Research Facility.
Zhijun, T., Jiquan, Z., Xingpeng, L., 2009. GIS-based risk assessment of grassland fire
disaster in western Jilin province, China. Stochastic Environmental Research
and Risk Assessment 23, 463e471.