Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
between these marks dei nes the breadth of the wall and thus the retreat of the
wall face from the vertical. Better to facilitate the i nal dressing of the upper bed,
the line of the outer face is marked on two small projecting tabulae at the angles.
h us the record remains available until the dressing of the bed is concluded, and
is only removed at the i nal
in situ
dressing of the face at er the construction of
the wall is complete (cf Kalabsha 2, p. 74; i g 88).
It is impossible to encompass the ramii cation of construction in Pharaonic stone
masonry, which is, in ef ect, a major triumph of human inventiveness. It turns
to the best practical advantage the virtues of Ancient Egyptian society to produce
a rather astounding phenomenon: the transformation into massive stone-work
of building forms evolved in construction out of light pliable material—rushes,
canes, palms etc. It is also of interest to note how quickly this transformation was
accomplished. Roughly speaking it was the work of three or four generations of
men centred about 2,600 BC. In this it was a precursor by two thousand years
of the development of Classical Greek Ashlar masonry, where to all intents this
triumph of human inventiveness was the work of three or four generations of men
centred about the 6th century BC.
Whatever may be the range and variation of Pharaonic masonry practice it is
possible to make the statement that as an integral system of building construction
it was never exported to regions outside Egypt. It was tied to its socio-economic
environment. Indeed it was not until towards the middle of the 2nd millenium
BC (ca 1600 BC) that any systematic construction in i nely dressed stone masonry
emerged in lands other than Egypt.
h ose regions where this type of masonry was prominent were subject to the
historical phenomena of the break up of the Bronze Age world and an ensuring
“Dark Age”. h e possible survival of this type of masonry across “the Dark Age”
is an important question. In brief it would appear that the record varies in the
dif erent regions. In Greece the i ne stone masonry of Mycenaean times seems to
disappear completely with the end of the Bronze Age. On the other hand in Cyprus
and Palestine it appears that the tradition survived into the Iron Age. h e obvious
importance of this question is to what degree (if any) the Bronze Age bastard ashlar
tradition inl uenced or af ected the development of Classical Greek ashlar.
h at a monumental building could be constructed out of sizeable blocks of stone
closely jointed together was clearly demonstrated to the Greeks by their observa-
tion of stone temples in Egypt. However in no way did Classical Greek builders
assimilate the technology of Egyptian dressed stone construction. h e other system
of i nely dressed stone masonry which came under Greek observation was the
“bastard ashlar” construction to be seen in e.g. Cyprus, Palestine, Syria. However,
although superi cially to outward view this gave an impression not dissimilar from
Greek ashlar masonry, in essence the two types of construction were totally dif er-
Pharaonic
masonry
restricted
to Egypt
177
175, 176
