Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
were broad, and the length of which was equal to the thickness of the wall. h us
the same block could serve either as header or stretcher, and the thickness of the
wall consisted of one header or three stretchers (TA 3, 1976, p. 75).
In short the dressed block was cut to the length, breadth, height ratio of 6:2:3
which is that of a modern English 9” brick set on edge, and the bonding pattern
of the interchangeable units is recognisable in terms of modern brick bonds. h e
alternation of headers and stretchers in the one course (TA 3, 1976, p. 76, i g 1A)
aligns the system with Flemish Bond. Indeed if the face of the blocks had been
used as the bed then the proportions of length to breadth would have been 2:1,
exactly as with modern English bricks (including the mortar joints) and the bond
of alternate header and stretcher would be exactly a Flemish Bond wall. And such
a bonding system where the length / breadth ratio is 2:1 and a header course
alternates with two stretchers set back to back across the thickness of the wall
can be seen at Tell Dan (BA, 1980, p. 178). Walls of considerable thickness (e.g.
of two cubits thickness) follow the principle of double Flemish bond (TA, 1976,
p. 76, i g 1E), only they require three headers in parallel between the face stretch-
ers instead of two.
h e variants where two headers alternate with a stretcher (TA 3, 1976, p. 76,
Fig 1B) suggest in aspect the decorative intention of modern bonds employed
generally on non-load bearing walls, e.g. the various types of Flemish Garden Wall
bond (
viz
Sussex Garden Wall Bond etc.). Here, however, several stretchers (2, 3
etc.) are set in a run between two headers and the strength of the bond is thereby
diminished, whereas the Israelite walling with two headers to the stretcher the
strength is increased.
Another type of bonding occurs in Israelite masonry which is interesting. Here
the blocks are set as as to leave cavities in the heart of the wall which can be i lled
with rubble and masonry debris (TA 3, 1976, p. 76, Figs 1C & D). h is bond
resembles a modern 13'' Quetta Bonded wall (where the cavities are grouted and
sometimes take steel reinforcing).
h e preceeding comments on bonding in Israelite masonry are to a degree
conjectural and based on a limited archaeological record. However they are of
considerable interest when seen as precursors to Classical Greek Ashlar masonry.
Here the blocks are accurately cut to dimension, while the surviving record of their
setting in regular pattern is very extensive. h e bonding of Classical Greek Ashlar
walling embodies the fullest development of bonding known in stone masonry.
However generally it is treated as a matter of aspectual rather than of structural
interest (e.g. Scranton,
Greek Walls
). In the following some note is taken of the
latter concern.
Bond-
ing in
Israelite
masonry
185A, 2E
185A,
2B, D
A85 A,
2D, E
