Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
formity in the pattern of setting. h is it achieves by the clever use of “closers” at
angles and stopped ends etc., which ensures that joint is broken throughout the
complete passage of masonry. On the contrary, as stated above, Mesopotamian
bonding obtains its structural solidity by variety in the pattern of setting bricks.
Also, although information regarding ancient bonding is most ot en restricted to
the run of the wall rather than at angles and ends etc., it seems that “closers” were
not used to break joint but rather bricks of dif erent format (or special format, e.g.
L-shaped bricks) were set at the ends and angles (Sauvage, p. 63). Allied with this
is a very salient fact. Whereas in traditional modern bricklaying the bonding unit
is the individual brick, in many instances in ancient bonding the unit is not the
individual brick but a composite group of a number of bricks, forming a dwarf
pier or the like. Within this pier joints were “broken” between individual bricks,
but jointing between individual piers was “straight”.
h e ultimate development in Mesopotamian brickwork culminating in Neo-
Babylonian construction, 6th Cent BC, went the other way as concerns bonding.
Square bricks became ever more general, this being in a measure associatied with
increasing practice of burnt brick (exclusively square in form). And square brick-
work admits of only the simplest and obvious bonding. In a certain respect this
makes a strange story. h e intricate and striking aspectual patterns of mud brick
bonding during the 2nd and early 1st Millennium BC were never visible, since
uniformly plastered over with mud plaster. On the other hand the simple uniform
body of burnt brick in e.g. Neo-Babylonian monuments was exposed (but then
the aspect was frequently decorated with i gural relief, cf the Ishtar Gate). h ese
circumstances inevitably suggest some idealist rationale (cf, e.g. bichrome
opus
reticulatum
).
Bonding
344
348
349
h ink not because no man sees
Such things will remain unseen
Of recent years it has become apparent that from an early time Mesopotamian brick
masonry made considerable use of arches and vaults. h is was formerly not well
appreciated and something should be said about this, since it can be misleading.
Reconstruction drawings of buildings and building complexes appear in general
works. Most of them show universally l at terrace rooi ng—i.e. they accept that any
arcuated rooi ng construction was not expressed externally. h is may be justii ed
in the instances recorded, but it is not necessarily of universal validity. Also the
reconstruction shown of the rooi ng is ot en a subjective one. h ese general sur-
veys of Mesopotamian building may be leafed through to ascertain the incidence
of arcuated construction in Mesopotamian brick building across the ages. h is
yields the following general picture:
