Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
concurrent use of more than one (contrasting) brick form in any passage of brick
masonry. In Egypt only one standard brick format was in general use across the
ages for building walls. h is was a rectangular brick, as a norm something like twice
as long as broad, and with its breadth greater than its height in the proportion of
something like 1
1/2
: 1. h ese proportions align Egyptian bricks rather closely with
the traditional modern 9˝ brick (= 9˝ × 4
1/2
˝ × 3˝).
However in developed passages of Egyptian brick masonry the bonding patterns
employed were not those employed in traditional modern brickwork. Structural
stability was obtained not by overall uniformity of the bond but by complicated
and varied patterns of bonding. h ese involved much use of brick set on edge, as
also bricks of dif ering dimensions and proportions. h e ef ect of these devices
was frequently to set up a bond between composite units of brickwork rather
than between individual bricks. Another dif erent and surprising device was fre-
quently to set bricks in the thickness of the wall obliquely rather than as headers
or stretchers. All this, of course, is to say that Egyptian bonding procedure was
much more akin to Ancient Mesopotamian procedure than to traditional modern
procedure. h is observation is not a surprising one, but when the resemblances
between Egyptian and Mesopotamian bonding are considered in detail, matters
are not straightforward.
Proceeding along the lines indicated by Oliver Myers (in The Bucheum)
A.J. Spencer established a corpus of Egyptian brick masonry bonding for general
reference. Based on this an attempt can be made to outline briel y the nature and
development of Egyptian brick bonding across the ages (i.e. from ca 3000 BC
to the end of the Ancient World). Apart from the ubiquitous and unavoidable
stretcher bond for slight (half brick) walls, Spencer set out his corpus as contain-
ing 4 groups:
Form &
bonding
356
358
361
357
A. English style bonding.
B. Flemish style bonding.
C. English style bonding making much use of bricks set on edge as headers (i.e.
using l at bricks).
D. English style bonding making use of clustered headers set on bed and on
edge.
362
Of these groups A and C are subdivided into numerous subsections, whereas B and
D are of little overall account. h erefore the two major styles of Egyptian bonding
are his group A and group C: English style bonding and English style bonding
ef ected with headers set on edge. Stated thus it would appear that Egyptian bond-
ing practice was simple and restricted. However both these styles of bonding are
susceptible to a striking and characteristic development which accounts for their
many subdivisions.
359
360
