Civil Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
and religious). Surviving evidence of these applications greatly increases in New
Kingdom times, while during late (Roman-Byzantine) times arcuated rooi ng
became common in mud brick building of all natures. Speaking in general terms
this historical development was of native Egyptian inspiration. Egypt was truly a
signii cant centre for the development of arcuated construction, and this develop-
ment had its prime expression in mud brick.
Arcuated
brickwork,
historical
résumé
E.
Roman Brickmasonry
Compared with the great amount of detailed information available concerning
ancient brickwork (Mesopotamian and Egyptian brickmasonry), there is little con-
cerning Roman brickwork. h at is concerning the setting in place of bricks—brick
laying, which is, ef ectively, bonding. Roman bricks were square, and this limits
the range of bonding, compared with rectangular bricks. However the prime con-
sideration here is the still open question of how much building there was in load
bearing burnt brick at Rome.
h is question comes to the fore in the ever quoted statement of Augustus that
he found Rome brick and let it marble. Was he referring to mud brick or burnt
brick? If he was referring to mud brick then he was limiting the statement to non-
monumental domestic building; but then he certainly did not leave the tenant
housing of Rome marble. It was the public building of Rome that he let marble
clad, but then where are the remains of pre Augustan monumental building in
burnt brick?—the buildings that are postulated to have supplied the scrap material
re-used as facing for
opus testaceum
construction? h is issue remains still under
discussion.
h e tandem question is that it is ot en dii cult to determine in general pub-
lications whether elevations of burnt brickwork are
opus testaceum
construction
or are solid brick masonry. For the most part the inference is that they represent
opus testaceum
facing; but on occasion their nature infers that they are solid brick
masonry.
In either event no evidence survives of developed pattern bonding as found in
e.g. Mesopotamian brickwork. As for facing to
opus testaceum
no structural bond-
ing of any description obtains—and there is no ornamental development of the
facing. Equally when appearances suggest that solid brickmasonry is in evidence,
then only simple stretcher bond occurs—e.g. the square bricks are not in part set
on edge as pattern bonding in conjunction with normally bedded bricks (as com-
mon in contemporary Parthian brickwork).
Here it should be noted that whether as brick facing or as solid brick construc-
tion the technical competence of Imperial Roman brick laying was extremely
Load
bearing
brick
and
opus
testaceum
facing
374
375, 382
377
377
