Ancient Building Technology

How to go to your page:
This eBook contains two parts:
1. Part I: Text
2. Part II: Illustrations
To avoid duplicate pagination in the eBook, we have added II to the second part.
For example, to go to page 35 of the first part enter 35 in the page # box at the top of
the screen and click Go. To go to page 35 of the second part enter II-35.
ANCIENT BUILDING TECHNOLOGY
VOLUME 2
MATERIALS
PART 1
TECHNOLOGY AND CHANGE
IN HISTORY
VOLUME 7/1
VOLUME 2
MATERIALS
BY
G.R.H. WRIGHT
PART 1: TEXT
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
2005
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wright, G.R.H. (George R.H.), 1924

Ancient building technology / by G.R.H. Wright.
p. cm. (Technology and change in history, ISSN 1385-920X ; v. 4)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. Historical background. v. 2. Materials
ISBN 9004099697 v. 1 ; ISBN 9004140077 v. 2 (alk. paper)
1. BuildingHistory. 2. Architecture, Ancient. 3. Science, Ancient.
4. History, Ancient.
I. Title. II. Series.
TH16.W76 2000/2005
690.093dc21
00-023040
CIP
ISSN 1385-920X
ISBN 90 04 14007 7 (Vol. 2)
ISBN 90 04 14488 9 (Part 1)
Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

I gave them re. . . . and from it
they shall learn many crafts.
(Prometheus Bound 254256)
The Limits of the Ancient World F
Considered from three points of view the history of building, general history, physical geography some individual
entity can be imagined comprising temperate Europe, the Middle East and Africa north of the Sahara together with
the Nile Valley and Ethiopia. Regular communication prevailed throughout this region; while whatever external
contacts transpired did not influence the development of building within the region.
Natural boundaries closed the region off on three sides. Only there was no natural barrier to the East, neither across
the steppes of Central Asia nor by the sea to India. The Ancient World maintained contact with further Asia and
India which exercised an influence on building there. However, the only movements of Asiatic people into the
ancient world or onto its borders did not in any way affect the history of building within the Ancient World.
Thus the Ancient World as dealt with in this book may be represented notionally by a circle with centre in the
Eastern Mediterranean (Crete) spanning about 50 both of latitude and longitude i.e. with a diameter of roughly
2000 miles (or of three thousand kilometres). From this expanse two areas are removed because of considerations of
physical geography: a large segment at the South-West is desert (the Sahara) and the most northerly part is sub-arctic
tundra.
Accordingly the most fully developed axis of the Ancient World was NWSE, from northern most Scotland to
Ethiopia and Southern Arabia. To demonstrate the spread of significant building over the expanse so delimited
some reasonably well known limitrophic sites are indicated.
CONTENTS
The Limits of the Ancient World .......................................................... vivii

List of Illustrations (in Part 2) .................................................................. xv
Abbreviations in General References ........................................................ xxvii
Introduction ................................................................................................ xxix
Chapter One: General Survey .................................................................. 1

Building formative of mans capacity for combined observation and experiment
and thus his introduction to physics and chemistry. Nature of building
materials: natural, articial; primary, secondary. Qualities of materials
(workability, eciency, durability) based on properties of matter. Historical
survey of use of materials. Stages of development: natural, physically mixed,
chemically transformed. Appendix: Comparative weights and strengths of
materials.
Chapter Two: Wood .................................................................................. 13

Wood an organic material and thus fugitive; therefore much less well recorded.
Nature and qualities: trees highly developed forms of life with diverse and
specialised constituents, thus much technical knowledge required to maximise
strength and durability. Supply and transport of timber needs developed
organisation and timber yards for seasoning and storage. Wood working and
its tools standardised very early (in Egypt) with little change until most
recent times. Attachment and fastening together of units both by joinery (more
common) and in later times with metal nails. Uses of wood very extensive so
that no building site could function without wood. In addition to structural
use and for ttings, wood used for temporary supports, site installations and
equipment. Primacy of wood in historical succession raises question of later
imitation in other materials of forms proper to wooden construction.
Chapter Three: Stone .................................................................................. 29

Nature and qualities: geological background (lithology and petrology). Every
type of stone used in building, either for structural or aspectual
purposesigneous rock (granite) may be 6 times stronger than sedimentary
rock (limestone). Durability varies from single generation to millenia. Supply
of stone obtained both by gathering (eld stones) and quarrying (bed rock).
Ancient quarrying practice survived in use until 20th century AD. Quarries opened
either ad hoc as close as possible to building site or where choice stone
x contents
available, however remote. The latter case involves large scale business
enterprise. Under Roman Empire such quarries were the property of the
Emperor. Transport dicult and costly, amounting to ca 1/3 total
expense of nished stone work in building. Stone working: Consideration
here, in rst instance limited to dressing of stone. Setting and xing
together of dressed units treated in later volume. Fine stone masonry so
constituted by closeness of jointing between units, not by visible aspect of
face. Setting out guide lines for dressing units requires an understanding of
solid geometry. Tools: considered according to types, function, action,
manipulation, material. Procedure: surface of operation, surface of
reference. Fundamental issue is order of working dierent surfaces. Special
requirements for masonry subject to lateral stresses (e.g. retaining walls).
Polygonal and lesbian masonry. Uses of stone. Stone can be an all
purpose building material but generally used in conjunction with other
materials. Purpose: in foundations, walls, columns, oors, roofs, etc.
Manner of use: as eld stone, megaliths, quarry stone in structures; also
used for ornamental aspect. Summary. Appendix: Architectural rock cutting.
Chapter Four: Earth/Clay .......................................................................... 75

Nature and qualities: Unconsolidated sediments, product of rock erosion,
comprised of very small to microscopic individual particles. Shape of particles
(i.e. lumpy or akey) determines cohesion, and presence of water (in several
dierent modes) modies physical state of earth. Compressive strength of
natural earth in favorable circumstances, ca 1/3rd that of sedimentary rock.
Varied use of earth for building purposes in natural state as unconsolidated
sediments (= earthworks). Preparation and Manufacture of Earth Building
Materials: Processes replicate formation of sedimentary rocks (admixture of
water, application of pressure and of heat). Products either in plastic or
consolidated state and used as primary or secondary materials. Terre Pis;
Tauf; Mud Plaster; Mud Mortar; Mud Brick (hand modelled, form moulded);
Burnt Brick; Terra Cotta Revetting; Terra Cotta Roong Tiles; Terra Cotta
Auxilliaries. Use of Earth Materials: Foundationsearthworks; Wallsall
earth materials used, often in combination; burnt brick and tile revetting;
columnsout of specially formed segmental etc. units; Spanning
Membersarches, never beams; Floorsbeaten (compressed) earth, plastered
mud brick, terra cotta tiles; Roofsat mud terrace, vaults and domes,
terra cotta tiled pitched roofs; Service applianceswaterpipes, heating ues.
Supply: Universally available in local supply, but for large scale monumental
projects in Mesopotamia and Egypt earth materials transported from distant
centres of production and stored. Burnt bricks convenient to transport.
Regional development of high quality brick industry in Rome from later 1st
century AD. Stamps indicate transport to distant provinces. Supply passed
into Imperial control ca 200 AD. Large scale supply in western provinces
lapsed after downfall of Imperial government, but continued in Eastern
provinces.
contents xi
Chapter Five: Lime and Gypsum .............................................................. 143

Use of re for industrial purposes during 8th millenium BC produced rst
chemically transformed building materials. Nature and Qualities: prepared
from sedimentary rocks burnt to powder which, mixed with water, forms
plastic substance with strong adhesive properties. On exposure to the air this
sets into a rigid solid of the same chemical composition as the original
sedimentary rock. Lime manufactured by burning limestone at least for several
days at ca 800C1000C. Gypsum manufactured by burning gypsum
rocks at ca 100C200C for some hours. Supply: Limestone more
common than gypsum rocks. Both occur as easily dug surface formations in
Middle East and Mediterranean regions, but convenient sources of supply
also in eld stones and robbed blocks from building (mainly for lime).
Manufacture: Accidental discovery of process by observing results of prolonged
res on limestone or gypsum emplacement, followed by wetting. Neolithic
burning in open pits and in cooking ovens. Little detailed record of
installations and processes before Roman times. Recourse to traditional
modern practice for illustration. Two systems subsistthe intermittent and the
continuous. Catos specications refer to the intermittent or are kiln and
remains of these survive from Roman Age. However all considerations suggest
lime was also burnt in clamps where fuel and limestone were intermixed as
in the continuous system. Uses: As load bearing material (restricted); as
plaster; and as mortar. Neolithic and Chalcolithic use of limestone and
gypsum bricks (and pis?). Characteristic ne plaster oors during Pre-Pottery
Neolithic. General use as plaster before use as mortar. All materials plastered
in antiquity without repugnance. Essentials of plastering fully developed in
Middle East Neolithic plastering of earth construction and remained
standard building practice throughout antiquity. Outline historical survey of
plastering according to material plasteredearth, burnt brick, dressed stone.
Stucco and decoration in relief. Plastering technique and (simple) tools. Common
use of lime and gypsum for mortar very much later than for plaster.
Gypsum based mortar in Levant reported by Greek sources (ca 300 BC) to
be stronger and stier than stone, but little surviving evidence of such
masonry. Lime based mortar used for concrete construction across Roman
world from 1st century BC and survived for use with burnt brick through
later antiquity, and on into modern times. Appendix. Review of scientic
analysis of plaster and mortar.
Chapter Six: Concrete .................................................................................. 181

Roman Concrete and modern concrete, a comparitive synopsis. Nature and
qualities of Roman Concrete as incorporated in foundations, walls, roong:
Aggregate Mortar, Facing (opus incertum, opus reticulatum, opus testaceum, opus
mixtum). Statical properties of concrete and so-called monolithic construction.
Supply of Materials: Aggregate, Mortar (pozzolana question), Facing (opus
incertum; opus reticulatum, nb unexplained proceedure; opus testaceum, nb
unexplained proceedure). Concreting Work: highly sophisticated but still not
xii contents
thoroughly understood. Evolution towards ever lighter units handled en

masse, and away from larger units each requiring skilled handling.
Advantages accrueing. Facing as lost shuttering. Proceedure in vaulted
roong. Uses of Roman Concrete. Much used in engineering works,
including pre-fabricated mass concrete for harbour works. Also some
recorded use in urban fortications. Use in building construction was total
for the structure, but material never regarded as a proper one for
ornament. Further notice of use in foundations and in vaulted roong.
When fully developed used in all classes of building (public, domestic etc.)
and with very wide geographical distribution. Some comments on rise and
fall of Roman Concrete noticing related forms of construction, e.g. mortared
rubble, terre pis, bastard ashlar, inserted facing.
Chapter Seven: Bitumen .............................................................................. 218

The subject which occasioned Forbes beginning as a universal historian of
ancient technology. Very dicult to treat without recourse to chemistry, since
plain language terminology confused. Nature and qualities of bitumenous
materials: fossilised hydro-carbons of organic origin produced in underground
reservoirs or traps. In ancient times the material only available for use when
emergent at surface level. Occurs in all states from viscous liquid to solid,
and can be so exploited. A very strong adhesive (cement) and an eective
aquifuge. Supply: ancient bitumen sources common in Mesopotamia and
adjacent regionsi.e. in areas of contemporary oil elds. Readily gathered by
hand when in liquid or plastic state, and when solid easily mined at surface.
Transport not problematic and convenient water transport generally possible
in Mesopotamia. Bitumen working: little information in ancient records and
any knowledge almost entirely archaeologically based. Although on occasion
gathered in condition ready for use as a natural material, diculties of
transport and conservation mean that it was prepared for use on site as an
articial material by e.g. heating and mixing with inert material (sand,
earth, bres etc.) to produce the required plastic consistency (mastic).
Applied by spreading (with trowel) or where possible, by pouring and
rolling etc. Uses: in Mesopotamia a staple building material constituting a
secondary material generally employed as mortar with burnt brick masonry
producing a very strong construction. Also used extensively as a damp
proof course or membrane and as a waterproof coating in ways akin to its
use in contemporary building. Chronology. Came into use as a building
material with burnt brick in ca 3000 BC, and lapsed at beginning of
Christian era.
Chapter Eight: Metals .................................................................................. 231

The physical qualities of metals patent and striking but it is very dicult to
provide a plain language denition distinguishing them from other minerals.
Recent physics accounts for their nature by their atomic bond (metallic
contents xiii
bond) which consists of a cloud of free electrons aording their

workability, lustrous appearance and ready liquefaction. Some indication
of nature and qualities of main metals used as building materials: copper,
tin, bronze, lead, iron, gold. Geology of metals. Formed by an intrusion
of magma into the earths crust which penetrates and lodges in
surrounding rock (country rock) rarely as pure metal (a single chemical
element), generally as a compound mineral including the metal element as
a component. These deposits form at varying depths but by earth
movements and other geological processes may become exposed on the
earths surface to be denuded, transported and deposited. Thus metals
obtained variously by collection of nuggets from surface of earth, recovery
of fragmented metals and ores from surface deposits; by open cast mining,
and by deep underground mining. Most metal obtained in the form of
broken up ore, i.e. compound minerals contained in altered country rock.
Pure metal then produced by treating this ore both by mechanical
(washing, crushing) and chemical processes (smelting, rening). Pure
metals mixed together in various ways to form alloys possessing dierent
physical qualities from their components. All these intricate processes of
metallurgy carried out empirically. Metals supplied variously as ores; as
smelted raw metals; as scrap metal; as manufactured metal objects. All
forms of supply occasioned important international trade and contacts.
Metal working (based on hammering and casting) a highly developed art
or craft, but only simple work required for metals used as building
materials. Use of metals in ancient building of minor importance compared
with their use for other purposes, but nonetheless metals signicant
ancient building materials, particularly in imperial Roman building. Use in
building as principal structural items (columns, beams); auxilliary
structural items (reinforcing and xing devices for ne stone masonry);
as applied ornament; as damp proong and water proong; and as
ttings and attachments (e.g. for doors and windows) and above all for
piping etc for water supply (plumbing). Appendix: Comparative properties
of metals.
Chapter Nine: Glass ...................................................................................... 279

Nature and qualities. Very anomalous material discovered when smelting
metal (ca early 3rd millenium BC). Glass properly signies not a specic
chemical constitution of matter but a physical state of matter aligned with solid,
liquid, gas. Although glass appears to be a solid, it has the non crystalline
(particle) structure of a liquid. Thus with the application of heat it changes
its viscosity from virtual rigidity through varying degrees of uidity without
involving any change of (particle) state. Use of glass in building restricted to
the latter days of the Ancient World, but the material only considered from
this point of view here. Manufacture and Supply of glass for building not
distinct from general considerations. Raw materials must be heated to
ca 1100C1500C necessitating kiln or furnace. Tank Kiln for
xiv contents
production of bulk glass only; general purpose kiln designed to provide

also for manufacture of objects by moulding and from ca 100 BC by
blowing process. Principle raw materials used (silica, soda, lime) occur
widely, but raw materials, bulk glass and glass objects all transported and
widely exported. Whereas originally glass making localised, in Roman times
it was widespread. The use of glass in building instigated early in 1st
century AD by material wealth of Imperial Rome with secularised life style.
This necessitated large public buildings for non-religious assembly with well
lighted interiors. Within a century window glass used very extensively also
in domestic building. Main concern translucency rather than transparency.
Most Roman window glass not moulded but blown, in the form of either
circular (mu ) glass or crown glass. Standards of glazing maintained in
the East during Late Antique and Byzantine times, but after a oruit of
several centuries declined greatly in the Western world.
Conclusions .................................................................................................... 293
Index .............................................................................................................. 297

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (IN PART 2)
1. Site Location Maps.

2. Diagram of Sliced Tree Trunk showing Growth Development of Wood.
3. Micro Photographs showing Cellular Structure of Wood.
4. Preservation of Waterlogged Timber in Roman Wharf.
5. Egyptian Axemen felling Tree by Notching.
6. Egyptian Wood-cutters felling Tree and Debarking.
7. Roman Tree Felling using Cross-cut Saw and Wedges.
8. Roman Lumbermen hauling Log with Ropes.
9. Transport by Water of Massive Timbers in Assyrian Times.
10. Conversion of Log into Standard Timbers for Building.
11. Egyptian Carpenters debarking and converting Tree Trunk into Planks with
Lever and Wedges.
12. European Bronze Age Timber-Working with Wooden Tools.
13. Egyptian Bronze Headed Wood-working Tools.
14. Diagram showing Cutting Action of Ancient and Modern Saws.
15. Egyptian Carpenters using Pull Saw horizontally to cut Planks.
16. Roman Sawyers vertically sawing long Lengths of Timber.
17. Roman Sawyers using Box-framed Saw on medium length Timbers.
18. Egyptian Carpenters using Bow Drill.
19. Roman Carpenters Tombstone with Representation of Tools including Bow
Drill.
20. Egyptian Carpenter glueing Wood.
21. Egyptian Carpenters steam-bending Timber.
22. Reconstructed Roman Planes.
23. Simple Joints used in Antiquity for xing together Timber Members.
24. Earliest Timber Framed Construction in Northern EuropeLashed Poles
clad with Hides, ca 2500 BC.
25. Substantial Round Houses from Lashed Poles clad with Thatch. North
West Europe, ca 1500 BC.
26. Enduring Long House Timber Framed Building in Northern Europe, evi-
denced by Post Holes.
A. Neolithic at Sittard (Netherlands). 5th Millenium BC.
B. Iron Age Hallstat Culture at Goldberg, South Germany. 7th6th Cent.
BC.
C. Celtic Oppidum of Bibracte, France. 1st Cent. BC.
xvi list of illustrations
27. Plan and Reconstructed Elevation of Typical North European Timber

Framed Long House. Kln Lindenthal. Neolithic, 5th Millenium BC.
28. Fanciful Reconstruction of Fortied Iron Age Village of Integrated Long
Houses. Biskupin, Polandca 500 BC.
29. Enduring Timber Framed, Wattle and Daub. Iron Age and Roman.
30. Roman Age Wattle and Daub Construction. Detail.
31. Load-bearing Timber Construction. Log Cabin style. Gordion Tumulus, ca
700 BC.
32. Traditional Flat Mud Terrace Roof Construction.
33. Classical Timber Roong.
34. Remains of Middle East Mud-brick Building profusely reinforced with
Timber. Beyce Sultan, Western Anatolia, ca 1500 BC.
35. Schematic Restoration of Mud-brick and Timber Wall Construction as in
pl 34. Beyce Sultan, Western Anatolia, ca 1500 BC.
36. Inset Timbering to integrate Stone Orthostates into Mud Brick Wall. Tell
Halaf, North Syria, ca 800 BC.
37. Wooden Dove-tail Cramp in Egyptian Stone Masonry. Kalabsha. 1st
Cent. AD.
38. Wooden Fittings and Installations at Herculaneum.
39. Proposed Wooden Origins of Classical Greek Doric Order.
40. Doric Entablature. Comparitive Sketch of Proposed Wooden Original and
Ashlar Masonry Construction.
41. Ionic Entablature. Comparitive Sketch of Proposed Wooden Original and
42. Rural Wooden Pavilion in Classical Greece.
43. Lycian Tomb. Comparative Sketch of Proposed Wooden Original and
Actual Masonry Construction.
44. Bird Cage Shelter of Pliable Plant Materials.
45. Round Hut of Pliant Material. Karanog, Romano Nubia.
46. Contemporary Round House from Pliant Material. Red Sea Coast of
Yemen.
47. Contemporary Lashed Reed Building on Monumental Scale. Marshes of
Southern Iraq.
48. Diagram of the Cycle of Rock Formation.
49. Durability of Stone. Repairs to Aspect.
50. Detail of Repairs by Piecing.
51. Earliest Massive Stone Construction. Neolithic Terrace Wall of Large
Boulders. Jericho, ca 8000 BC.
52. Neolithic Field-stone Rubble Foundations for Mud-brick House Walls.
North Iran. 6th Millenium BC.
list of illustrations xvii
53. Megalithic Stone Building. Western (Atlantic) Europe. 5th Millenium BC.
54. Dry Stone Walling in Middle East. 4th Millenium BC.
55. Bronze Age Cyclopean Walling of Chinked Boulders. Aegaean, 2nd
Millenium BC.
56. Neolithic Flint Mining. S.E. England and Belgium, ca 4000 BC.
57. Source of Megalithic Blocks. Deeply Fissured Outcrops of Bluestone in
Western Wales.
58. Megalithic Quarry. Filitosa, Corsica, ca 4th Millenium BC.
59. Deeply Weathered Isolated Granite Outcrops, continuously quarried. Aswan,
Upper Egypt.
60. Basalt Outcrop naturally separated into Boulders, quarried in Bronze Age.
Tilmen Hyk, Anatolia.
61. Further Working of naturally separated Basalt Blocks. Hittite Quarries at
Yesemek and Tilmen Hyk. 2nd Millenium BC.
62. Surface Limestone Quarry. Beni Hassan, Egypt.
63. Underground Limestone Quarry. Ma"asera, Egypt.
64. Detail of Underground Quarry at Ma"asera showing method of exploitation.
65. Interior of Underground Sandstone Quarry at Gebel Silsila. Egypt.
66. Egyptian Method of Quarrying Granite using very Hard Stone (Dolerite)
Pounders.
67. Sketch of Method of Separating and Freeing Blocks in Traditional Quarrying.
68. Residual Bed of Quarried out Blocks. Persepolis. ca 500 BC.
69. Map showing Principal Egyptian Quarries supplying Stone to all Parts of
Egypt (Pharaohs Quarries).
70. Map showing Central Quarries under Imperial Roman Administration.
71. Imperial Roman Exploitation of Grano-diorite Quarries at Mons Claudianus.
72. Slipway for Expediting blocks from Mountainside Quarry. Attica, 5th
Cent. BC.
73. Transport of Heavy Stone Blocks by Sledge in Egypt.
74. Transport of Heavy Stone Blocks by Sledge in Assyria.
75. Transport of Heavy Stone Blocks on Wheeled Carriage. Classical Greece.
76. Projects for Transporting Heavy Stone Blocks on Wheels using Blocks as
the axle. Classical Greece.
77. Transport of Massive Stone Block by Nile in Egypt.
78. Transport of Massive Stone Block from Quarry by Water (amphiprymno).
Classical Greece.
79. Human Porterage of Stone Blocks on Building Site.
80. Diagram showing Basic Operation of Fine Stone Dressing.
81. Diagram showing Basic Proceedure for Dressing a Column Drum.
82. Diagram showing Basic Geometry of Hemispherical Dome.
xviii list of illustrations
83. Setting Out for Cutting Voussoir of an Ashlar Dome.

84. Egyptian Masons Boning Rods.
85. Egyptian Stone Dressing Proceedure.
86. Egyptian Masons Mallet.
87. Egyptian Masons Tools of Stone.
88. Masons Striking Tools. Combined Axe/Adze/Hammers. Traditional
Tools from Cyprus.
89. Roman Masons Striking Tools. Combined Axe/Pick/Adze/Hammer.
90. Struck Tools (Punch, Chisel etc.). Use and Traces.
91. Masons Axe. Use and Limitations.
92. Large Dragsaw Reconstructed. Egypt 4th Dyn.
93. Improved Fine Jointing by Sawing in situ. Roman.
94. Egyptian Stone Drill. Abu Sir, Vth Dynasty.
95. Roman Mason Drilling Stone.
96. Possible Reconstruction of Lathe for Turning Column Drums.
97. Egyptian Large Block (Pharaonic) Masonry. In situ Dressing. New
Kingdom. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
98. Egyptian Large Block (Pharaonic) Masonry. In situ Dressing. Part Elevation
of Wall. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
99. Egyptian Large Block (Pharaonic) Masonry. In situ Dressing. Sketch of
Huge Cornice Block. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
Huge Architrave Block. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
101. Classical Ashlar Masonry. Sketch Reconstruction of Setting.
102. Classical Ashlar Masonry set with Projecting Fillets at Arrises. Temple
of Segesta, Sicely, ca 430 BC.
103. Hellenistic Ashlar Masonry set with Roll protecting Upper Arris. Miletus
Theatre.
104. Classical Ashlar Masonry with Functional Details of Stone Dressing retained
as Ornament.
105. Bastard Ashlar Masonry. Early Dynastic Egyptian to Hellenistic.
106. Roman Marble Revetting.
107. Polygonal Masonry. Knidos. 5th4th Cent. BC.
108. Polygonal Masonry Construction for Retaining Walls. Delphi, ca 500
BC.
109. Ashlar Facing to Rubble Retaining Wall. Pasargadae Persia, ca 530 BC.
110. Ashlar Facing to Rubble Retaining Wall. Pergamum. Hellenistic-Roman.
111. Ashlar Facing to Rubble (or Concrete) Core. Rome Augustan.
112. Opus Africanum. Rubble stiened with Dressed Stone Piers.
113. Opus Africanum. Detail. Thougga, Tunisia. Roman.
list of illustrations xix
114. Defective Egyptian Stone Foundations.

115. Inferior Egyptian Foundations of Reused Blocks. Luxor. New Kingdom.
116. Finely Dressed Coered Greek Foundations. Delphi, 5th Cent. BC.
117. Greek Masonry founded on Bed Rock. Apollonia, Cyrenaica, ca 300
BC.
118. Egyptian Monolithic Column. Diagram of Combined Extraction and
Dressing.
119. Egyptian Column constructed of Large Blocks. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st
Cent. AD.
120. Egyptian Column Collapsed and Rebuilt in Small Block Masonry. Amun
Temple. Karnak.
121. Provincial Hellenistic Column on Plinth built in Coursed Stone Masonry.
Hatra, North Mesopotamia. 2nd Cent. AD.
122. Classical Greek Column. Drum Construction.
123. Graeco-Roman Columns. In situ Dressing.
124. Egyptian Large Block Masonry. Massive Slab Roong. Kalabsha Temple.
1st Cent. AD.
125. Egyptian Large Block Masonry. Failure in Bending of Massive Roong
Slabs. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
126. Egyptian Saddle Roof Construction. Old KingdomMiddle Kingdom.
127. Egyptian Dressed Stone Vaulting. Late Period.
128. Graeco-Roman Ashlar Masonry Dome Construction Side. Southern
Turkey, ca 3rd Cent. AD.
129. Rock Cutting. Unnished Faade showing Progress of Work from above
downwards. Tomb at Medain Saleh, Hejaz. 1st Cent. AD.
130. Unnished Tomb cut in free standing Knoll of Rock with Evidence of
Excavation by Quarrying. Medain Saleh. 1st Cent. AD.
131. Resplendent Rock Cut Faade Monument. The Khazne, Petra. 1st
Cent. BC1st Cent. AD.
132. Architectural Portal to Rock Cut Tomb with Stone Insets and Plastering.
New Paphos, Cyprus. 3rd Cent. BC.
133. Hypogeum Tombs with Access Shafts. Ayaa, near Sidon. 4th Cent. BC.
134. Fine Dressing to Internal Faces of Egyptian Rock-cut Monuments.
135. Early Etruscan Rock-cut Tomb with Architectural Interior. Cerveteri,
5th Cent. BC.
136. Late Etruscan Rock-cut Tomb with Architectural Interior. Cerveteri, 3rd
Cent. BC.
137. Soil Formation and Classication.
138. Subterranean Dwelling Complex. Abu Matar, Southern Israel, ca 3500 BC.
139. Subterranean Dwelling. Detail. Abu Matar, ca 3500 BC.
xx list of illustrations
140. Large Phrygian Tumulus well over 50 m high. Gordion. Early 7th Cent. BC.
141. Large Lydian Tumulus, surviving height ca 55 m. Bin Bir Tepe, North
of Sardis. 6th Cent. BC.
142. Cypriote Tumulus, ca 15 m high, of singular construction. Salamis.
600 BC.
143. Etruscan Cemetery of Tumulus Tombs near Cerveteri. 600 BC and later.
144. Consolidation and Extension of Palestinian Tells by sophisticated Earthworks,
ca 1500 BC.
145. Egyptian Earth Construction Ramp. Thebes. New Kingdom.
146. Diagram showing Egyptian Building Platform of Earth Fill.
147. Traditional Plastic Earth (Puddled Mud) Construction. Modern Survival.
Rawdah, North Yemen.
148. Traditional Houses of Plastic Earth said to have survived for up to 800
years. Rawdah, North Yemen.
149. Traditional Terre Pis Construction. Atlas Mountains, North Africa.
150. Hand Modelled (Cigar Shaped) Mud Bricks. Jericho. Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
151. Hand Modelled (Bun Shaped) Mud Bricks. Jericho. Neolithic, 6th Mille-
nium BC.
152. A Possible Derivation of Plano-Convex Mud Bricks. Mesopotamia.
153. Scenes from Egyptian Tomb Decoration representing Manufacture of Form
Moulded Mud Bricks. Thebes, New Kingdom.
154. Types of Brick Moulds used in Preceeding Scenes.
155. Ancient Wooden Brick Moulds. Egypt and Palestine. 2nd Millenium
BC.
156. Standard Bonding Patterns in Modern Brick Masonry.
157. Bonding of Rectangular Mud Brick Wall at Maroni Vournes, Cyprus, ca
1250 BC.
158. Bonding of Square Mud Brick City Wall at Eleusis, ca 500 BC.
159. Bonding of Mesopotamian Plano-Convex Mud Brick Masonry. 3rd Mille-
nium BC.
160. Mud Terrace Roong Construction. Thera, ca 1500 BC.
161. Grandiose Mud Brick Vaulted Roong. Ctesiphon. 6th Cent. AD.
162. Traditional Modern Manufacture of Burnt Brick. North Yemen. 1938.
163. Ancient Mesopotamian Kiln for ring Terra-cotta Objects. Eshnunna,
ca 2250 BC.
164. Classical Greek Tile Kiln. Olympia. Late 4th Cent. BC.
165. Classical Greek Tile Kiln. Corinth. Late 5th Cent. BC.
166. Mesopotamian Funerary Chamber of Burnt Bricks. Mari. Late 3rd
Millenium BC.
167. Roman Load Bearing Burnt Brick Masonry. Kizil Avlu, Pergamum.
120130 AD.
list of illustrations xxi
168. Byzantine Load Bearing Burnt Brick Masonry. San Vitale, Ravenna.
526547 AD.
169. Late Roman Burnt Brick Dome Construction. Diocletians Mausoleum,
Spalato. 300 AD.
170. Early Mesopotamian Cone Mosaics. Uruk, ca 3000 BC.
171. Mesopotamian Glazed Terra-cotta Wall Plaques (Knauf Plates). Choga
Zamil, Elam, ca 1250 BC.
172. Mesopotamian Glazed Terra-cotta Wall Plaques (Sikkatu). Assur. 9th7th
Cent. BC.
173. Mesopotamian Relief Decoration in Burnt Brick. Uruk, ca 1450 BC.
174. Mesopotamian Relief Decoration in Glazed Burnt Brick. Ishtar Gate,
Babylon. 6th Cent. BC.
175. Mesopotamian Relief Decoration in Burnt Brick. Detail of Preceeding.
Ishtar Gate, Babylon. 6th Cent. BC.
176. Achaemenid Relief Decoration in Polychrome Glazed Brickwork. Susa,
ca 500 BC.
177. Achaemenid Relief Decoration in Polychrome Glazed Brickwork. Detail.
Susa, ca 500 BC.
178. Archaic Greek Painted Fictile Revetment. Metapontum, ca 500 BC.
179. Architectural Ornament in Moulded Brickwork. Roman.
180. Burnt Brick Pavement. Opus spicatum. Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD.
181. Diagram showing Mesopotamian Brick Column Construction.
182. Mycenaean Terra-cotta Roong Tiles.
183. Diagram showing Classical Greek Roof Tiling Systems.
184. Corinthian Terra-cotta Roong Tiles. Details. Apollonia. Cyrenaica,
ca 300 BC.
185. Sicilian Terra-cotta Roong Tiles. Assemblage. Roman.
186. Terra-cotta Roong Tiles. Lighting and Ventilation.
187. Marble Model giving Standard Dimensions for Terra-cotta Roong Tiles.
188. Schematic Section showing Roman Hypocaust Installations.
189. Diagram showing Terra-cotta Flues (Tubuli, Box Tiles) set within Walls.
190. Tubuli set within Walls of Bath. Forum Baths. Ostia. ca 160 AD.
191. Tegulae Mammatae Types and Installation. Roman.
192. Typical Terra-cotta Drainage Installation in the Ancient Middle East.
193. Conspectus of Terra-cotta Segments for lining Sumps in Ancient Middle East.
194. Ancient Middle East Terra-cotta Drain Pipes. Nuzi, North Mesopotamia,
ca 1400 BC.
195. Archaic Greek Terra-cotta Water Pipes. Athens, 6th Cent. BC.
196. Hellenistic and Roman Terra-cotta Water Pipes.
197. Roman Terra-cotta Cylinder Segments for Concealing Drainage. Downpipes
within Walls.
xxii list of illustrations
198. Map indicating regional Distribution of Lime and Gypsum Plaster.

199. Iron Age Lime Kilns north of Jerusalem.
200. Dixs Reconstruction of Roman Lime Kilns.
201. Roman Legionary fabricatio lime burning Plant. Iversheim, Lower Germany.
202. Reconstructed Clamp burning of Lime.
203. Neolithic Painted Wall Plaster. atal Hyk. 7th6th Millenium BC.
204. Neolithic Modelled Wall Plaster. atal Hyk. 7th6th Millenium BC.
205. Plastering of Fine Egyptian Stone Masonry. Deir el Medinah. New
Kingdom.
206. Plastering of Painted Egyptian Stone Masonry. Temple of Kalabsha.
Ptolemaic-Roman.
207. Plastered Column Construction. Achaemenid. Persepolis, ca 500 BC.
208. Plastered Brick Built Columns. Roman.
209. Roman Corinthian Capital. Stucco Detail on Stone Bell. Herculaneum.
Before 79 AD.
210. Roman Ionic and Doric Capitals. Plastered Stone. New Paphos. Cyprus.
211. Roman Plastered Column Shafts and Fluting. Amathus, Cyprus.
212. Roman Wall Plastering. Plasterer and Tools.
213. Roman Wall Plaster in Three Coats. Adams Diagram.
214. Unnished Roman Wall Plastering. Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD.
215. Roman Decorative Plastering. Adams Illustration of Processes.
216. Major Scheme of Stucco Decoration as preserved on Temple Wall.
Qasr Bint Fir"aun. Petra. 1st Cent. BC1st Cent. AD.
217. Reconstruction of above Scheme.
218. Detail of Stucco Decoration on Inner Wall of Qasr Bint Fir"aun. Surviving
Evidence and Reconstruction.
219. Callots Diagram showing Proceedure in Early Byzantine Stucco Work.
In situ moulding.
Drawing out with Template.
221. Use of Prefabricated Elements in Early Byzantine Stucco. Salamis, Cyprus,
ca 400 AD.
222. Stucco Decoration in the EastArchitectural Feature. Firuzabad, ca
300 AD.
223. Typical Developed Eastern Wall PlasteringAll Over Impressed Pattern.
Nizamabad. 7th9th Cent. AD.
224. Plaster as a Sealant for Joints. Egypt. Middle Kingdom.
225. Deposition of Core Material in Roman Concrete.
226. Roman Concrete faced with opus quadratum. Temple of Antoninus and
Faustina. Rome. 140 AD.
list of illustrations xxiii
227. Roman Concrete faced with opus vittatum. Baths at Trier, ca 150 AD.
228. Roman Concrete faced with opus incertum.
229. Roman Concrete faced with opus incertum. Cistern in Baths at Pompeii.
Late 2nd Cent. BC.
230. Roman Concrete facing transitional between opus incertum and opus quasi
reticulatum.
231. Roman Concrete opus reticulatum schema.
232. Roman Concrete faced with opus reticulatum. Capitol at Terracina, ca 40 BC.
233. Preparation of opus reticulatum stone facing units.
234. Ruined opus reticulatum Wall showing Facing and Core. Pompeii. End
of 1st Cent. BC.
235. Opus reticulatum Facing where stone units have disappeared leaving only a
network of plaster about the empty emplacements.
236. Opus reticulatum Facing where stone units have disappeared. Comparitive
examples.
237. Opus reticulatum Facing including some units of burnt bricks.
238. Roman Concrete. opus testaceum Schema.
239. Preparation of opus testaceum. Facing Units.
240. Roman Concrete opus testaceum showing Facing and Core. Rome. Mid
2nd Cent. AD.
241. Roman Concrete opus testaceum showing Core Material including Brick.
Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD.
242. Wall Plaster over Roman Concrete.
243. Wall Plaster over Decorative Facing of Roman Concrete.
244. Reconstructed Drawing of Unfaced Roman Concrete Foundations with
Impressions of Timber Uprights.
wooden shuttering.
246. Opus testaceum Concrete Wall on unfaced Concrete Foundations. Ostia.
2nd Cent. AD.
247. Roman Concrete Columns. Pompeii, ca 70 AD.
248. Elevation of Walls and part Dome of Pantheon showing Projection of
Brick Arches set into Concrete Structure. Rome. 112 AD.
249. Choisys Drawing of Roman Concrete Vault Construction.
250. Supplies of Bitumen in the Ancient Middle East.
251. Bitumen Waterproong of Drain. Assur, ca 2000 BC.
252. Refacing of Existing Tigris Embankment. Assur, ca 1300 BC.
253. Neo-Babylonian Bathroom with Bitumen Waterproong.
254. Geological Sections showing Formation of Ore Deposits.
255. Sketch Plan of Occurence of Alluvial (Surface) Gold.
xxiv list of illustrations
256. Section showing Origin of Surface Gold.

257. Sections showing Deposition of Surface Gold.
258. Conspectus of Egyptian Metallurgical Practice from Delivery of Raw
Material to Finished Metal Product. Theban Tomb Decoration. 1500
BC.
259. Reconstructed Drawing of Copper Smelting Furnace at Timna. 1300
BC.
260. Etruscan Shaft Furnace for Copper Smelting.
261. Plano Convex Copper Ingot. Late Bronze Age.
262. Chronological Development of Oxhide Ingot Form. 1500 BC1200 BC.
263. Comparitive Sections of Bloomery Hearth for Wrought Iron and of Middle
East Baking Oven.
264. Simple Bowl Furnaces for Smelting Iron.
265. Basic Design of Shaft Furnace for Iron Smelting. 6th Cent. BC and later.
266. Greek Smithy on Black Figure Vase, ca 500 BC.
267. Site Plan of Romano-British Iron Smelting Furnaces. 2nd3rd Cent. AD.
268. Roman Smithy on Funerary Relief. Aquileia.
269. Roman Smithy Scenes. Catacomb of Domatilla. Rome.
270. Large Roman Anvil of Iron.
271. Romano-British Blacksmiths Tongs.
272. Type of Ancient Middle East City gate, shod, xed and fortied with
Metal.
273. The Classical Monumental Door and its Origins.
274. The Moulded Bronze Doors of the Parthenon.
275. The Moulded Bronze Doors of the Pantheon.
276. Pantheon Doors. Details of Hollow Casting and Applied Ornament.
277. Bronze Doors of Heroon of Romulus and Remus with Details of Casting.
Rome.
278. Inset Wrought Iron Beams. Temple of Apollo, Bassae. 450 BC.
279. Wrought Iron Beams from Roman Bath Installations. Catterick, Yorkshire.
2nd Cent. AD.
280. Wrought Iron Reinforcing Bars in Stone Architrave. Propylaion, Athens
Acropolis, ca 430 BC.
281. Renaissance Sketches of Roong Truss in Pantheon.
282. Long Iron Tie Beams in Masonry of Crepis. Theban Treasury at Delphi.
283. Iron Reinforcing Rods in Brick and Concrete Architrave. Hadrians Villa
at Tivoli.
284. Wrought Iron Tie Rods in Mixed Concrete and Stone Construction.
Rome. 1st3rd Cent. AD.
285. Plan of Ayia Sophia showing Position of Iron Ties. 530 AD.
list of illustrations xxv
286. Iron Tie Rods across Arches and Iron Collars around eccentrically Loaded
Columns. Ayia Sophia. Constantinople, 530 AD.
287. Detail Drawing of Iron Tie Rods and Collars. Ayia Sophia, Constantinople.
530 AD.
288. Basic Forms of Graeco-Roman Metal Cramps.
289. p Form Iron Cramp with Medial Lozenge. Phillipeion at Olympia. ca
335 BC.
290. Cramps and Dowels in Anta. Temple of Athenians, Delos. ca 420 BC.
291. Cramps and Dowels in Angle. Temple of Athenians, Delos. ca 420 BC.
292. System of Dowelling between Courses in Classical Greek Ashlar Masonry.
Temple of Athena Nike, Athens. 425 BC.
293. Iron Dowels secured in Emplacements with Molten Lead.
294. Roman Dowelling in Ashlar Masonry.
295. Fixation of Column Drums by Wooden Polos and Empolion (of Hardwood
or Metal).
296. Process of Forging Nails from Wrought Iron Rods.
297. Enormous Stock of Iron Nails from Roman Fortress. Inchtuthil, Perthshire,
Scotland, ca 130 AD.
298. Classication of Inchtuthil Nails.
299. Iron Hooks for Suspended Ceiling.
300. Lead Cramps in Late Egyptian Masonry. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st
Cent. AD.
301. Detail of Lead Cramp. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st Cent. AD.
302. Lead Damp-proong in Masonry Joints. Hephaisteion, Athens. 440 BC.
303. Roman Lead Waterpiping. Synoptic View of Manufacture and Installation.
304. Acrystalline (Liquid) Atomic Structure of Glass.
305. Sketch Reconstruction of Primary Tank Kiln (Furnace) for Producing
Bulk Glass. Northern Israel. Late Antiquity.
306. Reconstructed Sequence showing Use of Primary Glass Kiln (Furnace) in
Northern Israel.
307. Glass Kiln/Furnace for Manufacturing Objects in Roman and Later Times.
308. Plan of Roman Glass Furnaces. Eigelstein, near Cologne.
309. Manufacturing Processes of Blown Sheet Glass, Crown Glass and Cylinder
Glass. Roman and Later.
ABBREVIATIONS IN GENERAL REFERENCES
NB References in the body of the text cited in contracted form (e.g. by name
of author only) are given denitively in the General References at the end
of the chapter in question.
AAAO Art and Archaeology of the Ancient Orient

ABADY Archaeologische Berichte aus dem Yemen
ABC Ancient Building in Cyprus
ABSA Annual of the British School in Athens
ABSP Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AM Athenaische Mitteilungen
Antiquity Antiquity
Archaeology Archaeology
ASAE Annales du Service des Antiquits de lEgypte
BA Biblical Archaeologist
BAR British Archaeological Reports
BdA Bautechnik der Antike
BCH Bulletin de Correspondence Hellenique
BIFAO Bulletin de lInstitut Franais dArchologie Orientale
Britannia Britannia
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarium
Gallia Gallia
IEJ Israel Exploration Journal
Iraq Iraq
JFA Journal of Field Archaeology
JGS Journal of Glass Studies
JPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society
JPR Journal of Prehistoric Religion
JRA Journal of Roman Archaeology
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSSEA Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities
MDOG Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
OAth Opuscula Atheniensia
OJA Oxford Journal of Archaeology
Palorient Palorient
xxviii abbreviations in general references
PBA Proceedings of the British Academy

PBSR Papers of the British School at Rome
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
RM Rmische Mitteilungen
WA World Archaeology
ZAS Zeitschrift fr Agyptische Sprache und Alterumskunde
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina Vereins
INTRODUCTION
General
Several introductory remarks are unavoidable in a book with this purported

coverage. In the rst instance detailed ramication of any eld of enquiry is
now treated so extensively in journals or monographs that every eort must be
made to limit or dene as closely as possible the material to be considered
here. And even then an almost unmanageable expanse will remain, together
with inconsistent exclusions and inclusions. The delimitation is eective in three
modes: nature, area and time. Briey speaking the title Ancient Building
Technology is to be understood as follows. Ancient here means from very rst
beginnings (origins) to the end of Late Antiquity (i.e. about 600 AD); as man-
ifested geographically in the Old World of Europe and Middle East (i.e. not
Africa south of the Sahara, or Further Asia/The Far East or the New World).
Building is a gerund and so shares in the semantic eld of both noun and
verbi.e. to assemble a substantial construction from component parts and so
to make a building which (in English) is a structure enclosing space so that
men or animals can enter it and use it for shelteri.e. building is understood
both as a process and a product. However in both instances consideration is
limited to construction. There is no concern with design, the rational scheme
which must be formulated to control the process of building. Finally technol-
ogy here means the system of techniques used in the process of building con-
struction. It does not (in the rst instance) include the theoretical understanding
of the principles which govern the techniquesi.e. the science of building, build-
ing science.
Again some amplication and justication of these standpoints is unavoidable.
The origins of building are very dicult to establish and this is a question
which could have important consequences on the nature of building. Equally
it is not easy to set a terminal date for the present account. Building technol-
ogy evolved (or changed) continually. At no date was there an overall cessa-
tion or regression of building technology. In fact it is social and political
developments which make an end. The unity of the ancient world (including
its building construction) broke up. Dierent cultural view points prevailed in
Western and Eastern Europe, while ever increasing areas of the Middle East
soon passed under Arab control. These developments meant a fragmenting of
a uniform tradition of building technology with consequent changes in its pattern.
xxx introduction
The area considered is quite rmly delimitedthat is for all later periods.
For possible origins of building during the early history of mankind it is another
matter. The area is bordered on the South by desert, on the West by ocean,
on the North by snow and ice and on the Eastalas! by no denite physical
barrier. Throughout ancient times men passed backwards and forwards here
between Europe and farther Asia. However a recognisably distinct history (and
manner of building) obtained in the two regions. Certainly no inuence in the
technology of building penetrated into the Ancient World from the South, the
West or the Northof course it is quite possible that technological inuence from
within the ancient world travelled beyond its boundaries into Africa or America,
perhaps to some cultural eect, but this does not concern the present study.
The question of delimiting the nature of what comprises building technology
is a much more vexed one, and cannot be passed over. There is a very mate-
rial ambiguity in the word building. Unfortunately in English you can build
many things beside buildings, e.g. railways, dams, power networks, etc. As a
verb to build is synonymous with to construct; but not all constructions are
buildingsi.e. the participle and the verbal (abstract) noun mean one (general)
thing, while the concrete noun means another (special) thing. The product and
the process are by no means aligned. And lest this should be thought pedan-
tic, consider the following. Perhaps the most striking evidence of ancient build-
ing technology surviving today is from (imperial) Roman times. This is embodied
above all in roads, bridges, viaducts, aqueducts, docks, breakwaters etc. None
of these marvellous constructions are buildings according to the dictionary mean-
ing of the noun in English. What is to be done here? Is the title to be under-
stood in some such sense as Ancient Building and Engineering Technology?
Or is the dictionary link with architecture (Architectural Building) to be main-
tained? In fact the latter course is adopted to keep the subject within man-
ageable limits, and the technology employed elsewhere (i.e. on civil engineering
projects) will be considered only if and in so far as it introduces novelties.
Also technology (technics, techniques) warrants further remarks. According to
the general scope of the series, the title was originally presumed to imply some-
thing like Ancient Building Science and Technology. Reection immediately
indicated that considerations akin to modern Building Science, Strength of
Materials etc., were not to be included. In the rst place whatever notions of
this nature existed in the ancient world are extremely dicult to determine,
either from ancient sources or by observation and analysis of building remains.
In fact the history of ancient science, which is a well established study, has
very little to say about Ancient Building Science (viz the principles governing
building construction). In the second place the writer disclaims the capacity to
deal adequately with such scientic questions.
introduction xxxi
To resume the matter in brief, the scope of this study is the practical not
the scientic. It is the fabrica of Vitruvius, not his ratio. It deals with the tech-
niques of setting together the fabric of ancient buildingscomprising the man-
ual and mechanical operations involved; the materials, tools and equipment
used. Not the theory, if any, which lay behind these matters. Here another
generic limitation of subject matter is to be mentioned. Building is an impor-
tant factor in society. It is shaped by and shapes the pattern of society. Thus
apart from its technical constitution it has important social connections and
repercussions. Again to keep the study in reasonable bounds these things will
not be considered here per sethey will be mentioned only as may be required
to make sense out of the techniques employed.
In the face of all eorts to circumscribe the study, the fact still remains that
knowledge becomes so multifarious that it behoves anyone endeavouring to
cover such a wide eld to state his own background. In speaking of building
technology in antiquity, the writer is proceeding from a basic elementary edu-
cation in history and in architecture obtained at the middle of the present cen-
tury, followed by a life long activity in excavating, recording and restoring
ancient building remains. He has had very little experience in modern build-
ing construction, and has no knowledge at all of modern advanced structural
analysis and properties of materials. The only justication for proceeding on
this narrowly restricted understanding is that it perhaps may not be too dis-
similar from that of many ancient builders whose constructions are discussed
in this book.
This statement gives onto the question of the background of those to whom
the book is addressed. The study presumes some general concern for and knowl-
edge of what is supposed to have transpired during the period discussed (Ancient
History). Likewise where things and processes can be accurately indcated by
terms currently employed in the building trades, these terms are used. Perhaps
something more may be added on this score. Recently studies of ancient build-
ing have been expressed (or recast) to avoid such terminology. This has involved
two patent disadvantages. It is virtually impossible to express these matters
clearly and concisely in other words; and since the terminology is widely known
(e.g. among householders) its avoidance raises a presumption that the writer
intends to refer to something else. On the other hand the book does not pre-
sume expertise in either the historical or the technological eldparticularly
the latter. The book is certainly not addressed to those with the technological
acumen of builders of pyramids or Pantheons. Only it is hoped that such indi-
viduals will nd nothing misleading in it.
xxxii introduction
Vol. 2
The following rsum study deals with building material, which together with
construction and structures, forms one of the three aspects of building, or equally
one of the three factors which constitute the nature of a building. These con-
siderations are theoretically separable, but in practice entirely inter-related.
However it is possible to perceive that building materials have manifested a
signicance of their own in history. If man has made himself, he has done this
in a signicant measure by building; topically expressed here by his use of
building materials. The earliest building required an understanding of the phys-
ical nature of materials (the properties of matter) and this knowledge was greatly
increased by the practical experience of their use in building. Furthermore there
was a parallel between the development of building and writing: the material
man used for building he used for writing on (clay, stone). Indeed both build-
ing and writing were parallel ways of monumentalising mans existence and
experiencethus both had utilitarian and transcendental functions.
It is evident that the primary structural materials: wood, earth, stone have
outlasted much history. They have outlasted various changing modes in which
they were used. And these modes in turn have outlasted the building styles in
which they were embodied. In that sense primary building materials may be
seen as long dure parameters of history (if there is any point in using that
now fashionable term). Primary building materials certainly outlasted the Ancient
Worldbut nothing lasts forever. Structural steel and ferro-concrete took over
much during the 19th century and during the 21st century it is possible that
entirely synthetic building materials may become predominant.
One or two specic historical instances are thrown up by such speculation.
It may be of interest here to present them as questions (if any answers are
forthcoming it can only be at the end of the complete study of Ancient Building
Technology, not here). Mud brick was perhaps the most versatile of all build-
ing materials developed in the Ancient World. Used in the same manner it
served to build unpretentious cabin shelters and the most imposing monuments
(temples, palaces, ziggurats). This double destiny was fully established in
Mesopotamia, ca 3000 BC. Then after some three thousand years an abrupt
change occured. Mud brick continued to be used as ever for domestic build-
ing but massive mud brick construction disappeared for great public buildings.
There is also a strange parallel in a dierent material. Approaching the
middle of the third millenium BC a style of monumental building in nely
dressed heavy stone masonry appeared with the greatest clat in Egypt. The
technology involved was sophisticated and hightly integrated. This mode of
using stone together with the architectural style survived across the ages virtu-
introduction xxxiii
ally unchanged. And then in the rst centuries of the Christian era it disap-
peared entirely (at roughly the same date as the end of massive mud brick con-
struction in Mesopotamia). What were the reasons for this great departure.
Certainly not any shortcomings in the building materials and the modes of
using them.
The particular problem in writing about ancient materials is to decide how
to limit the scope of the treatment so as to avoid entering far (too far) into
modern scientic theory. Obviously modern science can not be completely
ignored. Often it aords a necessary rationalisation of ancient usage and cus-
tom concerning materials. However the present age is one of continual change/
advance in physical sciences and an enquiring dispostion directed towards nature
and behaviour of building materials soon leads to explanations quite beyond
the mental capacity of the layman. More surprisingly, it soon leads to ques-
tions which run of the mill academic scientists appear to be unable to explain
cogentlythey are not treated in the syllabus. In short many such questions
appear to be open ended. What is to be done here? So far as any measure
of generality can inhere in a rule, I have tried to limit reference to modern
science to explanations which can be conveyed in common sense, plain lan-
guagei.e. I have endeavoured to avoid using mathematical symbols and for-
mulae. This, of course, means that the book avoids as much as possible chemistry
and chemical equations. This is not to say that I have tried to express the
ancient builders understanding of the nature and behaviour of the materials
he used. It means that I have tried to explain matters only in such terms as
would have been comprehensible to ancient builders.
Lest this should sound unduly retrogressive I draw attention to the follow-
ing. I enquired about such things with a schoolboy friend who had become a
distinguished civil engineer. To my surprise he denied all capacity to give any
cogent explanation of the nature and behaviour of building materials. He said
that the text books etc. on which his engineering education was based were
cookery books. And that his education was to enable him to make the cal-
culations needed in his practice.
A dierent issue concerns existing manuals on ancient building, which all
treat exhaustively of the materials of construction. These manuals are classics,
the work of extremely able men, e.g. Clarke and Engelbach, Arnold (Egyptian);
Nauman (Anatolia); Martin, Orlandos (Greek); Lugli, Adam (Roman). Additionally
of very recent years several books have appeared which survey the develop-
ment and use of materials in ancient civilisations, e.g. Shaw (Egyptian); Moorey
(Mesopotamian). How is the present study to be adjusted with these works?
Can it be anything other than a summary redaction, a digest of their contents?
I have tried to avoid this by something of an analytic presentation. The fact
xxxiv introduction
that the subject matter extends across all ages and regions favours comparison.
And I have set out the treatment of materials according to a paradigm of
nature, manufacture and use, so as to facilitate direct comparison between
dierent modes of the one material, as also between dierent materials and
between dierent building traditions.
Here an explanation must be oered of the eect of circumstances. The sur-
charge of publication is now such that it is impossible to keep to scheduled
treatment of extended subjects. On commencement of the present volume it
immediately became apparent that if the detail of coverage envisaged was to
be maintained, the projected contents, Materials and Construction, would have
to be broken up into two volumes. The present volume is thus restricted to a
consideration of materials alone, leaving the technology of ancient building con-
struction to be considered in the succeeding volume.
In endeavouring to cover the technology of building materials in antiquity
the aim has been to say at least something about the principal materials from
the beginning to the end of their involvement in buildingthat is to say from
the physical nature of a substance to its incorporation into a structure. To deal
with the beginning of this schedule was reasonably straightforward, as to speak
of the nature and properties of materials and of their winning or manufacture.
However, when considering the working of materials and their uses in build-
ing, no clear line of separation was found between this and questions of build-
ing construction. Thus if coverage of these latter issues appears in some instances
to be incomplete, the reader may expect further information to appear in the
succeeding volume dealing with building construction.
The present volume has been assembled while dwelling apart from archaeo-
logical centres, and thus the good oces of friends requires due acknowledge-
ment. Fortunately several scholars concerned with ancient building live in the
region of Avignon, and have conveyed information wherever possiblethus
Professor O. Aurenche (Lyon); J.-L. Biscop (Paris and Villeneuve); J.-C. Bessac
(Montpellier and Montpezat); P. Varnne and J.-L. Paillet (Aix en Provence).
In making available a wide selection of photographs held by I.R.A.A. at Aix
en Provence J.-L. Paillet tendered most unselsh help. These photographs
included a notable collection made jointly by P. Varnne and J.-P. Adam, of
Roman building in Pompeii, Rome and environs. Access to all this material
was the more valuable since the writers own photographic collection had been
destroyed by ooding.
Parallel assistance was also provided by the librarians of the specialised libraries
of the University of Leiden, who in emergency veried references and faxed
copies of illustrations, etc.thus grateful acknowledgement is made to Gertrude
introduction xxxv
Bolten, Librarian of NINO Library and to Els Koeneman, Librarian of the

Archaeological Centre Library.
Professor of Metallurgy Richard Durham was kind enough to help with data
given in the table of the properties of metals and I express my thanks for this
concern.
As previously, the typescript is the work of Lynette de Tchrpakhine.
R. Sheri compiled the index. Also the skill and interest of Ms. Gera van Bedaf,
Brill Editor, contributed greatly to the speed at which this book as been printed.
Finally, respectful acknowledgement is made of a subvention provided by the
Russel Trust towards expenses of photocopying, typing, etc.
CHAPTER ONE
GENERAL SURVEY
It was once a leading idea concerning early human development that man was Building
a tool maker ( faber) long before he became a builder. Like many such basic mans
introduc-
presumptions, this has been eroded. In any event both these activities brought
tion to
early man into exploratory contact with matter so that he pursued the inter- physical
mingled paths of observation and experiment (= scientic method). Perhaps of science
the two, building drew him into the wider contact. And it is perhaps fair to
say that the science of physics took its origin from mans earliest building activ-
ities; followed directly by that of chemistry. In order to make appropriate use
of a variety of appropriate building materials man needed to recognise men-
tally what qualities were required by dierent functional elements of building
and to identify what naturally occuring substances possessed these qualities.
Herein was embodied an understanding of the properties of matter, the fun-
damental concept of physics. When man perceived that he was not dependent
on naturally occuring substances for his building materials but that he could
articially concoct new substances for this purpose, he abutted on the science
of chemistry. Finally in order to make use of any building material, whether
naturally occuring or manufactured, man needed to shape it up with some pre-
cision. This in turn required a developed capacity for mensuration coupled with
the possesion of a varied, specialised tool kit. Here man perforce mingled with
abstract knowledge the practical capacity to make and do with materialsthe
capacity of the artisan, the craftsman, that quality which in some way has
coloured so much of his development: social, cultural, psychological.
It is useful to make some preliminary general survey of building materials.
They can be classied in several ways which helps in considering their use
individually.
Obviously there is a historical dimension to their division into natural and
manufactured, but it is a surprising fact how soon ancient man began to man-
ufacture building materials. Building construction during Palaeolithic times had
been restricted to the use of naturally occuring materials, but from the early
Neolithic Period, say approaching 10,000 years ago, men began to manufac-
ture materials for use in building construction. Natural materials are in origin
inorganic (e.g. stone) or organic (biological); and building materials of organic
origin are derived either from animal products (bones, sinews, hides, etc.) or
2 chapter one
Natural from plant products (wood, thatch, ropes, etc.). With respect to manufactured
and building materials it can be seen that the degree to which natural primary
articial
products have been transformed in the process of manufacture varies widely.
building
materials In this fashion it may be dicult on occasion to distinguish between a natural
material and a manufactured material.
There are two grades of manufactured materials:
(1) Where the physical state of the material has been altered in some way, but
its chemical composition has not been changed,
(2) Where the chemical composition of the material has been changed; notably
when two natural materials have combined chemically in xed proportions
to produce a composite material.
Some examples may indicate the continuum between these several divisions
between natural and manufactured materials. Gathered eld stones and timber
are natural materials, nor does quarrying and dressing stone or hewing wood
make them articial materials. Also metals occurring in a pure state are obvi-
ously natural materialse.g. meteoroic iron, gold nuggets, etc. But what of
metals extracted from ores by the proceeses of smelting and rening? These
are best taken as manufactured materials.
Earth and clay e.g. piled up as a barrier wall is manifestly a natural mate-
rial. Mud brick and mud mortar or plaster may be reckoned manufactured,
but the chemical composition of the constituents, water, earth and straw, have
not been changed, they have only been mixed together. Burnt bricks are cer-
tainly a manufactured material. The chemical composition has been changed
in the process of manufacture. Similarly crushed limestone and crushed rock
gypsum are probably reckoned manufactured. Burnt lime plaster and mortar
and burnt gypsum plaster (Plaster of Paris) and mortar are certainly manufac-
tured products.
It is also useful to note here a very basic functional distinction in building
materials: i.e. between primary materials (structural materials) and secondary
materials (accessory or auxilliary materials). A primary material is one which is
employed to provide the strength for any building element to perform its load-
bearing functione.g. brick or stone for a wall; stone or wood for a column;
wood for beams; stone for arches, etc. etc. An accessory or auxilliary material
is one used in conjunction with structural materials not to contribute directly
to bearing the load but to improve the load bearing qualities of the primary
materials or to provide the building with other necessary attributes. Thus ttings
and furnishings: e.g. cords to bind wooden framework together; mortar to x
brick together; metal to cramp and dowel stone blocks together and to nail
general survey 3
wooden planks together; metal to provide pivots and hinges for doors; glass to Primary
admit light; plaster to surface walls; paint to colour them, etc. etc. and
secondary
The distinction between the two classes is not hard and fast. It does not
building
equate exactly with load bearing and non load bearing materialse.g. the mor- materials
tar in a brick wall bears the load in the same fashion as the bricks. However
this is not its purpose. It would never be introduced on this account, since it
has less strength than the bricks. The mortar is used because of its adhesive
qualities to x the bricks together so that the combined fabric can withstand
better shocks etc. which might otherwide displace individual units. It is clear
that auxilliary materials greatly extended the range of materials used in ancient
building.
With this background, some notice may now be taken of general questions
concerning the use of building materials.
For any but the simplest building operations, to incorporate some given
material into the construction requires that the material be shaped, attached,
fastened, etc. in some way. The degree to which the material is amenable to
such processes may be termed its workability. Supposing the material can be
worked into a serviceable unit for some given purpose, the question then arises
as to its eciency for the required purpose, i.e. its strength, impermeability,
etc. Then, since by denition a building connotes a degree of permanence (e.g.
English usage will not tolerate the use of building for a tent), there is the ques-
tion of durability over a period of time. These three considerations are funda-
mental in determining the serviceability of any material for use in building
construction. And it can be seen readily that they are not self consistent in
operation, indeed they inevitably conict: e.g. the most durable material may
be the least workable. The material which behaves best structurally may not
be very durable, etc. etc.
Next, as stated initially, the ancient builder needed to recognise the merits
of a given material for a particular purpose. This he could assess only by way
of a familiarity with the physical qualities of the material. Here he came face
to face with the properties of the matter, i.e. physicsthe basis of all knowl-
edge of the external world. It should be noted in advance that the following
remarks on the properties of matter are conned entirely to the outward behav-
iour of materials. No attempt is made to explain this behaviour in terms of the
composition of matter, since ancient builders had no access to such (scientic)
knowledge.
Some of the recognised properties of matter which concern building materi-
als are:
Extension (linear, supercial and volume); weight (density and mass); hard-
ness; strength; resilience; brittleness; elasticity; exibility; malleability; ductility;
4 chapter one
Properties plasticity; cohesion; adhesion; permeability; transparency; inamability; etc. etc.

of matter These properties are appended in some rough order of their immediacy to
building concernswith structural concerns to the fore.
Obviously understanding spatial extension is a more or less a condition prece-
dent for building, and evidence of standard measures go back to Neolithic times
and beyond. Equally it is surprising how early weight was quantied. Stone
weights are discovered from the beginning of urban civilisation; but over and
above this, surprising consonances in standard weights from distant regions
which long predate historical connections show that these units were current
in prehistory. Hardness, a rather inexact concept, but connoting resistance to
wear and tear introduces the ambiguous nature of many properties of matter
for building concerns. Hardness is an important factor in durability of materials;
but at the same time one which is a negative factor in workability.
For structural building units man was immediately concerned with the strength
of the material, i.e. its capacity to sustain the load to which it was subject with-
out deforming and rupturing. In certain instances (e.g. roong) the lighter the
material (the less the load) the betterhence a strength/weight ratio could be
of importance.
However the question of the strength of building materials was never an
abstract one. A material was more eective in some circumstances than in oth-
ers. And choosing the most appropriate material involved recognition of other
properties of matter. Did the material retain its shape when aected by exter-
nal actions or did it bend, i.e. was it rigid (sti ) or exible? Did the material
break/break up/break away when aected by external actions, i.e. was it resilient
or brittle? Iron is stronger than wood, but it is heavy. In certain circumstances
it is exible. Wood is not brittle at all and exible only to a limited degree
but it is inammable.
When auxilliary materials are considered then other properties of matter
come in point: exibility for cords and thongs, malleability for metal accessories
etc.; above all plasticity and adhesion for mortars and plasters. All manufac-
tured products of this latter nature depend on the property of plasticity for
their manufacture and additionally on adhesion for their functioning.
Over and above these things, when man put the material of his choice to
use in more developed buildings, he soon became aware of a surprising fact.
The same material did not have the same strength when used in dierent con-
nections. As units in walls brick and stone were very strong; however laid from
one wall to the other across open spaces, stone was heavy and not strong (it
ssured) and brick was useless; Wood, on the other hand did very well since
it was light and quite strong. From these observations man acquired some prac-
tical appreciation of the eects of forces operating on and in materials. With
general survey 5
this appreciation he approached the vital enquiry of statics (mechanics), which History of
matter will be taken up subsequently in more detail. materials.
A brief rsum is now given of the historical development in the use of build- Wood
ing materials.
Speaking in broad terms there is no doubt that the earliest building mater-
ial in common use was wood (branches/bushes, etc.). It could be fashioned into
shape and size easily; it was uniformly strong in all connections and it was
light. It was the ideal material for the light framework and cladding whereby
man fashioned his earliest shelters. Throughout subsequent ages men never
ceased to reproduce such light shelters: permanent and transportable (cf bow-
ers, wigwams, yurts, tents). However solid long houses appeared in Northern
Europe during the Neolithic Period and remained the traditional building form
there until the present century. Eventually a complete mastery of joinery and
carpentry permitted massive construction out of accurately shaped timber
(cf the roong of Greek temples and Christian basilicas, as also Scandinavian
Stave Churches). This development in wooden construction was accompanied
by a close parallel, ship building (naval architecture). In some ways wooden
building drew on ship buildingand there are buildings which are clearly
derived from the forms of ship building (cf Lycian tombs of classical date). The
instinctive acceptance of the historical priority of wood construction is reected
in the common assumption that wooden prototypes of some sort stand behind
much monumental stone buildinge.g. Megaliths, Egyptian Temples, Greek
Temples.
Associated with the rst wooden construction is the use of animal products
(hides, sinews, etc.) for fastening and cladding. There was also the bizarre inde-
pendent use of animal (mammoth) bones as a structural material on the steppe
land of Eastern Europe. However in later ages animal products played only a
minor rle in building (e.g. as additives in plastering etc.).
The physical basis of the use of earth/clay in building is its plasticityor
rather its plasticity when saturated as mud, and its subsequent rigidity and
strength when dry; i.e. it is easily workable when wet and more or less resilient
when it is dried out. Earth is the early counterpart to wood with an obvious
environmental division in distributionbeing the natural building material in
unwooded regions. It should be noticed however that earth also imports a dis-
tinction in construction. Wood is essentially apposite to framed construction,
whereas earth is used (structurally) as a load bearing material; and as a gen-
eral rule man completely enclosed space by a framework before he was able
to do so with load bearing walls supporting a roof. In this way the earliest use
of earth as a building material was in the nature of low enclosure walls with
a separate framed construction supporting the roof. Also the inverted image of
6 chapter one
Earth earth building was used to provide earthen enclosures: i.e. excavation to pro-
vide semi-sunken dwellings.
This background explains the innovation contained in the sudden rise to
prominence during earliest Neolithic times of the solidly constructed Round
House of load bearing mud and rubble walls with roong of the same material
a mode found from Cyprus to Central Asia from the 8th millenium onwards.
There are four clearly dened ways in which earth can be used as a struc-
tural material.
(1) Puddled Mud or Cob (Plastic Earth)

(2) Terre Pis (Compressed Earth)
(3) Mud Brick (a) Hand modelled
(b) Form moulded
(4) Burnt Brick
Puddled Mud involves the simplest preparation and building procedure. The
mud is mixed in bulk, kneaded and compacted into forms something like snow
balls and thrown up to the builder, who forcefully drives the ball against the
existing work for compaction. No tool of any sort is needed for the building.
Evidence of this mode survive from Mesolithic times. This construction is
quite dierent from Terre Pis, which properly signies earth rammed/tamped
between shuttering. It is thus a precursor of modern concrete. Although the
two types of construction are quite dierent (terre pis is not prepared plastic),
it is not always easy to dierentiate them on the archaeological evidence.
Whereas puddled mud (tauf, kahgell) was a very early form of earth construc-
tion; there is little convincing evidence of the early use of terre pis. However
it was well known in later antiquity. Building in structural earth (rammed earth/
terre pis) survived across the ages and is today being revived with an accom-
paniment of modern technology. Also during antiquity plastic earth was an
important auxilliary material. It was extensively used as plaster and mortar in
mud brick and rubble building. However it was never proper to building in
dressed stone.
From the beginning of Neolithic times (ca 8th millenium BC) a dierent
approach was developed. This was mud brickpreformed units of standard
shape and dimension dried in the sun so that they were competent (i.e. retained
their form). At rst these mud bricks were hand modelled but a millenium or
so later (from the beginning of the 6th millenium) form moulded mud bricks
became the rule. Finally during the 4th millenium BC the process of ring the
bricks in a kiln was developed to produce Burnt Bricks. This very considerably
increased the strength of the brick so that burnt brick is probably the most
general survey 7
versatile of materials, being equally suitable for minor domestic work as for Stone
imposing public buildings.
Building in stone came to be widely regarded as the archtypal building con-
struction; but this view derived from one aspect of stone buildingmonumen-
tal building where the durability of stone was virtually a condition precedent.
This type of building did not become established until long after stone had
been used in a variety of utilitarian circumstances. Indeed the availability and
portability of (eld) stones made stone next to wood the obvious natural mate-
rial for building. Stone however (like brick) is essentially a load bearing material
and thus, since the earliest roofed shelters were of framed construction, stone
originally played a subsidiary rle in building.
Evidence remains from Upper Palaeolithic times (ca 20,000 BC) of the use
of stone for curbs and low boundary walls, as also of its use for weights to
secure attachments etc. However from earliest Neolithic times (eld) stones were
used drowned in mud mortar, and then as mortared rubble, as an alternative
construction to mud brick. Within this general development there was an aston-
ishing eruption during the 4th millenium BCMegalithic Building. Here struc-
tures were fashioned, walls and roof equally, from great slabs of natural rock
weighing many, many tons (e.g. 4050 tons on occasion). These structures were
subsequently heaped over with earth mounds to become articial caverns and
constituted rude stone monuments. Much remains controversial concerning this
building, but it is generally accepted now that the geographical origin of the
mode was the Atlantic shore of South Western Europe, although it cannot be
assumed that the later widespread distribution of the mode is everywhere the
result of diusion.
About a thousand years later man began to quarry out blocks of stone from
bed rock and dress them into regular forms suitable for building construction.
Here began the development towards monumental building: nely dressed stone
structures where both the aesthetics and the durability were of a dierent order
from that required by every day utilitarian structures. Something of these begin-
nings can be seen in Mesopotamia but it was in Early Dynastic Egypt that the
essential developments took place. At rst stone was dressed into relatively small
blocks, squared up and nely dressed only at the visible faces (Zoser masonry).
However with the construction of the great pyramids of the 4th Dynasty (mid
3rd millenium BC) a completely dierent system of building in dressed stone
was evolvedso called Pharaonic masonry. This was eected from large to
very large blocks (e.g. of 2 tons20 tons) closely jointed together throughout
the construction, but these blocks were not necessarily of regular orthogonal
format nor set in regular courses. This type of building remained peculiar to
Egypt and was never exported. On the other hand from early in the 2nd
8 chapter one
Lime and millenium BC nely dressed stone masonry after the Zoser type appeared in
gypsum Crete and then later (during the Late Bronze Age) in the Levant and Anatolia,
where in some areas it continued virtually uninterrupted into the rst mille-
nium BC (the Iron Age). Then during the 6th century BC ne stone masonry
took a new turn. This was Classical Greek ashlar where sizeable orthogonal
blocks of stone were very exactly dressed so that the jointing between blocks
was hair line. These blocks were regularly coursed and bonded and xed with
metal cramps to give a construction of great beauty and solidity. With this, ne
stone masonry achieved its highest development and although the technique
was never lost, the excellence of Classical Greek ashlar masonry was never
equalled in later ages.
Without doubt the most striking archaeological discovery in recent years con-
cerning building materials is of the very early use of lime and gypsum. Preparations
of these materials have long been used as (and in) mortar and plaster. However
until recently the archaeological record of their use during antiquity was defec-
tive to derisory. Archaelogists could not reliably dierentiate between lime and
gypsum, far less between the modes of employment of each substance. Only
recently with the application of physical science to archaeology have these
matters been claried, to surprising eect. As it concerns building, both sub-
stances can be presented in three forms: (a) as a natural rock; (b) crushed and
pulverised rock; (c) chemically transformedi.e. they occur in building both as
natural and articial materials.
The terms lime and gypsum relate essentially to the chemical composition
of substanceslime referring to a substance which is predominantly Calcium
Carbonate (Ca CO3), and gypsum referring to a substance which is predomi-
nantly Calcium Sulphate (Ca SO4). Both substances occur naturally as rocks
and both types of rock can be burnt so that their chemical composition is
altered. Some elements are driven o and a chemically altered powder remains.
This powder can be mixed with water to form a paste which is easily worked.
It is also very plastic and adhesive so that it can be used to excellent eect
both as a plaster and mortar (or as a principal ingredient in such preparations).
Very recent investigations have shown that man possessed this knowledge and
technique from the beginning of his sedentary living, e.g. in Mesolithic (Nautuan)
Palestine, ca 10,000 BC.
This knowledge was exploited as an established industry early in Neolithic
times, ca 8th millenium BC. It was employed, inter alia, to produce the beau-
tiful and hard wearing plaster oors of early round houses in pre-pottery times.
With the possession of this superior manufactured material man thus began his
career as a signicant builder (ca 8,000 BC) in possession of all the requisite
basic materials of construction.
general survey 9
There is also an important post-script to the development of this strong Metal

adhesive plaster and mortar. The Greeks noted the use of the material (in
Phoenecia and Cyprus) and rightly understood that its virtues were engendered
by ring. This knowledge prepared the Romans for their understanding of the
similar virtues of volcanic earth (from the Campagna), and thus for the evolu-
tion of Roman Concrete as a major building material during the period 100
BC300 AD.
The one remaining building material of signicance is metaland this was
of later introduction. The Chalcolithic Age (5th4th Millenia) indicates mans
discovery of mining and metallurgybut the rst metal products were objects:
utensils, weapons etc. The earliest record of the use of metals in building is
from Old Kingdom Egypt. Copper cramps were used to x stone blocks together
in the Valley Temple of Chephren at Gizeh (ca 2,500 BC). Lead, also, because
it is exceptionally workable (it is very malleable and pliable) is a useful auxil-
liary building materialuntil contemporary days it was the basis of plumbing.
Sprigs of lead can be hammered home to wedge other metals in place. Lead
is also a useful sealant between blocks of masonry, when waterproof construc-
tion is required as in bathrooms. A good example of this can be seen at the
Late Bronze Age site of Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus. The rst appearance
of iron as a common building material was its use by the Greeks in Classical
times for reinforcing stone lintels and architraves. They let iron bars into the
sotes of such members, and had great faith in the strength of the material.
Here the material was used structurally, but in general it can be said that dur-
ing antiquity metal was almost entirely a secondary building material, being
used for fastenings and ttings (e.g. cramps, pivots, hinges, locks etc.) and above
all for decoration. It is only in modern times that metal has become a major
primary material of construction as the structural steel frame of high rise build-
ings. However from its rst introduction metal was of vital importance to build-
ing, since metal tools (hammers, adzes, axes, picks, chisels, saws, etc.) were
essential for the development of carpentry and stone masonry.
This outline of mans engagement with building materials merits a brief
comment.
Some years ago it would have been astonishing to suggest that man already
possessed understanding of all his basic building materials approaching 10,000
years agoand even more astonishing to suggest that he could command re
to change the nature of materials so as to render them more suitable for his
building requirements. The formal stages of this development are of interest.
First man recognised the abstract qualities of natural material (wood, earth,
stone); then he manufactured materials to aord the desired qualities (strength,
durability, etc.) by mixing together natural material (e.g. earth, water, straw;
10 chapter one
Fire and crushed limestone and water etc.). These processes are mechanicalthe new
pyrotech- material is a mixture but the molecular structure of the constituent materials
nology is not changed. The subsequent step in manufacturing building materials was
an astounding one; it marked the truly human wise man. He manufactured
materials quite dierent in their properties from the raw material(s) employed
by changing the chemistry of the materials by exposing them to the eects of
very intense energy. This energy he provided through the heat of a ery fur-
nace, and thus the process may be called pyrotechnologyhe embarked on
paths of re. An appreciation of his own cleverness in this has never left
him; and the God of Fire (Loki, Agni, etc.) was always characterised as the
most subtle of deities.
Pyrotechnology has many applications in building materials: pulverised lime-
stone was red to produce plasters and mortars very adhesive and harder than
the stone to which they were applied when mixed with water; plastic earth was
red to produce burnt brick with properties resembling hard stone. Later man
perceived that certain types of rock (ores) recognisably contain a high metal
content (copper, tin, iron, etc.) and this could be extracted from the rock by
smelting to run o as more or less pure metal. In all the foregoing instances
it is basically one natural substance (clay, limestone, copper, etc.) which was
processed chemically to provide the new building material. However subse-
quently man saw it was possible to apply pyrotechnology to a mixture of sev-
eral natural substances and from them produce a new compound material (metal
alloys, glass, etc.). The ultimate step in this inventive path has waited until the
present day. Signicant new building materials are now produced not from
mixing together various natural substances but by mixing together chemical ele-
ments which do not occur naturally in isolation. Such materials are truly
articial (e.g. plastics).
Perhaps a concluding observation is suggested. The understanding of build-
ing materials possessed by man nearly 10,000 years ago could not be achieved
without concentrated abstract thought, and it is impossible to think in this way
without appropriate words. How much the language of Neolithic man must
have been developed and enriched by his engagement with building materials.
General References
Modern Enquiry
H.F. Moore & M.B. Moore, Materials of Engineering, New York, 1953.
S.D. Timushenko, A History of the Strength of Materials, London, 1951.
general survey 11
Historical Outline
N. Davey, A History of Building Materials, London, 1961.
P. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, Oxford, 1994.
A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, London, 1948.
P.T. Nicholson & Ian Shaw, Ancient Egyptian Materials, Cambridge, 2000.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine, Leiden, 1985.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus, Leiden, 1992.
R. Nauman, Architektur Kleinasiens, Tubingen, 1971.
E. Shaw, Minoan Architecture Materials and Techniques, Rome, 1973.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grcque (Materiaux et Techniques), Paris, 1965,
A. Orlandos, Les Materiaux de Construction Architecturale des Anciens Grecs III, Paris, 196668.
G. Lugli, La Tecnica Edelizia Romana, Rome, 1957.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, Paris, 1989.
A. Orlandos, The Wooden Roofed Early Christian Basilicas of the Mediterranean (in Greek), Athens,
195257.
A. Choisy, LArt de Batir chez les Byzantins, Paris, 1883.
Appendix: Comparative Weights and Strengths of Materials
The study of building materials today is a branch of applied sciencean exact science. Every
quality or property of any building material can be specified numerically. In this book eorts
have been made to avoid all quantication in the discussion of ancient building materials.
There are two reasons for this. In the rst place the resources to provide this quantication
did not exist in antiquity. Even more to the point is the second consideration. Quantication
of properties is only helpful when there is some referent for it in the readers understanding.
Otherwise it is an obfuscation and irritant.
The general reader of this study will possess one or other of two frames of reference. Either
pounds, tons, inches and feet will mean something to him or centimetres, metres, grams and
kilograms. Unfortunately new (international) units to express strength, stress etc. have been
adopted which are meaningful only to the professional engineer, and convey no message what-
ever to the general reader. Thus quantities expressed in these units are useless to the general
reader and unnecessary for the specialist, who carries them in his head.
Since it is useful as a frame of reference to have some idea of the relative statical quali-
ties of the various materials discussed, an attempt has been made to provide this in the sim-
plest possible relative terms. Mud brick is commonly thought of as the simplest type of building
material, and its weight and strength have been taken as representing unit value; then the
qualities of all other materials have been expressed as multiples of this unit. Also in addition
to the respective strength of the material, the strength/weight ratio has been provided since
this is of signicance for beams and lintels (v. table on p. 12).
12 chapter one
Schematic table to indicate comparative weights and strengths of building materials assigning
mud brick unit value for weight and strength.
MATERIAL A B C D E F G
B C D
A A A
MUD BRICK 1.0 1.0 1.0
BURNT BRICK 1.13 5.0 4.5
LIMESTONE 1.33 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 0.75 0.75
GRANITE 1.8 40.0 1.0 1.0 22.2 0.55 0.55
WOOD ~0.5 7.0 10.0 10.0 14.0 20.0 20.0
IRON 2.3 50.0 70.0 90.0 22.0 30.5 39.2

A = weight; B = compressive strength; C = tensile strength; D = sheer strength; E = compressive
strength/weight ratio; F = tensile strength/weight ratio; G = sheer strength/weight ratio.
Finally should the reader be confronted with values expressed in British measure or in the
metric system and wish to compare one with the other, the following are useful equivalents:
1 metre (m) =
3.28 feet (', ft)
1 kilogram (kg) =
2.2 pounds (lbs)
1 metric ton/tonne (T) =
2,208 pounds (lbs) = 0.986 tons
1 kg per square centimetre (1 kg per cm2) =
14.3 pounds per square inch (lbs per
inch2) which is close to 1 atmosphere
2
10 tonnes per square metre (10T / m ) = ca 1 ton per square foot
1000 kilograms per cubic metre (1000 kg / m3) = 62.4 pounds per cubic foot (the weight
of water = specic gravity of 1)
CHAPTER TWO
WOOD
A. Nature and Qualities of Wood

(a) Strength
(b) Durability
B. Supply
C. Woodworking
D. Uses of Wood
Considered as a building material wood is an inadequate term for the intended Wood
category. How wood is distinguished botanically from other vegetal matter of lacks
similar nature is not generally known. In common understanding the distinc- specic
denition
tion is one of degree only. Wood is that brous sort of material which is rigid
and strong enough in its natural state to support considerable loads. It comes
from trees (or bushes). Whereas similar material from plants (other plants, e.g.
rushes) is exible and too weak as it occurs naturally to support a signicant
load (although it can be made to do so by combining elements together in
bundles, etc.). Accordingly some note is taken here of all material of this type
used in building, not only what is commonly understood as wood.
Among the major building materials wood occupies a singular place. It is an
organic substance where the others (stone, brick, plaster, etc.) are inorganic.
This has two consequences: (a) the physical nature of wood is much more com-
plex; and (b) it is subject to rapid decay. Both these factors combine so that
(archaeological) knowledge of ancient wood is disproportionately restricted com-
pared with that of the other materials of construction. Thus it is necessary to
deal with the nature of wood at greater length than with the other materials.
This situation is claried if, as a preliminary, the sources of information con-
cerning wood as a building material in antiquity are appended, to wit:
(1) Actual physical remains of wooden building elements.

(2) Negative impressions left in more permanent material by completely decayed
woode.g., above all, post holes; but also in mud brick, e.g. in mud ter-
race roong or wattle and daub walling.
(3) Ancient pictorial representations (e.g. Egyptian reliefs, Greek vase painting,
Roman wall painting).
(4) Literary and epigraphic references.
14 chapter two
Compli- (5) Analogical evidence from building forms in other more permanent materi-
cated als, e.g. stone and mud brickon the prevalent assumption that the forms
organic
of much of the building derives from wood originals.
growth
It can be seen that the only direct knowledge of the substance, (1), is very
restricted indeed because of its liability to decay. The only indirect knowledge
which refers to the nature of the substance comes from (4) literary and epi-
graphic sourcesand these are little concerned with botanical data. All the
information accrueing under the other headings refers not to the physical nature
of the substance but to its constructional use.
A. Nature and Qualities of Wood
Wood is an organic substance. It is, therefore, subject to decay, and also to

consumption by other living organisms (e.g. by fungi and insects). Thus it is
not durableit is said to be a fugitive material. (But for this fact mans out-
line of prehistory might be fundamentally dierent. Prehistory would have begun
with a Wood Age prior to the Stone Age.) Neither wood nor tree is a cat-
egoric term in scientic botany. They are simply common knowledge expres-
sions, fortunately practical and unambiguous in their denotation. According to
every day usage a tree is a woody plant and wood is the material comprising
the trunks, branches (and roots) of trees. Wood is of a highly developed form
of plant life, and its structure reects the continuous process of organic growth.
These factors mean that the trunk and branches of a tree are no more uni-
form in their cellular composition than the trunk or limbs of an animala fea-
ture of much consequence in the use of wood.*
* The importance in ancient building of an (observational) understanding of the variation

in nature (and hence strength) of wood according to position and condition of growth within
the same tree is well demonstrated by an unusual episode in the development of the modern
science of strength of materials. The whole purport of this science is to obtain quantied val-
ues of strength (resistance) per unit dimension of a specied material. When Musschenbroek,
a Dutch physicist (16921761) determined values for the strength in bending of wood, Buon
(17071788), a naturalist in the rst instance but a polymath, controverted the ndings on the
grounds that because wood was not uniform in character throughout a tree, reliable infor-
mation could only be obtained by testing full sized specimens (e.g. beams up to 28 ft long)
in this instance thus reverting to earlier approaches (S.P. Timoshenko, History of Strength of
Materials, London, 1953, pp. 5457).
wood 15
The life of the tree is disposed in the moisture, sap (cf blood) which is taken Structural
up from the soil in the form of mineralised water by the roots and ascends botany of
a tree
through the inner woody bres to the leaves and shoots where by photosyn-
thesis a sugar compound is manufacture which is then carried to all parts of
the tree back down to the roots so that the tree may live and grow in sub-
stance. This continual growth is embodied in the trees woody structure to con-
stitute the grain of the woodwhich is in turn of capital importance for the
use of wood a building material.
2 When a tree trunk or branch is cut through, the following picture is pre-
sented in cross section. Along the central axis is a slim core of soft dark cells,
the pith. This represents the original shootthe beginning of the growth
process. The lateral growth spreads equally in all directions and is seasonally
conditioned. It is thus represented in cross section by a series of concentric
rings (corresponding to a series of concentric cylinders in three dimensions).
Within each ring two phases can be recognised corresponding to the dierent
conditions of growth during the spring and summer (there is little growth dur-
ing the colder months). Continued repetition of this process indicates the pas-
sage of the year. A factor which has recently come to be of great importance
archaeologically, since the characteristic pattern of any succession of years can
be recognised and matched up between one piece of wood and another. This
is the process of dendro-chronolgy or tree ring analysis. The cellular material
of these successive annular rings (or growth rings) constitutes the essential woody
part of the tree. This is protected at the outer surface of the member (the cir-
cumference of the cross section) by the bark. In fact this common knowledge
concept comprises three botanical entities of which only the outer is properly
the protective bark. Directly inside this is the bast (inner bark) composed of
cells which transmit the sugar sap down to the roots. Then between the bast
and the wood is a very thin cambium ring which generates both new bast and
new wood. All three components are dierent in nature from woodand in
themselves not used as a building material. Bark, however, is a valued by-
product with many uses.
It is now necessary to mention a very important distinction which with time
supervenes in the wood of a tree. Whereas originally all the wood is uniform
and shares alike in all processes and functions, as the tree grows more massive
the wood of the inner part of the trunk undergoes a cellular change. In this
way the inner third or half of the annular rings becomes heart wood, denser
and stronger in nature so that it specialises in providing the rigid structural col-
umn to keep erect the heavy burden of a large tree. To all intents this means
that the heart wood is dead, while the life processes of the tree are conned
to the outer annular rings composing what is called the sap wood. This
16 chapter two
Hardwood distinction again is very important in the use of wood as a building material.
and soft- Trees, of course, grow longitudinally as well as in girth, but this fact impinges
wood less directly on the use of wood as a building material. The process of longi-
tudinal growth is much more complex and proceeds by way of the formation
of buds, both at the extremity of members to continue their extension, and
also at isolated places to provide for branching out. The process has some
relevence to the use of wood since surviving traces of these buds appear in the
wood as knotscommonly recognised as a source of weakness and inconve-
nience in wood working.
Hitherto the description of wood in its formation has been made in terms
applying to all trees. However trees which provide wood for building are not
uniform in their constitution. If wood is examined through a microscope the
individual cells became visible which in turn reveals a very clear-cut binary
division. The wood of some trees shows a uniform composition of fairly large 3
cells. The wood of other trees is composed of very tightly packed small cells
interspersed with occasional gaps or channels (called pores) giving the appear-
ance of some porosity. These two patterns of cell structure correspond to two
botanically distinct classes of plants. However in trees the distinction very closely
corresponds with the common knowledge terms, soft and hardwoods. The larger
individual cell structure means the soft wood is less dense; while the closely
packed small cells means the hard wood is very dense. The former is thus
softer, lighter and weaker. The latter being harder, heavier and stronger. The
former has the advantage of being light and easier to work. The latter has the
advantage of strength and resistance to decay.
From the foregoing indication of the nature of wood on the tree it can be
seen that a very considerable technical understanding of wood was required to
convert standing trees into units suitable for use as building material. The orig-
inal use of light branches etc as framing and even felled logs used unwrought
with only the branches trimmed needed little concern. However as soon as he
began to shape felled logs into regular form man needed and acquired the skills
of woodman, lumberjack and sawyer together with an introduction to the sci-
ence of botany. In the rst instance the non-woody parts were to be stripped
away (with an adze). Next was the observation that the outer rings of the logs,
the sap wood contained much moisture, which increased the weight of the
wood but not its strength and thus needed to be dispelled. However if the
process of ridding the sap wood of its moisture was eected ignorantly,
the wood was liable to warp or crack. Carrying out this operation is called
seasoning. Then as soon as logs were cut up and split apart, the surprising
development of the grain of wood became apparent. Experience showed that
the strength of the wood in resisting stresses of dierent kinds was signicantly
wood 17
conditioned by the disposition of the grain. How this was to be secured to the Wood as a
best advantage was a matter of fundamental importanceas a common English building
metaphor to go against the grain testies. material
A summary indication must now be given of the properties of wood when
used as a building material. These may be adduced under two main headings:
strength and durability. In the former wood is well favoured; in the latter it is
decient.
(a) Strength
Wood is the optimum all purpose natural building material since, as compared
with e.g. stone, its strength remains more constant when subject to stresses of
dierent sorts. To make a very rough comparison, wood is ca twice as strong
in compression as, e.g. limestone. However wood is even stronger in tension
than it is in compression so that here it may be ten times as strong as lime-
stone. However on the other hand wood is not isotropic (as are e.g. metals and
igneous rocks) i.e. its properties are not uniform irrespective of direction. Layered
sedimentary rock behaves similarly, but wood requires more concern in this
respect. In general wood has greater strength when stressed along the grain
than when the stress is normal (perpendicular) to the grain (cross grained). To
this there is a salient exception. If the stress is applied so as to shear through
the material, then the strength in shearing along the grain is much less than
across the grain, and much less than for other stresses. Grain also determines
the behaviour of wood when subject to heat. In general wood has a lower
coecient of expansion compared with other building materials, but when
heated it will move nearly 10 times as much along the grain as across it. The
strength of wood is also much aected by damp, thus proper seasoning is impor-
tant. If the wood is saturated (contains ca 25% volume of water) then the
strength in crushing (e.g. for a column) comes down to 30% of the normal
strength for well seasoned timber (while, of course, the weight is increased).
There is a striking dierence between soft woods and hard woods in both
strength and weight (cf the dierence between sedimentary and igneous rocks).
Speaking in the broadest terms hard woods are something like twice as heavy
as soft woods, and are 3 to 4 times as strong as soft woods. Thus hard woods
are not only stronger, but have a better strength/weight ratio than soft woods.
(b) Durability
Here wood has marked disadvantages. Although resilient, it is relatively soft
and so is subject to mechanical damage or demolition when intentionally directed.
18 chapter two
Decay and Also wood is highly combustible. It can be and is burnt to ashes with disheartening
preserva- regularity, both accidentally and intentionallyNB. wood is the common fuel
tion for domestic heating. Then as an organic material it is subject to rapid decay
and decomposition in the nature of things. This is due to the action of bacte-
ria and fungi ever present in the air which feed on the wood when the wood
bres are moist. In these circumstances wood rotsit becomes rotten. Commonly
thought of as a dierent process is the consumption of wood by voracious pests:
termites, death watch beetles, the toredo worm etc. This rapidly destroys its
fabric so that it becomes worm eaten, white anted etc.
It is an obvious fact that the presence of moisture in wood conduces to its
rotting. This is half the reason why wood is seasoned. However the seasoning
process, while giving wood a good start against rot, is not in itself permanent.
In time wood will take up moisture present in the atmosphere, and hence
becomes liable to rot however well seasoned originally. On the other hand in
an arid environment properly seasoned wood is perserved against rotcf, e.g.
the wooden construction within the Stepped Pyramid (ca 2,500 BC). Also by
a strange antinomy, if wood is completely saturated (i.e. is under water), then
the organisms (bacteria) causing decay cannot survive in anaerobic conditions
and thus do not rot the wood. This is evident by the preservation of great 4
quantities of wood in bogs and fens throughout North Western Europe; and
also of the timbers of wrecks on the sea bed. On the other hand the depre-
dations by animal pests are perpetrated equally by marine organisms (e.g. the
toredo worm) so that here submergence is no protection.
Since the days of modern chemistry men have been highly conscious of the
necessity to develop some form of wood preservative (e.g. creosote) which will
inhibit the destruction caused by these various organisms. The action of such
substances however has its limitations. Additionally the modern practice of paint-
ing woodwork for decorative eect also acts as a preservative. To what degree
any substance applied to wood in the ancient world acted (specically or adven-
titiously) as a preservative is seldom discussed; but Greek inscriptions and lit-
erary references indicate that on occasion exposed wood was plastered over
with a pitch mixture in order to preserve it, while Vitruvius (II, 9, 13) mentions
that cedar oil was used on wood as a preservative. The Greeks were also aware
of the value of encaustic painting in this connection (cf Orlandos I, pp. 2021;
Martin, pp. 2021).
B. Supply
It is evidently possible to fell (some) trees and lop o branches with a stone
axe (v Oakley, pp. 1314, NB g. 1), but it seems extremely unlikely that tim-
wood 19
ber would be trued and squared up for dimensioned work with stone tools. Felling,
Thus wooden construction would be limited to logs, poles, branches etc until conversion
metal tools became available. This occured during the 4th millenium BC. An and sea-
interesting special case for consideration are the wooden precursors of the mega- soning in
liths of Atlantic Europe, ca 4,000 BC. The timber used for these monuments timber
was clearly sizeable enough on occasion, but as yet little has been published yard
to show that it was squared up (perhaps the Neolithic stone celts suced for
this in some measure). As for trimming length accurately to dimension, for the
uprights this was by-passed. It is clear that the tradition here was to bring the
height of the uprights into accord not by cutting them to a standard length,
but through taking up the inequalities by way of dierential sinking in the
earth.
From the 3rd millenium onwards there are many representations of wood
working in Egypt. These include men felling trees by chopping out notches
5, 6 at the base with axes, then guiding and controlling the fall by way of ropes
attached near the top of the tree (violent uncontrolled fall can well damage the
wood by causing cracks, etc.) (Shaw, p. 353). The alternative technique is with
a cross-cut saw and wedges. Two men saw into the trunk as near to the base
as practical on the away side from the direction in which they intend the tree
to fall. They keep the saw cut open by inserting wedges. Then when the saw
cut has advanced suciently they topple the tree by driving home the wedges.
7 This process is attested in Roman times (Adam, p. 96, g. 194), but it is dicult
to say when it was rst practised. The felled trunk was then freed of its branches
and dragged away from its stand with ropes. If animal power was available
and practical, it was used; otherwise men hauled the log away. Again there is
8 a Roman relief showing the process (Adam, p. 94, g. 200). Then the log was
9 transported to the timber yard/saw mill of the timber merchant to be de-
10 barked, squared up and cut into items when and as required. It then remained in
the timber yard until duly seasoned. For hardwoods this could be a protracted
operation requiring up to several years. Thus, in general, the timber was not
delivered on site directly from the forest, but from a timber merchants stock.
To deliver timber on site from the timber yard could involve a long jour-
ney with some diculties, particularly when special timbers were concerned
e.g. the famous cedars of Lebanon, but also special timber from e.g. Macedonia,
the Rhaetian Alps, Corsica, etc. was in demand. In such case, as a matter of
course, timber was routed by sea (or river) wherever possible. The best known
instance is that of the cedars of Lebanon. These were imported into Egypt
from Old Kingdom times (mid 3rd millenium BC) by way of a special timber
eet. Records survive of the quantities delivered and held in stock, but little
has been said of the details of transport. Since cedars were long and massive
20 chapter two
Transport it is presumed, on analogy with modern practice, that they were made up into
and deliv- a raft (rafted) and towed (Shaw, p. 353cf Hirams oer to Solomon, I Kngs
ery on site 5.89). This would certainly require that the ships could be rowed strongly to
keep seaway when winds and currents were contrary. Such timbers were also
imported into Mesopotamia (notably to Assyria). Here a relief from Khorsabad
is very explicit. It shows ships of Phoenecian type transporting long timbers, 9
doubtless cedars. Some are stowed inboard as deck cargo, while others are
being towednot rafted, but individually each with its own tow rope (Moorey,
g. 23). There has been some discussion as to whether this depicts a marine
passage or a riverine passage (cf Moorey, pp. 35354), but most probably the
timbers are being transported by sea from Byblos to North Syrian ports so as
to obtain the shortest overland crossing to Northern Mesopotamia.
Where overland transport was unavoidable (e.g. nal delivery on site) some
information is available from the Greek monumental building accounts (Meiggs,
Appendix 4). These indicate that supplies of timber were ordered as logs, as
squared up balks, and as smaller units. Certainly some of the cutting into smaller
units was done on site. Where items could be loaded into wagons drawn by
oxen or mules this was the obvious transport adoptedand indeed a wagon
load of timber seems to have served as a measure of volume. However
sometimes outsize logs of the largest dimensions available were demanded on
site. Wood is approximately only 1/3 to 1/4 the weight of stone (also deliv-
ered by wagon wherever possible), so it was not the weight of the wood which
posed diculties (although an outsize log could weigh 23 tons). The problem
was the excessive length. Perhaps these timbers were got onto wheels in some
way, or more likely harnessed up to yokes of oxen they were dragged along
the earth.
C. Woodworking
Wood has always been reckoned the most convenient, rewarding and sympa-
thetic material to work (and accordingly both it and the carpenter enter into
symbol and metaphor). How stone age man may have shaped up and worked
building timber is a matter of prehistoric interest only, illustrated signicantly
by (modern) anthropological analogy (cf Oakley, p. 14, g. 1); but as relevent
to the enduring development of technology, the astonishing fact is how early
the carpenters tool kit was assembled and standardised. And thereafter how
little changed it remained until the general availability of powered hand tools
virtually in the present generation (Goodman pass).
Fortunately a surprising amount of information is available on this score, and
wood 21
something like a complete ancient history of carpenters tools can be obtained Carpentry
from Egyptian, Greek and Roman records. This is available through several tools
sources: survival of the tools themselves, literary record, but above all through
ancient representations. In monumentalising their pleasant life the Egyptians
showed a passion for social realism; the Greeks set a store on craftsmanship
and represented it on Attic gured potterythey also found it tting that their
craftsmen at exceptional junctures dedicated their tools of trade to an appro-
priate deity, and this is mentioned in literature. In turn the Romans found a
pleasing conceit in showing cupids at sawyers work (this probably had a sym-
bolic origin which they did not understand). Perhaps most instructive of all is
the other Roman practice of representing a carpenters tool kit on commemo-
rative stelai (v Goodman, Shaw, Orlandos, Martin, Meiggs, Adam pass).
As for the products and practice of carpentry and joinery, in spite of the
fugitive nature of wood there is considerable detailed evidence from surviving
ancient work. This unfortunately comes not from building remains but from
items of furniture. These have survived in excellent preservation in Egyptian
tombs, illustrating in detail e.g. joinery devices (Shaw, pp. 35966; G. Killen,
Ancient Egyptian Furniture, Warminster, 1984an invaluable work).
As is also the case for stone dressing, woodworking tools can be divided into
3 classes: striking tools; struck tools; and others. The striking tools are
axes, adzes, hammers, mallets; the struck tools droves, points and chisels of
various sorts; the others comprise knives and their derivatives saws, augurs and
drills; planes (probably derived originally from adzes). Something representing
the axe, adze, knife, chisel and augur can be recognised in stone tools; but
ecient metal versions of these together with saws of various sorts appeared in
11 Early Dynastic Egypt. With this the Egyptian carpenter had a complete essen-
tial kit. The remaining basic tool, the plane in its various forms, was a Roman
invention. Thus for Greek woodworking we can can say it operated in virtu-
ally the same fashion as traditional modern woodwork. Only the plane was not
known so the adze was an all purpose toolas it remained when necessary
until the beginning of the present century. While it has been remarked that a
Roman carpenters workshop in a major centre was better equipped than a
carpenters workshop in a village until modern times (Goodman, p. 8 et pass).
1219 The axe and the saw were used for felling; the axe and the adze for lopping,
stripping (debarking); the saw for cutting to dimension, e.g. planks (although
planks could be and were split away with chisel, wedge and lever); chisels for
rabbeting and recessing associated with jointing and inlaying; augurs and drills
for perforating e.g. to take sutures or pegs and dowels as auxilliaries in xing;
20 adzes and planes for nal smoothing, which could be supplemented by sand-
ing with the aid of a at stone.
22 chapter two
Attach- Woodworking consists of two main operations: cutting and shaping to required
ment of form the various constituent elements; and attaching them or tting them
items by together in durable fashion. There is no question but that from Dynastic Egyptian
joinery etc. times carpenters could cut and shape wood as eectively as at any later day
(if, at times, much more laboriously). The question remaining at issue is how
were the several wooden elements attached or xed together. Unfortunately
the bulk of the direct evidence comes in miniaturefrom furniture. Egyptian
furniture shows all the general traits of modern cabinet making and gives very
detailed evidence of assembly. As is proper to cabinet making, this was eected
entirely by joinery (together with the aboriginal device of lashing, here grooved
into the wood). Egyptian furniture also shows evidence of steam bending (along 21
the grain). This procedure ultimately derives from woods high coecient of
expansion along the grain. How much of all this carried over into wooden
building has been rarely discussed. Certainly the direct evidence is much slighter.
The indirect evidence available mainly from Greek building account (v Meiggs,
Appendix 4) suggests that in Greek times for the heavy wooden framed roofs
basic methods for tting, assembling, and attaching in solid carpentry remained 23
those demonstrated by Egyptian furniture. The heavy beams and rafters were
notched etc together supplemented by xing with (long) wooden pins (tree
nails or dowels). Also where appropriate (e.g. with but-joints) wooden swallow
tailed cramps were used. All this was accompanied by liberal use of glue (made 22
from hides and hoofs of cattle as it was until yesterday in carpenters work-
shops). Doubtless where unwrought trunks and logs needed to be secured,
they were lashed together with leather thongs. This is particularly appropriate
to rounded sectionsand is, in any event, the most ecent means of attach-
ment, since it does not weaken the wood by cutting or driving holes through
it. It is also possible that in special circumstances metal (iron) cramps, stirrups
etc may have been usedbut the evidence is all indirect (Hodge, pp. 9298
and pass). This account is preparatory for an obvious question which has never
received the monograph it requireswhat is the development of nailing in
ancient carpentry?
Possibly the earliest generally known mention of nails is in the biblical accounts
of Solomons Temple, where it is stated that in preparation for this great pro-
ject, which following Yahwehs instructions he passed on to his son, David laid
up a store of iron nails (I Chron 22.4). In Roman times nails were certainly
in general use. Stocks of them have been found according to report, but they 297
are rarely illustrated or discussed. There are words in Hebrew, Greek and Latin
which can be translated reasonably as nails. However closer scrutiny suggests
that the earliest mention of nails may not refer to nails as we know the cate-
gory for xing together carpentry members, but rather to tacks or studs to
wood 23
attach revetments to wooden groundsnotably metal plating to monumental Nailing

272 doors. The prevalence of metal bands/straps across e.g. monumental wooden
gates is clearly attested in later times when such gates were fashioned entirely
273277 out of metal (or stone). Then the decoration always reproduced the design of
the original metal bands together with the rows of circular bosses representing
the nail heads. And I Chron 22.4 can be understood in this sense (cf New
English Bibles translation vis vis King James version). A similar picture is pro-
vided by the device of enobling wooden columns with cylindrical bronze revet-
ments. Remains of these platings have been found complete with the tacks/studs
which attached them to the wooden core (Moorey, p. 351).
Some interesting modern construction can be adduced to show that nailing
is by no means a necessary adjunct to wooden building. For long the worlds
most expansive vaulting was the Mormon Tabernacle at Salt Lake City built
in 1863 by William Faulkener with a monster clear span of nearly 50 m. This
wooden structure uses neither nails nor bolts to secure timbers, but all joints
are made by wooden pegs and cowhide lashing (cf Hodge, p. 135).
Also referring tardily to the long continuing construction in exible mater-
4447 ial, e.g. reeds and rushes, the most striking exponents of this construction are
the great guest house/assembly halls (Madans) of the Marsh Arabs of South
47 Iraq. These buildings which have truly been likened to cathedrals in aspect,
can be ca 20 m 6.5 m. They are built entirely out of bundles of reeds bound
up and xed together by several kilometres of palm bre rope (Davey, pp.
5051, g. 33).
It is thus reasonably likely that the rst general use of nails in carpentry was
during Roman times when it was necessitated by the vast amount of quick car-
pentry required to provide shuttering for concrete (as also for legionary fortied
297 encampments). This appraisal can be supported from developments in the man-
ufacture of nails (v infra pp. 264266). The earliest iron nails were of wrought
296 iron, they were individually hand forged.
D. Uses of Wood
It is not widely appreciated how crucial was the use of wood for the develop-
ment of ancient building construction. Until the later 20th century AD fabri-
cation of synthetic materials, no building site of any signicance could have
functioned without a supply of wood. Thus wood was the one natural mater-
ial which alone could have suced for the erection of a signicant building
and no other material/materials would have suced without it. Some patent
observations may drive this home. In the rst instance the construction of any
24 chapter two
Wood sizeable building requires equipment and installations. Until the modern devel-
basic opment of metals and synthetics, these were basically of wood. Scaolding,
material ladders, ramps, gang planks etc; then centering for arches, and shuttering, for
for build- terre pise and Roman concreteall these were wooden. Equally so with equip-
ing site ment and tools used in building: e.g. rules, poles and levelling boards for mea-
work suring and setting out; the ubiquitous levers, wedges and rollers for handling
materials, and virtually all tools were at least wooden hafted (Goodman pass).
Next it is to be noted that building construction began and continued in good
part with framed construction. The only natural material which can provide
all the elements of a building frame is woodbecause of its uniform strength
under all types of stress. Brick and stone can provide the uprights (piers, pil-
lars, posts) but not the beams because their strength in such positions is only
a tithe of that when used as uprights. Here brick is no use at all; while stone
is impractical for anything but the shortest spans since it must be so massive
if required to extend over any span that it demands monumental construction
all roundand even then for excessive spans it must be replaced by wood.
This situation was only abrogated during the 19th century AD with the mass
manufacture of iron and steel girders, joists, beams etc; and then of steel bars
and rods to reinforce concrete frames. Having constructed a wooden frame-
work it is not necessary that the panneling, inll, cladding be entirely of wood,
but it well can be.
The uses of wood in building may be outlined in tabular form:
(1) Total wooden construction in both framed and massive load bearing
structures.
(2) Partial wooden construction in both framed and load bearing structures.
(3) Wood as an auxilliary structural element to improve the strength of
other materials (i.e. as reinforcing in brick or stone construction, also as
swallow tail cramps); or to improve the appearance of other materials (i.e.
by way of revetting).
(4) Wood ttings, e.g. doors and windows etc.
(5) Wooden temporary supports for other materials (e.g. brick and stone)
(6) Wooden site installations and building tools.
The rst integral buildings were out of light exible wooden frames with a 24
tegument of branches etc. (Davey, pp. 3235 etc.)and this has always remained
a viable construction for immediate shelters (booths, bowers, etc.). Heavier
wooden framed buildings appear as standard in Neolithic times in the forested
areas of Northern Europe with basically wooden panelling, e.g. of wicker work 2528
plastered over (wattle and daub) and roofed with thatch or shingles (these said
wood 25
29, 30 to be current in Rome until mid 3rd century BC). The development of the Wooden
100% wooden structure with panelling of boards and planks so well known in construc-
modern colonial building (known as clapboard in America, weather board in tion
Australia) was an advanced form, since the fashioning of planks is burdensome framed &
if they must be sawn by hand. This construction only becomes convenient with load bear-
the invention of the power sawmilland this was to all intents a post antique ing
development (although there are some verses of Ausonius which could be inter-
preted as referring to water powered sawing on the Moselle river ca 370 AD).
As for solid uniformly load bearing wooden construction, so well known from
the log cabins of the American frontier, this was only feasible in heavily wooded
areas, e.g. northern Europe, but in Antiquity examples can be found; e.g. the
Black SeaCaspian region (Vitruvius II.1; Davey, pp. 3638), also in Western
31 Anatoliawhere the tomb chambers preserved under tumuli (e.g. at Gordion)
are excellent examples. Here extreme solidity of construction is required because
of the ponderous over burden of earth (Meiggs, Appendix 3).
It is dicult to outline a category of building construction partly in wood,
since its ramications are so extensive. A primary division is between mixed
construction in the one building element (e.g. the walling) and construction of
dierent parts of a building in dierent materials.
For wooden construction of a separate part of a building the prime exam-
ple is the roof. No matter what the construction of the walls (stone or brick)
ancient roong depended on wooden bearers or on a fully developed wooden
frame. To this there were only two alternatives; the massive stone beams of
124, 125 Egyptian Pharaonic masonry (which are not at all as ecient as the stone
columns and walling); or the development of an arcuated structuree.g. vaults,
126128 domes which can be fashioned from brick or stone or Roman concrete. The
32 two enduring systems of wooden roong were rst the at mud terrace roof of
domestic building in the Ancient Middle East and Mediterranean (also repro-
duced in some monumental buildinge.g. in the Bronze and Iron Age Levant
and in Achaemenid Persia); and then the heavy timber framed gable roofs of
33 Greek temples which survived in the West for Early Christian basilicas (Hodge
pass). Wood is also serviceable as a roof cladding, in the form of shingles. these
were reported to be very common in Rome as late as 270 BC (Pliny NH 16
3442).
A good example of the former category of mixed construction (i.e. in one
building element) is the well known half timbered (columbage, Fachwerke) of North
Western Europe where the timber frame together with the brick etc inll both
contribute to bearing the load. Examples of this type of construction are found
in the mixed construction of the Levant area in Antiquity. Here the construc-
tion can be very mixed indeed with a rubble stone socle surmounted by a tim-
26 chapter two
Wood in ber framed superstructure lled with load bearing mud brick. The construction
mixed occurs in Bronze and Iron Age Syria and Cyprus. Perhaps the area where the
construc- wooden component is most striking is in Western Anatoliacf the Bronze Age 34, 35
tion site of Beyce Sultan on the Meander River (Nauman, pp. 91108).
This type of construction shades into the next category, that of wooden rein-
forcing in other materials. This can be developed to various degrees, but wooden
stringer beams inset into mud brick and dressed stone masonry were almost 36, 37
universal in areas subject to earthquakes in order to tie the construction together
when subject to lateral stresses (Naumann, pp. 91108; and cf the biblical
specication, I Kings 17.12, for the masonry of Solomons Templethree rows
of hewed stones and a row of cedar beams.
For the remaining categories little further needs to be said. Wood has remained
until today the standard material for doors and windows and also for oors 38
and ceilings. Also in some areas it continued to be used for roof cladding
(shingles). And it is only with the living memory that wooden site installations
and tools have been supplemented by e.g. tubular steel scaolding, metal levers
and plastic hafted tools.
Some concluding remarks are in point. Any historical review of wood as a
building material abuts on a pervasive question. This question will be discussed
in its particular instances at the relevent junctures, however it is advisable to
mention the matter in a general introductory way here. All indications demon-
strate that wood was in fact the handiest building material for mans earli-
est shelters. And it is clear that on all subsequent occasions when man required
to erect shelters quickly in undeveloped circumstances (e.g. in pioneer settle-
ments) he made use of wood if available for the purpose (cf Vitruvius I.2).
Partly based on this observation a train of thought has developed which seeks
to account for characteristics of construction in other materials (stone and brick)
by way of survivals from anterior wooden construction (i.e. giving a skeuo-
morphic explanation). It is undeniable that in a surprising number of instances
such an explanation accounts well for particular features (sometimes rather irra-
tional in themselves).
An application of this view which has come to attention recently is the prior
existence of wooden features similar to the megaliths of Western Europeand
in some cases the wooden features even underly the stone monument. Other
instances have long been remarked one.g. the form of the specic shrines to
dierent gods in ancient Egypt (Vol. I, Ill. 18). These remained constant in
later timeand their lines are obviously those of original construction in light
exible material (e.g. rushes etc.). Also several prominent types of massive stone
columns in later Pharaonic building closely reproduce the detailing of supports
fabricated from bundles of lotus, papyrus, lilies etc, and from palms. Another
wood 27
example is the niched faade characteristic of monumental mud brick con- Ancestral
struction in Early Mesopotamia and Early Dynastic Egypt. These can be seen wooden
as a development from antecedent arrangements of wooden posts and panelling forms
in framed constructionand from revetment with vertical wooden planks. The apparent
3943 best known example is, of course, the classical Greek Temple. Very convinc- in other
ing drawings appear in almost every manual setting actual stone entablatures construc-
against hypothetical wooden ancestorsand the consonance is arresting. There tion (e.g.
are, however, limitations to an over facile acceptance of this analysis. A bal- stone)
anced assessment may be that individual details are indeed imitations of wooden
forms; but the assemblage of the whole body itself is not an unconditioned
take-over of a preceeding wooden assemblage. Rather it is a true expression
of the logic of the stone construction.
The fortunes of emergent man closely linked him with trees. In the rst
instance the phylogenetic code within reminded him that his race came down
from/descended from trees. Thus in a manner all his tribe were born from
trees. And memories of this tree birth remained with him, and are to be found
in many mythologies. Then in his early struggles to survive a critical break
through involved trees and the wood of the tree: control of re. By this fac-
tor he gained some independence from his climatic environment and the ways
of beasts. Fire brought him life (fueled his life) and thus he thought of life as
a rethe re of life. And re came out of trees his one time home. Accordingly
in the trees he saw the essential gure of life, the tree of lifeand the image
has remained current to this day. These spiritual concepts were the counter-
part to early mans use of wood as a natural substance out of which he could
fashion much of the material requirements for his day to day existence. Equally
his experience of burning wood brought him to his rst steps in advanced tech-
nology: his ability to change the natural state of matter. Well might the earli-
est period of mans existence be called the Wood Age.
General References
B.R. Schlenker, Introduction to Materials Science, Chap. 14 Wood, Sydney, 1974.

H.F. Moore & M.B. Moore, Materials of Engineering, Chap. XII Wood, New York, 1958.
N. Davey, A History of Building Materials, Chap. 5 Wood, Chap. 6 Reeds and Straw, Chap. 7
Thatch, London, 1961.
N. Bradford, Building in Wattle, Wood and Turf in C. Singer et al. A History of Technology,
pp. 299325, Oxford, 1954.
W.L. Goodman, The History of Woodworking Tools, London, 1964.
K.P. Oakley, Man The Toolmaker (for Stone Age Wood Working), London, 1961.
G. Porta, LArchitettura Egizia delle Origini in Legni e Materiali Leggeri, Milan, 1989.
28 chapter two
A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, Chap. XVIII Wood, London, 1948.
P.T. Nicholson & I. Shaw ed., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, Chap. 15 Wood,
Cambridge, 2000.
R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, pp. 34762. Building with Wood and Reeds, Oxford,
1994.
R. Naumann, Architektur Klienasiens, pp. 91108, Holzeinlagen und Fachwerke, Tubingen, 1971.
M. Taylor, Flag Fen. The Wood (N.W. European Bronze Age Wood Working). Antiquity 66
1992, pp. 476490.
R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Mediterranean World, Oxford, 1985.
A.T. Hodge, The Wood Work of Greek Roofs, Cambridge, 1960.
A. Orlandos, Les Materiaux de Construction et la Technique Architecturale des Anciens Grecs I, Chap. 1
Le Bois, Paris, 1966.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, pp. 246, Le Bois, Paris, 1965.
I.A. Richmond, Roman Timber Building in W.E.M. Jope, Studies in Building History, London,
1961.
A. Choisy, LArt de Batir chez les Romains, Chap. III Les Constructions en CharpenteParis.
1972. (considers details of constructionalso in siege engines and bridges).
D. Strong & D. Brown ed., Roman Crafts. Woodwork, pp. 15563, London, 1976.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, pp. 91110, Le Bois Paris, 1989.
CHAPTER THREE
STONE
A. Nature and Qualities of Stone

Strength of Stone
Durability of Stone
B. Supply of Stone
Quarrying
Transport
C. Stone Working
Setting Out
Dressing
Setting and Fixing
D. Uses of Stone
Purpose of Stone
Manner of Use
Stone as a natural material seems the antithesis of wood. It is an inorganic Geological

substance, hard, strong, enduring and relatively laborious to shape. It came back-
to hand as readily as wood and man used it from the dawn of his existence ground
for implements. He also took shelter in rock caves. In this way stone was
charged with meaning for him. Also because stone is an enduring substance a
great deal of evidence of mans early use of stone has survived for archaeo-
logical investigation. In this connection there has been a tendency to empha-
size the continuity between geology and archaeology. Thus the nature and
qualities of stone have become increasingly familiar among archaeologists, restor-
ers, etc. and only the briefest advertisement of the subject is given here.
A. Nature and Qualities of Stone
Modern science deals with this matter under two headings: lithology, which
concerns itself with the formation and disposition of the material in and on the
earth, where the substance is referred to as rock, and petrology, which con-
cerns itself with the chemical composition of any particular example of the
material, where the substance is referred to as stone. The former is based prin-
cipally on megascopic observation, the latter on microscopic observationbut
as can be readily understood the two concerns are not at all distinct and merge
into each other, each one being a tool of the other.
30 chapter three
Lithology To begin with lithology. Primary rock is found in the upper 200 kms of the
and earths bulk (the lithosphere) by cooling of the molten material (magma) which 48
petrology
comprises the core of the earth. Since it is a product of intense heat, it is called
igneous rock. Where the cooling is a slow process at greater depth the rock
has a markedly crystalline form. These rocks are called plutonic (e.g. diorite).
Magma can cool more rapidly nearer the surface of the earth e.g. by being
forced into ssures (dykes, sills) in which event it is termed hypabyssal or intru-
sive rock (e.g. dolerite). It can also cool rapidly above the earths surface (in
air or water) when molten material is ejected by volcanic action. Such rock is
called volcanic (or extrusive rock) and these are ner grained (e.g. Basalt).
By various types of earth movements igneous rocks come to be exposed on
the surface of the earth, where they are weathered (eroded, broken up, worn
away) by the agents of weathering (heat, cold, wind, water, etc.). The fragments
and sediments so formed are then transported and deposited where they are
compacted and cemented together to form secondary rocks called sedimentary
rocks (e.g. limestone, sandstone, etc.).
Again by various earth movements these secondary rocks (and indeed all
rocks) can be forced into positions where they become subject to great heat
and pressure. This can change their mineral composition and/or their crys-
tallisation. Such rocks are called metamorphic (e.g. marble, slate).
Study of the chemical composition of stone (petrology) requires expert knowledge
of physical science and can only be touched on here (Howe; Warland, pp.
12541). Primary (igneous) rocks are entirely mineral (inorganic) in composi-
tion. It has been customary to classify these according to the overall type of
minerals they contain into two groups, Basic and Acidic rocks. The former are
composed mainly of alkaline elements (bases) e.g. iron, magnesium, etc. and
are often dark coloured (e.g. diorite, dolerite). The latter which in general may
be formed at less depth have a predominance of acid elements (silica, cf quartz)
and are called acidic rocks (e.g. granite). They are generally lighter coloured
than basic rocks. This division is often expanded into a four-fold gradation:
acidic (e.g. granite); intermediate (e.g. epidiorite); basic (e.g. diorite, gabbro);
ultra-basic (e.g. serpentine, olivine).
When igneous rocks are weathered and the yield deposited to form sedi-
mentary rocks, the deposit frequently contains also the remains of organisms
living at the time of the weathering (fossils). To this degree some organic mat-
ter enters into the composition of sedimentary rocks, but it is, in fact, petried
with the passage of time. The most commonly used sedimentary rocks for build-
ing are limestone and sandstone. The former name is applied to any stone with
a composition of more than 50% calcium carbonate (Ca CO3); while the lat-
ter contain a high proportion (ca 90%) of silica (SiO2).
stone 31
The type of metamorphic rock most commonly used in building is marble Classes of
which is limestone metamorphosed into a harder crystallised state and takes a stone and
their use
high polish.
in build-
Every class of stone (igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic) is used in building
ingsometimes chosen for structural properties (strength, durability), sometimes
for aspectual qualities (colour, surface sheen etc.). All the manuals (e.g. Shaw,
Lucas, Moorey, Orlandos, Martin, Adam) give lists of individual varieties of
stone used in building.
The variability in building stone is so great, not only between petrologically
dierent stones, but also between dierent examples of the same stone that it
is impossible to speak in general terms about its properties. There is a rough
parallel between building stone and timber in that igneous rocks suggest hard
wood and sedimentary rocks soft wood. Igneous rock is (somewhat) heavier,
stronger, harder and more durable than sedimentary rock. Metamorphic rock
varies between the two, approximating towards one or the other depending on
the degree of metamorphosis. Igneous rock is also isotropici.e. its properties
operate constantly in all directions. Sedimentary rock is not so, since the very
process of sedimentation implies the laying down/building up in horizontal beds,
between which there may be variations (e.g. due to seasonal changes in depo-
sition). This is a fact which can have important consequences when blocks of
such stone are used in building.
Strength of Stone
Stone is a strong material but it is not uniformly so, wherever and however,
it is used in building (as is, e.g. iron or steel or even wood). If stone is subject
to forces which tend to drag it apart then its strength may be only ca one
tenth of its resistance to being crushed. However when stone is used in the lat-
ter fashion (e.g. as in walls, piers etc.) it was eective beyond all the building
requirements of antiquity. Indeed ancient monumental builders in stone (e.g.
Egyptian and Greek) were generally uneconomic in the heaviness of their con-
structioni.e. they underestimated the bearing strength of stone by far. There
is, of course, a considerable variation in the bearing strength of dierent types
of stone. If an average strength of limestone is reckoned as unity, the strength
of sandstone may be ca 23 times greater; marble ca 4 times greater; and gran-
ite 56 times greater. Stone is also a heavy material (roughly speaking twice
as heavy as brickand four times heavier than wood) with the denser, stronger
stone (e.g. granite) heavier than the weaker stone (limestone). However the range
of the variation is not very great. The specic gravity of various types of stone
is widely known and ranges from ca 2.2 for limestone to say 2.7 for granites
32 chapter three
Properties so that the stronger stones have the better strength/weight ratio.
of stone Here it must be pointed out that these rough estimates of the strength of
in build- building stone refer to the stone as suchthey do not give the strength of
ing masonry construction employing the particular stone (e.g. granite, limestone,
etc.). The strength of the masonry construction is obviously less, since it incor-
porates other (weaker) materials, e.g. mortar. And the strength of the masonry
will vary depending on the amount of the weaker material incorporated and/or
the closeness of the jointing. Fine ashlar masonry set dry stone with hair-line
jointing will be very strong. Random rubble masonry in thick beds of mortar
will be weak. A rough general estimate is that ne ashlar is ca 7 times as strong
as random rubble. Permissable working stresses for stone masonry can be roughly
expressed in a relative fashion as follows. Allowing random rubble construction
a strength of unity, then ashlar sandstone, limestone and marble can be stressed
ca 45 times this value, and ashlar granite ca 78 times.
Durability of Stone
Exposed building stone is continually subject to degradation of both a mechan-
ical and chemical nature. Although stone is the very image of long lasting and
indestructability, its durability is in no way uniform and varies greatly accord-
ing to the type of stone, cf hard igneous rock as opposed to soft, friable sedi-
mentary rock (Warland, pp. 13839). Contrast the survival across the millenia
of Ancient Egyptian granite structures with the immediate decay of some lime-
stone archaeological remains on being exposed to the air. Estimates for the
durability of modern stone construction may vary according to material and
manner from less than a generation to several centuries. Submergence under
water is in general not inimical to the preservation of stone, so that the mate-
rial has always been favoured for use in wharves, docks, dams etc. In various
connections men have sought for some preparation which can be applied to
stone to augment its durability. There are records of pitch coating the face of
dressed stone masonry at Ugarit in North Syria during the Late Bronze Age,
but this seems exceptional. However the exposed face of ne stone masonry
was plastered over in antiquity by Egyptians (Arnold, pp. 29293; Lucas, pp.
9698) and Greeks (Orlandos, I, pp. 13953; Martin, pp. 42243). This was
signicantly in the interest of decoration. However if continually renewed it
also acted as a preservative. Intensive scientic research has been carried out
in modern times to develop some (chemical) preparation which can be applied
to stone in order to augment its durability but no reliable preparation has been
developed; If building stone decays, then the eective remedy is to cut out the 49, 50
decayed part and replace it with new stone (Warland, pp. 14142).
stone 33
B. Supply of Stone
The outermost layer of the earth is by denition the rocky zone (lithosphere) Avail-
and although in parts the rock is overlaid by earth, sand or snow, outcrops of ability of
bed rock abound everywhere at the surface or are to be found immediately stone
beneath it. The various processes of weathering break up the exposed surfaces
of these outcrops into stones and boulders of all sizes. These are readily trans-
ported (e.g. by water) so that in many places the ground is littered with them
and they can be found equally in the subsoil. Stone material of this sort was
obviously mans rst source of supply both for fashioning implements and for
5155 building (M. Waelkens, Quarrying Techniques, pp. 4748). Such material can
be readily gathered; and indeed this gathering is promoted by the development
of agriculture which necessitates clearing elds from stoney encumbrances and
piling these eld stones into heaps. Although on the face of it gathering stones
is a basic straightforward practice, it has received little consideration and it
comprehends interesting questions. These must be considered in connection
with the supply of stone man extracts purposefully from bed rock; thus it is
better to raise them after dealing with the latter topic.
Almost everywhere where man has settled permanently stone outcrops of
some sort suitable for building can be found at no great remove. The cir-
cumstances, however, are quite other if some particular type of stone, pre-emi-
nent in its qualities, is required. Outcrops of such rock may be restricted to
very remote regions. A typical example are the gneiss and porphyry rocks found
69, 70 in the Eastern Desert of Upper Egypt (between the Red Sea and the Nile).
Until very recently it was dicult to penetrate to the region, yet in antiquity
71 large monolithic columns were extracted there and consigned to Rome (Shaw,
pp. 3435, 4849). The supply of stone extracted from bed rock thus is a dou-
ble question of winning and transport.
Quarrying
The ancient development of the quarrying industry was together with the tim-
ber industry the human activity which most aected the face of the earth. Stone
quarrying more than timber logging, since whereas logging incurred deforesta-
tion, timber buildings were relatively short lived; Quarrying on the other hand
removed mountains and also resulted in accumulations of stone which outlasted
the millenia. The quarrying of stone on the scale it has been practised is per-
haps the most sensational of mans activities in its visible eects; Some atten-
tion must therefore be given to its origins. This introduces a very basic general
concept.
34 chapter three
Quarrying Technological progress in large part occurs in the following manner:
1. To be conversant with a technological device for eecting some particular

end.
2. To recognise (either explicitly or implicitly) the general principle involved.
3. To apply the principle in a dierent context to eect another end (which,
to casual view, may be quite remote from the original application).
The development of quarrying may be viewed in the light of successive shifts

in stone working. In the rst instance man acquired the technique of shaping
stone objects (tools, weapons, utensils) from stone fragments readily available.
Thereby he developed an understanding of the dierent processes to modify
the form of this hard and refractory material: e.g. controled breaking (with a
hammer), cutting (with axe, adze, etc.), pulverising (with a harder object) etc.,
etc. As a development of this capacity came the realisation that the various
processes could be applied not only on discrete fragments of stone but to bed
rock itself. In this way man could hollow out shafts, galleries and caverns. The
incentive to do this lay in winning supplies of special stones (chert, int) which
lay beneath the surface of the earth. This was the process of mining and there
is surprisingly early (Neolithic) evidence for its development using bone or antler 56
picks, stone hammers and axes etc., (Forbes, pp. 11526; Waelkens, Bronze
Age Quarries, pp. 56). The nal shift was the realisation that if bed rock
could be cut to waste to eect pits, etc., then it also could be cut to yield
i.e. the cutting could be arranged in such a way not only to produce waste
dbris but to yield blocks of stone suitable for building and other purposes.
This was the process of quarrying. It followed logically on mining and was well
understood ca 3,000 BC (Forbes, pp. 16796).
Ancient quarrying has been much studied recently (Bessac La Pierre & bibli-
ography pass)moreover developed quarrying in antiquity (Graeco-Roman times)
remained the basis of traditional quarrying methods until the 20th century.
Since the nature of stone varies widely, it is obvious that there should be vari-
ations in the manner of quarrying it. However the principle remains constant,
and it is best rst to outline standard quarrying technique and then note pre-
cursors, adaptations, developments.
The processes of quarrying can be applied in two ambiences: working from
the surface downward (e.g. down the side of a hill) which may be called open 62
(open cut) quarrying; and driving galleries and caverns horizontally into the 6365
face of the rock slope which may be called underground quarrying. Whichever
style adopted, the basic method of extracting stone remains the same.
The esssentials of quarrying stone is rst to nd or prepare an accessible bed
stone 35
of suitable rock and then mark out on it the supercial dimensions of the Quarrying
67 block(s) required. The subsequent proceedure involves two processes: separat-
ing and freeing. One side must be made fairly accessible (this follows auto-
matically if the adjacent block is removed) and then channels of the appropriate
depth are cut around the other three sides of the required block to separate it
horizontally from the adjacent rock. There remains the process of detaching
(freeing) the block from its underlying bed. This is eected in ways varying in
detail but each depending on the fact that, in general, stone is ssilei.e. it
tends to split apart on a regular plane (of cleavage). Sometimes in sedimentary
rocks there are marked bedding planes, and then it may be possible simply to
lever the separated block free at one of the these planes. Failing this it is nec-
essary to induce a plane of ssion in the rock. This can be done by slightly
undercutting one or more sides (grooving) and/or cutting emplacement for
wedges in the accessible side(s). The block can then either be levered free of
68 its bed or split away by inserting wedges and tapping them home to exert
upward pressure on the block.
The above processes as a norm are carried out with metal tools: a specialised
pick to incise the circumferent channels and metal wedges struck with a metal
hammer, so that two processes are involved: cutting and splitting. However
some rock is so hard (e.g. granite) that only specially hardened metal (steel)
tools can cut it. Nonetheless at the very beginning of large scale quarrying in
Old Kingdom Egypt granite was freely quarried when the only metal tools
available were of copper which could not cut into granite, as we know things.
66 Here instead of cutting the channels, they were pounded or hammered out,
i.e. balls of a harder stone than granite (e.g. diorite) were held in the hand and
struck against the rock in the desired groove. Thus by a combination of pul-
verisation and some chipping the required channel was worn down. However
it is still not clear how the granite block was freed from its bed. And here it
should be remembered that granite, being a hard stone, it is indicated to quarry
it in large blocks to minimise the cutting and dressing.
There is a feasible alternative to splitting a block away from its bed by metal
wedges. Instead of metal wedges very dry wooden wedges can be inserted to
be subsequently saturated with water. The subsequent expansion of the wood
will then force the block away from its bed. This is certainly a practical pos-
sibility, but there is little clear evidence for its use in antiquity. (M. Waelkens,
Quarrying Techniques, pp. 4950.) Also it is very doubtful whether sucient
force could be generated to split apart strong dense rock like granite.
It is now relevent to mention instances even more dicult to explain in terms
of conventional quarrying methods. The supply of stone used in the Megalithic
monuments of Western Europe has never been explained convincingly. The
36 chapter three
Quarrying typical unit employed for dolmens was a great angular at slab of stone weigh-
for mega- ing many tons. The monuments concerned date from the fourth millenium BC
liths and metal tools were not available for winning these slabs from bed rock (even
if they would have been eective). Here the question of gathering stone rather
than quarrying it again comes in point. When gathering stone for building is
mentioned, this is usually understood to refer to eld stones of modest dimen-
sions which can be used for random rubble in mud mortar or for dry stone
52 walling. However weathering also yields large units of rock. And a certain type
of weathering, insolation, produces large angular at slabs by way of exfolia-
tion. Accordingly it as originally considered that such exfoliated slabs lying on
the surface of the earth furnished the stone supply for megalithic construction.
An alternative process to insolation in producing such slabs would be glacial
action.
It is not to be doubted that some of the units used in megalithic construc-
tion were detached slabs of this nature. However it is dicult to imagine that
all such units were. If not, then the obvious explanation is that the incomplete
process of insolation was brought to an eective conclusion by human inter-
57, 58 vention. Partly exfoliated surface rock could have been split away perhaps by
levering (with hardwood baulks of timber). However a more likely intervention
was by heat induced splittingi.e. similar in action to the process of insolation
itself. Fires are lighted along the line of the desired cleavage and then after a
certain time doused with water, thus reproducing the pattern of expansion and
contraction operative in insolation. This could also be supplemented by mechan-
ical shock obtained through concerted dashing down of heavy (stone) weights.
Traditional methods of this nature have been practised in modern time by
people of restricted material development.
Not all megalithic monuments, however, are fashioned from large at slabs
of this type, where the process of exfoliation can be evoked. An obvious mon-
ument in point here is Stonehenge, where the units are long and massive pil-
lars and architraves roughly squared in section and of regular form. It is dicult
to imagine detached blocks of stone lying about on the surface (e.g. as termi-
nal morraine) suitable for working into these units. And it is equally dicult
to imagine how such massive blocks could have been won from bed rock; how-
57 ever views of the Preseli Mountains in South Wales (the source of some of the
Stonehenge monoliths) shows rocky outcrops suitably ssured for prizing apart.
Certainly where geological processes did produce acessible rock formations
already separated, or partly separated into convenient units, such formations
5961 were always exploited in later times to obtain building stone (e.g. the wool-
sacks of Aswan, very large outcropping boulders of granite). These remarks
show that closest consideration should be given to the question of gathering
stone 37
building stone, based on due understanding of geological/physiographic processes Quarrying

(exfoliation, sphereoidal weathing, etc.).
Quarrying for building stone has been such a basic factor in the develop-
ment of building technology that some overall appraisal of it is necessary.
In the rst instance all large scale quarrying was carried on in the interest
of public (monumental) building; domestic building never instigated quarrying.
Although quarrying was essentially a simple artisan style activity and remained
so through antiquity, so far as the extraction of blocks was concerned, the
eective development and organisation of a quarry requires considerable (social)
capital and managerial competence. Moreover quarrying was an enterprise
which by its nature could expand greatly in size and in scope. In this event it
could became big international business involving highly organised contacts,
agencies and services.
During antiquity there were two approaches to the supply of suitable build-
ing stone for a monumental building project. Either to open a quarry ad hoc
adjacent to the building site (if possible) or to order the stone to be delivered
from an established quarry located at a distance from the site. There were obvi-
ous limitations to the practicality of the former solutionnotably the presence
of outcrops of suitable stone in the vicinity. Such quarrying adjacent to the site
tted best to new foundations in withdrawn places. A very neat example of the
circumstances is in the Libyan Pentapolis. Here the several cities which were
founded by the coast (e.g. Apollonia, Teuchira) were on a ridge of good build-
ing limestone. The quarries to supply the stone for the cities were opened up
on either side of the city to East and West. When the initial quarries were
worked out, further quarries were opened at the rst suitable place immedi-
ately beyond them. At the Nubian Temple of Kalabsha, 60 kms to the South
of Aswan, built in the reign of Augustus, a quarry was opened just outside the
precinct wall (it may have been later transformed into the sacred lake). Another
example is the quarry to supply the stone for the famous Pont du Gard near
Nmes in Provence. This was opened close to the river bank half a kilometre
or so down stream from the monument. However in general building stone
was brought from a functioning quarry at greater or less remove. These latter
circumstances open up the question of the organisation and management of
large scale industrial quarries.
Something of the organisation of large scale quarrying in antiquity is avail-
able in ancient records from the regimes where it was best developed: Egyptian,
Greek and Roman. In Classical Greece the commissioners building accounts,
of course, include items concerning the supply of building stone. These are con-
tracted for by individuals in the same way as all other items of expenditure.
They contract to supply stone of a certain type from a certain quarry. The
38 chapter three
Economics quarries are always in Greece (since it is a rocky land with good building stone,
of quarry- both limestone and marble). Whether these entrepreneurs who took up the con-
ing tracts were themselves quarry owners or nanciers of the quarries is not made
Egyptian, apparent but the impression is denitely that the operations at the quarry were
Greek, predominantly ad hoc ones to supply a signicant contract, rather than a standing
Roman exploitation (Ward Perkins, p. 145). How the state controlled or leased out such
operations is not very clear, but it was probably in the main by way of cus-
toms or excise duty. Obviously in such circumstances it was better all round
the closer the quarry was located to the project. There is a well known instance
where an unlikely man (a shepherd) became something of a hero at Ephesus
by being astute enough to recognise that stone of a type required for building
a temple outcropped in nearby uplandshis sheep and goats had broken o
a specimen lump in their passage.
Essentially other circumstances obtained in Egypt and in Imperial Rome
(between which there may well be a direct historical connection). In Egypt the
rocky clis dening the Nile Valley provide excellent limestone and sandstone,
and the area about Aswan (the rst cataract of the Nile) is famous for its gran-
ite. Also outcrops of other rock (diorite, porphyry, etc.) are to be found in more
remote desert wadys. While doubtless these were occasions where quarries were
opened hard by building projects to be operated as part of the project, all indi-
cations are that the famous centralised quarries (e.g. Silsilah) were under direct
Pharaonic control (Lucas, pp. 6493including detailed references to epigraphic 69
sources). Egyptian building stone, however, was utilised only for building in
Egyptit was not exported, although at times it was transported long dis-
tancese.g. from Aswan to the Delta.
It was during the Pax Romana of high imperial times that industrial quar-
rying in the ancient world was developed on the largest scale to operate for
an international market. Traditionally Roman building did not make great use
of stone. Earth/clay and wood were the standard building materials of early
Romeas everyone knows Augustus found Rome (mud) brick. However by the
middle of the rst century BC stone began to appear more freely in monu-
mental building projectsthis stone being principally marble imported from
Greece. This was but a rst step in an inevitable procession. Augustus directed
the development by opening the famous white marble quarries at Carrara in
North Italy near Monte Casino. And, as everyone knows, the Rome he found
as brick he left in marble. This development, which spread out from the cap-
ital to the municipalities at large, transformed the ne building stone industry
from supplying an episodic demand to supplying a continuous standing demand.
The consequences were far reaching. At the quarries themselves the scope of
operations increased and diversied to include preliminary dressing to order
stone 39
and to standards. Equally the distribution of ne building stone became a big Imperial
business in its own right with the necessary distribution centres and stock yards. exploita-
In the rst instance this meant that stone was properly seasoned i.e. drained tion of
of quarry sap (Warland, p. 159). However these stock yards were not tran- quarries
sit depots. Very large stocks of standard items were built up so that some items
might remain in stock for a long time, e.g. more than a century.
The national importance of this trade and industry was such that under
70 Tiberius the obvious step was taken. This was nothing other than the nation-
alisation of large scale, signicant and distinctive quarries all over the Empire.
These quarries then passed into the possession of the Emperor, so that he could
exercise direct control over the supply of stone for all imperial building pro-
jects wherever located. (NB This development did not preclude smaller quar-
ries being opened under private or municipal enterprise to supply commonplace
local demand.) Perhaps the most striking evidence of the re-organisation lies in
the prolic and widespread use of granite (and e.g. porphyry) throughout the
71 Empire. A notable instance were granite monolithic columns, some gigantic
(e.g. those of the Pantheon portico). All this material came from the very south-
ern border of the Empire: the remote region of Upper Egypt, Aswan and the
wadys of the Eastern Desert. And the quarries supplying the stone were the
Emperors property, operated by his ocials and servants (Ward Perkins, pp.
142, 145).
This striking activity raises an issue seldom commented on, viz the direct
connection between the Imperial Roman control of quarrying and the anterior
organisation in Pharaonic Egypt. It is clear that signicant quarries in Egypt
were the property of the Pharaoh; Thus by right of conquest, in turn they
became the property of the Ptolemaic rulers, and then in turn Roman state
property. Since Egypt remained an Imperial Province this meant the Egyptian
Quarries passed into the personal possession of the Emperor. And it may well
be this Egyptian experience of the fait accompli which promoted the subsequent
extension by nationalism to quarries at large.
This direct control of large scale quarrying by the Emperor in Rome had a
signicance beyond the technological. When Imperial administration in the West
declined during the fth century, it seems that the Imperial quarries in the
Western Provinces ceased to function. However imperial quarries in the Eastern
Provinces continued to operate and e.g. supplied much material for Justinians
great building programme. The uncertain supply of ne building stone in the
Western Provinces after ca 450 AD augmented the drift into pillaging dressed
stone from existing buildings as spolia. And this was one signicant dierential
between the East and the West in the transmission of the heritage of Antiquity
into the Middle Ages (Ward Perkins, pp. 14849).
40 chapter three
Transport
Manhand- The development of the supply of ne building stone into an enterprise func-
ling stone tioning on an international scale necessitates some consideration of the trans-
with aux- port of stonea heavy material at the best of time, and a prodigious burden
illiary when in large units (e.g. giant monoliths).
devices Anyone handling stone today , in the complete absence of mechanised devices,
will use the same means used in antiquity: levers, wooden wedges, wooden
rollers, ropes and planks to make a smooth level trackwaytogether with man-
power. This suces to move about readily quite massive stone blockse.g. of
several tons. Should the units be very massive indeed, e.g. 100 tons, then wooden
planks and rollers may be ineectual as they may either crush under the load
or be forced into ground. Blocks of such burden must be lodged on heavy
wooden sleds in order to be transported eectively. Within this ambience some
quantitative assessment of manpower is as follows. The simplest instance is the
load one (strong) man can bear on his shoulders. This is considerable. If a 79
block is loaded on to his shoulders and secured by a loop about his chest a
trained stone carrier will bear a load something like half a ton a limited dis-
tance, and with support will climb steps. However the normal means of mov-
ing blocks of stone is to haul them along. This involves working against friction,
and the obvious preliminary is to reduce the coeent of friction as far as pos-
sibleeected by levering the block up and getting rollers underneath it, which
in turn necessitates that the surface traversed be smooth and rm. Given these
conditions a man can push or drag by rope a load of ca 1 ton, and a gang
of 3 or 4 can move about most normal ashlar wall blocks. This refers to trans-
port on level ground; hauling a block up an incline additionally involves work
against gravity, the more onerous the steeper the incline. In general a gradi-
ent of 1 in 10 is quite practical, but then the eectiveness of manpower is
sharply reduced, Thus a larger gang is needed to move the block, e.g. several
times as many as on the at. Such commonsense proceedure suced for mov-
ing the great majority of stone blocks.
Also it must be noted that an adjunct to direct manpower in the traction of
blocks was available from the earliest times. This is the lever which is very sim-
ple machine (or engine). Depending on the length of the lever arm (which in
turn depends on the strength of the material), the lever confers a great mechan-
ical advantagei.e. a very heavy weight can be moved by the application of
a small force, as Archimedes succinctly observed. Moreover blocks can not only
be levered up, they can be levered along. This latter process is usually thought 74
of in connection with ne motion at the ultimate stage in setting masonry, but
it can be applied to assist in the transport of blocks. In this case the better
stone 41
purchase for the lever is given when the end of the block is not vertical but Transport
oblique (and in this connection it has been suggested that the reason for the from
prevalence of oblique rising joints in Pharaonic masonry was precisely to facil- quarry to
itate this levering along from behnind as an aid to transport). building
In such ways blocks were handled in the quarry and moved to the dispatch site
point. Here operations fell into two well dened modes. Transport by water
78 (sea or navigable river) was much cheaper and more convenient than by land;
thus whenever quarries could be opened with immediate access to water, this
was preferred. On the other hand quarries by their nature often were situated
high up on the shoulder of a crag. To get blocks from here down to the at
72 there was a standard arrangementthe slipway. (This remained in use until
todays powerful lorries could be brought up to the quarry face by special
roads.) A steep descent down the mountain side was organised by cutting and
lling, and the descent of the blocks was controlled by ropes braced around
bollards at the side of the track.
If the dispatch point gave onto water the proceedure then depended on
the availability of a sophisticated mechanical deviceblock and tackle. From
Classical Greek times onwards various forms of cranes or derricks were in use.
Previous to this (e.g. in Pharaonic Egypt) blocks could only be loaded across
gangways.
73 When the transport was overland then the eective means was by bullock
trainin a wheeled cart if this way was available and the track permitted,
otherwise by sled. Pack animals are not very eective for the transport of stone.
The load must be balanced, which means equal units on either ankand thus
is restricted to relatively small blocks. Mules and camels are capable of stone
transport, but only camels have been used regularly in modern times, and the
blocks transported are small. Nonetheless camels were used for transport of
stone blocks in Ptolemaic Egypt (Orlandos, II, pp. 2526).
The above outline refers to average sized wall blocks generally of 1 ton or
75 less burden. However strongly a cart may be constructed, the ultimate ques-
tion is the axle loading and this can never be very high, e.g. not more than
several tons. Thus some special blocks both by their form and mass could not
be loaded on cartse.g. architraves which might be ca 5 m long and weigh
ca 5 tons. In classical times Greek builders devised several ingenious schemes
to obtain the advantages of wheeled transport for such blocks rather than draw-
76 ing them on sleds. The essence of these schemes was to use the block itself as
the axle. The details of such schemes have been handed downsome were
more successful than others. The diculty was not in the forward motion of
the blocks, but rather in directing them, this being very dicult to control and
sometimes it was impossible even to keep the devices on a straight path. This
42 chapter three
Transport latter defect is said to have bankrupted one contractor, Paionios of Ephesos
of giant (Vitruvius X, 2, 1; cf Orlandos II, pp. 2628).
items It now remains to mention a matter of enduring wonderthe transport of
giant masses of stone, e.g. some megaliths, Egyptian obelisks and great mono-
lithic columns where the loads range from several hundred to a thousand tons.
Here again it was much more convenient if such loads could be transported
by water, and it was worthwhile on occasion to bring the water to the object 77
by digging a canal (in much the same way as a branch railway track might be
laid in modern times). The transport vessel must be very solid; and the oper-
ation of loading is dicult. In general this can only be performed by bringing
the transport beneath the load rather than the load onto the transport. Pliny
has left an account of proceedure employed in Ptolemaic Egypt which is con-
vincing in detail. The ad hoc canal was driven under the centre of the recum-
bent obelisk which was thus supported in position at either end by the canal
banks. The transport vessel loaded with a greater burden than the obelisk was
manoeuvred underneath the obelisk and then its burden was discharged. As
the freeboard of the vessel increased it eventually engaged the obelisk and lifted
it clear of the canal banks, and then the vessel navigated with it back to the
Nile (Pliny Nat. Hist. XXXVI.14).
For transport of such blocks overland the only method is that illustrated in
Egyptian and Assyrian reliefs. To x the block onto a very strong sled and 73, 74
haul it along a prepared trackway by long teams of men or bullocks. Calculation
from ancient representations appear to concur on the value of 1/3 of a ton
for the hauling power of a man when harnessed up in large teams; while the
hauling power of a bullock is ca 5 or 6 times greater. The sled was the his-
torical ancestor of the cart (Mesopotamian pictographic signs ca 3,000 BC ante-
dating the invention of the wheel show sleds, identical in form with all later
sleds, in general use for transportincluding human transport. A great mono-
lith ordered by Mussolini in 1936 from the Carrara quarries weighed ca 65
tons and was drawn on a sled by a team of 34 bullocks. While hauling heavy
blocks by large gangs of men was resorted to in Europe as recently as the 18th
century when a great block quarried 30 kms distant was to be transported to
Stockholm. Here the smooth trackway was prepared by nature: they waited
until there was a general solid freeze to give them an ideal slipway. Thus is
demonstrated again the interesting fact that rarely is technology completely lost.
When circumstances necessitate its employment, some ancestral memory of it
remains.
As an overall review of the signicance of transport in the supply of ne
stone there is some very interesting information is available in the temple build-
ing accounts of the Didymaion, near Miletos in Ionia (cf Martin, pp. 17172).
stone 43
Here the total expenditure on one of the magnicent columns is recorded as Cost of
ca 39,000 drachmae (a drachma was about a basic daily wage, so the cost transport
would be in the region of one million sterling today). This head of expendi-
ture is broken down as follows. The smallest expenditure was incurred on the
erection of the column = ca 2,500 dr. Allowing this to be one part, then the
quarrying was about 5+ parts; the transport by sea and land about 5 parts
(with the land transport costing about twice as much as the sea transport); and
the nal dressing in situ (including, in this case, very expensive uting) about 4
parts. Thus the overall cost of one column neatly breaks down into about one
third for quarrying, one third for transport and one third for work on site (erec-
tion and nishing). In short the transport of heavy stone units was a very expen-
sive item.
C. Stone Working
Because the most common means of shaping building stone is with an axe/adze
or a chisel etc., it is often assumed that stone is inevitably cut into shapeso
that stone cutting is often used (wrongly) as a synonym for stone dressing. This
is not so. There are several quite dierent processes for reducing stone to the
required form. The choice of the relevent process depends both on the required
form and on the type of stoneand for each process there is an appropriate
tool. In addition to being cut, stone may be chipped, aked, cleaved, pulverised
and abraded. All these processes were employed by Stone Age man in manu-
facturing tools and utensils. Their relevance to building stone may be indicated
as follows.
Irregular stones and boulders (eld stones) may be dressed into shape with
a hammer which will break away protruberances; and also, because of the char-
acteristic fracture of stone when struck a blow to spall o (ake away) at the
surface, this method can be used to obtain a reasonably plane surface. Here
stone is being chipped away, not cut away.
Often stone can be split apart (cleaved) along a plane of relative weakness.
This plane may be either natural (e.g. a bedding stone) or articial (started by
cutting a groove or the like). The operation is performed by inserting wedges
(or wedge shaped tools) and tapping them home. This process may be con-
fused with cutting but the action is distinct. It is not the thin edge of the
wedge which cuts through the stone. This operates only in inserting the wedge.
Thereafter it is the lateral (ssile) pressure exerted by the wedge against the
two sides of the plane of weakness which drives them increasingly apart and
forces the stone to split. This process has always been fundamental in quarrying,
44 chapter three
Prelimi- but it is also the method of preparing thin stone plates (e.g. ooring slabs,
nary roong slates, etc.)and it is always a possible substitute for sawing stone apart.
shaping To cut very hard stone (e.g. granite) into shape always requires a cutting agent
harder than the stone (e.g. a specially forged and prepared tool of special steel).
This was not available e.g. in Old Kingdom Egypt when granite was nely
worked for building stone. The basic proceedure here for extracting blocks from
bed rock (quarrying) or dressing them into shape was to pulverise the surface
of the granite by percussive blows (pounding) with a hand held ball of harder 66
stone (e.g. dolerite). This is laborious but eective. It can also be supplemented
by chipping away residual ridges and excresences etc. It is the way hard stone
bowls and dishes were manufacturedby women. Also a very practical means
of stone working is through abrasion. If material as hard as, or preferably
harder, is ground against a substance it will wear that substance away. If the
harder substance is a metal tool, then surfacing (by rasps, les, scapers, etc.) is
possible; and also boring by augers, drills, etc. However the same eect can be
obtained by using very hard sand (sanding) as the abrasive agent. Thus sur-
faces can be smoothed, holes bored in the very hardest material by means of
wooden tools.
Listing the various processes of shaping stone indicates that breaking up and
breaking o excrescences with a hammer is appropriate to rubble masonry, and
pulverising by pounding with a stone maul (hammer) was the only possible
method to use on very hard stone prior to the availability of metal tools with
a specially hardened cutting edge. However all processes may be employed in
ne masonry. Thus to discuss stone working in more detail is inevitably to focus
on ne stone masonryi.e. working quarried blocks into, at times, complicated
forms exactly to specied dimensions.
Setting Out
The rst step in ne stone masonry is to mark out on a suitable stone the lines
necessary to ensure the block is dressed into the required shape. Today two
grades of stone masons are clearly distinguished (Warland, pp. XXVIIXXVIII):
those who can dress stone according to guide lines marked out (banker masons)
and those who are able also to make the geometrical constructions necessary
to mark out guide lines for more complicated forms (setters out). To what
degree this distinction was prevalent in antiquity has seldom been discussed. It
is possible however to draw some common sense deductions.
It was Pharaonic Egyptian practice to use a hierarchical division of labour
so that as much operative work as possible could be carried out by (unlettered)
manual labourers. Moreover there are indications that routine operations of
stone 45
stone working were checked by supervisorse.g. the progress of pounding out Works
channels around granite in quarries was checked and controlled from the sur- organisa-
66 face by regularly marking the depth to which a (cubit) rod reached when tion
grounded at the bottom of the channel. Also there are reliefs showing the nor-
mal dressing of a plane surface being controlled, not by the mason himself, but
by supervisors (master masons). This is done not with straight edge, but with
a miniature boning rod apparatusi.e. a string is run between two pegs of
84 equal length and a mark indicating the same length is made on a third peg.
The strung together pegs are then applied at each extremity of the surface to
be tested; and it can be veried whether the intervening surface is reduced to
the same plane by applying the third peg in any position and noting whether
the mark corresponds to the string.
It is likely that the circumstances were quite other with Classical Greek stone
masonry. The building commissioners accounts break up the stone dressing into
specied assignments suitable for the work of one man (e.g. a column etc.).
The contract to execute this work is then awarded to one stone mason and
there is no mention of special contracts for master-masons, supervisors, setters-
out, etc. A qualication to this general position lies in the optical renements.
How in practice these were incorporated into the masonry remains largely
unknown. An intervening marginal operation is the setting out of the uting of
81 columnsto incorporate diminution, entasis and uting into the setting out of
column drums is by no means a simple matter.
Imperial Roman stone masonry presents in detail a dierent impression from
Classical Greek masonrye.g. the blocks are generally of a dierent format
and the jointing is not so ne. In general it is evident that large scale build-
ing contractors tried to maximise on unskilled labourwhich of course was one
of the motivations towards Roman concrete construction. Whether this predis-
position extended to ne stone masonry is not clear. Reliefs, cippi etc. com-
memorating masons show among the collection of tools (axes, hammers, chisels
etc.) depicted, also instruments for setting out, e.g. squares, bevels, compasses,
calipers etc. (Adam, pp. 3536; Orlandos, II, pp. 5964). The question needs
further investigation.
It requires developed powers of geometrical reasoning to mark out on a block
the lines dening the various intersecting surfaces so that each surface will t
together evenly with the corresponding surface on adjacent blocks. Essentially
the problem here arises from the fact that a block of stone, however compli-
cated its shape, must be normally a unit in a regular masonry construction
i.e. its bed a plane surface set horizontally, and its overall height in accord
with the standard height of a course. Normally blocks of stone are not cut to
form a separate individual element and then joined together in some way to
46 chapter three
Phaorao- other separate individual elements as is the practice in wood work (cf the com-
nic in ponents of a roong truss, or of a door or window frame). In this way the nal
situ shape of a particular block may appear quite odd and irrational, since it is 82, 83
dressing divorced from any one overall form.
There is, however, a mode of stone construction and dressing which min-
imises the necessity for prior abstract geometrical understanding. This anti-
thetical method is that used in Pharaonic Egypt. Although this in principle is
now regarded as amateurish (bricolage), seen as part of the overall scheme of
Pharaonic masonry it is very rational in the circumstances. Here the principle
was to keep the individual blocks as large as possible and not to conform to a
regular course height. In this way only the minimum dressing was carried out
before setting the block, and all subsequent dressing (viz the larger part) was 97100
eected in situ. Thus the exposed face of blocks as set projected well beyond
the eventual fair face, and the nal dressing resembled rock carving. In this
way the nal facing was not applied separately to individual block, but was
eected ensemble to a complete building unit. Thus when complicated surfaces
were required these were also made rational since the entire form to which
they belonged was apparent as a unity and not broken up into separate parts.
The system was one of maximising in situ dressing (Clarke and Engelbach, Chap.
IX) so that much of the setting out was not eected on individual blocks, but
the lines indicating the required nal surfaces were marked ensemble when e.g.
all the blocks comprising a course were set in position. This work was then
carried out by a master mason not by each individual stone dresser (= banker
mason).
Here in conclusion something must be said in general of the normal process
of setting out the forms to be cut out of a single block of masonry. This, as
stated, can involve powers of geometric understanding which vary from the
obvious to very abstruse indeed. In its development this question constitutes the
science of stereotomy. Some idea of the abstruse developments may appear
from the fact that the guide lines for the required surfaces can only be marked
out on plane surfaces. Complications can arise when the block comprehends
many plane surfaces intersecting at various angles. The essential problem is to
envisage in advance which is the surface where the trace of (some) other sur-
face(s) is to be marked out. This is called the surface of referenceand it must
not be dressed away until the other surfaces have been cut according to their
trace on it. (The abiding issue of stone masonry is the order in which the var-
ious surfaces must be worked!) In fact, however, the full development of stereotomy
only arises when curved surfaces are in issue (i.e. in arcuated construction as
with vaults and domes). Here something of the possible complexities appear
when it is realised that although the trace of surfaces can only be marked out
stone 47
on a plane surface, it is possible that the nished block may comprehend not Stereotomy
a single plane surface but be composed of several curved surfaces, each of a
83 dierent curvature. In point of fact, speaking at large, the true development of
stereotomy may be said to date only from the Renaissance. The situation in
classical antiquity was seemingly well put by D.H. Robertson: The problem
of stone cutting raised by the slightest variation upon plain barrel vaults and
domes might have fascinated the Greeks. . . .; but such niceties had no attrac-
tions for the Roman engineers, and in their stone vaulting they were usually
at pains to avoid them. But in concrete they found an ideal medium (for avoid-
ing problems of stereotomy, since the required forms could be built out of wood
as complete units). Greek and Roman Architecture, p. 232.
Dressing
Stone dressing is the reduction of a more or less irregular unit of stone to
exactly the form required to set it in a passage of masonry. As a standard
process this can be eected only by way of removalforms are carved out of
stone, and in principle stone can not be replaced or built up. In practice how-
ever this position can be mitigated in exceptional circumstances. Where a defect
has occured so that the desired surface is broken away, defaced or removed,
49, 50 repairs can be made by piecing, i.e. by cutting out the defective part and
making it good by inserting and xing in the cavity a new piece of stone
which presents to view the correct surface required. This is, however, a spe-
cial emergency operation, and in no way forms part of dressing procedure.
Basically stone shares with wood the condition that it is worked by being cut
away. However for some reason woodworking with its tools and procedures is
more or less household knowledge, but this is not so for stone dressing which
remains a technical mystery to laymen. For this reason dressing building stone
requires careful explanation and, to comprehend less thorough going practices,
this is dealt with in the guise of ne stone dressing.
Man was familiar from his earliest days with working stone; and from the
beginning of Neolithic times ca 8,000 BC he worked stone nely into precise
shapes with a ne surface nish for vessels, utensils etc. From say 5,000 BC
he erected monumental structures from slabs and blocks of stone (megaliths),
and on occasion worked stone surfaces nely (for ornament), cf Maltese tem-
ples. The conation of these two developments: erecting monumental structures
entirely out of nely dressed stone was the salient contribution of Pharaonic
Egypt in the 3rd millenium BC. From that time onward the art/craft of ne
stone dressing has been a basic one to civilisations and has found its way over
most of the world.
48 chapter three
Stone What engineered this development? Originally it was a functional concern.

masons It was evident that the most enduring material in which man could take shel-
tools ter or store his goods was bed rock, and when man possessed sucient resources
he saw his destiny in constructing monumental buildings equivalent to bed rock
in their durability. His intellectual penetration showed him that this depended
on being able to dress stone surfaces so nely over a large area, that when
they were set together the contact was entire, so that the assemblage approx-
imated as closely as possible to the stability and bearing capacity of bed rock.
The appearance of the visible face of the construction was quite another ques-
tion. Essentially the stability of megaliths was provided by the hill of earth
heaped up to contain them. With Pharaonic stone building the stone structure
was free standing and equivalent in itself to a stone hill or outcrop of bed rock
containing a cavern, thus visible both externally and internally. In this way
from the middle of the third millenium BC ne stone dressing became one of
the central activities of civilised life.
An introduction to stone dressing can be based usefully on the tools used.
And this concern can be resumed briey for several reasons. Detailed, well illus-
trated surveys of masons tools are given in all the manuals of ancient build-
ing (e.g. Arnold, Orlandos, Adam); furthermore the subject has become of
interest itself so that there are now conveniently available monographs (NB the
works of J.-C. Bessac, e.g. Outillage Traditionnel du Tailleur de Pierre, Paris, 1986).
In fact the subject risks being overdriven. The identication of tools employed
by traces of their action remaining visible on surfaces is not as patent as desired,
nor are the historical implications of the types of tools used so necessarily far
reaching as has been asserted.
The individual variants of masons tools are many, but the types are lim-
ited. These can be categorised in several ways so as to simplify their exami-
nation. Masons tools can be considered according to their function, their action,
their manipulation. The function of a chisel is to remove/reduce the surface
of a block; its action is by way of cutting into/through stone; it is manipulated
by being struck with a mallet. A drill has the function of perforating (boring a
hole in or through) stone; its action is by way of abrasion; it is manipulated
by being rotatede.g. with a bow. There is also a nal distinctionthe mate-
rial of the tool: which in broad general may be stone, copper, bronze, iron,
steel. If these several categories are born in mind, it is a fact, surprising or not,
that from the very beginning of large scale stone dressing (in Egypt during the
third millenium BC) types of masons tools existed to perform all required func-
tions by all manner of actions and manipulated in all ways as obtained in tra-
ditional stone masonry until the introduction of powered tools in modern times.
The patent development of masons tools during antiquity is limited to the
stone 49
material from which they were fashioned. The original Egyptian tools were of Masons
87 stone or copper (the possibility of special tempering is a question of great tools
moment, but lacking evidence). Classical Greek and Roman tools were iron,
again with the possibility of special tempering. However steel tools are quite
modern. There is also the possibility of some mechanisation of stone dressing
96 in antiquitye.g. the use of lathes for turning circular surfaces. These could
be operated by animal or water power. Of course there were developments in
design of individual tools across time and place, and this has given rise to
detailed studies. However, even here it is notable that traditional stone masons
tools did not vary greatly.
The function masons tools full in stone dressing may be reckoned (in suc-
cessive order):
(1) Division, (2) Fracture, (3) Removal/Reduction, (4) Perforation, (5) Polishing.
It is frequently necessary to divide large blocks of stone as supplied into smaller
units; the essential of this process is the avoidance of waste, so that the smaller
units are available for working with as little loss of stone as possible. The process
is traditionally performed by grooving the line of division and inserting a series
of wedges in emplacements cut along this line, to be tapped in successively.
92, 93 This process is called coping. An alternative process is sawing apart. Units
of stone may come to hand in very rough irregular form and the rst opera-
tion is to break o and away excrescences and protruberances etc. Also on
occasion stone must be broken up to provide rubble for lling, backing etc.
These operations are performed by hammers of various sorts (including the
sledge hammer).
When the stone has been put into a reasonable regular form, it must then
be reduced to the required shape and size by removing material in a controlled
way from the surfaces. This must be carried out with full control, so that the
stone does not chip, crack or break accidentally. This is the process most com-
monly identied with dressing, and the associated tools are chisels, punches,
90, 91 picks, axes, adzes, etc.
Overlapping this function is the necessity, on occasion, to bore holes in and
94, 95 through stonea means which can also be used to remove stone from the sur-
face area (particularly for very hard stones).
Finally if it is desired to remove all marks of tooling from the surface and
present it completely smoothed, this is done by grinding and polishing with
hard stones and/or metal rasps, scrapers etc. This process can be facilitated by
the additional use of abrasive sand (= sanding).
It further explains the nature of masons tools to note the mechanics of their
mode of actionsince popularly stone dressing is often equated with stone cut-
ting, but in any detailed consideration, cutting is only one of the processes by
50 chapter three
Masons which stone is dressed. The mechanical action of masons tools may be reck-
tools oned as: (1) Fission, (2) Impaction, (3) Cutting, (4) Abrasion. Stone can be split
apart in favorable circumstances by making use of the principle of the inclined
planei.e. by forcing the two sides of a groove apart by making them ride
up the two diverging faces of a wedge. By the force of an impact stone may
be broken o and away by a hammer. This operation also enables the surface
of a stone to be reduced to form because when struck in a suitable way, stone
will spall o from the surface in akes, without involving ssures or breaks.
An alternative process is in point here: pulverisation by pounding. If a stone
surface is pounded continually by a suitably shaped hard object (e.g. a rounded
stone or a stone hammer) the surface can be bruised and disintegrated. This
was the original method of dressing away hard stone surfaces. Cutting is an
unscientic term, but a suitable tool harder than the stone with a sharpened
edge will remove increments of stone from the surface in a controlled manner.
Tools which perform this function are the ones most commonly associated with
stone masonrye.g. chisels, punches, picks, axes etc. Finally stone can be worn
away by abrasion: surfaces can be ground down; rasped, scraped away etc;
holes can be bored and masses can be sawn through or into shape.
These considerations help to give a better understanding of masonry tools,
since these tools are not usually referred to or categorised in this way at all,
but are thought of according to the way they are manipulatedi.e. their mode
of operation. The rst, and by far the most important category here is per-
cussion tools. These are operated by administering blows to the stone and
they fall into two clearly distinguished groups: striking tools and struck tools.
Here it is of interest to know that virtually in each instance a specic individ-
ual percussion tool is duplicated in form, existing both as a striking tool and
as a struck tool. The striking tools are the hammers, axes, adzes, picks; while 88, 89, 91
the struck tools are the droves, chisels, points/punches etc. For their operation 90
the latter class require the use of a mallet (which may be of wood or metal), 86
but is not to be confused with the hammers used to dress stone.
Quite often other types of masons tools are simply described as non-per-
cussion, or miscellaneous. However it is possible to divide them comprehen-
sively into two groups. Those manipulated by rotation (the drills) and those 94
manipulated by oscillation, i.e. moving backwards and forwards. The latter
include all the scrapers, grinders, rasps, les etc.and, be it noted, saws. From 92, 93
this it can be seen that there is a reasonable correlation between mode of action
and manipulation. Tools which work by impaction/cutting are percussion oper-
ated, while tools which act by abrasion are operated by rotation or oscillation.
It is now convenient to say something concerning material of fabrication. It
was mentioned that masons tools were made of stone and various metalsin
stone 51
fact it is also possible in some cases for them to be of wood. The correlation Masons
between the material and the type of tool is interesting (and there is, of course, tools
an obvious historical instance here).
87 Obviously the earliest masons tools were of stone. The petrology of stone is
very varied and igneous rock (particularly basic rock) can be very hard indeed.
In fact the only harder substance available in remote antiquity than many types
of building stone was another type of stonee.g. granite is a very hard stone,
but dolerite is harder. In this fashion to nely dress hard stone (e.g. granite) it
66 was incumbent to use stone toolseven if copper ones were available. What
type of tools, then, were fabricated in stone? In the rst instance there were
87 pounders and hammers. It is reckoned that hand held lumps/balls of very hard
rock were used to pound out hard stone into forms required, i.e. the process
was pulverisation supplemented by laterally knocking o residual ridges between
furrows. This was the procedure to fashion the megalithic pillars and lintels of
Stonehenge. Also there is the direct evidence by way of subsisting traces of
tooling that this was the method whereby granite was quarried and dressed in
Old Kingdom Egypt (v Clarke and Engelbach, pp. 3738; Arnold, pp. 1222).
There is, in addition, evidence in Egypt of hard stone heads being hafted to
form stone hammers (mauls) which could be conveniently used for hammer
dressing stone of any description. Blocks can be dressed quite nely by ham-
mers (stone or otherwise) but the surfaces tend to be slightly convex and the
arrises are not properly sharp or rectangular, they are slightly rounded and
obtuse.
Over and above the use of stone hammers, the question has often been raised
whether stone cutting tools were fabricatede.g. int bladed chisels. These
could have been very practical for dressing harder sedimentary rocks such as
sandstone if it were not possible to temper copper tools to the necessary hard-
ness. However there is no conclusive evidence on this score.
There are one or two other observations which can be made concerning
non-metal tools. Wooden tools are practical in various connections. In cop-
ing blocks the wedges used are metal, and their eciency is augmented by
inserting them between thin metal plates (feathers). It is possible that hard
wood wedges could serve the same purpose. There is also an allied issue which
is much debated. Instead of tapping home metal wedges, it has been asserted
that an alternative method of dividing stone was by using soft wood wedges.
These were inserted into emplacements very dry, and then saturated with
waterthe resultant expansion of the wood then forced the stone apart. The
method has been shown to work experimentally, but again there is no con-
clusive evidence of its use in antiquity; although it is often stated to have been
the early Egyptian method of splitting up granite (v per contra Arnold, p. 39).
52 chapter three
Masons An additional material can be mentioned, but it is quite outside the mainstream
tools of masonry developments. Antler/horn is a very hard substance indeed, and
occurs in nature conveniently shaped and nely pointed to be used as a pick.
Antler picks were used in earliest (Palaeolithic) mining (they are found in situ). 56
And it would seem that they were used for the ornamental picked dressing
of stone in the Maltese temples (5th Millenium BC).
The consideration of individual masons tools across the ages gives on to a
very extensive eld of enquiry for much information is presently available. This
comes from several sources:
(1) Survival of actual tools

(2) Ancient representation of tools
(3) Ancient literary references to tools
(4) Characteristic marks of tooling remaining on stone.
Here following on the outline of typology of tools given above only a few gen-
eral remarks are added.
Obviously the percussion tools, those that act by impaction and by cutting
are the basic types of tools for use in removal/reduction of stone surfaces.
Spalling hammers work satisfactorily in this connection but stone may be
detached/cut away with more precision by a cutting edge. This may take the
form either of a head attached to a shaft (a striking tool) or a tool in itself,
hand held and driven by blows from a mallet (a struck tool). The striking tools
are very often double headed, combining e.g. a hammer and a pick, a pick 88, 89
and an axe, an axe and an adze etc. In each instance (striking or struck) the
cutting edge or face may be smooth or serrated (toothed, clawed, combed). 90
Although in general it is possible that the most delicate control can be exer-
cised with the struck tools, nevertheless nely dressed surfaces (and even orna-
ment) can be eected with striking tools. The special provenance of the struck
tools is around the edge of blocks, where the action of striking tools incurs the 91
risk of damaging or chipping.
Virtually all the dierent types of masonry tools have been known from very
early times (in Old Kingdom Egypt). However certain classes of tools have been
more widely used in dierent ages and places. Thus identifying the masons
tools employed has been considered a means of showing very basic cultural
connections, inuences, anities. In broad general the tendency is to see schools
of masons who use predominantly the striking percussion tools, and those who
favour the struck tools. At times this analysis has gone to extremes of diusionism
and has seen stone masonry the world over as a product of 2 or 3 original foci
of development.
Against this background understanding of tools of trade, it is possible to give
stone 53
in vignette an idea of the basic procedure of ne stone masonry. The funda- Procedure
mental task of the stone mason is to produce a rectangular block (a paral- of ne
lelopiped in form) of exactly the required dimensions, with the necessary surfaces stone
dressed into truly plane surfaces. Without this nothing can be done: all other dressing
proceedings devolve in theory from this basis, and in practice in almost every
instance they are carried out by successive steps from this original operation.
The stone dresser rst identies a stone large enough to encompass the
80 required nished dimensions (a considerable amount of stone may be cut to
waste). If necessary he then regularises it by knocking o and cutting away
excresences and protruberances (e.g. with a hammer) and then squares up the
arrises somewhat (e.g. with a drove). He then selects the surface on which to
begin work which is often, but not necessarily, the face: this is termed the sur-
face of operation and his task is to establish a plane on this irregular surface.
The signicant fact is that this is done by rst making coplanar the limiting
points at the margins of the surface. In this respect stone dressing procedure
diers from that in wood-workingand accordingly is not generally familiar to
laymen.
In addition to his dressing tools a mason has (or has access to) straight edges,
a metal masons square, and a measuring device (rule, etc.). These suce for
the basic operation to be described. The masons rst step is to cut a plane
draught along one margin of the surface of operation. He rst draws a straight
line indicating the plane of this draught on the surface normal to the draught.
(For the purpose of cutting the draught, the surface on which the line is inscribed
becomes, what is called, the surface of reference); and cuts the marginal draught
several centimetres broad and true to the guideline with a chisel. He then tests
the draughted surface with his straight edge to see that it is a true plane. Thus
two corners of the block are now in the same plane. Next holding one straight
edge on the draught, he then applies another straight edge to the opposite side
of the block and adjusts it so that both straight edges are parallel as he sights
across them. When this is so he draws a line on the opposite edge of the block
to indicate the plane to which he must cut the marginal draught along the
opposite margin of the surface of operation. This he does in like fashion with
a chisel, and then tests it for true with a straight edge. The four corners of
the surface of operation are now co-planar, and two opposite margins of the
irregular surface are reduced to marginal draughts. It is then a simple matter
to connect the two marginal draughts at their extremities by two other mar-
ginal draughts chiselled out and tested for true. The irregular surface of oper-
ation has now been reduced to a plane draught several centimetres broad
around the margin with a central irregular panel (boss) of stone.
This is the critical stage in stone dressing, the importance of which is not
generally understood. With one surface (surface of operation) in this condition
54 chapter three
Procedure all the remaining surfaces can be dressed truly in whatever manner is desired.
of ne In the simplest instance the mason marks out in the draughts the lines delim-
stone itating the exact dimensions of this surface. Then by applying the masons
dressing square in a suitable manner to the marginal draughts (i.e. using this surface as
the surface of reference) each of the other surfaces can be marked out and
truly dressed (e.g. at right angles to one another).
It is now necessary to identify and dierentiate the surfaces of the dressed
block of masonry. When the block is set in place there are two horizontal sur-
faces and four vertical ones. The horizontal surfaces are called beds/bed joints
(upper bed and lower bed). The two lateral vertical surfaces are called rising
joints, since they adjoin neighbouring blocks. The front (visible) surface of the
block and the rear surface are not referred to as joints: the front is called the
face, and the rear surface is called the back. The required dressing for these
several surfaces can (and does) vary considerably.
In ne stone masonry the upper and lower surface and the two lateral sur-
faces of the block must always accord as closely as possible with the adjacent
blocks. Here after completing the marginal draughts the mason then dresses
away the central boss completely (with hammer, punch, chisel, etc.) to the plane
established by the draught. On the overall neness of dressing depends the
neness of jointing between the blocks. This neness of jointing is visible on
the face of the wall, but the visible appearance is not its raison dtre. The ne
dressing maximises the strength of the masonry construction. However just here
Greek intelligence perceived an important distinction. With normal upstanding
masonry in normal circumstances (e.g. not during earthquakes) the load born
by the masonry is transmitted vertically downwards by the force of gravity; and
thus the stresses pass through the (horizontal) bed joints of blocks, not through
the (vertical) rising joints. Therefore in normal circumstances there is not the
same need for close jointing between the rising joints as there is between the
bed joints of blocks. Since on the one hand ne stone dressing is a costly busi-
ness, and on the other the neness of jointing had to be uniform at the exposed
face, Greek masons devised a method of dressing the rising joint to give a uni-
form ne appearance but to minimise the labour. They did this by dressing
truly plane only a band (frame) around the margin of the joint and leaving the
central panel slightly recessed in rougher dressing so that it did not make con-
tact with the corresponding part of the adjacent block. The outer frame was
generally entire (around the four margins); but sometimes it was only worked
around three margins (the face and two others) to give a P form. This system
of dressing rising joints is termed anathyrosis, and is a characteristic of classical 101
Greek ashlar masonry.
As for the rear surfaces of blocks, in most wall constructions there was no
stone 55
necessity for them to be brought into ne contact with the adjacent block. The Procedure
joint was not visible and furthermore tying the two faces of a wall together of ne
was eected by bonding stones set at intervals to run through the entire thick- stone
ness of the wall. Therefore it was quite common for the rear surfaces of blocks dressing
to be left roughly dresed (rough backs is the English term).
Quite contrary to general understanding it is the dressing of the face of blocks
which is the least signicant factor in ne stone masonry. The strength of the
construction does not depend on it, and it is governed by (varied, changing)
taste in aesthetics. Indeed time and chance can play a large part in the matter.
In the rst instance it is a practical, prosaic way of stone dressing to make
the surface of operation the intended face of a block. When the marginal
draughts have been cut on the surface of operation the remaining dressing of
the block can be carried out. A standard wall block can then be set in this
condition economising on the time and expense of further dressing the face
without any detriment to the structureand with the added advantage that the
building schedule is speeded up very considerably. If it is desired/intended to
dress away the residual face panel, this can equally well be done in situ at any
stage after the block has been set (e.g. after the erection of the building has
been completed).
Another factor operates in parallel here. In principle it may be that a smooth
face is designed for the masonry. However stone masonry is subject to dam-
age during handling in the process of erection, and so it was a norm in clas-
sical Greek ashlar to leave a protective skin on the exposed face, to be dressed
away in situ after the risk of surface damage had lapsed (cf the French term
ravaler, ravalement). Thus, in whatever interest, a large amount of ancient masonry
102, 103, was set with the face incompletely dresseda less nely worked boss or panel
123 remained within the nely dressed periphery. The dressing back of this panel
or boss was simple mechanical work which any apprentice could perform.
Whether or not it was intended to dress these panels true, in many instances
it was not done. Finances ran out, interest lapsed. The building was functional,
further expensive stone dressing was in no way essential and it was never car-
ried out. In this way people became accustomed to viewing expanses of masonry
where the faces of blocks showed panels or bosses only roughly dressed. Familiarity
breeds acceptance and then appreciation. What was originally a functional mat-
ter of negative aspectual signicance became a matter of positive aesthetics.
The exposure of functional processes in roughly dressed draught work on
masonry facing became a favoured style in a later age concerned to pick and
choose between fashions. It was a form of ancient expressionism. It ruled the
104 taste in painted plaster mural decoration in Hellenistic times. Both the Masonry
Style and the Architectural Style (equivalent to the rst two Pompeian styles)
56 chapter three
Dressing incorporated this type of facing on their masonry based designs (where, of
of course, there was no question of any functional explanation).
Polygonal These questions properly belong to subsequent consideration under structural
and elements and ornament. They are mentioned here only because non-technical
Lesbian discussion has always referred to draughted masonry and the like as some
Masonry form of addition, an added more elaborate dressingrather than the omission
of later stages of nishing. Indeed the traditional archaeological classication of
ashlar masonry walling proceeded on an aspectual basisdraughted masonry,
chamfered masonry, etc. These were skin deep matters. In origin they were
not devised for appearance sake. Bossed masonry was economic and aorded
general protection during handling. Chamfered joints aorded specic protection
to arrises during setting, as did raised marginal rolls. The understanding of ne
stone masonry can only be based on some technical knowledge of its processes.
This examination has proceeded on ne dressing of blocks for use in nor-
mal masonry construction designed to resist stresses occasioned by the trans-
mission of loads acting vertically downwards form the superincumbent structure.
However some masonry constructions are required to resist stresses from loads
acting in other senses. A typical instance of this are retaining walls, which must 109
resist the thrusts of retained masses of instable earth, lls, etc. Here the forces
operate horizontally. In these circumstances normal coursed stone masonry is
inappropriate. The stresses are transmitted through rising joints and the regu-
larly horizontal coursing constitutes planes of dire weakness as providing a level
slipway for the displacement of blocks. The type of masonry to aord strength
in these circumstances is polygonal masonry, where each block is dressed into
ad hoc, irregular polygons with surfaces interlocking with those of adjacent blocks 107, 108
in reciprocally projecting and re-entrant angles. Even stronger is a development
where the sides of the polygons are curvilinear not rectilinear, called Lesbian
Masonry. Polygonal and Lesbian Masonry has general been noticed in archi-
tectural manuals for its supposed historic instance. It is possible that polygonal
masonry may have some historical connotation, but in the rst instance its
signicance is functional.
Such masonry is often very nely dressed indeed and the required dressing
has always seemed something of a mystery. In any event the proceedure is
entirely dierent from the standard one for regularly coursed orthogonal blocks.
In principle the obvious means for obtaining the irregular but exact disposition
of the surfaces is by use of a template. And to make the use in any way prac-
tical an adjustable template is required. The simplest form of such a device is
a strip of exible material (e.g. lead) which can be moulded to the form which
must be reproduced (Greek literary sources mention something of this nature).
stone 57
Setting and Fixing

When stone has been dressed into required form the units must be set (together) Stone used
and, when and as required, xed (together) in a masonry construction. This is in build-
a distinctly dierent branch of stone working and on large scale work is car- ing for all
ried out by those specialised in this eld: walling masons as opposed to stone purposes
dressers. However any stone mason knows the elements of all branches of the
craft. Here the work of building up together blocks of stone into walls, columns,
etc. is only discussed in outline, since it falls to be considered in dealing with
structural elements.
D. The Uses of Stone
Stone is literally an all purpose building material. This fact is not so manifest
in practice as with wood, but it is so. Every constituent part of a building can
be, and on occasion is, constructed of stone; and on (some) occasions every
component of a particular building is of stone. The only other material where
this could possible obtain in antiquity is metalbut it never did; bronze houses
etc. being entirely imaginery concepts. However, although stone can be used
for virtually the entire fabric of a building, such use is unusual. On the con-
trary it is very often used for certain parts of a building in conjunction with
other material(s) for the remaining partse.g. stone foundations/socles/walls/
columns etc. where the remaining part of the building are of brick and/or
wood etc. Thus in the rst instance consideration must be given to the use of
stone for the dierent elements of construction. On the other hand stone can
be used for building in various forms: e.g. it can be used in extremely large
units or in quite small units; it can be used in the rude state: as it comes to
hand or it can be dressed very nely into regular units (i.e. as rubble or ash-
lar etc.). Also to constitute the fabric of a building element it can be set together
without any other material or in conjunction with other materials (i.e. as dry
stone or as mortared masonry etc.). Finally stone may be used primarily for its
structural virtue (its statical strength to support loads) or for its aspectual virtue
(its striking/powerful/elegant appearance); or for both in combination.
Note must be taken of these various distinctions which in practice are bound
up one with another.
Purpose of Stone
Historically, perhaps the rst use of stone in building was not for buildings
but as crude eld stones for barrier walls. Man propped up his rst overhead
58 chapter three
Founda- shelters (buildings) with wood (or bone) frames. However the construction of
tions and Early Neolithic round houses in the Middle East region (ca 8,000 BC) brought
socle in the use of eld stone rubble masonry for load bearing walls. Thereafter the 51, 52
development of stone masonry was continuous for use in all elements of build-
ing construction.
Articial foundations in the sense of building materials at and/or below
ground level set below upstanding walls etc is a building element of imprecise
(multiple) function. Its purpose is by no means exclusively to spread the load
or carry it down to safe natural foundations as is commonly assumed. Also e.g.
it mitigates the deteriorating eect of standing damp and is resistant to mechan-
ical disturbance. In all instances stone is very suitable material, and one or two
courses of rubble could be set at the base of many mud walls from neolithic
times onwards when the load involved was negligable. On the other hand ratio-
nally engineered stone foundations in the statical interest are not convincingly 114, 115
in evidence prior to classical Greek building. Their solid ashlar stone temples
involved appreciable loads, and Greek architects provided for them carefully
dressed and constructed (ashlar) masonry, either to spread the load satisfacto- 116, 117
rily or (often) to transmit it down to bed rock. They also augmented the virtues
of the dressed stone foundations below upstanding walls with rubble set between
them to constitute platforms/rafts (cf the crepis). Since that time structurally
strong foundations and damp resistant foundations have been reckoned a sine
qua non of building.
In some ways an extension to the rle of foundations can be recognised in
the socle (or plinth). It is reasonable that the lower part of the walls, both as
bearing the greater load and as exposed to random mechanical damage, should
be more solidly constructed than the upper part. In this way an ordonance of
(ne) stone masonry substructure with a mud and/or rubble superstructure
evolved as standard construction during the Bronze Age, e.g. in the Levanto-
Mediterranean areacf, e.g. Ugarit and Cyprus; while more monumental expres-
sions of this system were developed in later (1st Millenium BC) times e.g. in
Urartian building. One expression of the structural stone socle was orthostate
construction, where the socle was not of uniformly coursed stone masonry, but
comprised a facing of large upright stone slabs to a brick or rubble construction.
These orthostates were a suitable eld for relief decoration, and the orthostate
socle was such a successful feature that it was retained for its decorative virtue
when it had no structural rationalee.g. classical Greek walls were often artic-
ulated with a register of orthostates at the base, even though the walls were 104
uniformly constructed of ashlar masonry throughout. An extension of this fea-
ture can be seen in pure decoration. During late Hellenistic times (from 2nd
century BC onwards) it became common to enhance the aspect of a wall not
stone 59
by the type of masonry, but by rendering the wall face with decorated plaster. Columns,
The rst style of decoration employed was universally the Masonry Style. pillars,
This accurately reproduced the patterns of ne ashlar masonry construction piers etc.
and in virtually every instance an orthostate register stands at the base (v A.
Laidlaw, The First Style in Pompeii Painting and Architecture, Rome, 1985).
Stone as being strong in compression and very rigid, is a suitable material
118123 for point supportscolumns and pillars. Thus such members may be of stone
when other parts of the building are of mud, brick etc. Even for substantial
secular building in Egypt (e.g. palaces) mud brick was the accepted mode of
construction (v Vol. I, pp. 5256). However very frequently here the columns
were of nely dressed stone. Another striking example of this arrangement are
the grandiose palaces at Persepolis (5th century BC) where the walls are of
mud brick but the stupendous profusion of soaring columns (e.g. The Hall of
a Hundred Columns) are superbly executed in stone. The upshot of this today
is the unearthly appearance of these columns in the wild scenery, unaccompa-
nied by walls. NB Stone columns may be of diverse construction, e.g. mono-
liths, frustra, drums, large block masonry or even small block masonry.
In this connection it is further to be noted that stone may be only present
residually in columns. The shafts may be of wood but either the bases or cap-
itals or both may be of ornamental stone. This is common in Bronze Age
Levantine-Mediterranean building. When simple bases are recessed to take a
large tenon it is an indication of their use with wooden columns (or piers).
Simple torus type bases of this nature are common in North Syria. In Late
Bronze Age Cyprus associated nds of simple stepped capital blocks and sock-
eted bases without trace of stone shafts permit the reconstruction of wooden
supports with these capitals and bases.
Vertical supports are not exclusively free-standing. An alternative or addi-
tional device to strengthen wall structure was to stien the inferior (mud etc.)
construction by incorporating (dressed) stone elements into it, by way of the
upstanding framing to aperturesi.e. doors, windows, niches. A tour de force in
this manner is the construction of the Achaemenid palaces at Persepolis (5th
century BC). Here the walls were entirely mud brick but the monumental por-
tals and (numerous) niches were framed in massive ne stone (sometimes sev-
eral members of the frame being hollowed out together from one great block
(v Vol. I, pp. 8283). The total disappearance over the ages of the mud brick
has left this stone framing now standing in striking isolation. Nice examples of
this type of construction on a more domestic scale can also be found in provin-
cial Roman bulding in the Island of Cyprus (where Roman concrete construction
was never adopted). Here the walling is out of small at rubble units and the
moulded ashlar door and window frames are augmented by dressed stone coining
60 chapter three
Stone (v Ancient Building in Cyprus, Vol. 1, p. 173; cf Delbrueck II, pp. 5152, 99).
framed Devices of this nature give over into a formal framed structure. Stone fram-
structures ing is not as obvious a structural device as wooden framed building, but it is
practical and versions of it (or approaching it) are found in many contexts. One
extended development continues from the Late Bronze Age/Iron Age Levant
to Roman building in the Western Mediterranean. The connections show
that the mode was practiced in connections in Phoenecia, but the early sur-
viving examples are mainly from Palestine. Here the wall is fashioned as a
series of dressed stone pillars of various detailing, with panels of rubble inll.
The surviving remains do not mount very highand so do not demonstrate
whether these piers extended up the full height of the wall and were capped
by a continuous wall plate to constitute a functional framebut this would
appear to be the case (v Ancient Building in Syria and Palestine, Vol. 1, pp. 40708;
42627).
This type of construction was carried by the Phoenecians to their African
(and other) colonies in the Western Mediterranean; and there it enjoyed a
tremendous vogue lasting through Roman times to the end of antiquity. It is
referred to as Opus Africanum. Here the construction is preserved on occasion 112, 113
to the full height of the wall and can be seen (at least ideally) to have approx-
imated to a true frame (v Adam, pp. 13031). A dierent, but very powerful
tradition of stone framing, was manifested in the rocky terrain of Northern
Syria during late Antiquity. Here massive monolithic piers and beams were set
together to form a ponderous rectangular frame and the panels were consti-
tuted of slighter (nely dressed) masonry. Often the massive framed structure
survives nearly complete in the deserted landscape, so that the agglomerations
are referred to ttingly as villes mortes (v Vol. I Ill. 48).
It is obvious that the pier construction in the Bronze/Iron Age (and indeed
Opus Africanum) in practice, on statical analysis, may vary between a framed
structure and masonry stiening (cf Delbrueck II, pp. 5152, 99). The functional
distinction should be whether the framing elements are competent structures in
themselves independent of the panelling inll. In this case the villes mortes
buldings of North Syria are exactly stone framed, since the megalithic frames
have remained to this day standing entire when the panelling has disappeared.
Discussion of the selective use of stone for certain elements of building con-
struction has proceeded hitherto on the positive analysis of instances where
stone is by nature preferable to other materials. However to some degree the
use of stone is contra-indicated for certain building members. Stone has only
ca 1/10th the strength in tension as it has in compression, so that relatively
speaking it is far less suitable for tension members than it is for compression
members. This includes the use of stone for beams since the superincumbent
stone 61
load acts to bend the beam downwards, which puts the lower surface of the All stone
member in tension. This gives rise to diculties for the use of stone (beams structures
and slabs) in roong; and it may be taken that stone has never been used for
roong where other parts of the building (walls, etc.) are constructed with other
materials (wood, brick etc.). The obvious material for supporting roong is wood
32, 33 and accordingly at mud terrace roofs and tiled ridged roofs both on timber
bearers account for a great deal of ancient roong; whatever the other mate-
rials of construction may be. A notable instance here is the Greek temple which
has a very highly evolved system of construction. The building material is
33 entirely stone, except for the roong, which is supported on heavy timber fram-
ing (v Hodge, The Woodwork of Greek Roofs, Cambridge, 1960). Clearly if stone
roong members had been suitable, the Greeks would have employed them (v
Vol. 1, pp. 10106).
It is thus a question of noting exceptional occasions where stone is used for
roong; which, in eect, is equivalent to speaking of the formulation of an
entirely stone structure. The several historical occasions of this evidence the
variations and distinctions in the use of stone.
Historically the rst occasion of an all stone structure is perhaps the most
basic and thorough going imaginablethe Atlantic megalithic style (5th3rd
53 millenium BC). This made use of great slabs of natural rock alike for both wall
and roong (v Vol. I, pp. 2739). Typically the chambers and galeries con-
structed so massively and simply however large were rectangular box like ones;
however on occasion the chambers were rounded in plan and then a dierent
system of stone roong was used. Instead of one great slab spanning from wall
to wall, the roof was built up out of smaller, roughly shaped slabs, so that each
slab oversailed the one below (i.e. was corbelled out) to give a roof of conical
forma well known example is the megalithic tomb at New Grange in Ireland,
ca 4,000 BC (v Vol. I, pl. 10). Although it is not always fully recognised, mega-
lithic chambers (Dolmens) were not free standing buildings. Heaped around
and over them was a tumulus of earth so that the stones had no external aspect.
And in the upshot a construction like that of New Grange always remained
current for underground sepulchral chambers, i.e. burial vaults (cf the Royal
Tombs at Ur in Mesopotamia (late 3rd millenium BC).
By far the most striking examples of this lineage were the monumental stone
built tombs of beehive form in later Bronze Age Greece and Crete (ca 1,600
BC1,300 BC), referred to as tholoi. Some of these tholoi are very grand stone
monuments indeedwith chambers ca 15 m in diameter rising to a similar
height. They are set below ground in the sloping face of a hillside approached
by a monumental passage way. Thus the stone masonry was facing to an earth
emplacement and in many instances it was roughly squared up and dressed on
62 chapter three
Phaorao- the face and regularly coursed. Each unit was kept in compression since it was
nic build- wedged in by the adjacent units of the course as forming part of a horizontal
ing circle. In turn each higher stone rested in equilibrium on the stone below. This
was functionally very ecient stone masonry of impressive aspect (v Vol. 1,
Ill. 10).
Historically succeeding megalithic construction was monumental Pharaonic
building ca 2,500 BC100 AD (v Vol. 1, pp. 6167). And this formed the rst
instance of free standing all stone building on a monumental scale. Again this
made use of the largest possible stone units, but in the form of blocks, both
for walling and beamsalthough the roong was out of massive slabs. However
all this masonry was nely dressed (much of the dressing eected in situ). The 124
massive roong slabs (e.g. some 8 m 2 m 1 m) evoked wonder, but very few
have survived intact to the present day (these usually lateral ones, with seating
on three margins). In general the slabs fail in bendingthe sote cracks across 125
the middle and the ssure runs up through the complete depth of the stone.
Although these dressed stone terrace roofs were formulaic for free standing
monuments, in another connection Egyptian builders used stone roong of a
dierent form. It seems the insistence on the at terrace roof was dictated by
the external view. Where the roong was not visible externally Egyptians read-
ily accepted other forms following the example of megalithic construction.
Although the matter is not often discussed, the inuence of rock-cutting is oper-
ative here. Both for reasons of economy and stability, horizontal ceilings are
contra-indicated when carving out galleries and caverns in bed rock. Here the
sides of the cutting are naturally inclined inwards to give only sucient head
room as is necessary. Principally because of their xation on sepulchral inter-
ests (with associated religious concerns), Egyptians laboured on much monu-
mental stone construction which was not visible externallye.g. galleries and
chambers with pyramids or as crypts beneath them. Since in these instances
there was very often great loading, the Egyptians here sought to use dressed
stone for roong in a way which minimized subjecting it to tensile stresses, as
induced in horizontal slabs. The obvious scheme of cantilevering blocks by pro-
jecting their ends out beyond the supports (corbelling) left the projecting part
in tension, but the bending moment was kept relatively small by limiting the
projection (the slighter the projection the higher rose the crown of the roof ).
The other scheme they adopted was to incline two slabs together to lean against 126
each other at the summit in the form of an isosceles triangle. In carpentry this
is the couple close system and in stone masonry it is sometimes referred to
as a triangular vault, or a saddle vault. Not only the appearance but also the
statics of this system could be varied (improved) by cutting the slabs with a
curved prole instead of a rectilinear one.
stone 63
The introduction of the term vault is untimely as the terminology is impre- Fine stone
cise and ambiguous. Its popular usage refers to an arcuated aspect: its statical vaulting
analysis refers to the system of stresses inducedi.e. each unit is kept in com-
pression whatever the external appearance. However in the ultimate analysis
these issues are not as independent as might appear. These matters will be dis-
cussed in a subsequent volume. For the moment it may only be observed that
Egyptians builders were as little cognisant of the analysis of the members of
these devices as are modern builders and architects when they employ them.
In the present connection, however, the question must be addressed Did
the Egyptians employ true vaulting of nely dressed stone for roong? As
commonly used true vaulting signies accurately cut wedge shaped units from
the envelope of a hollow cylinder which can be set together radically to recon-
stitute part of the surface of a hollow cylinder (a vault); or similar shaped units
from the envelope of a hollow sphere which can be set together radially to
reconstitute part of the surface of a hollow sphere (a dome). While it is prob-
ably true that there are no instances of cut stone domes in Pharaonic Egyptian
building, there are instances of dressed stone vaults. The Egyptians were famil-
127 iar with the aspect of a vault, both from the earliest prehistoric construction
out of exible reeds, etc., and also they well knew the construction of mud
brick pitched vaulting for utilitarian structures (e.g. storehouses). Thus in the
Late Period (ca 25th Dynasty, 750 BC onwards) various examples are known
of cut stone vaults of a restricted span, e.g. less than 3 m, in funerary contexts
at Medinet Habu, Saqqara, etc. (v Arnold, pp. 20001).
Lastly, the Greek builders in Hellenistic times (from ca 300 BC) fully car-
128 ried spherical geometry into practice by nely dressing each roong unit (vous-
son) of a dome into wedge form, both horizontally and vertically, so that set
82, 83 radially it was held in place by compression in both vertical and horizontal
senses. With this technology large spaces could be roofed over in solid nely
dressed stone masonry. This technique was at rst used only for special circu-
lar rooms in e.g. bathsand baptisteries, etc.; but in late Antiquity it came to
be employed as overall roong for both centralised and hall churches, and sur-
vived into post antique times as the noblest form of monumental roong.
In this connection a freak instance should be mentioned in roong in late antiq-
uity. The cupola over the Tomb of Theodoric the Ostrogoth at Ravenna
was a gigantic, monolithic lid of stone, ca 11 m in diameter and weighing ca
300 tons (v R. Heidenreich, H. Johannes, Das Grabmal Theodorich zu Ravenna,
1936).
64 chapter three
Manner of Use
Field The sketch outline of the purposes for which stone was employed in building
stones indicates the varied state and manner in which it was used. And this in turn
mortared draws attention to the unexpectedly early development of mans expertise in
rubble using stone as a building material. Although the record of animal building seems
and dry mainly related to plants and earth (nests, burrows, etc.), it seems without reection
stone early (Paleolithic) man assembled eld stones together to constitute barriers.
walling Even at this stage he encountered considerations which remained endemic in
stone building, e.g. units of stone could be set together dry, i.e. without the
addition of any other material; and they also could be set with the addition of
some other material the better to x them together. The primaeval device of
this nature was mud, as mud mortar. Mud as a plastic material, when it dried
possessed properties of adhesion and cohesion. It thus facilitated setting eld
stones together when wet (i.e. stones which because of their shape did not rest
stably). And when dry the mortar held the stones together. Here the con-
struction could be an indeterminate one between mortared stone and stone in
mortari.e. mud construction stiened by drowning boulders and stones in it.
But whatever the precise arrangement of eld stone and mud mortar, the con-
struction was subject to a defect engineered by time. In time the mud mortar
decayed, dessicatedit lost its powers of cohesion and adhesion to trickle and
run away, leaving the stones not bonded and unstable.
On the other hand certain types of eld stones, by their shape could be eas-
ily set together in such a manner that moreover they xed themselves together
by interlocking with their neighbours. This was the art of dry stone walling
with at angular plates of stone, which exfoliated from some rocks by processes
of weathering. Supplies of such stone often occur in desert regions where water
is not available for mixing up mud mortar. The art of dry stone walling is a
sophisticated one which has remained in use until the present day. One strik-
ing characteristic is setting the at stones together inclined on the diagonal (in
alternate directions in each successive row) to produce the well known her- 54
ring bone pattern. The advantages of this in xing the units together were
manifest and the system was imitated in mud brick construction (cf plano-convex 159
brickwork in Mesopotamia v infra, pp. 101, 104). An obvious advantage of dry
stone walling is that it is not dependent on the preservation of the (fugitive)
mud mortar.
The use of eld stones seems fairly obvious. However there were devices for
improving the stability, rigidity, strength, durability of stone construction which
are by no means obvious developments. And it is a matter of note how soon
early man began with them. Perhaps it is possible to recognise two avenues
of advancement. To improve the quality of stone construction by using very
stone 65
large, massive units which are stable by their dead weight and are rigid, strong Megalithic
and durable; or to obtain stability and strength by shaping units into forms building
which facilitate their setting and fastening together. The history of this tech-
nological progress goes back to early Neolithic times, ca 8th millenium BC.
It is the use of massive units of stone which started rst. Truly man very
early cast himself in the image of Sisyphus. According to the published accounts,
the highly favoured Oasis settlement of Jericho was furnished at least on the
West side with a monumental stone barrier wall 3 m broad and still standing
in places 4 or 5 m high. Also engaged to the innerface of this wall was a round
51 tower built solid with an internal passageway ascending from ground level inside
the city to the summit of the wall and the tower. In general the material was
(large) boulders, but it also included massive blocks. Outside the wall was a
sizeable fosse hollowed out from the limestone rock (v Vol. 1, g. 8). Little
technical consideration of this structure is published. It is an obvious sugges-
tion that building stone for this wall and tower came from the spoil of the
fosse. If this were the case for the massive blocks which appear to have been
hewn into shape, then quarrying is pushed back several millenia. In general
the masonry of the wall and tower is Cyclopean in manner, i.e. larger boul-
ders bedded and chinked with smaller stones. However some blocks have anities
with the masonry of later monuments, usually considered megalithice.g. Maltese
Temples (v Vol. 1, pp. 3639, g. 11).
Megalithic building which ourished in the Western Mediterranean and on
the Atlantic seabord of Europe has become of gripping historical interest because
of revision in dating. Whereas this stone building was once deemed automati-
cally to derive from monumental stone building in the Middle Eastern world,
Western megalithic building is now seen to antedate its supposed models by
up to 2,000 years.
53 Megalithic building is essentially construction from large slab-like units of
unworked rock, often with a surface area of say 10 m2 (and their burden can
be anything from say 10 tons to 100 tons). The typical dolmen (= stone table)
was thus the type of prefabricated building. A sizeable chamber could be
construction out of 5 great slabs, one for the roof and 4 for the walls with the
front slab pierced by a rectangular aperture, as a door. Equally long galleries
were built from a succession of trilithons (two upstanding slabs with a cap-
stone) after the manner of a card house. The winning, transport and erection
of these megaliths has always been a wonder; and now that it has been shown
to be the earliest form of monumental building it is even more so. Certainly
the organisation of human resources necessary to build these monuments at a
period long antedating conventional ideas of urban development has upset
accepted categories of social history.
66 chapter three
Ashlar After the decline of megalithic building, building with very large units of
masonry stone always remained a viable proceedure, an alternative method of con-
in Egypt struction. It was the standard method of construction in Pharaonic Egypt, fully
and developed in the Pyramid Age (ca 2,500 BC) and enduring until the beginning
Classical of the Christian Era. Here, however, the fabric was of nely dressed blocks of
Greece stone (e.g. wall blocks of ca 1 m or more in length); and beyond the basic con-
cept of building in large stone units there seems little in common with the ear-
lier Megalithic style. In this connection the mediating position of Stonehenge
and the Maltese Temples may be noted. They belong to the Megalithic cul-
ture but (some) stone units were dressed to special forms (and also ornamented)
(v Vol. I, pp. 2839). Roman builders in imperial times with world resources
at their command on occasion built with very large stone units indeed: e.g.
giant order monolithic columns (as in the Pantheon portico). And the previ- 71
ously mentioned monolithic cupola roof of the Tomb of Theodoric at Ravenna,
built in the latest period of the ancient world is one of the most massive blocks
of stone ever handled in building.
The other avenue of development in stone building was via ne dressing.
Blocks of stone can be dressed accurately to any desired form with plane sur-
faces. Although this is manifested in the aspect of masonry, its fundamental
signicance is not in aspect but in construction. With ne dressing the contact
between adjacent surfaces of blocks could be rendered well nigh total, so that
stresses are transmitted across the entire sectional area; and there was no loss
of strength in bearing loads due to gaps in the jointing of the blocks. Also since
the jointing was so ne, it was very practical to increase the rigidity and sta-
bility of the construction by xing blocks together with cramps and dowels 289294
across the joints. This was nely dressed, dry stone masonry, developed in Egypt 97100
ca 2,500 BC where the dressing was largely carried out in situ; and also brought
to a pitch of perfection in Classical Greece (later 6th century BC) where the 101
standard wall blocks were of medium size (say 60 cms 40 cms 30 cms)
and were nely dressed before setting. In such dry stone ashlar adhesive mor-
tar (a weaker substance than stone) was not an adjunct to construction.
Both Pharaonic Masonry and Classical Greek dry stone ashlar were a ne
pitch of technology. But dressed stone masonry of lesser excellence, and set
with a binding mortar was also known during antiquity. Such masonry gives
the aspect of ne dressing on the exposed face, but in the true constructional
sense it is not nely dressed. Only one surface, the face, is squared up and 105
nely dressed. The other surfaces (the beds and rising joints) are dressed true
only for a narrow margin at the face to present a ne jointed aspect to the
masonry. Behind this the block is only roughly dressed with surfaces splayed
inwards to the reari.e. the blocks are in the form of a truncated wedge or
stone 67
pyramid. This, in eect, avoids all care for ne jointing; the blocks are bed- Bastard
ded in and bonded with mortar, so that although to outward view the masonry ashlar
is nely dressed (ashlar); speaking in the constructional sense it is coursed, masonry
squared rubble. In this fashion the blocks are generally small, but this fact does
not involve extra uneconomic dressing, since only one surface of each block is
nely dressed. This is the type of masonry which survived into traditional mod-
ern building as petit appareil . Its concern is with aspect rather than structure.
It is probably the original form taken by dressed stone masonry and originated
in a concern to emulate the appearance of brickwork in a superior (more
durable) material.
Although there is little published detail accessible this is probably the nature
of the earliest nely dressed stone masonry known, that from early Mesopotamia
of the Uruk period (v J.-D. Forest, Les Premiers Temples de Mesopotamie BAR 745,
London, 1999), cf the Stone Building at Uruk (ca BC). Stone masonry of
this type emerges in Egypt with a great clat in the monumental funerary com-
plex of Zoser at Saqqara (ca 2,600 BC). For this reason it is referred to in
Egypt as Small Block Masonry or Zoser Masonry. In Egypt it was succeeded
as the ruling mode of ne stone masonry within a century by Large Block or
Pharaonic Masonry. However the convenience of it was such that it never
lapsed from use, but recurred whenever specially indicated.
When the practice of ne stone dressing spread beyond Egypt to the Levant
and the Mediterranean at the middle of the second millenium BC this type of
masonry became standard there (v Vol. I, pp. 6988). As such it survived into
the rst millenium and continued in evidence even after the introduction of
classical Greek ashlar. Indeed on some sites contemporary examples of both
styles can be found in close proximity.
In the nature of things it can be seen that this splay jointed, small block
masonry is essentially applied as a facing where the core or ground mass of
the masonry is of another construction. In this signicant respect it diers from
both Pharaonic Masonry and Classical Greek Ashlar where the ne stone
masonry construction is uniform throughout the unit. For this reason the masonry
is well referred to as bastard ashlar. And this bastard ashlar type of masonry
probably stands behing the favorable references of Vitruvius (II.8) to Greek
emplecton, when he is discussing (unfavourably) the new Roman Concrete
(v G.R.H. Wright, ABADY IV, 1987, pp. 7996).
The nal extension of this analysis is to consider the use of stone in build-
ing solely for its aspect when it is not designed to contribute to the strength
of the construction. This signies the use of stone as a facing, revetting, veneer-
ing to another material. According to (certain) latter day aesthetics, this involves
dishonesty, pretence etc.; and is to be deprecated as inferior, meritricious;
68 chapter three
Historical whereas the exposure of the structural material is honest and superior. On this
summary view it may be possible to contrast positively e.g. the ne ashlar walling of clas-
sical Greece with Imperial Roman walling where the structure is entirely con-
cealed by a revetting of some description. In fact, however, from the very 110, 111
earliest times structural material was concealed behind facing: e.g. ubiquitous
plaster, but also terra-cotta, wood (and even ivory and metal).
In monumental building during Imperial Roman times stone walls (both of
dressed stone and of rubble) were uniformly faced with marble slabs (of a few 106
centimetres in thickness). On the other hand walls constructed of Roman
Concrete (broken up builders rubble drowned in strong cement) were faced
with small stone blocks of random rubble (opus incertum); or small stones cut
into pyramidal form and inserted into the fabric of the wall so that the square
bases formed a rectangular network disposed diagonally (opus recticulatum). Such
material also acted as shuttering (lost shuttering) during construction.
Summary
Stone masonry, essentially monumental ne stone masonry, has been a matter

of consequence in historyand not only in the history of technology. Therefore
it is worthwhile to conclude this discussion of it by trying to put developments
in a nutshell.
By nature stone has some attributes in common with both wood and mud
or, better, the physical properties of stone as a building material stand between
those of wood and mud. And the reciprocal inuence of mud/clay and stone
in the history of building materials was marked. On the other hand very many
structures built in stone are reckoned originally to have been constructed out
of wood.
Stone (eld stone) was the more natural material, and early man used it vir-
tually without reection. Manufactured material was inevitably cast in the mould
of natural material. And when man learned to fashion building units out of
mud as mud bricks, he fashioned these in the form of eld stones: cigar shaped,
plano-convex, hog-backed, bun shaped etc in the image of the characteristic
eld stones of the area. However as the use of mud bricks developed, the inner
logic of the material expressed itself. It became evident that rather than labo-
riously modelling each separate unit by hand, mud bricks could be made much
more quickly and eciently by being strucki.e. moulded in a standard
wooden form. The simplest and most eective shape of the form was cuboid
(parallelopiped). Thus form moulded mud bricks came to be of a uniform shape
of standard dimensions. The eect this had on building was very great. Masonry
stone 69
was evenly coursed and bricks were set in patterns (bonded) to avoid continu- Historical
ous joints (straight joints) extending through the construction (which as a clear- summary
age plane, constituted a source of weakness). As a result of all this various
elements of building (e.g. walls) tended to fall into standard dimensionse.g.
as 2, 3 or more bricks thick.
The advantages of this for building construction were obvious and it was
eventually realised that these could be realised in stone, by working stone into
the form of bricks. This involved the capacity to dress stone nely and accu-
rately to required shape and size. Since this was a labour intensive process
nely dressed blocks of stone were inevitably of a reasonable size. This in turn
meant the development of quarrying.
However, again with experience in using dressed stone in the same manner
as brick, the inner logic of stone as a material came to be manifest, since stone
possessed properties as a building material other than those of brick. In gen-
eral it had greater cohesionand was thus less fragile, less brittle. Hence there
was nothing intrinsic to dictate that it be dressed only into cuboid blocks. It
could be dressed (carved) into units of virtually any form. Here the practice of
ne stone masonry had before it two dierent avenues of development. Stone
could be dressed into units which equated with structural unitsi.e. monolithic
columns, lintels, piers, frames etc. (often decorated). This, in eect, proceeded
on the properties stone shared with wood (workability, cohesion; and also some
strength in tension). On the other hand the advantages of regular block build-
ing could be maintained but at the same time the block could be dressed/carved
into quite complicated surfaces which when set together with other similar blocks
could make up the required structural unitsi.e. columns from drums, and
above all in arcuated construction arched lintels, vaults and domes. Here very
considerable power of geometrical reasoning were required in marking out and
dressing the required blocks.
Complicated and versatile potentialities were inherent, but in the main these
were realised in post antique times. The development by late republican builders
in Rome of Roman Concrete as a building material meant that complicated
forms required by structural units (e.g. as in arcuated construction) could be
built up entire out of wooden forms (shuttering), and building materials (includ-
ing much stone) once more reverted to being moulded like clay rather than
carved/sculpted like stone. However Roman concrete construction (a highly
socially determined feature) failed with the decline of Rome and the transfer
of rule to Constantinople. On the other hand the technology of stone dressing
survived, particularly in the Eastern empire and was transmitted integrally to
the post antique world.
70 chapter three
General References
J. Allen Howe, The Geology of Building Stones, London, 1910.

R.G. Marrinos, The Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Rotterdam, 1980.
F.G. Bell, Engineering Properties of Soils and Rocks, London, 1983.
M. Waelkens, Pierre Eternel du Nil au Rhin, Brussels, 1990.
H. ONeill, Stone for Building, London, 1965.
A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials, pp. 6493, London, 19271962.
I. Shaw et al. ed., Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, pp. 577, Cambridge, 2000.
D. Arnold, Building in Egypt. Pharaonic Stone Masonry, New York, 1991.
R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens, Tubingen, 1971.
G. Nylander, Ionians in Pasargadae. Studies in Old Persian Architecture, Uppsala, 1970.
A. Orlandos, Les Matriaux de Construction et la Technique Architecturale des Anciens Grecs II, pp. 269,
Paris, 1965.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque I, Matriaux et Techniques La Pierre, pp. 11255, Paris,
1965.
G. Lugli, Technica Edelizia Romana, Rome, 1959.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine La Pierre, pp. 2361, Paris, 1989.
J.A. Choisy, LArt de Btir chez les Byzantins, Paris, 1883.
R.J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, London, 1986.
J.-L. Bessac, La Pierre en Gaule Narbonnaise ( JRA Supplement 16) (This treatment generalises
widely) Ann Arbor, 1996.
Quarrying
J.B. Ward Perkins, Quarrying in Antiquity. Technology, Tradition and Social Change PBA
57 19, pp. 13758.
C.E.N. Bromehead, Quarrying in C. Singer et al. ed. History of Technology I, pp. 55871; II
pp. 119.
R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology II, Ancient Geology Mining and Quarrying, pp. 1103;
167196, Leiden, 1966.
M. Pillet, LExtraction de Granite en Egypte lEpoque Pharaonique BIFAO XXXV 1936/37,
pp. 7182.
M. Waelkens, Bronze Age Quarries and Quarrying Techniques in the Eastern Mediterranean
and the Near East in M. Waelkens et al. Ancient Stones, Acta Archaeologica, Lovaniensia
Monograph 4), Leuven, 1992.
M. Waelkens et al., The Quarrying Techniques of the Greek World in Marble J.P. Getty
Museum Malibu, 1990.
A. Dworakowska, Quarries in Ancient Greece (Bibliotheca Antiqua 14), Wratislaviae, 1983.
, Quarries in Roman Provinces (Bibliotheca Antiqua 16), Wratislaviae, 1983.
Ch. Dubois, Les Carrires dans le Monde Romain, Paris, 1908.
J.C. Fant, The Organisation and Operation of the Roman Imperial Marble Quarries in Phrygia (BAR
International Series, 482), Oxford, 1989.
J. Koslej, Les Carrires des Epoques Romaine et Byzantine (BAR International Series 453), pp. 382,
Oxford, 1988.
stone 71
Masonry
E.G. Warland, Modern Practical Masonry, London, 1953.
P. Rockwell, The Art of Stoneworking, Cambridge, 1993.
J.-C. Bessac, LOutillage Traditionelle du Tailleur de Pierre (Rvue Archologique de Narbonnaise
Supp. 14) Paris, 1987.
H. Kalayan, History of Architecture through the Tools used. Al Mouhandess 111, 1968,
Beirut, pp. 315.
W.M. Flinders Petrie, Tools and Weapons, London, 1971.
H. Hodges, Artifacts. Chap. 7 Stone, London, 1964.
P. Varene, Sur la Taille de la Pierre Antique, Dijon, 1982.
N. Davey, A History of Building Materials chap. 2 Stone, London 1961.
A. Zuber, Techniques de Travail des Pierres Durs dans lAncient Egypte. Techniques et
Civilisations 29.5, 1956, pp. 16178; 30.5, pp. 196215.
J.-C. Golvin, J. Larrunde, A. Maarouf, LEdication des Murs de Grs en Grande Appareil
lEpoque Ptolemaique ASAE 70, 198485, pp. 37181.
J.-C. Golvin & J.-C. Goyon, LEdication des Murs de Grs en Grand Appareil LEpoque
Romaine ASAE 68, 1982, pp. 16285.
G.R.H. Wright, The Works Organisation of a Major Building Project in Roman Egypt.
Archeological Research in Roman Egypt. J.R.A. Supp Series 19, pp. 14354.
G. Hult, Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediteranean, Gteborg, 1983.
Y. Shiloh, Israelite Ashlar Masonry (Qedem II), Jerusalem, 1979.
T.F.C. Blagg, Tools and Techniques of the Roman Stone Mason in Britain Brittania VII 1976, pp.
15272.
J.-C. Bessac, Pirres Tailles Ampurias. Technologie, Typologie, Chronologie. Documents
dArchologie Meridionale 16, 1993, pp. 295315.
Appendix: Architectural Rock Cutting
Subsequent to the foregoing remarks on stone as a building material there are matters to be
mentioned which are of great importance, and that in a number of connections: cultural and
symbolic as well as technological. They are given here as an appendix solely because of the
dictates of language. In English usage where many things can be built beside buildings, a
building is always something which must be built. In this way it is impossible to characterise
as buildings stone premises which otherwise comply with the denition of a building, viz a
roofed enclosure serving as a shelter for man or beast or the storage of goods. Spoken of here
are rock cut features which on occasion have a very monumental development indeed. They
can serve as dwellings but more generally they have a religious signicanceor more particularly
a funerary signicance. Undoubtedly they respond to mans atavistic memories of his paleolithic
nurturing in caves. From these he came forth, and it was tting that into them he returned.
First it is to be noted that the practical connection between architectural rock cutting and
stone building is close and signicant. Stone for monumental building must be quarried and
rock-cut monuments must be quarried out of their matrix. Equally the in situ manner of ne
stone dressing (cf Pharaonic Masonry) patently associates this process of stone dressing with
rock cutting.
72 chapter three
However, speaking in the broadest terms, there are in fact two possible formative inuences
which could have contributed to the development of architectural rock cuttingthat of min-
ing, and that of quarrying. Also it demonstrates how little the technology of rock-cut monu-
ments has been studied that it is not generally considered which inuence operated. The
essential dierence is, of course, that in mining stone is cut to eventual waste, whereas in
quarrying it is cut to yield. Only on very rare occasions has any effort been made to observe 130
which process operated in individual instances of rock cutting.
It is easy to imagine the process of cutting into or through or pounding away rock to hol-
low out roughly shaped caverns, chambers and passages of curvilinear contour. This activity
comprehends well recognised engineering operations in antiquitye.g. subterranean aqueducts,
viaducts, etc. However architectural rock cutting is another matter. This involves creating, at
times, complex spaces of accurate orthogonal plan and section by removal of core material.
The diculties of this process are not altogether self evident. They derive from two inter-
related factors. You can only cut rock downwards from above; and whereas you can only cut
away rock to an accurate plan after the plan has been delimited, you can only delimit this
plan after you have cut away the space (and no more than the space!) to do so. The import
of these factors means that although the complete internal appearance of rock-cut and of built
apartments may be identical, the procedures involved are antithetic. A built structure is fash-
ioned from the ground up on the basis of a ground plan set out without constraint, gener-
ally by measurements taken from external datum points. Rock cut architecture proceeds from 129
the ceiling down and all measurements must be made from the interior.
The proceedure, in principle, is as follows. Initial access must be gained to the desired
space close to ceiling level and the required plan must be marked out by cutting tunnels along
what would be the survey lines to establish the plan. The setting out procedure is inevitably
by way of base line and osets. First a primary tunnel is cut to establish the long (medial)
axis as the base line and from this secondary tunnels are driven at right angles to permit the
osets necessary for establishing lateral feature. The plan is thus measured out and drawn on
the ceiling and the cutting proceeds downwards in accordance with it.
The basic types of architectural rock cutting may be differentiated according to the fol-
lowing categories:
(1) Entirely subterranean features with no manifestation on the surface of their disposition
i.e. true hypogea.
(2) Rock cut faade monuments where a (monumental) front elevation is cut in a cli face
and the apartments are hewn out of the rock behind the faade.
(3) Entirely free standing features, where both the external aspect and the internal apartments 130
are cut out of rocky eminences or erratics.
Some points may be noted. To begin operations close to the ceiling is relatively straight for-
ward when the feature is an entirely underground hypogeum and entry is gained by a descend- 133
ing tunnel (dromos). However there are diculties here with the rock cut facade type of
monument. These faades simulate real architecture hence the door must be properly posi-
tioned and proportioned, thus in many instance entry through the eventual door will not be 131
near ceiling level. A common facilitating device is to set a large ornamental fanlight over the
door and gain entry through this fanlight to begin hollowing out the interior. However this
device often will not serve to cut out a ceiling of commensurate height with a monumental
stone 73
faade. In this way monumental rock cut faades can be in part false faades, with the rock
cut chambers behind them low and mean in comparison with the external aspect.
The question of access to work inside rock cut monuments also controls the manner of
cuttingi.e. if this is to be eected by quarrying out blocks, then the access must be suciently
large to permit the removal of the quarried blocks. In this way it can be seen that inevitably
a combination of techniques often must have been employed. Stone was cut to waste until a
130 conveniently large access was arranged, and after that blocks could be quarried out.
Considerable evidence survives of an interesting device for the nal trueing up and fair fac-
ing of extensive rock cut surfaces (walls, ceilings, etc.). This process was total in situ dressing,
which meant that even the limited controls of the partially dressed Pharaonic large block
masonry as set were not available. In place of the marginal draughts cut in individual blocks
134 the rock masons established a plane of reference parallel to the desired face marked out by
a line drawn on an intersecting surface. Then from a plumb line held at intervals along this
line columns of offsets were measured to the desired face, and small targets were cut into the
stone to the required depth and painted black. This resulted in a graticule of incised, co-
planar points being established on the desired rock faceso that nal fair facing was by the
simple operation of knocking away the intervening surplus rock to the plane of the black marks
(cf Arnold, pp. 13940).
The oldest known instance of architectural rock cutting is quite sensational and on the
grandest scale. It deserves much more attention in the history of architecture than it receives.
It is a subterranean temple at Hal Saieni on the outskirts of Malta fashioned ca 3000 BC
or earlier. It is a true hypogeum and is very properly called The Hypogeum. It is nothing
other than the reconstitution as a rock cut monument of a typical Maltese megalithic temple
complex, such as stands near by at Mnaidra (v Vol. I, pp. 3637). The plan is elaborated in
three successive gallery levels descending to a depth of ca 10 m below the surface and comprising
halls, chambers and alcoves with a total oor space of ca 380 m2. All told something like
1500 m3 of limestone rock were excavated. The planning is entirely within the round house
tradition of the surface temples and it includes numbers of ornamental finely dressed display
pieces as faades. This extensive rock cutting must have been carried out with hard stone
pounders, together with antler picks. The evidence of the curvilinear planning which in principle
antedates the development of quarrying would suggest that the rock was not quarried out.
In fact it was the following age which saw the development of large scale quarrying, and
pari passu with this went the development of architectural rock cutting. This took place in
Egypt during the third millennium BC. Indeed, in spite of the tremendous built monuments
(pyramids, pylons, columnar halls, etc.), perhaps the most characteristic feature of Ancient
Egypt is its vast collection of underground rock-cut monumentse.g. the Theban west bank
necropoleis contain more than 60 kings tombs, more than 70 queens tombs and more than
400 noblemens tombs. The earlier Egyptian architectural rock cutting was mainly of the
hypogeum variety: sloping galleries (tunnels) giving onto chambers (e.g. beneath pyramids).
However cli-side monuments with columnar facades came into evidence during the later part
of the 3rd millennium BC. Then during the Middle Kingdom the rock-cut faade monument
became a feature of Egyptian architecture. And it was probably during the New Kingdom
that rock cutting attained its greatest prominence in Egypt, but now again mainly of the
hypogeum variety.
A lapse of time ensued before architectural rock cutting became generalised elsewhere in
the Old World, but it is evident that the practice of rock cutting on a large scale was dis-
seminated from Egypt. From Egypt the practice took root in the Levant during the later 2nd
74 chapter three
millenium BC. Rock cutting for monumental tombs came to be very notable in Asia Minor
in the first Millenium BCnot only in Phrygia, Lydia, Lycia etc. but further east, signicantly
in Urartu. From Urartu the practice was taken up by the Achaemenid Persians. And it is
most likely that it was from the eastward extension of Achaemenid rule that architectural rock
cutting entered into its principal heritage, the Orient: Central Asia, the Indian subcontinent,
South Eastern Asia. Considered at large this was its domain, where during the rst millen-
nium AD were outstanding and grandiose religious monuments, in many instances entirely
free-standingall carved out of rock. For some reason this monumental genre did not long
survive into the second millennium AD, its oruit was restricted to later antiquity and early
mediaeval times.
As opposed to this there is the salient fact that rock cut monuments were never adopted
as a feature of classical Greek architecture, nor were they passed onto Western European
architecture. The salient exception of architectural rock cutting in Etruria is notable. This pro-
135, 136 vides archaeological evidence in support of the claim by the Etruscans themselves that they
came to Italy from Western Anatolia (the home of so much rock cutting).
Finally it may be remarked that the question of eecting architectural rock cutting by way
of quarrying techniques so as to obtain quarry stone as a byproduct has a polar application.
This is the utilisation and adoption of old quarries to serve as rock cut tombs, temples etc.
132 Well known examples of this are the Tombs of the Kings (Ptolemaic Governors) near Paphos
in Cyprus, as also their models in the disused quarries of Alexandria (v ABC, p. 184; Kurtz
& Boardman, Greek Burial Customs, London, 1971, pp. 30204). Earlier arrangement of this
nature can be seen in installation of chapels and shrines during New Kingdom times in older
limestone and sandstone quarries, e.g. the Speos of Horemhab, The Chapel of Merneptah,
the Temple of Ay at Akhmin, etc., etc. (v R. Klemm, Von Steinbruck zum Tempel, ZS
115 1988, pp. 4151).
Bibliography of the Technology of Architectural Rock Cutting
W.H. Seton-Kerr, How the Tomb Galleries of Thebes were cut, ASAE 6 1905, pp. 17687.
E. Mackay, The Cutting and Preparation of Tomb Chapels in the Theban Necropolis, JEA
VII 1921, pp. 15468.
R. Klemm, Vom Steinbruck zum Tempel, ZS 115 1988, pp. 4157.
J.P. Oleson, Technical Aspects of Etruscan Rock Cut Tomb Architecture, RM 85 1978, pp.
278314.
CHAPTER FOUR
EARTH/CLAY
A. Nature and Qualities of Earth

Strength of Natural Earth
Earth Works
B. Preparation and Manufacture of Earth Building Materials
Terre Pis. Tamped/Rammed Earth
In situ Plastic Earth
As a Primary Material
As a Secondary Material
Mud Plaster
Mud Mortar
Pre-Fabricated Earth and Terra-Cotta
Mud Brick
Hand Modelled Mud Brick
Form Moulded Mud Brick
Burnt Brick/Baked Brick
Terra-Cotta Revetting
Mesopotamian Cone Mosaics
Mesopotamian Wall Plaques
Mesopotamian Glazed Brick
Greek and Etruscan Fictile Revetments
Opus Testaceum
C. Uses of Earth Materials
Foundations
Walls
Columns, Pillars, Piers
Lintels, Beams, Arches
Floors
Ceilings
Roofs
Service Auxilliaries
D. Supply of Earth Materials
The ubiquity and versatility of earth as a building material is such that if no

other building materials were conveniently available, man virtually everywhere
could be tolerably well accommodated in buildings of earthern construction.
Indeed the wonder is that across the ages and regions the use of earth as a
staple building material has not been more prevalent than has been the case.
76 chapter four
Earth a Ever since the age of enlightenment there have been periodic movements and
very programmes to (re) introduce earth as a principal material into modern Western
imprecise
European and American buildinge.g. in France, Hungary, Germany etc. These
term
programmes have been variously occasioned, e.g. by rationalism or economic
stringency. The practical results of the test programmes have always been
extremely successful. And in fact there are now ourishing societies and organ-
isations for earthen building in Western Europe and the United States of
America, together with architects who specialise in the design of such buildings
(C. Minke, Earth Construction Handbook, Southampton, 2000). Nonetheless the use
of earth as a staple building material has had a restricted geographical and his-
torical pattern. Yet the pattern has not been immutable. During the post World
War II period earth has been virtually ousted in the Middle East as the age
old staple low-cost building material (by e.g. cement blocks); while it has been
resuscitated in the American South-West (the old adobe region) as a superior
material for semi-luxury housing.
Another matter worth preliminary note is confusion in the dictionary mean-
ing of relevent terms. In this study the terminology is systematised, but in
English expression at large earth is employed with various quite dierent
meanings; while on occasion several dierent terms are employed with exactly
the same meaninge.g. earth, clay, soil, loam. This demonstrates in a way the
basic signicance accorded by man to this material element. All life comes out
of it. Always and everywhere he has regarded his bodily make up as earth or
clayof the earth, earthy. He is sprung from the earth autochthonous; and he
returns to the earth. Equally the planet on which he exists, so largely com-
posed of molten rock (magma), he considers essentially earthy in character, so
that he refers to it as the earthwhen this material constitutes only an
innitesimal part of the body.
Also in point is a warning of inadequacy. To discuss earth as a building
material in non scientic terms is a very dierent undertaking from discussing,
e.g. stone. Stone is used in building as found, with its nature and qualities
apparent to observationexplanation of its lithology and petrology is not a
condition precedent to discussion. Earth occurs in most varied consistencies of
very little use for building as found. For earth to be used as a building mate-
rial man must change its physical condition in some way; and although the
processes used in this may appear simple and direct, the explanation of their
operation is not so by any means. And these questions of physics and chem-
istry lurk beneath any discussion. In short it is dicult to discuss use of earth
as a building material and also avoid explanation in scientic terms beyond
every day understanding.
earthclay 77
A. Nature and Qualities of Earth
137 The building material generically termed earth is the product of rock erosion, Soil sci-
both mechanical and chemical, eected by natural agents/forces/processes. It ence back-
takes the form of unconsolidated sediments (or virtually unconsolidated sedi- ground
ments); the individual particles being small in size but of no matter what chem-
ical composition. An aggregate of very small pebbles (gravel) is not generally
reckoned as earth. The two qualities which govern the classication of earth
in the rst instance are the particle/grain size and the form of the particle (the
texture). The larger particles are globular or angular in shape, the product of
mechanical weathering; the very ne particles are in the form of akes (lamel-
lae), the product of chemical weathering. Severally they contribute to the two
qualities of earth which are of signicance for its use as building material: coher-
ence and strength. The large bulky particles contribute directly to the strength
of the earth (its strength in compression, its resistance to being crushed). The
aky texture of the smallest particles, on the other hand, represents the anti-
thetic form, aording the most extensive particle surfaces. Cohesion between
the particles of a substance is a force exerted between surfaces; and therefore
it is greatest where the surface area is greatest. In this way earth composed of
ne aky particles coheres together or can be made to do so. And cohesion in
turn aects the strength of earth. The factor of surface area of particles is thus
of basic importance in building earth. It is termed specic surface and expresses
the proportion the total surface area of all the constituent particles bears to the
unit mass of earth.
These basic considerations underly the tripartite classication of soil (earth)
into sands, silts and clays. Sand is composed of large grains from ca 0.6 to 2.0
mm in diameter. Clay is composed of the nest aky particles only 1% of this
size viz up to a maximum dimension of ca 0.006 mm. While silt is interme-
diate in size. On the other hand the specic surface of (coarse) sand is ca 25
cm2 per gram, silt about 20 times this, ca 450 cm2 per gram and clay from
10 to 1,000 m2 per grami.e.; 4,000 to 400,000 times that of coarse sand. In
short the binding force, the cohesion in earth derives well nigh entirely from
the clay component. This analysis aords descriptive terms like e.g. sands (coarse,
ne); clays (silty, sandy), and, where sand, silt and clay are evenly intermixed,
loams (sandy loam, silty loam, clay loam). The scheme as stated is presented
graphically in the form of an equilateral triangle with clay at the apex, sand
at the left basal angle, silt at the right basal angle and with loam thus repre-
sented at the central part of the triangle (T.R. Paton, The Formation of Soil
Material, pp. 13031; Dennen and Moore, Geology and Engineering, p. 63, g. 4.3
& p. 149, g. 10.4).
78 chapter four
Soil sci- These various types of earth/soil can be usefully characterised again accord-
ence backing to two further terms. These term are both normally used in a positive sense
ground and for laymen, could pass as synonyms; but they are, in fact, exact antonyms.
One is more commonly used by geologists, and the other by engineers or soil
scientists. Geologists speak of soil as well sorted; engineers often as well
graded. A well sorted soil is one in which weathering agents have operated
so as to reduce an earth deposit to a collection of uniform particles of very
similar size, shape, texture, etc. A well graded soil is a deposit which contains
a complete mixture of particles evenly spread from one extreme of size, form,
texture to another. Thus it can be seen that well sorted soils are those indi-
cated at the angular extremities of the triangular diagram, while well graded
soils (loams) are those assigned to the heart of the triangle. In broad terms the
most suitable class of earth for use in building (e.g. for making bricks) is well
graded earth containing a mixture of sand, silt, clay where each element con-
tributes some necessary quality to the nal product. On the other hand it may
be necessary to add earth of a particular nature (e.g. sand) to the mixture so
as to rectify the balanceor indeed to make an articial mixture out of two
or more categories of earth. In this latter event deposits of well sorted earth
are required sources of supply (e.g. sand pits).
An additional factor governs the nature and properties of earth: this is the
presence of water. Water can be present in earth in several dierent modes
which severally aect the behaviour of earth and its use as a building mater-
ial. There is rst of all water which is chemically bound into the substance of
the earth particleswater of crystallisation, structural water. Next may be reck-
oned absorbed water which is electrically bound into the mass of the earth.
Following this is water of capillarity (pore water), which is held by pressure in
the pores of the earth by capilliary action. Finally there is free waterwater
temporarily mixed with the earth and free to drain away or evaporate. These
several categories of water content are voidable from the earth in dierent ways
and to diering eect. Structural water which is universally present in earth
can only be driven out by prolonged exposure to a high temperature (ideally
ca 9001000C). This changes the earth into a new substance (burnt brick) of
quite dierent nature and properties (hardness, strength, resilience, durability,
etc). Absorbed water and water of capillarity can be eradicated by vaporisa-
tioni.e. exposed to temperatures of above 100C (ca 105C). If free water is
mixed with earth to form mud, then the eect on the clay particles is very
greatwhich in turn modies the nature of the whole mixture. In the most
simplied terms the process is as follows.
By observation it is evident that earth exists in several states: (1) as an aggre-
gate of loose particles without any binding force between them, this is some-
earthclay 79
times called a cohesionless solid (i.e. to maintain any form the mass must be Soil sci-
subject to external restraint); (2) as opposed to this a mass of earth may main- ence back-
tain its form, if not subject to external interference. The distinction here may ground
be characterised in a crude way as that (1) where any forces operating between
the particles are insignicant compared with the force of gravity, and (2) where
the forces operating between the particles are considerably stronger in their
eect than the force of gravity. This is promoted by the aky texture of clay.
When dry earth is subject to some external force, this may overcome the bind-
ing forces operating between the particles so that the earth loses its cohesion
to collapse, crumble and disintegrate. However if the earth is mixed with water
to the correct degree a lm of water covers all the at surface of the clay akes
(lamellae), lubricating them so that they can slide easily over and across each
other; yet the binding force between the lamellae remains eective. The earth
mass is then said to be plastic. It has acquired a completely dierent consis-
tency and nature so that this plastic mass deforms under pressure and thus can
be made to take up easily any form impressed on it.
Even more signicant is the eect of the eradication of water from this mix-
turethe drying out of the mud. The presence of the water around and between
the lamellae promotes their more exact alignment (in parallel). Thus when the
water disappears the lamellae are drawn back into closer contact with one
another than previouslyi.e. the material occupies less volume than previously
because of reduced voids: it is denser and the forces operating between the
particles are even stronger. Thus dried out plastic earth has a dierent nature
from its state prior to becoming plastic. It should be noted that the range of
moisture content to ensure plasticity is a limited one. If the water content is
too high, the substance becomes a liquid mixture where the force of gravity
overrides all the binding force between the particles and the mixture will not
maintain any independent formit will be uid.
Strength of Natural Earth

It is clear that this varies greatly according to its state as discussed abovee.g.
if the earth is in a plastic state it has no bearing strength at all. The question
is of practical importance in determining what is safe ground on which to erect
buildings, and quantied recommendations and regulations concerning it are
found in all relevent handbooks. The acceptable bearing strength of sedimen-
tary rock as a foundation may be used as a basis for comparison (it varies from
ca 5 kg per cm2 for the very softest of rocks to ca 15 kg per cm2 for good
solid limestone or sandstone). Very coarse compact dry sand may be loaded to
something approaching the gure for the weakest, softest rock; as may dry hard
80 chapter four
Dug-out sti clay in a deep bed. However ne sand and damp clay range downward
shelters very sharply to no safe strength at all. If it is possible to generalise from this,
and the bearing strength of natural soil in a favourable state is something like 1/3rd
dwellings of that of sedimentary rock. This matter is now illustrated by some account of
earthworks.
Earthworks
Earthworks, the use of earth in its natural state to form structures, are of vital
signicance in the constructions of man whereby he has changed his history
and his environment. However these constructions are only in a slight measure
buildings. The earthworks which have so changed mans world are works of
engineering, both civil and military: dams, canals, leves, harbours, viaducts,
reclamations, extensions on the one hand; and on the other glacis, fosses, scarps,
barrier walls of all sorts. However because they are of such importance in mans
development it is impossible to avoid speaking of earthworks in more detail
than is demanded by their signicance as architectural buildings.
Shelters excavated in the earth (burrows) are one of the most manifest way
animals contrive their sheltersthus something of this instinct must have sub-
sisted in mans make-up (his DNA programme). Certainly in all ages and
places where the circumstances indicate it, man has contrived quite elaborate 138, 139
and convenient dwellings by excavating them in the soil. Twenty million of the
Chinese population are said to be still living in such dwellings. If this is accu-
rate it represents an appreciable % of the population, indeed a rather aston-
ishing 2% or so. Predisposing circumstances are a torrid, arid climate and
deposits of soil which remain stable when excavated. The insulating eect under-
ground is very great, while restricted rainfall minimises drainage problems. The
soil formation closely associated with the underground dwellings is loess. This
is produced by continuing windblown deposits being held together by the roots
of grasses etc. which leave fossilised residues to function in the same manner.
Loess is dug away with ease and excavated faces will stand stably when verti-
cal or even overhanging. However its cohesion is easily impaired (Dennen and
Moore, p. 71).
Two grades of dug out dwellings are apparent. The primal form is the basic
depression in the ground. Scoops of this nature have been recognised con-
nected with the remains of emerging hominids in Africa; and they were still
known (associated with windbreaks) among people of very primitive material
culture in modern times. They may be thought to stand behind the early
Neolithic round houses of 10,000 years ago in the Middle East (cf O. Aurenche,
La Maison Orientale, pp. 9697). Here the basic component was a sunken emplace-
earthclay 81
ment dug out in the soil furnished with a well-appointed oor and perhaps a Dug-out
low surrounding barrier wall. Originally a separate framework shelter was con- dwellings
trived above them. Later the low curbing was developed into a load bearing
wall enclosing the building. This line of development may be reckoned as con-
tinuous from animal building (cf nests of great apes).
The advanced grade of dug-out dwelling, the true subterranean dwelling, is
where the entire form enclosing the living space is hollowed out underground.
Here the suitable nature of the soil is an important factorcf loess. This is
what is generally understood with reference to troglodytes. Again its origins can
be very ancient. Obviously chambers and passages hollowed out underground
have a generic connection with (rock cut) tombs, and also with mining. Since
both these features are generally thought of as belonging to developed mater-
ial civilisation, e.g. Chalcolithic times, excavated dwellings have been thought
of as rst occuring in the same time range. However there is evidence that
55 already in late Palaeolithic times men carried out quite sophisticated mining
for ints. They followed earth deposits containing high grade int nodules deep
underground using antler picks and removing the spoil in baskets (v Forbes,
Vol. VII pp. 10607, 12123, g. 5).
The basic deposition of underground dwellings in principle must follow that
of the more familiar rock cut tombsi.e. they can be cut into the face of
scarps/clis etc or can be cut down into level ground. It is the latter genre
which is the most characteristic form. The ruling scheme here is to excavate
a sizeable entrance courtyard open to the sky and to hollow out the living
apartment from the vertical sides of the court. This produces a plan complex
essentially similar in development to the peristyle or atrium house.
Perhaps the earliest developed settlement of this nature is that at Abu Matar
138, 139 near Beer Sheba in loess soil on the desert margins of Southern Israel. The
archaeological evidence is well preserved and indicates the history of the set-
tlement to fall within the latter half of the 4th millenium BC. It reveals a set-
tlement of something like 15 complexes (inhabited by 200 people or more). In
a well developed complex a number (57) of individual chambers (ca 6 m
3 m) were connected by corridors and grouped around a central entrance court-
yard (ca 10 m 3 m). It seems that the excavated chambers at rst were more
or less rectangular but the angles crumbled away and were rounded o. In
time inevitably, the top hamper fell in and then the ruined cavities were con-
verted into pit dwellings being built up again with mud or mud brick walls
and roofed over at ground level or somewhat above with brushwood and earth.
Finally these dwellings were succeeded by houses of the same construction built
above ground level in the normal way (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I, p. 31).
The functional merits of underground dwellings are attested clearly. At Bulla
82 chapter four
Tumuli Regia on the desert margins of modern Tunisia there are well preserved ruins
of the Roman town, which include numbers of distinguished villasperistylar
houses. Several of these, while of the same overall design as the others, have
been built in underground emplacements with the peristyle alone open to the
sky and the living rooms set entirely undergroundobviously to mitigate the
extreme summer temperatures.
Perhaps the instance where earthworks approach most closely in nature to
a building is the tumulusa feature widespread over time and place in the 140143
ancient world. Indeed the tumulus appears to express one of the most basic
images common to mankind at large. It is the elemental expression of mon-
umentality. Whenever man wishes to commemorate, bring to mind, something
of notable lasting signicance, he does so by giving the place where it is man-
ifest a vertical denition constituting in fact a sacred mountain. The earliest
(Neolithic) form of this monument was a conical pile of earth, and although
more sophisticated architectural expressions became current (e.g. pyramids) the
earth tumulus always remained an acceptable and recognisable expression of
the idea. The megalithic constructions ranged along the western seabord of
Europe are the earliest monumental structures known (and the essence of mon- 53
umentality is durability). They begin in the latter part of the 5th millenium
BC. One form (the Dolmen) survives almost entirely in the aspect of great slabs
of rock set up together as prefabricated walls and roofs to enclose chambers.
However this impressive aspect was never intended for external view. It was
the structure of a chamber or chambers hidden within an equally impressive
tumulus of earth (a sacred cave within a holy mountain). These monuments
were in the rst instance communal tombsthey perhaps witness to a stage
when religion was signicantly ancestor worship.
Although megalithic monuments were not fashioned after ca 2,000 BC, the
earth tumulus remained as the outward and visible form of the heroic mon-
ument. It is celebrated as such in Homeric literature and surviving remains are
common in the Aegaean world (v. O. Pelon Tholoi, Tumuli et Cercles Funeraires).
Erosion has generally diminished the height and spread the base so that the
cone stands at a somewhat shallower angle (e.g. ca 25) to the horizontal than
originally. The form remained very prominent in Anatolia and the tumuli of
the later Iron Age (ca 8th6th century BC) in Phrygia and Lydia are very spec- 140, 141
tacular both in their concentrated numbers and for the size of somee.g. the
Midas tumulus at Gordion and the Alyattes tumulus near Sardis stand well
over 50 m high (i.e. about the height of the Stepped Pyramid at Saqqarah and
one third of that of the Great Pyramid at Gizeh). The internal chambers are
of nely dressed stone masonry, or in some instances, wood (log cabin style). 31
Other material is found on occasion in the earth ll (e.g. rubble stones) as an
earthclay 83
142 aid to setting out or for stabilising the mass. However tumuli are exactly mon- Tells,
umental earthworks and mans most striking use of natural earth as a mater- Hyks,
ial of construction (v R.S. Young Gordion I, Three Great Early Tumuli, Philadelphia Teppes.
199; E. Akurgal, Ancient Civilisations and Ruins of Turkey, Izmir, 1993, pp. 132,
282). The great circular tombs of the Roman Emperors (Augustus, Hadrian)
are direct transpositions into more sophisticated materials and architecture via
143 the Etruscan tumuli (v A. Boethius, Etruscan Architecture, Middlesex, 1970, pp.
7781; L. Crema, LArchitettura Romana, Turin, 1959, pp. 24248).
Earthworks also entered into ancient building technology in a basic perva-
sive waynot as constituting buldings in themselves (as may be asserted of
tumuli), but in securing stable platforms and emplacements for building (i.e.
good natural foundations). Their signicance in this connection is endemic
because of the characteristic form of site development in the Ancient Middle
East. Building in predominantly earth materials meant a more or less uniform
decay and ruination of structures across a settled area so that the ground level
tended to rise more or less evenly. This facilitated continued rebuilding over
the same favoured area, so that the settlement rose above the surrounding coun-
144 try to form a mound or tell (= rubbish heap). A steep sided mound several
hundred metres across at the summit and about 20 to 30 m high is a norm
for a historical development extending over two or three thousand years. Several
consequences involving earthworks ensued from this basic matter. In the rst
instance it meant that all building at a tell site was on made-up ground. In
modern building regulations made-up ground is entirely discountenanced as nat-
ural foundations for building unless special arrangements are made to consoli-
date it. The loads involved in ancient mud brick building of a domestic nature
were negligeable; nevertheless it seems that when levelling up the remains of
previous habitation ancient Middle Eastern builders often took care to make
their natural foundations as stable as possible. In this they showed a per-
ception of the dierential properties of earth (i.e. soil science) which does them
credit.
The normal soil debris composing the habitation debris and ruin was in con-
siderable measure clayey, as deriving from mud brick, mud mortar etc; and
this is the most instable of soils, very subject to movement when damp. However
available to hand were two materials serving to stabilise such soil. Thus by
observation and common sense reasoning ancient builders were able to apply
measures which would be well founded in modern soil science. These two mate-
rials were huwwar, the soft crust of redeposited secondary limestone universal
144 in the region, and ash. The scheme was to alternate layers of crushed and bro-
ken up huwwar with the debris and at intervals to burn material on the sur-
face to produce ash. The crushed limestone acts as a stabilising agent by reducing
84 chapter four
Soil sta- the plasticity of the clayey soil. This is eected by a gradual, long continuing
bilisation reaction induced by percolating water, whereby calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is
in tells formed which penetrates the soil binding together the particles. The ash pro-
duces an even stronger chemical reaction, exerting a pozzulanic cementitious
eect (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP Vol. I, pp. 38182). Soil formations of this nature
are common in the dirt archaeology of tells in, e.g. Palestine. Because of the
ash deposits they are generally identied as destructions levelsi.e. evidence
of the destruction (partly by re) of buildings, marking the end of preceeding
occupation levels. In fact they are often earthworks to provide stable natural
foundations for a new building period, perhaps long posterior to the preceeding
occupation levelsa matter of ancient building technology which has vitiated
much modern archaeology.
Beyond this there are other concerns basic to tell maintenance and devel-
opment which involve earthworks. As the habitation level rises the periphery
of the tell is retained by the city walls, very massive structures of mud brick
or rubble. With continued occupation new fortications are required. Early city
walling may be re-used in some way to form a multiple trace system which
meant in eect a (continual) retraction of the summit area. Alternately the lower
skirts of the tell may be extended outwards by the application of an added
earth scarp thereby more or less obviating the retraction of the summit area.
In any event the lower margins of the tell assume the guise of sloping skirts.
These earthern slopes are very susceptible to erosion by the downwash of storm
water which cuts deep gullies into the slopes, so dissecting them as to under-
cut the city walls. The stabilisation and consolidation of these outer slopes was
thus a constant concern of the tells public works department. It was both civil
and military engineering, since sharply dissected slopes not only in themselves
threatened the stability of the city walls and peripheral habitation of the tell;
they also provided cover for storming and mining by hostile forces. The mea-
sures taken were to surface and resurface the sloping skirts of the tell with lay-
ers of crushed limestone (huwwar) which formed smooth slopes at the same
time impermeable to downwash and oering no advantage to attacking forces.
Very sophisticated devices of keying, curbing and tongueing were employed to 144
x this huwwar surfacing into its earthern grounds. The feature is the mis-
named glacis of Palestinian archaeology (v G.R.H. Wright, Tell el Yehudiyah
and the Glacis, ZDPV 84 1968, pp. 117; ABSP I, p. 155).
An even more wholesale manifestation of earthworks was involved if the sum-
mit of a tell became too restricted. Two alternative proceedures were available;
to build a new suburb at the foot of the tell (a lower town), or to extend the
summit area outwards by (at times very) large scale earthworks. This necessi-
tated a new line of city walling set well outwards from the old, which at the
earthclay 85
same time was to serve as a retaining wall for the earth ll constituting the Construc-
extension platform. The great thrust exerted at the base of the outer wall by tion ramps
the deep ll was minimised by sophisticated earthworks evidencing a good
appreciation of soil mechanics. First a sloping ll was poured (at the angle of
repose) to the foot of the outer retaining wall, and then this scarp was sta-
bilised with huwwar facing. Then the remaining triangular part of the section
144 was inlled with horizontal layers of earth thus greatly diminishing the thrust
against the outer retaining wall (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP Vol. I, pp. 155, 184).
There is another guise in which earthworks played an important part in
ancient building technology which at least must be mentioned. Stone con-
struction using very massive blocks of many tons burden was a ruling mode
long before there were devices to clean lift such unitscf megalithic building
in Western Europe ca 4,000 BC2,000 BC and Pharaonic masonry in Egypt
ca 2,500 BC150 AD. Prior to the development of block and tackle devices
(ca 6th century BC) the practical method of raising up such blocks and setting
145 them in place was by hauling them up ramps. These construction ramps and
platforms were formed out of earthworks. Rather surprisingly material evidence
of these temporary installations sometimes remains in situ after a lapse of more
than 3000 years (large scale monumental buildings are sometimes abandoned
unnished). Indeed in Egypt it was a common practice to ll entirely the inte-
146 riors of e.g. columned halls (cf Clarke and Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry,
pp. 9295; D. Arnold, Building in Egypt, pp. 79101). Even after the develop-
ment of hoists and cranes use of constructional earthworks in emergencies
remained a part of monumental building technology (v J. Coulton, Lifting in
Early Greek Architecture, JHS 94, 1974, pp. 117). The writers modest expe-
rience of restoration projects in, then, out of the way places in the Middle East
40 years ago replicated these measures. When other resources no longer suced,
recourse was always had to building up the ground level by earthworks.
Finally in the present connection should be mentioned an earth building
material which is dicult to classify. It is an equivalent of mud brick but is
won from nature, not prepared in any way. Thus in some ways it is parallel
with quarry stone. The trade name in English is turves, although earth clods
or sods would be more readily understood. Where loamy or glutinous muddy
soil occurs grown over with coarse grass, it is possible to cut out or dig out
the surface layer in suitable units to form building blocks. The strong roots
bind the earth together and the blocks are properly set inverted without
need of any mortar. Thick walls of this material aord high insulation against
extreme cold and the material has always been known in northern Europe,
cf peat houses (G. Minke, Earth Construction Handbook, pp. 6869). There is
also some evidence for its use in the early Neolithic age of experiment in the
86 chapter four
Reconso- Middle East. In spite of ambiguous terminology, references by archaeologists

lidation of of several dierent nationalities to earthern material at pre-pottery sites in Iran,
earth as Iraq and Anatolia appear to converge on this signicance. The description of
either a material at Ali Khosh in Western Iran seems most specic: . . . out of the nat-
rigid or ural red clay. . . . the Bus Mordeh group cut slabs averaging 15 by 25 cm,
plastic which they used as unred bricks. . .; and also other . . . bricks which may
material have been slabs quarried out of a midden area (O. Aurenche, La Maison
Orientale I, p. 50).
B. Preparation and Manufacture of Earth Building Materials
The essential denitive quality of natural earth is that it is unconsolidatedi.e.

it lacks cohesion. In all instances it has been reduced to that condition from
solid rock by operation of nature (erosion); and from these unconsolidated sed-
iments in turn natural processes form sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Thus
earth like sedimentary rock is a secondary material; it does not occur orginally
in that form but is the product of weathering. Except in the very limited cir-
cumstances where it can be used in its natural state for earthworks, earth can
only be used as a building material when it has been endowed with some cohe-
sion by articial meansi.e. it has been reconsolidated to some degree. In pro-
viding the necessary cohesion man can only make use of the same devices
(agents) as nature when reconsolidating sediments into sedimentary rock: pres-
sure, water, re/heat (v I.S. Allison & D.F. Palmer, Geology chap. 7 Sediments
and Sedimentary Rocks, New York, 1980). Coherent earth used as a building
material is prepared in two physical states: rigid and plastic. Where the build-
ing material is plastic earth e.g. tauf, mud plaster, mud mortar, water is the
only necessary agent; where the building material is rigid e.g. terre pis, mud
brick, burnt brick, then pressure or heat are variously required. As stated the
application of these processes is simple and direct, but their scientic operation
is not at all so. This invests the use of earth in building with a dierent back-
ground from the use of e.g. stone or wood.
Before discussing individually the various materials prepared from earth it is
useful to give a summary statement of their manufacture, if possible in order
from the simplest to the more complex processes.
What might be thought the simplest way of giving earth some coherence and
strength is by compacting it by direct physical meansi.e. compressing it.
Avoiding all scientic explanation, it seems common sense that the denser the
material is, the stronger and more coherent it should be. It is a straightforward
matter to stamp, beat, or ram earth together so as to diminish its volume and
earthclay 87
thus increase its density. However while this can be eected directly when the Reconso-
earth is spread out horizontally as a oor (or roof), it is not a simple matter lidation of
if the earth is set vertically to constitute a wall. In this case the earth must be earth
boxed in, enclosed in form work (shuttering) before it can be rammed, and the
construction of shuttering is not a light matter. Although it is assumed that
rammed, beaten earth is a basic material, it is not easy to identify terre pis
in early building construction.
Apart from ramming earth all other means of consolidating it depend to a
greater or less degree on the action of water. This aligns and brings the akey
particles (of clay) closer together. While the water remains in the mixture the
aligned particles (lamellae) slide easily across one another and the mixture is
plastic. When subject to heat (even the heat of the sun), the water evaporates,
the aligned particles cohere together by surface attraction and the material
becomes a rigid (if brittle) solid. If this solid earth is then burnt at a very high
temperature, the water of crystallisation in the particles is driven out render-
ing the material yet denser. Also various chemical changes ensue (some ele-
ments melt and fuse) so that the material is transformed into a strong and
resilient solid of a dierent chemical composition.
In accordance with this outline an ideal historical development in the use of
earthern materials might be imagined beginning with stamped earth and pass-
ing on to the use of plastic earth which is left to dry out in situ; and then to
units of pre-(sun) dried rigid earth with burnt earth/clay (burnt brick) as the
nal stage. In fact apart from rammed earth which is dicult to measure out
historically, this sequence has some overall validity.
Probably the earliest use of earth as a building material was as mud plaster
in a mixed construction with reeds, rushes, branches etc. Its use as a load bear-
ing material was again rst in a plastic form, either as a mortar mix in which
were drowned rubble stones, or as plastic earth built up by the handful (tauf ).
The earliest pre-formed rigid units (mud brick) were in use for a very long time
(several millenia) before burnt brick was introduced. The latter everywhere
began to be employed as a special purpose material and only considerably later
became a standard general purpose building material; but when it did it proved
very versatile indeed. Nonetheless sun dried mud bricks were never completely
ousted from building construction.
Terre Pis. Tamped/Rammed Earth
It may be dicult to distinguish terre pis from other earth construction by

the evidence subsisting on the ground; however when in addition, it is uncer-
88 chapter four
Terre pis tain in what sense the term is used, then discussion is not greatly to the good.
Most unfortunately the term pis, which has a well dened etymological
signicance, has got into archaeological literature with a range of inexactitude
and confusion. The etymological sense is to tamp/ram (i.e. to compress) and
that is the original and valid sense of the term, i.e. terre pis means exactly
rammed/compressed earth. However it is a French word and regrettably it is
in French archaeological usage where it is employed confusingly in several quite
dierent senses. In addition to its obvious meaning of compressed earth, it is
also used for any earth construction employing shuttering to give it form. This,
of course, may align satisfactorily with its root meaning as referring to the
process rather than the product. However it may not! Obviously it is possible
to pour earth, or an earth mixture of some consistency or other, into shuttering
without subsequently ramming it. It may then acquire coherence in a dierent
fashion from that indicated by the meaning of the term. Also beyond this the
term pis has come to be used in French to signify any earth mixture employed
in buildingincluding e.g. that to constitute mud bricks! (v O. Aurenche,
Dictionnaire Illustr, pp. 13839).
Nothing which can be said now will undo these inconsistencies of reference;
attention can only be drawn to them. They are very fundamental. Pis can be
used as a generic term for structural plastic earth with a sub distinction between
that built up by hand modelling (tauf) and that built up by form moulding
between shuttering. On the other hand it can be used (correctly) to distinguish
natural earth retained between shuttering and compressed by ramming to give
it rigidity from plastic earth built up by hand modelling so that it dries out
in situ to assure rigidity by operation of internal forces.
As spoken of here terre pis is on no account used to signify any plastic
earth mixture used for building. Ideally it is intended to represent earth made 149
rigid by compression (between shuttering), in which sense it is used in present
day building construction. Attributes mentioned here are consistent with this
denition, but it simply can not be said that the occurence of the term in
archaeological literature always has this sense.
There are many reference to the very early use of terre pisi.e. 10,000
years ago or more, prior to the development of mud brick (the subject is treated
extensively in O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale, Vol. 1, pp. 5459). However
if terre pis is taken to indicate earth material fashioned between shuttering,
almost all the discussion and illustration of its characteristics in manuals of
ancient building is taken from contemporary examples. This abundantly demon-
strates the merits of terre pis, since it both survives in traditional modern prac-
tice and it has also been revived with great success in modern building technology.
It also reects the uncertainty as to its intended denitions!
earthclay 89
The shuttering used for terre pis in traditional modern building is simple: Terre pis
horizontal wooden boarding maintained in position by attachment to short ver-
tical posts which are xed apart as required by wooden cross pieces and tied
together at the top by cordage. The vertical height of the unit is always restricted
so as not to subject the shuttering to excessive pressure and also to facilitate
work on the earth contents. Again although the materials (wood) and the con-
struction are simple, they are not of negligible expense; therefore as a rule the
shuttering unit is restricted in length. In this way a relatively low vertical reg-
ister (less than a metre) is worked at one time and also for a relatively short
run (several metres only). Thus a restricted increment of pis is added and then
the shuttering is struck and moved on to enclose the next stage of the work
thereby avoiding the expense of long runs of shuttering. It is this practice which
produces the recognisable indicia of terre pis construction. Not only is there
a manifest continuous bed joint between each vertical register of terre pis, but
there is a perceptible rising joint at intervals of several metres between succes-
sive increments of the work. These joints may be very manifeste.g. the bed
joints can be marked by a layer of pebbles which serve, so to speak, as foun-
dations for each register. This is unmistakeable in situ evidence of terre pis
construction and it is illustrated in the manuals. Unfortunately the illustrations
of it are always drawn from traditional modern work. Demonstration of terre
pis construction in ancient times would be stronger if supported by illustra-
tions of ancient remains!
Passing from the process to the product, the question arises whether it is
possible to determine when ancient earthern building material has been con-
solidated by tamping (i.e. by direct mechanical compression). Depending on its
consistency, earth can be compressed so as to increase the density by 50% to
100%, with corresponding increase in its strength (i.e. from ca 1,000 kg per
m3 density to ca 2,000 kg per m3). In this connection it would be interesting
to establish if there is a characteristic density associated with terre pis as com-
pared with tauf or mud brick, but so far as is known this has not been inves-
tigated. On the other hand by microscopic analysis it may be possible to
recognise whether an earth sample has been rammed; but again such data is
not found in the manuals.
Before use in terre pis construction earth must be mixed to the appropri-
ate composition and consistencye.g. large clods are broken and crushed up.
This mixing process is essentially in the nature of milling, and in modern terre
pis work rotary milling contrivances have been devised for the purpose. It is
in this connection that the regrettable confusion of terre pis and plastic earth
has come about. Earth for ramming must be unconsolidated. You can not ram
solid material (clods), nor can you ram plastic material (mud). Some water may
90 chapter four
Terre pis be used in the preparatory process but this is for ease in mixing and handling
not to facilitate the ramming. In traditional modern terre pis construction ram-
ming is energetic and prolonged (e.g. for about an hour depending on the even-
tual stresses envisaged). The pounders employed have heavy metal headsof 149
dierent shapes to facilitate work along margins and in angles. No such tools
from antiquity are illustrated.
References to terre pis are adduced from classical authors. Orlandos (p. 53)
cites the Greek Anthology (IV, 662.2; X, 4.6. & 5.1). However the terms there
(pelodomois toichois) simply denote walls of clay/clay built walls which, if reck-
oned other than of mud brick, could still apply to various types of construc-
tion. On the other hand Pliny in an often quoted passage (N.H. XXV.48) gives
unmistakeable detail. He states that earth walls are fashioned by packing/
stung (= ramming) the earth between wooden boarding on either side (inter-
feciuntur). He notes above all their durability; they are re proof and weather-
proof (and he says, stronger than quarry stone!). He supports their durability
by mentioning the still surviving watch towers set up on the Spanish hills by
Hannibal (i.e. 300 years previously). It is also of interest that Pliny locates the
mode in Africa Hispaniaquae, which would suggest an ultimate Phoenecian back-
ground.
Delbrueck mentions terre pis construction in his survey of hellenistic build-
ing in Latium; however in a restricted connection since in fact he is only speak-
ing of eld walls (i.e. non load bearing barrier walls). He cites Varro (Rerum
Rusticarum I 14.4) who refers to walls ex terra. . . . compositis in formes, like Spanish
ones, in the elds about Tarentum. Again the Phoenecian (and Cypriote) back-
ground is of interest since the use of formwork in terre pis shows anities
with Roman concrete and ultimately the latter also has a similar background.
A connection in building between Greek South Italy and Phoenecian North
Africa is usually accounted for via Sicily.
It may well be possible to write an informative account of the technology of
terre pis construction in the ancient world. However this will require a rst
hand study of the material remains, involving microscopic examination and also
mechanical testing of properties. At the present time understanding of this con-
struction is based on ancient reference tted to modern practice.
In Situ Plastic Earth
This process signies applying earth while in a plastic condtion to its desig-
nated position in the structure, so that it dries out and becomes rigid in place.
Although it is commonly understood to refer to the use of earth as a secondary
earthclay 91
material (i.e. as plaster or mortar), earth can be so used as primary material Plastic
i.e. as structural plastic earth. Moreover this whole complex of uses has not Earth
only remained of basic importance in building through the ages, but it was (Mud)
clearly the earliest manner in which earth was used for building.
As a Primary Material
Whereas the glutinous nature of mud (i.e. its property of cohesion and adhe-
sion) were manifest, and invited men to use it for plastering over surfaces formed
out of, e.g. reeds and branches to weather-proof them and render them more
durable; it was an invention demanding abstract conceptualisation to realise
that desired forms could be built out of this formless material. However dur-
ing the last half century prolic evidence has been uncovered in the Middle
East from Palestine through Iraq and Iran to show that about 10,000 years
ago men were experimenting and mastering very practical techniques for sta-
bly enclosing living space (building themselves convenient weather-proof dwellings)
out of mud. The eectiveness of these techniques is shown by the fact that
although earth came to be fashioned into other building materials with quite
dierent properties, building directly with mud (puddled mud) has remained a
viable option over the succeeding 10,000 years not only for rustic enclosures,
but to build imposing urban apartments (v in general, O. Aurenche, Maison
Orientale, Vol. 1, pp. 5457; G.R.H. Wright, Puddled Mud Walling MDOG 115
1983, pp. 914).
The commonly used name for this construction is the Arabic tauf, however
zabur and the Persian chineh also occur in archaeological literature. Tauf is from
the familiar root t w f = to go around (it is the technical term for the cir-
cumambulation of the kaaba), hence it also signies to surround, enclose. At
the earliest stage of its development (ca 9th millenium BC) tauf walls may
indeed have been essentially of this nature, constituting low barriers about the
perimeter of semi-sunken round houses with light framed superstructures. The
earliest remains found on virgin soil at Jericho appear to have been structures
of this type (G.R.H. Wright, Puddled Mud Walling, p. 9; K. Kenyon, Jericho
III, London, 1981, pp. 22425). However ca 8,000 BC men began building
solid load bearing house walls of tauf. The construction has survived so that it
continued to be standard in Southern Arabia until within living memory for
148 building ne house of 5 to 6 stories, ca 25 m high. The contrast between the
highly sophisticated architectural form and utter simplicity of the method of
construction is miraculous, as witnessed in the following outline account (of
minor work).
147 A supply of earth is brought to a convenient place as close as possible to
92 chapter four
Tauf the work. It is watered and mixed with a mattock and/or trodden into a suit-
able mud consistency. From this supply the units of plastic earth (tauf/zabur)
are prepared for immediate use as requiredi.e. they cannot be mass produced
and stored for future use. First the appropriate quantity of mud is taken from
the pile and turned on to a smaller mixing area, which has been dusted clean
with dry earth. The mud is then sprinkled with dry earth and whatever addi-
tives are favourede.g. chopped straw. The mud and the additives are then
again thoroughly mixed to eect a new strong cohesiveness. Next hessian sack-
ing is spread on the ground close by; while the assistant forms lumps of mud
about the size of a cottage loaf and passes them to the master, who rolls them
about like dough on the hessian, working them into rm regular dumplings.
When a suitable supply is available the assistant hands them or throws them
up one by one to the waller who drives them into position by throwing them
onto the bed and against one another, as a plasterer might throw handfulls of
plaster to adhere in dicult positions. Irregularities are lled up and surfaces
levelled o by breaking away pieces of mud from balls to stu up or plaster
over as required. In this way a vertical register of ca 4050 cms or the like is
built up. Between these layers (or rather some of them) may be set long branches
as bonding timbers. Each register is left for drying with a rounded sectional
nish which is subsequently pressed at to form a bed for the next above reg-
ister. After one or two days the waller can mount on the previous layer and
either stand or sit on it to build up the next higher layer. In this way the most
distinguished buildings can be constructed with no tools whatever, except that
a wooden bat or club may be used for beating surfaces at and further con-
solidating them. In short it is very dicult to imagine a more economic and
rewarding system of building construction.
If the care taken in forming units is considered, it is apparent that the dust
and binders combined with the rolling give a surface tension so that the unit
as a whole is reasonably stable, yet the contents remain plastic enough to be
broken up and further remodelled. Tauf thus comprises both structural units
and any necessary mortari.e. it functions at the one time as both in primary
and secondary material.
The history of tauf construction remains defective between its original devel-
opment ca 10,000 years ago and its rather sensational survival in the tradi-
tional modern building of South Arabia. In earlier times tauf construction was
not (suciently) recognised by archaeologists, and in several dierent ways this
meant a gap in the record, and also gave rise to confused, confusing and mis-
taken statements on earth construction. On the one hand archaeologists speak
of the untoward appearance of mud bricks mixed in with terre pis construc-
tion. Also mention is made from time to time of quite outsize mud bricks or
earthclay 93
blocks. It is possible in some of these instances that it was a type of tauf con- Tauf
struction which was observed (cf Aurenche, Maison Orientale, p. 55; G.R.H. modern
Wright, Puddled Mud Walling, p. 12). Also although competely unfamiliar to survivals
the average urban dweller, building out of lumps of plastic earth has survived
into traditional modern use in Western Europe, with strongly marked regional
associatione.g. the West of England (cob), Saxony, Hungary. These survivals
comprehend variant practices (Minke, Earth Construction Handbook, pp. 8485)
which are useful for the understanding of ancient remains with their apparent
diversity of detail in very ancient times (cf Aurenche, Maison Orientale, p. 56;
P.E.L. Smith, Architectural Innovation and Experimentation in Ganj Dareh
Iran, WA 21, 1990, pp. 32345).
As a Secondary Material
Without doubt plastic earth (mud) was rst used in building not as a primary
load bearing material but as a secondary material employed in conjunction with
other (primary) materials. Used in this fashion it was of far wider application
in time and place than as a load bearing material. The two instances of such
use are always distinguished: plaster and mortar. Essentially the same mixture
of plastic earth serves both purposes, and is indeed not necessarily dierentiated
from that employed for load bearing earth materials (e.g. mud bricks).
The development of nely dressed stone masonry on the one hand together
with burnt bricks and terra cotta and also Roman concrete on the other dras-
tically limited the use of mud mortar and plaster, which came to be restricted
to non-monumental, domestic, rustic building. Thus essentially the discussion
of mud mortar and plaster has its main signicance in more ancient times.
160 However where mud brick or rubble walls supporting at terrace roofs on
wooden poles formed the structure, mud mortar and plaster continued as basic
items in building construction.
It is more apposite to discuss details of mud mortar and plaster in connec-
tion with their use, and as part of the processes of building construction. Only
some general observations are made here.
Mud Plaster
The function of mud as plaster can be observed in nature, and appearances
suggest that the rst systematised use of plastic earth as a building material
may have been mud plastered over plant growth as could occur naturally.
Although in the nature of things little material evidence of it survives, it is clear
that very early (e.g. Mesolithic) buildings in some regions (e.g. Egypt) were fash-
ioned from pliant vegetal materialreeds, rushes, canes, palms, branches etc.
94 chapter four
Mud This fact is proclaimed in dierent ways: the survival of forms proper to these
plaster materials in other materials (e.g. stone, brick) where they are quite alien. Also
there are ancient representations of buildings in these pliant materials, both 45, 46
ancestral examples and latter day survivals for temporary shelters and garden
houses etc. There are, again, striking survivals of buildings in these materials
which are virtually identical with ancient representations. (v Vol. I, pp. 5051;
O. Aurenche, Maison Orientale, pp. 7980; L. Borchardt, Altgyptische Mattenhtten
bei den Tuaregs, ZAS 13 1935, pp. 11819). Much of this construction was
strengthened by plastering over with mud to form in fact a composite rein-
forced material, of which wattle and daub is a type example which has sur- 29, 30
vived strongly into traditional modern building. (v G. Porta, Architettura Egizia
delle Origini in Legno i Materiali Leggeri, Milan, 1989 pass and p. 36; A. Bedawy,
Le Dessin Architectural chez les Anciens Egyptiens, Cairo, 1948, pp. 140, NB pp.
2931).
Plastering is a ne art as much ornamental as functional. Thus from earli-
est times inner logic has directed the application of plaster in succesive coats,
where the composition changes (speaking in a very general way) from coarser
to ner grained material. And this system operates equally in both a functional
and an ornamental interest. Thus where in principle mud plaster is essentially
of the same composition as other plastic earth materials, variant ingredients are
often found applied in successive coats (Aurenche, Maison Orientale I, p. 70).
Also in a basic way it may be said that mud plaster should include more straw
than in other mixes (e.g. mortar) as a necessary binder against destructive
ssuring and cracking (Nicholson and Shaw, Ancient Egyptian Materials, p. 92).
Mud plaster was applied not only to building elements of earth construction
(terre pis, mud brick) but also to vegetal material as noted above, and to rub-
ble. It protected the structural material from weathering and it strengthened
the construction (a thick coat of mud plaster, because of its cohesion and adhe-
sion, supplemented the action of the mortar in binding masonry together (G.R.H.
Wright, ABSP I, p. 360). Its advantage in these connections lay in the fact that
it was easily renovated, thus providing an eective maintenance to avoid struc-
tural delapidation. Over and above these functions, plaster came to constitute
an ornament. And this both in itself and as convenient grounds for additional
decoration. Already during early Neolithic times in Cyprus earth plaster in
round houses was made the vehicle for both colour and gural decoration
(G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus I, pp. 42324). Eventually lime wash
(white wash) became and has remained a prescribed nishing coat for mud
plaster.
earthclay 95
Mud Mortar
Although it is supercially assumed that mud mortar was a tandem develop- Mortared
ment with mud brick, it is clear that mud was used as a mortar before the rubble
manufacture of mud bricksits earliest use being in connection with eld stones. and
And this usage could have been taken directly from nature. Recognition that rubble in
odd eld stones had become a stable feature by being fast embedded in a mortar
deposit of dried mud could be ancestral to all masonry.
There are essentially two dierent modes in which mud mortar can be used
in walls. In theory these modes are categorically dierent, yet in practice they
can shade into each other. The distinction also applies, or can apply, to other
types of mortarbut because of its cheapness mud mortar exemplies the dis-
tinction pre-eminently. Mud mortar can be used as a secondary material to
bind and hold together the primary units of construction, which is signicantly
rubble. The wall is a rubble stone wall with mud used in the amount neces-
sary as a servient device to increase the stability of the stonewhat is called
mortared rubble construction. On the other hand walls can be fashioned by
setting rubble stones into a plastic earth mass (mud mortar) so as to stien the
latter. This is sometimes referred to as drowning the stones in mud mortar.
It is in eect a mixed construction where the mud mortar has claims to be
considered a primary material, and it may be called rubble in mortar. Although
this latter type is most readily understood in connection with rubble construc-
tion, and is little thought of in connection with bricks, it is possible that when
the rst hand modelled mud bricks were developed (ca 8,000 BC) they were
150 sometimes used after the manner of eld stones as stiening to the mud con-
struction (O. Aurenche, Maison Orientale I, pp. 4142).
Much has been written to the advantage of plastic earth construction. On
the other hand archaeological reports continually refer to the ruination of rubble
walls because of the dessication of the mud mortar which, losing all its adhe-
siveness and cohesion, runs away and out of the construction through aper-
tures between the stones. Some explanation of this apparent antinomy is that
earth has strength only in compression. If it is used to bed crude rubble, poten-
tial movement of the stones puts the mud mortar in tension; and when it dries
out it has no resistance in this capacity. It is also helpful to note the follow-
ing. It has been seen as a deciency that mud mortar loses in time its func-
tional virtue of holding together units of masonry. On the other hand the virtue
of mud plaster in holding together mud brick construction has been favorably
noticed. But the eectiveness of mud plaster is directly linked to the ease with
which it is renewed. If it were possible so to renew mud mortar, it would per-
form its function perfectly satisfactorily over age long periods. Alas! no proce-
dure for grouting mud mortared walls was developed in antiquity.
96 chapter four
Mud The virtue of mud as a mortar is appreciable. Nonetheless other materials

brick make a stronger acting mortar; although, of course, they are more expensive.
Yet where the units of the primary material can be made to t together very
closely so that only small quantities of mortar need be used in the joints, then
it becomes reasonable to use stronger but more expensive mortar. In this way
while mud mortar has always remained standard for use with random rubble
walling, it was entirely ousted for use with dressed stone and burnt brick walls.
From the beginning gypsum based mortar has been used with dressed stone
walling, while burnt brick is laid with lime based mortar (or at times with bitu-
men, where impermeability is required).
Pre-Fabricated Earth and Terra-Cotta
Mud Brick
Consideration of mud brick introduces a basic step in the historical develop-
ment of building technologyuse of a manufactured building material. Sticks
and stones can be gathered where they naturally occur, consolidated clay units
of standard form and strength do not occur in nature and must be pre-fabri-
cated by men for use in building. With this development men acquired addi-
tional mastery of their destinycontrol of supply. It is interesting to note that
the development of this manufactured material occured roughly at the same
period as the development of agriculture. It was once a maxim of anthropo-
logical theory that sedentary life, house building and food production all went
together as they said. Such dogma is now out of fashion, but it would seem
that control of the supply of staple building material and control over the sta-
ple food supply were fairly contemporary in the human drama.
Hand Modelled Mud Brick

Mud bricks were invented about 10,000 years ago, long after men had been
accustomed to using mud in its plastic condition as a building materiali.e. to
plaster over other materials and to mortar together other materials; and also
after men set balls of compressed mud together to build up walls. Vitruvius
might have rationalised the invention as follows: when men saw how well walls
could be made by setting eld stones in mud, in some places they became con-
cerned because the supply of eld stones in the neighbourhood had been used
up. Then it was that a clever man discovered how replacements for the eld
stones could easily be made out of the mud used everywhere for building walls,
even when eld stone could be found to make into rubble walls.
earthclay 97
The earliest type of mud bricks were modelled out of plastic earth (mud), Hand
more or less after the manner of tauf; but instead of being set in place while modelled
plastic to dry out and acquire rigidity in situ, the modelled units were left to mud brick
dry in the sun and become rigid prior to being set in place in the building.
Although on the face of it this might seem a variation in manner only, in fact
it constituted an entirely dierent building programme. The pre-fabricated mud
bricks were stacked ready for use when and (within limits) where required, so
that the building programme could proceed as suited the circumstances of the
moment, entirely independent of the manufacture of the material. Nor was the
programme aected by the necessity to halt work and wait until the still plas-
tic material had dried out before carrying the construction further (cf, in gen-
eral, O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale I, pp. 6064, LOrigine de la Brique,
pp. 7179; M. Sauvage, La Brique en Mesopotamie, pp. 8793).
The inspiration of hand modelled mud bricks is clearly shown by their form.
They were fashioned in the image of other naturally occuring units. The ear-
liest hand modelled mud bricks were not wrought into random varying shapes,
nor were they everywhere and always wrought into one necessary pre-condi-
tioned form. At any given time and place, hand modelled bricks were of quite
uniform formation; but this model changed from one time and place to another,
so that archaeologists when they rst recognised the category (e.g. in the Jericho
Excavations immediately after the 2nd World War) were struck by these forms
150, 151 and gave them homely evocative names: cigar shaped, hog-backed, bun shaped,
etc. These shapes are self proclaimed imitations of various characteristic types
of eld stone. Morover the mode of using the earliest hand modelled mud
bricks bespeaks equally clearly their derivation. We are habituated to thinking
of brick work as closely set together in a recognisable bond, but early hand
modelled mud bricks were not masoned together in this fashion. They were
not held together one to the other by the use of mud mortar in the joints
between them. This is, in fact, a later stage in the development of mud brick
masonry. The earliest hand modelled mud bricks were embedded discretely in
the matrix of mud mortar in the same way as eld stone rubble had been
seti.e. they were used more or less as stiening to a plastic earth structure
(cf O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale I, p. 61, g. 12; LOrigine de la Brique,
p. 76, g. 3). Mud Bricks are thus a primaeval instance in the continuing
development of manufactured building materials whereby man has control over
supply and is not dependent on the chances and vagaries of gathering his build-
ing materials.
In general the hand modelled brick set the norm for brick dimensions which
has persisted to the present day, i.e. of length ca 25 cms30 cms (e.g. ca 1').
This, of course, is governed by the practicalities of brick laying which require
98 chapter four
Hand that a brick can be held and set in place with one hand without undue fatigue.
modelled However there are exceptions to this, and on occasion early mud bricks of con-
mud brick siderably larger format are found, and these will be discussed in a later connection
(v infra pp. 10203, cf O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale III, Tableau 6).
The era when mud bricks were introduced was one of great inventiveness
and certainly deserves to be considered as revolutionary. From the Levant to
the eastern limits of the Ancient World during the 8th7th millenia BC men
experimented with the varied possibilities of earth as a building material
and embodied their experiences in very sensible and eective construction
(v O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale, III Map 6). Often several dierent systems
of earth building were used contemporaneously at the one site (P.E.L. Smith,
Architectural Innovation and Experimentation at Ganj Dereh, WA 21 1990,
pp. 36389). At some sites the use of hand modelled mud bricks was preceeded
(and accompanied) by, e.g. tauf construction. At other sites (e.g. in Anatolia)
hand modelled mud bricks appear to be the initial form of load bearing con-
struction. Of course the archaeological record of these remote times is not
denitive. However all the archaeological detail discountenances a single cen-
tre of origin for mud brick, with subsequent diusion from the Levant to Central
Asia. On the contrary it appears that mud brick was invented independently
in several dierent areas.
Hand modelled mud brick can be seen as a token of a Weltanschauung which
in archaeological terms was not for all time, ourishing only for a millenium
or so (8th7th millenium BC). The form the mud brick assumed under the
hands of the modeller were natural forms: the rounded forms of natural growth
and erosion. These forms matched the building design of the time: the round
house. And on occasion even the wall units incorporating hand modelled mud
bricks echo the rounded forms of the constituent bricks. Yet after a millenium 150
or so this attitude changed. The house became rectangular. Thereafter the hand
modelled rounded brick began to be ousted by bricks of a very dierent type
made by a totally dierent means in a totally dierent form. Although the con-
sonance has not been closely studied, where the old hand modelled brick
remained in use across later ages was often where the old round house remained
in use (e.g. in Cyprus). And in this connection it is tting to observe that within
the ambit of the modern revival of earth construction the hand modelled mud
brick has found no place.
Mud brick as a manufactured material, one which can be stored and exchanged
(i.e. thus constituting a form of capital) has come to be seen recently as of great
importance in ancient political economy. Materialist-determinist analysis has
been revived and it has been asserted that a certain stage of social organisa-
tion is bound up with certain types of material resources, thus mud bricks are
seen as an inevitable evolution.
earthclay 99
Form Moulded Mud Brick

If the introduction of mud brick is held to mark an important stage in social Origins
development, then the invention of form moulded mud bricks is connected with and signi-
an even more far reaching alteration in basic human attitudes: the change from cance
thinking and feeling in conformity with natures curvilinear structure to the
intellectualisation of space by way of the straight line and the right angle,
i.e. the mentality of the set square and the drawing board. The change over
from modelling to moulding bricks is obviously a revolutionary one, and in
adjustment with basic changes in society. However suggestions have been made
which might provide for some possible connection with the original hand mod-
elled mud bricks. This would arise by way of the common process whereby an
exception becomes a norm.
On numbers of occasions isolated large to quite outsize bricks (or what appear
to be such) have been reported. Such bricks generally occur in public building
rather than in domestic building; and, in particular, outsize bricks have been
noted in Bronze Age city walls (e.g., ca 1m long). These are obviously purpose
made items for special functions such as coigning or bonding (G.R.H. Wright,
ABSP I, p. 355). Recently it has been noted that such large bricks or earth
blocks were used during early Neolithic times in eastern regions (e.g. Turkey,
Iran). Whether these bricks were moulded bricks or rather pis blocks, it is pos-
sible that their use represent exceptional provision for special purposes in walls
of dierent (plastic earth) construction. In this way moulding earth for special
purposes may have stood behind the later standard form moulded mud brick
(O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale I, pp. 5859, 62).
154, 155 The brick mould must be one of the most eective of mans inventions: a
small wooden frame which stands behind towering monuments, massive city
walls and in some cases every building great and small within them. An expe-
rienced brick maker working with an assistant and using only this frame can
produce as a routine matter a thousand or more bricks a day; say something
like up to 20 m3 of nely jointed masonry. A skilled stone dresser can true up
about 6 normal stone blocks in a day; perhaps one m3 of closely jointed stone
masonry. And for this he needs a tool kit of half a dozen metal tools. Form
161 moulded mud brick admits of solid accurately dimensioned construction exactly
as dressed stone, with a bearing strength not markedly less than that of lime-
stone. The only inferiority associated with mud bricks is its durability in wet
conditions. Care must be taken to protect it against damage from damp. In
short the invention of the brick mould meant that a man could produce in one
day the same quantity of building material which a stone dresser produces in
say two weeks. What the increase is as compared with hand modelling bricks
is not easy to determine but it is considerable.
There is sucient record of ancient brick moulds to show that the device
100 chapter four
Brick was standardised and not dierent from modern examplesas indeed is a vir-
moulds tually necessary consequence of its simplicity. Information concerning ancient
brick moulds accrues from:
(1) Survival of ancient moulds (cf Egypt, Palestine) 154, 155

(2) Ancient representations of moulds (cf Egypt) 153
(3) Ancient literary references to moulds (cf Mesopotamia, Greece)
(4) Traces of the mould and its action remaining on moulded bricks (general)
(5) Modern analogies.
Several Egyptian moulds have survived intact (W.M.F. Petrie, Egyptian Architecture,
pl. II, g. 1) and there is a mould from Megiddo in Palestine discovered lled
with brick clay (G. Schumacher, Tell el Mutesellim, p. 12, pl. XLIb). There are 154
also Egyptian murals with representations of brick making which clearly show
the mould and its use (G. Jequier, Les Elements de LArchitecture Egyptienne, p. 14,
g. 5; p. 34, g. 13). Whereas in Greece, although little archaeological evidence
of moulds survives, there is considerable literary reference to match the remains
of brick masonry. The mould was called plasia or plinyea; the process
plinyea or some such derivation (A. Orlandos, Les Materiaux des Anciens Grecs
I, pp. 5657; cf R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grcque I, p. 50, who gives
plinyow lkein for moulding bricks). Finally it should be noted that the tradi-
tional manufacture of mud bricks in the Middle East has evoked lively inter-
est for well over a century by European observers, some of them very well
qualied and well situated to report on itand this is often from an ethno-
archaeological stand point (e.g. H.T. Wul, The Traditional Crafts of Persia,
Cambridge, Mass., 1968; O. Reuther, Das Wohnhaus in Bagdad, Berlin, 1910;
J. Canaan, The Palestine Arab House, JPOS 12 & 13, 1932 & 33;
G. Dalman, Arbeit and Sitte in Palestina VII Das Haus, 1942, Gtersloh; H. Fathy,
Gourna, A Tale of Two Villages, Cairo, 1969).
The mould for forming mud bricks is a simple wooden box or the lateral
frame of a boxthe ancient examples xed together by joinery, modern ones
by nailing. In general it is of the frame type, i.e. it has neither bottom nor lid;
however on occasion it has a bottom and then takes the form of a lidless box.
Also some projecting device is incorporated for greater convenience in han-
dling. It is also common to construct these moulds incorporating more than
one (generally two) compartments. The use of the mould is self evident, but a
few observations arise concerning details.
In fact it is fairly obvious that there are two ways of using brick moulds:
either to apply the clay to the mould, or to apply the mould to the clay. In
both instances the initial stages of the process are in common. A supply of
earthclay 101
earth of the requisite quality is mixed into a plastic mud, often with some addi- Procedure
tive as temperingi.e. to generalise by even distribution the eects of shrink- of mould-
age while the mixture is drying out so that the product is not spoiled by cracking ing bricks
and splitting apart.
Close by a suitable level area of ground is cleaned and the surface sanded
and/or sprinkled with straw to provide a clean mat for the bricks. Here the
brick maker is furnished with a supply of mixed mud by the assistant. If he
uses the rst method the brick maker sets the mould on the ground where he
wishes to begin work, takes by hand a suitable quantity of mud and perhaps
rolls it in straw and presses it together. Then he casts it into the mould which
he holds rmly with the other hand. Next he smooths o the top of the mud
level with the sides of the mould and perhaps presses down the mud to ensure
that it completely occupies the mould.
Here one variant practice supervened. This was against the overall logic of
development of moulded bricks and it exercised no generalised eect on this
development. It was, however, of striking occurence and is of the greatest archaeo-
logical signicance. In Mesopotamia during the Early Dynastic period for the
plano-convex type bricks, the brick maker did not level o the upper surface
of the bricks to the plane of the top of the mould. Instead he modelled the
surplus earth into a raised crust, giving the brick an overall plano-convex form.
This brought the contours of the moulded brick into line with a characteristic
type of eld stone, and the form dictated that the brick was laid in character-
istic herring bone bonds. It was in spirit a partial reversion to the hand mod-
152 elled brick of much earlier times. It is possible that the same original hand
modelled bricks may have been formed by pressing the earth onto a at board
and this procedure may provide some link with the moulded plano-convex brick
of the third millenium BC (M. Sauvage, La Brique. . . . en Mespotamie, pp. 11524;
P. Delougaz, Plano-convex Bricks, Chicago, 1933; O. Tunca, LArchitecture Rligieuse
Proto-dynastique en Mesopotamie, Louvain, 1984). Indeed it has been suggested that
there is a more basic connection or continuation and that plano-convex bricks
(or some of them) may be hand modelled themselves rather than moulded
(R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, pp. 30708).
The mould is shaken a little to compress the mud further, and also to loosen
it from adhering to the frame. Then the mould is lifted o cleanly, leaving the
rst mud brick resting on the ground. The mould is next placed alongside one
side of this brick and the whole process is repeated until a line of bricks has
been struck each lying hard by the other in series. When the line extends across
the area available, the brick maker returns another line of bricks beneath the
rst and so proceeds until the space is entirely occupied, or the required num-
ber of bricks have been struck. If the alternative method is used a layer of mud
102 chapter four
Form of suitable thickness is spread out on the ground, and the brick maker drives
moulded the mould down on it from above like a punch, so lling it at one stroke. He
bricks. then smooths the mud o at the upper surface level and lifts the mould away.
Dimen- It is probable that a skilled operator can manufacture more bricks by this
sions method in a given time than by the other. An indication that this second
method has been used is the presence on occasion of a small projecting seam
of earth around the lower perimeter of the bricks. The bricks are then left as
they lie on the ground to dry in the sun for a period to acquire a measure of
competence. Following this they are stacked on their sides leaning against one
another to complete the drying out process and free the ground for further
brickmaking (cf, in general, O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale I, pp. 6467).
The technological advance of moulding bricks lay not in the quality of the
material produced (i.e. its durability or strength) but in its ready availability,
its convenience in use, above all in its standardisation. The identical shape and
size of a given supply of bricks facilitated construction according to accurate
dimension and promoted laying bricks in regular patterns so that the strength
of the masonry was maximised. Thus the most signicant characteristic of any
brick mould was the compartment(s) it framed. On this there is endless infor-
mation since here the mould and the brick moulded are reciprocal evidence
one of the other. Archaeologists have nearly always taken care to record the
dimensions of mud brick and in this way an enormous statistical record is avail-
able for analysis. M. Sauvage, La Brique en Mesopotamie, Paris, 1998, pp. 211387
(ca 3,000 items catalogued); A.J. Spencer, Brick Architecture in Ancient Egypt,
Warminster, 1979; G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Syria & Palestine, pp. 35458;
A. Guest Papamanou, LEmploi de la Brique Crue dans le Domaine Ege,
BCH 102 1979, at pp. 1116; R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens, Tbingen,
1971, Chap 5, etc. etc. Although the shape and size of mud bricks is more
signicant for construction and its processes and will be dealt with in this con-
nection (Vol. III), some overall observations are in point here.
A rst consideration is the simple one of overall size (and weight!). As pre-
viously stated there are notices of large blocks of earth (e.g. up to 1 m long)
occuring exceptionally in walls. It is a question whether some of these should
be considered as mud bricks or as pis blocks. While such blocks would func-
tion satisfactorily in place on the walls, it is doubtful that they would remain
intact during handling. Therefore either they would need to be formed in situ
or else transported to the wall on a trestle or the like. In theory there is noth-
ing against special larger mud bricks being used for coigning or framing etc
but there is no evidence of this, and the secular trend in brick masonry is for
units to become smaller (especially when burnt brick is taken into the reckon-
ing). On the other hand the overall size of the standard mud brick is limited
earthclay 103
by weight. A traditional modern (burnt) brick, ca 24 cm 12 cm 6 cm Form

weighs ca 22.5 kgs, and this is designed to accord with todays deft and inten- moulded
sive brick laying, where the brick can be held in one hand. A sizeable ancient bricks.
brick approaches 10 times this mass with a weight of ca 20 kg and that is an Dimen-
upper limit for one man to handle and set in place without excessive fatigue. sions
Thus the size of standard bricks could not go beyond this without losing the
advantage of convenience in use.
Outside the question of mass, the statistical record of mud bricks gives rise
to two concerns: form and measureor, it might be said, relative and absolute
dimensions. It is best here to consider rst the question of measure. This ques-
tion has two quite distinct applications: on the one hand concern with the brick
as evidence in establishing the unit of measurement employed at the time; and
on the other hand, concern with the measurements as evidence how the brick
was used in construction. Much of the assiduous collection and analysis of the
dimensions of mud bricks has been related to the rst concernthat of ancient
metrology, the recognition of various cubits, feet etc. and their exact values.
This subject of very basic importance does not fall within the ambit of mate-
rials, and will not be considered here.
Nevertheless there are occasions where the absolute dimensions of mud bricks
provide information concerning ancient buildinge.g. if the mud bricks of a
Classical Greek wall are found to be ca 45 cms square, then it is almost cer-
tain the structure is a public building of some sort not a domestic one (Vitruvius
III.3). Also changes in the dimensions of bricks have been closely analysed to
discover if they possess any chronological signicance. Here quite often the
thickness of bricks comes into evidence. This is a factor which has little direct
bearing on the design and dimensioning of walls. However it is a factor in the
strength of masonry construction. It is closely associated with the thickness of
mortared bed joints and typological developments have been recognisedi.e.
from at to bulky bricks with thick to thin joints (or vice versa). The thickness
of bricks is of little account in the manner of their assembly in plan and so
need not be determined by the length and breadth. There are nonetheless cer-
tain limits operative. There is a minimum thickness in that bricks must be
suciently strong to resist stresses arising through handling. On the other hand
given a certain horizontal area the thickness cannot be increased beyond that
aording a tractable weight for the bricklayer. There is also an upper limit
deriving from good masonry practice (i.e. stable setting)the thickness should
be less than the smaller horizontal dimension since units of masonry should be
bedded on the surface of the greater area.
The other concern, that of the form of mud bricks (i.e. their relative dimen-
sions) is a material factor in their constitutionit is a condition precedent to
104 chapter four
Square their use. Here occurs the striking distinction between square bricks and rec-
and rectangular bricks (parallelopipeds). It has long been considered that the square
tangular form of brick is essentially the Mesopotamian form, while the rectangular form
bricks and is essentially the Egyptian form. This is not to be understood categorically.
their Multitudes of rectangular bricks were used in Mesopotamia (NB the plano-con-
bonding vex brick) and both forms persisted throughout antiquity almost everywhere.
However in essence the distinction holds fairly true. In Palestine and Syria both
forms are general (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I, p. 354). In Anatolia both types
were known but whereas in early times (third millenium BC) large rectangular
bricks were standard, the square brick was adopted by the Hittites and became
common during the rst millenium, e.g. on Neo-Hittite sitesall this obviously
under Mesopotamian/Assyrian inuence (R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens,
pp. 4650). An exhaustive study of mud brick in Aegaean regions during
Neolithic and Bronze Age times shows that square bricks were known but rare;
and that the normal brick was rectangular with proportions of ca 3:2 (A. Guest
Papamanoli, pp. 1116). This notwithstanding in Classical Greek usage square
bricks were the rule and continued so in Rome (R. Martin, pp. 4857; A.
Orlandos, pp. 5861). According to Vitruvius (III.3) rectangular bricks were
Lydian style.
The bonding of brick walls is a far reaching subject to be treated under 156
processes of construction. Only preliminary mention is made here. In general
it may be said that in the early development of brick masonry an increasing
concern for systematic bonding became evident. Also ancient understanding of
the principles governing bonding is by no means exactly that of modern prac-
ticeand is not necessarily the worse because of this.
If square bricks are used, then easy workmanlike bonds can always be obtained
by the simple device of using half bricks at the periphery of alternate courses. 158
This means either a supply of half bricks must be specically moulded; or else
they can be obtained conveniently by cutting bricks in half. This latter process
seems to be practical and common in traditional modern mud brick masonry.
If rectangular bricks are used then those with the length:breadth proportion
of 2:1 provide universal bonding in varying manners for walls of any thickness. 157
This proportion is known everywhere in antiquity but is by no means the rul-
ing form. Often a ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 appears to be intended. The rationale
here must be to obtain good bonding through the wall thickness rather than
regularity along its length. Setting such bricks in English Bond (i.e. alternate
courses of headers and stretchers) obviously secures the former. However ancient
bricklaying did not make systematic use of closers to break (vertical) joints
along the run of the wall. In their absence English bond produces straight ver-
tical joints every 2, 3, 4 bricks which run back through the thickness of the
earthclay 105
wallwhat in fact is built is a series of contiguous pillars/piers. According to Mud

modern understanding this is a cardinal weakness, but apparently it was accepted bricks
in antiquityor even aimed at. In practice such piers were generally dwarf material
piers, allowed to run up only through a limited number of courses and then
the bond was broken in some manner before the pattern was repeated. Also
laying bricks non-orthogonally was a well known device in the ancient Middle
East (NB the Mesopotamian Plano-convex brick which was specially designed
to be laid in this fashion). Here the bricks were laid not in horizontal courses
and parallel to the wall face, but diagonally either in the horizontal or verti-
159 cal plane. This practice gives an excellent bond (it is a skeuomorphic version
of dry stone masonry), and its virtues are being re-recognised today.
The composition of earth used in ancient building is usually discussed in con-
nection with mud brick and accordingly some general remarks on the subject
are made here. Theoretically there are two approaches to obtaining suitable
earth for making bricks: either to identify good natural deposits of earth, or to
procure several appropriate substances and mix them together (cf, e.g. modern
sand-lime bricks). Ultimately this dierence may be one of degree not kind,
since various additives can always be included with the natural earth. In gen-
eral throughout antiquity the material for mud bricks was obtained by the rst
method, recognising and making use of suitable deposits of earth. Again, speak-
ing generally, natural earth most suitable for brick making is well graded earth
containing proper amounts of earths three constituents: clay, silt and sand
in a word, loam. To such loam substances may be added which are believed
to improve the quality of the bricks. These may be either themselves earth ele-
ments (e.g. sand), or they may be other non-mineral substances, e.g. vegetal
matter like cha, straw or the like.
For a generation accustomed to concrete mixing it is not dicult to appre-
ciate the composition of earth required for making bricks. The concerns are
essentially parallel: to produce as dense a material as possible (i.e. with the
lowest mass ratio of voids); and at the same time to incorporate elements which
provide considerable crushing strength, and also elements which give cohesion
(i.e. strength to resist tendencies to crack, split apart or disintegrate). In well
graded natural earth the components operate as follows: the coarsest sand
together with any small pebbles or sherd fragments present provide strength in
compression; ne sand and silt are llers to occupy the voids between the
coarser particles as is in turn clay. While clay acts to cement the particles
together. Furthermore if cha or straw is added this functions as a re-inforcing
(like the steel rods etc in concrete) against cracking, splitting or crumbling.
A very considerable amount of experimental understanding (or analysis) has
accumulated regarding the properties and functioning of dierent constituents
106 chapter four
Mud in mud bricks. This traditional knowledge is well recorded in modern techni-
bricks cal literatureparticularly relating to Egypt and Mesopotamia. Much of this
Material has been summarised by O. Aurenche in La Maison Orientale (pp. 4552). Aurenche
discusses in detail the various earth mixes for mud bricks from the three points
of view: (a) archaeological remains, (b) traditional modern practice, (c) con-
temporary scientic analysis. He species the complementary and contradictory
reactions of the various earth constituents, sand, silt and clay, with regard to
strength, hardness, cohestion, permeability, etc. And he gives their due pro-
portions according to diverse modern recommendationsbasically restricted clay
content and considerable sand; cf 1/3 ne grains (including silt) and 2/3 coarse
grains (e.g. clay ca 15%, sand ca 60%, remainder silt). Obviously these have
always been rule of thumb devices for assessing how soil deposits accord with
such proportions (cf the eld tests by soil scientists for grading soils v T.R.
Paton, The Formation of Soil Material, pp. 13031). Traditional modern devices
make use of all the senses: taste, touch smell, sight. A musty smell indicates
too much organic material. Chewing the soil sharply distinguishes sands (dis-
agreeeable grating), silts (chewed up without aversion), clays (sticks to the tongue
like our). Visible individual grains are sands. Also it is interesting to note that
where in modern times plastic earth (tauf/puddled mud) and mud brick con-
struction are both utilised, more care and concerns are shown for the compo-
sition of the mix for mud brick than for plastic earth. Aurenches overall appraisal
is how closely the archaeological record of ancient mud bricks agrees with mod-
ern recommendations based on scientic testing (v G. Delcroix, Caractrisation
des Matriaux de construction de terre crue, C.N.R.S. 1972; K.V. Schultz,
Adobe Craft California, 1974; P. Bardou & V. Azourmanian, Archi de Terre
Roquevoire, 1978).
Also recently in Egypt investigations have been made where physical analy-
ses have been conducted on the composition of ancient mud bricks, directed
to comparing them with the composition of modern mud bricks and with char-
acteristic deposits of natural earth. Two centres were investigated where there
was a salient dierence in the characteristic soils: Karnak and Amarna, the for-
mer with typical, long cultivated, alluvial soil; the latter on the margin of the
desert with various types of soil present (C.A.I. French, An Analysis of the
Sediment at East Karnak, JSSEA II 1981, pp. 26378; A Sediment Analysis of
mud brick and natural features at El AmarnaAmarna Reports I (ed. B.J. Kemp)
London, 1984.
At Karnak ancient bricks from Middle Kingdom to Roman times were
analysed. The overall picture is simple and uniform. The proportion of sand
in bricks of all ages including modern is well over 50% (ca 60%70%); whereas
the proportion of sand in the alluvial soil most probably used for ancient mud
earthclay 107
bricks is much less than 50% (just under 25%). Obviously in these circum- Mud
stances either special sand deposits were sought out, or else appreciable amounts bricks
of sand were added to the mix. At Amarna all the bricks were of the Amarna Material
period but from dierent localities. Again the proportion of sand in the bricks and its
was well above 50% and not dissimilar from that at Karnak. Samples taken prepara-
from the Nile sediments and from desert sands do not match the proportions tion
the Nile sediments containing generally very little sand, and the desert samples
being almost entirely sand. Thus again it would seem that sand was added to
the mix (B. Kemp, Soil, including Mud Brick, pp. 8083). A modern (scientic)
exercise in traditional earth building at Gournah in Upper Egypt (Hassan Fathys
model village across the river from Luksor) adopted the formula of adding one
part sand for three parts natural alluvial earth (H. Fathy, Gourna, A Tale of Two
Villages, Cairo, 1969; O. Aurenche, Dictionnaire, p. 42). Parallel information is
available from Mesopotamia. Analysis of the natural earth comprising the allu-
vial plains there show its sand component to be very slight (say 2.5% to 4%).
Yet the sand component of various ancient mud bricks from the region, while
varying and not as high as that in Egypt is still substantial with a mean value
of ca 50% (M. Sauvage, La Brique. . . . en Mesopotamie, p. 19). Thus it must be
concluded that appreciable amounts of sand were also added in Mesopotamia
to the earth mix for mud bricks. On the other hand some reports of tradi-
tional brick making outside Egypt specically exclude the addition of sand to
the mix (T. Canaan, The Palestine Arab House, JPOS 1933, p. 30).
When a supply of suitable earth has been procured before moulding, it must
be mixed with water to make it plastic, which is an intermediate stage between
solid and liquid. There must be enough water covering the surfaces of the par-
ticles to allow them to slide over one another but not sucient to destroy the
force of attraction (cohesion) operating between them. If the amount of water
is increased beyond that which can be held on the surfaces of the particles,
the resultant substance will become a liquid mixture and behave as a uid.
There are practical tests to ascertain that the mixture is of a satisfactory con-
sistency within the plastic range to facilitate moulding. In practice a suitable
plastic mixture may be something like one part water to three parts earth by
volume, depending on the nature of the earth.
In traditional modern practice no great concern is evident for curing the
ingredients. Earth is mixed with water as it comes to hand, and the plastic
mixture is usually prepared the previous day and allowed to stand overnight
before being moulded. A longer period e.g. 48 hours has been recommended,
it being considered that some fermentation produces lactic acid which augments
the cohesiveness of the nished product (O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale,
p. 54). Equally the drying out process is not over-emphasized. In general the
108 chapter four
Mud moulded bricks are left on the ground as struck for a short period (hours only
bricks if necessary) to attain sucient solidarity so that they can be handled (with
Material care); and they are then removed and stacked generally on their sides in batches
and its leaning diagonally against one another in herring bone fashion. Again a short
prepara- period (perhaps several days) exposure to the sun is considered sucient for
tion the brick to attain working rigidity and strength in compression.
However ancient literary sources bear witness to quite dierent attitudes in
this connectionattitudes which on the face of it appear somewhat inated. In
a well known and characteristic passage Vitruvius (III.2) emphasizes the great
concern necessary for controlled and complete drying out of mud bricks. He
says mud bricks should be made in spring and autumn, not summer, because
summers extreme heat induces unequal supercial drying leaving the interior
of the brick wet so that consequent drying out in the wall causes cracking to
the grave detriment of the masonry. He recommends a two year drying out
period before use and commends the practice at Utica (in the vicinity of
Carthage) of observing a ve year period certied by the citys magistrates for
this process.
Burnt Brick/Baked Brick

Whatever rationale be proposed for the devopment of mud bricks, that for the
development of burnt brick is evident. Burnt brick is in terms a dierent material
from mud brick, indeed it is more akin to stone than it is to mud brick. It is
considerably stronger (in compression) than mud brick, harder and imperme-
able. On the other hand it is, of course, much more costly to manufacture. In
this way it was rst used as a special material for specic purposes where these
superior qualities were required. Then with increasing material wealth in certain
civilisations it became a general purpose building material, and thereto can be
recognised as the most versatile general purpose building material ever known.
Nonetheless in the ancient world burnt brick was essentially a material used for
monumental or substantial building, i.e. its concurrence was with dimensionsed
stoneit never ousted mud brick or rubble from humble domestic building.
According to the archaeological evidence the manufacture of burnt brick as
a building material was not the occasion for mans rst industrialisation of pyro-
technology. Over much of the ancient world men had red earth to manu-
facture pottery on a large scale since ca 6,000 BC, i.e. for something like 2,000
years or more before they turned this technology to manufacture burnt brick.
Nor indeed was this the initial step in using pyrotechnology to produce a build-
ing material. Recent discoveries have revealed the surprising fact that before
producing burnt brick, men burnt lime (stone) and (rock) gypsum to manufac-
ture high quality plaster for use as a building material from ca 8,000 BC. Also
earthclay 109
it seems this plaster material was formed into blocks on occasion as a direct Burnt
precursor of burnt brick (v J.-C. Margueron, Les Mesopotamiens, Paris, 1991, pp. brick tech-
15371, 20714. O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale, pp. 2330; M. Sauvage, La nology
Brique . . . . en Mesopotamie, p. 20). This state of aairs is less than obvious. and eco-
However it should be noted that if basic containers and vessels could be made nomics of
out of sun dried plastic earth, then the development of pottery might have been production
much later.
Mud brick provided for building needs in Mesopotamia virtually until well
established urban civilisation. Thus most who seek to explain the late appear-
ance of burnt brick remark in the rst place that the reason for this proceeds
from the side of demand rather than supply. Certainly the requisite (pyro) tech-
nology for the manufacture of burnt bricks was understood before burnt bricks
were produced. However the technological knowledge was not the only factor
which controlled the manufacture of burnt bricks. The material resources of
society (social capital) was equally signicant.
Early Neolithic village economy (including building) was family based. The
land, labour and capital required for any building was in family possession. All
buildings were family houses (which were equally family temple tombs). And
each family could build their own house with the mud bricks they manufac-
tured themselves. Then in time the social structure passed beyond a collection
of more or less independent family units. It acquired a nature and purpose of
its own over and above that of its members. It became more productive which
in turn was manifested in a more diversied material setting. Building was no
longer a replication of uniform domestic unitsmany building works were pub-
lic works. And in these instances, special requirements (e.g. extra solidity, dura-
bility, impermeability) sometimes arose for which burnt brick was a superior
building material. Thus it was socio-economic development which brought about
both the supply of and the demand for burnt bricka costly building mater-
ial necessitating large supplies of fuel and full time employment of skilled work-
ers. Put in simplistic terms village society normally can not muster the resources
to sustain the productivity of burnt brick. A larger scale economy is needed,
that of the ancient city, state or kingdom.
It is instructive to compare this account with a closely parallel development
in a neighbouring region. Burnt brick has many analogies as a material with
nely dressed stone masonry. Quarrying also requires very considerable capital
investment. Thus it is little wonder that the use of quarry stone in Egypt was
closely contemporaneous in its development with the use of burnt brick in
Mesopotamia. In principle both were manifestation of the early third millenium
BC. The comparison between Mesopotamia and Egypt in this particular instance
followed the general pattern: the initial development was slightly in retard, but
110 chapter four
Brick very soon Egypt outstripped Mesopotamia in social capital. Nonetheless the
kilns exploitation of quarry stone in Egypt and burnt brick in Mesopotamia followed
the same course. They were both used initially for special purposes and sub-
sequently became staple general purpose building materialsthis process being
more accelerated in Egypt than in Mesopotamia. Perhaps speaking at large, it
might be said that burnt brick was not as fundamental to Mesopotamian civil-
isation as was ne stone dressing to Pharaonic civilisation.
During the third millenium BC burnt brick became a widely used building
material in Mesopotamia, not only for public works and public buildings, but 166
also in wealthier private buildings. This notwithstanding, evidence for its man-
ufacture is not abundant. It has been stated categorically in the general issue
that during antiquity burnt bricks were burnt in exactly the same way as any
other terra-cotta producti.e. they were red in a kiln similar to a pottery
kiln. But this is questionable. If the statement were true, then it is anomalous
that there is very little archaeological record of brick kilns (whereas, of course,
pottery kilns have been excavated from all periods and places). This is a very
important matter because it is direct positive evidence which is required to dis-
pel contrary suppositions.
Every consideration suggests that a brick kiln would need to be very size-
ablei.e. of a quite dierent order from a pottery kiln. Firing a kiln is expen- 163
sive, therefore its capacity must be such (reckoned in terms of the unit value
of the nished product) to cover the ring costs. Equally, bricks are mass pro-
duced items. Therefore to be economical in operation a brick kiln must have
the capacity to keep ring in step with productionand any industrial pro-
duction of bricks will be well over 1,000 bricks a day. To allow time for stack-
ing, ring, cooling and removing bricks, a kiln can only be red at intervals
of, say, about a week. Therefore to operate a brick kiln economically the num-
ber of bricks to a ring must be in terms of thousands. Fifty thousand bricks
has been mentioned for a ring in traditional brick manufacture at the begin-
ning of last century in Persia. However it is dicult to imagine even a much
reduced quota stacked into a pottery type kiln.
A traditional pottery kiln consists of two superposed compartments. The lower
compartment is the furnace where the fuel is burnt to produce the requisite
high temperature (ideally 800900). the upper chamber is where the pots are
stacked so that the clay is baked by the heat generated in the furnace. The
separating oor of this chamber is pierced with vents to allow the heat to rise
up from the furnace by way of convection, radiation or conductionideally
naked ame does not penetrate into the upper compartment. Such kilns are
often partly sunk in the earth for better insulation to conserve heat. They are
made of clay in beehive form, and the normal (curved) plan would be on a
earthclay 111
diameter of ca 23 m, giving a oor space of ca 1 m2. Pots (which are hollow Brick
vessels, and thus light for their volume) are stacked up on the oor, or hung kilns
from pegs on the walls.
The circumstances with ring bricks is very dierent. Taking bricks both square
and rectangular of varying sizes, it is dicult to get more than ca 10 bricks
laid out to a square metre (leaving some space for air circulation between them).
this means at the most the oor space of an average sized pottery kiln would
accomodate about 70 bricks. In this way the beehive kiln would contain several
hundred brickssay, at the most, up to 1,000. Is it realistic to imagine scaling
up this construction 20 or more times to accomodate an economic pay load
of bricks as previously estimated? To stack anything like the 50,000 bricks men-
tioned in connection with modern Persia would require a oor space of 100 m2
or morei.e. a chamber 10 m 10 m of considerable height! A sizeable
chamber say 6 m 3 m and 3 m4 m high would contain two or three thou-
sand bricks at the most.
There is also the question of weight. The oor of a pottery kiln must be
suspended in some way over the furnace compartment. In terms this means a
clay vaultand it must be pierced for the transmission of heated air. Again is
it realistic to imagine such a construction spanning a large space and support-
ing an extremely heavy loadmany, many tons.
The obvious inference to be drawn from these observations is the following.
163 A kiln on the model of a pottery kiln is well designed for baking several hun-
dred bricks at a ring. However on all considerations this does not seem prac-
tical for ring bricks in economical quotas. This appraisal may be upset by the
discovery of material remains of brick kilns, but as yet there is little detailed
evidence of such remains in Ancient Mesopotamia.
In these circumstances it is reasonable to consider possible methods of ring
bricks other than in kilns constructed like pottery kilns. There is little mention
of ring bricks in ancient literary sourcese.g. Vitruvius, who has various com-
ments to make about producing mud bricks, says nothing whatever about burnt
bricks. Neither do ancient pictorial representations oer much guidance about
ring bricks. Also modern analogy is far less material than for mud bricks. Until
very recently in the Middle East mud bricks were manufactured by traditional
methods which clearly in principle were unchanged from antiquity, and in fact
no other methods were developed. Quite the contrary with burnt brick. Modern
scientic technology has completely changed the processes of brick manufacture.
These are now many and various, and none of them at all related to what was
possible in antiquity. Also even in non-industrial societies manufacture of burnt brick
has generally been inuenced by modern technology. Discussion of alternative
methods of burning bricks is thus a discussion of possibilities for which there
112 chapter four
Other is negligeable evidence, but which seem more reasonable in the circumstances.
devices for The two contra-indications against ring bricks in a pottery style kiln are the
ring size of the kiln demanded for economic operation, and also the strength of the
bricks perforated oor of the stacking chamber which keeps the stacked contents of
the kiln from exposure to the naked ame in the furnace below. Thus possible
methods of ring bricks which avoid these diculties are worth consideration.
Certainly at various times and places, plastic earth and other similar substances
have been red by other devices than in a pottery type kiln. A relatively slight
variant is to build only the (sunken) furnace with its perforated roong. The
material for ring is then stacked on top of the furnace and covered over by
some application of clay or the like which serves as an ad hoc kiln to be broken
away after each ring. This may accord with the lack of surviving remains of
(large) brick kilns and it also separates the material from the naked ame of
combustion. However the problem still remains of a heavy load on the roong
of the furnace.
To avoid the latter diculty means almost inevitably exposing the material
to be red to the naked ames. However this is not at all untenable. Some
pottery is red in that fashione.g. the very large traditional pithoi in Crete
and Cyprus. Here fuel is heaped against and over the vessels and the heap
ignited. Such a proceedure leaves no structural remains and there is no diculty
with a furnace roof. There is also the possibility of ring bricks in the same
way as lime burningi.e. in a kiln where the fuel and the limestone are not 162
separated and the calcination is by direct action of the ame. Indeed in dis-
cussing ancient lime burning it has been suggested that, on occasion, both bricks
and limestone were burned together in the same kiln (J.-P. Adam, La Construction
Romaine, p. 71, g. 154). However by far the most relevant practice is the tra-
ditional one used for burning bricks in modern Turkey and Greece. There is
no direct evidence that this method was used in antiquity. On the other hand
the method leaves no structural remains and is therefore consonant with their
absence from archaeological reporting. The work is carried out in an open
elda brick-eld. The bricks are stacked up in regularly placed heaps like
small haystacks. These are built up hollow with the fuel placed in the hollow
core of the stacks. When it is ignited the bricks are burned satisfactorily except
for those on the outer surface, which can always be fully burned in the next
ring. Attention has been drawn to this possibility on several occasions but the
practice has not been demonstrated archaeologically (R. Moorey, Ancient
Mesopotamian Materials, p. 306; J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, p. 66, g.
143). All told it seems a reasonable extrapolation for Ancient Mesopotamia
especially when very great numbers of burnt bricks are demanded, e.g. in the
construction of later ziggurats.
earthclay 113
Although arrangements for ring bricks in ancient Mesopotamia are still ques- Burnt
tionable, the overall process of manufacture seems quite well determined. This bricks
was a two stage process. First mud bricks were made in the normal fashion; Material
162 and when these bricks were sun dried suciently to be rm enough for han-
dling, they were taken to be stacked and burnt in a kiln or other device for
this purpose. Then this second stage operated to change the chemical compo-
sition of the material from mud to terra-cotta, a hard, rigid and strong sub-
stance similar in many ways to stone (i.e. it can be likened to metamorphic
rock).
In these circumstances it is a matter of interest whether any dierences existed
between mud bricks and the bricks prepared for burning/baking: i.e. between
raw (green) mud bricks and raw (green) burnt bricks. Possible dierences may
be manifested in (a) the composition and (b) the format of the bricks. In the
former connection the matter is not obvious. Burning the earth completely
changes its chemistry, so that the original components are no longer recognis-
able. Also modern burnt bricks are not necessarily parallel in composition to
ancient burnt bricks. One dierence in the composition of mud bricks and
burnt bricks is patent. Vegetal material (e.g. straw) is a standard additive to
the earth mix for mud bricks. Since such material is burnt up during the ring
of burnt bricks its use is contra-indicated. Its place as a binder in burnt bricks
is taken up by inorganic substances. With respect to the format of bricks, the
process of ring (or rather ecient ring) exercises an eect. The chemical
change produced by baking should extend evenly throughout the unit. Thus
the section of a burnt brick should be such that no part of the brick be far
removed from the surface for the brick to be thoroughly baked in the shortest
time. In this way burnt bricks tended to be more restricted in height (i.e. atter)
than some mud bricks. Also burnt bricks as a very general rule followed the
standard square format of Mesopotamian bricks. This at square form taken
by ancient burnt bricks suggests a tile rather than a brick to the modern view,
and they are often popularly referred to as tilesimproperly since the denitive
characteristic of a tile (tegula) is that it is a covering, not a load bearing element.
The eect of the second stage of brick making, that of burning/baking/
ring, is not easy to convey in non-scientic terms However some idea of the
chemical changes produced in the material is given by indicating the succes-
sive eects of increasing the temperature to which the material is exposed.
The rst (non-chemical) change is to dry the material by driving out the
water retained in its pores (water of plasticity) because of the humidity and the
pressure of the atmosphere. This is eected by raising the temperature from
room temperature to boiling point or somewhat over (i.e. from ca 20C to
100/120C) so that the water is vaporised and escapes as steam. Next any
114 chapter four
Burnt organic material in the mixture is broken down chemically (e.g. into carbon
bricks etc.) at about 200C. This, of course, renders inoperative the presence of straw
process of etc in the earth mix as tempering. The next change is the substantive chem-
firing ical change which transforms the earth into terra-cotta, and it operates between
ca 400C and 700C with a maximum at ca 600Ci.e. bricks of a sort can
be produced by burning at a temperature of ca 600C. Here the chemically
bound water in the clay particles, the water of crystallisation (structural water),
is driven o. At this stage the material is theoretically a collection of completely
dry particles. Raising the temperature from 700 to 800 then burns out the
carbon (and sulphur) content. This combines with oxygen and escapes as gas
(hence the process is termed oxydation). And nally raising the temperature
still further to ca 900 begins notable chemical changes which progressively
convert the material into glass (vitrication). The soda and potash elements
react with the silica causing it to melt and this operates progressively with
increasing heat to ll the pores between the particles and eventually to trans-
form these also, so that if the ring were to continue the whole body would
melt and become glass. In eect the nal product terra-cotta, consists of chem-
ically changed particles welded together by molten glass which on cooling sets
solid and binds the material together into a unied mass which is denser (the
material shrinks during vitrication), stronger, harder and durable, very resistent
to heat and more or less impermeable. This articial building material manu-
factured in the ancient world from ca 3,000 BC onwards was ca 15% denser
than mud brick but ve times as strong in compression. It was lighter than
any commonly used building stone but its compressive strength was consider-
ably greater than some (almost double that of some limestones). For versatility
and convenience it has never been improved upon by any subsequent articial
building material.
The above account of burnt brick making and the nal product in Mesopotamia
in principle should hold good for other ancient burnt bricks. Whether the method
of ring bricks in later (e.g. RomanByzantine) times changed is not certain. 164, 165
Manuals of building construction refer to discoveries of Roman brick kilns, yet
illustrations (e.g. J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, pp. 6465) are usually of
traditional modern kilns. The same diculty of economic ring of large quan-
tities of bricks in pottery type kilns would seem to apply (although passing ref-
erence to Roman brick kilns give the impression that they were of this type).
Manufacturing processes in modern times have diversied and changed in essen-
tials. The two distinct stages of manufacture have tended to run into one another,
while the ring is more generally a continuous process rather than intermittent
(i.e. the kiln etc. is kept in continuous operation and the bricks pass through it on
a moving carriage, entering raw and emerging baked); However so far as is
earthclay 115
known nothing approaching these developments took place in the ancient world. Burnt
The technological development during antiquity in manufacturing burnt brick bricks
has not been at all claried. A logical overall assessment of the little evidence later his-
available is that bricks (like lime and gypsum) were originally burned in pits or tory
non-structural heaps (clamps) where the bricks and the fuel were not separated
and that this method always remained current. However during Roman times
(perhaps for the production of high quality bricks) some bricks were burned in
kilns operating on the model of pottery kilns. Unfortunately the detailed evi-
dence to support this conclusion has not been made readily accessible.
It is unfortunate that so little can be said of the ancient technology of man-
ufacturing burnt brick. As things stand, to speak of the history of burnt bricks
in the ancient world is virtually to speak of the history of its use rather than
of its manufactureand particular developments will be discussed in that con-
nection. However some overall view of the matter is required here.
The culmination of burnt brick construction in Mesopotamia was during
174, 175 Neo-Babylonian times (cf the famous Ishtar Gate at Babylon, reconstructed in
the Berlin Museum). And until that time there is very little conclusive evidence
for the structural use of burnt brick (i.e. as a load bearing material) in regions
other than Mesopotamia. This, of course, is not to say that architectural use
of burnt earth/clay (= terra-cotta) was unknown in other regions. Terra cotta
182 roong tiles were developed in Greece during the second millenium BC while
178 terra cotta plaques were applied as revetments to the entablature of early Greek
and Etruscan temples contemporary with neo-babylonian times. However archaeo-
logical reports of early burnt brick construction in other regions (e.g. the Levant)
appear as isolated exceptional instances, perhaps serving some special purpose.
Also they are sometimes reassessed as mud brick burnt in a destructive
conagration rather than as burnt brick.
With the downfall of the Babylonian Empire, burnt brick construction con-
tinued in Mesopotamia and regions under its inuence. It was maintained dur-
ing Hellenistic (Seleucid) rule and in Parthian times (v A.V. Pope, A Survey of
Persian, Art Vol. 1 chap. 23). However it was not accepted to any degree in
161 Persia neither in Achaemenid nor in Sassanian times. In fact the next occasion
historically when burnt brick became a prominent building material was in a
region far removed from Mesopotamia, so that its new occurence has been tac-
itly accepted as independent and little has been said about this strange dis-
jointed history. During the rst century AD burnt brick became a staple building
material in Rome and thence was spread throughout many provinces of the
Empire. The facts of this new avatar of burnt brick are extensively documented
but, nonetheless, the rationale of its origin is not yet made fully evident.
Mud brick was as common a material for (non-monumental) building in
116 chapter four
Burnt Rome as anywhere else. However there is little evidence for the use of burnt
bricks brick as a structural material in republican Rome. Thus the often reported
later his- boast of Augustus that he found Rome brick and left it marble has been inter-
tory in the preted generally to refer to mud brick. The very detailed study of Delbrueck
Roman (Hellenistische Bauten in Latium, Stuttgart, 1910) established the view that the use
world of burnt brick was more developed in Hellenistic southern Italy and Sicily than
in contemporary Rome (Delbrueck, Vol. II, pp. 9597). The use of burnt brick
in southern Italy was to be explained by the close community of the Hellenistic
world establishing a direct link with Seleucid Asia. Equally the great develop-
ment of Roman Concrete during the rst century BC provided a material
exactly parallel to burnt brick in versatility, thus militating against the use of
burnt brick. In this way it was reckoned that the great enterprise of Roman
brick making grew up later in response to the demand created by a change in
the manner of Roman concrete building. Whereas this construction had orig-
inally been faced by stone, towards the middle of the rst century AD it was
found that burnt brick was a more functional and economic material for this
purpose. It appeared that at rst the brick facing was obtained by re-using
demolished scrap brick and tile. Then when the construction proved so eective
a brick making industry on the largest scale surged up to supply the required
material rst hand.
There are, however, some diculties with this view and recently it has been
questioned, with a view to indicating the earlier existence of burnt brick
at Rome (F. Sear, Roman Architecture, London, 1988, pp. 7476). If the original
re-used material were thought of as deriving more or less entirely from old
roong tiles (as discussed by Vitruvius 2.8.19), then it is a fairly straight forward
matter since a supply of this material was certainly available at the time. However
if it is understood that old burnt bricks were also re-used as for the earliest
opus testaceum, then this infers the prior development of burnt brick in Rome.
Whatever may be the circumstances of its original development, brick faced
Roman Concrete construction in its mature form incorporated much burnt
brick in addition to the facing units. The normal opus testaceum wall included
several through courses of whole burnt bricks at regular vertical intervals, while
the wall was also articulated by burnt brick coigning and framing (of door and
window apertures). Equally lintels and arcading as also ribbing in vaults were
constructed in burnt brick, as entire vaulted roofs. In this way burnt brick came
to occupy across much of the Roman world the pre-eminent position as a mon-
umental building material it had occupied in Mesopotamia during past ages.
However this state of aairs did not continue until the end of the Ancient
World. The transfer of the main capital city from Rome to Constantinople
early in the 4th century AD brought to an end Roman Concrete construction.
earthclay 117
The reasons for this are not obvious, but the fact is unmistakeable. Obviously Burnt
this, in turn, completely altered the situation for burnt brick as a building mate- bricks
rial. The rle of Roman Concrete in Constantinople was taken up by a recrude- later his-
scence of older traditional building materials: dressed stone, mortared rubble, tory in the
168 and also solid load bearing burnt brick. Thus burnt brick as a material was Byzantine
not eclipsed by the disappearance of opus testaceum, but (in much the same for- world
mat) it maintained its importance in another mode of construction.
In the past this transformation, if remarked on at all, has generally been
assumed to be a natural evolution of Roman Concrete. Yet more recent stud-
ies of building history have sought to provide another basis for solid burnt brick
construction in Constantinople, which carried on after the end of the Ancient
World to be at the heart of Mediaeval Byzantine Architecture (J.B. Ward
Perkins, Building Methods of Early Byzantine Architecture in D. Talbot Rice
ed. The Great Palace of the Byzantine Emperors II, Edinburgh, 1958, pp. 52104;
H. Dodge, Brick Construction in Roman Greece and Asia Minor, in
S. Macready & H. Thompson, ed. Roman Architecture in the Greek World, London,
1987, pp. 106116; The Architectural Impact of Rome in the East in M.
Henig, Architecture in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1990, pp. 108120). It has come
to be appreciated that there was a considerable amount of monumental solid
167, 169 burnt brick construction in some eastern provinces, very notably in Anatolia,
during the early Empire, e.g. 2nd century AD. Whereas this was once assumed
to be a sign of metropolitan Roman inuence, it is now suggested that it may
be thought of rather as indigenous survival of a tradition established in Hellenistic
times, which can be derived directly from Mesopotamia. And it is suggested
that the development of burnt brick construction in Constantinople may owe
more to this background than it does to a transformation from opus testaceum
Roman Concrete. (Thus although it is not noticed, the riddling question Rom
oder Orient is endemic to Byzantine architecture, applying to construction equally
as to design.) The overall eect of this drift in analysis is to restore some unity
to the history of burnt brick in the Ancient World (which otherwise has appeared
so disjointed) by establishing a measure of continuity between Babylon and
Byzantium.
Terra-Cotta Revetting
The physical properties of baked clay recommend it as a material for cladding

the exposed surfaces of other building materials. This practice serves either or
both the structural interest and the aspectual interest of the building, i.e. it is
employed as protection and/or as decoration. In the former interest well red
118 chapter four
Terra- terra-cotta is a very hard and durable substnacewaterproof, re proof and

cotta very resistant to weathering. In the second interest it has a pleasing colour and
revetting texture and can be decorated readily by moulding, impressing etc. In this fash-
in ion from the very beginning terra-cotta products have been employed as revet-
Mesopo- ting to other structural materials. In ancient Mesopotamia the structural material
tamia was inevitably mud brick. Elsewhere in later times it could be e.g. rubble
masonry, wood etc. In so far as terra-cotta revetting serves a structural inter-
est as protection, some notice of it is given below.
Mesopotamian Cone Mosaics

The earliest known form of terra-cotta wall revetting (from ca 3,000 BC) is a
highly idio-syncratic device, very functional and very decorative. It consists of
baked clay cones ca 10 cms long, base diameter ca 23 cms embedded in a 170
thick mud coating to the face of the mud brick wall (or columns). The exposed
bases were dipped into various colours and the dierent coloured cones set con-
tiguously to form bold geometric patterns (zig-zags, lozenges, etc.). Thus the
device may be likened to a wall mosaic using large clay cones rather than small
stone tesserae. NB These mosaic patterns are represented on ancient wall paint-
ing and on models.
It seems that this type of facing was reckoned particularly apposite to columns
and engaged semi-columns. There is some evidence to show that these terra-
cotta cones, derived from original stone versions, while the polychrome pat-
terns have been explained as reproducing decoratively woven wall mat hangings.
In any event cone mosaics serve equally as protection and as decoration. There
are also variants of this device, both cones with impressed ends and also com-
pletely hollow cones like pottery vessels (H. Frankfort, Art and Architecture of the
Ancient Orient, p. 9; R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, p. 309).
Mesopotamian Wall Plaques

The practice of axing decorative plaques to a wall by way of facing is an
obvious one and miscellaneous instances occur generally, including in ancient
Mesopotamia. However in Mesopotamia during the later 2nd millenium BC
and notably during the rst millenium BC this practice assumed a distinctive
form. The terra-cotta plaques (sometimes glazed) have painted decoration and 171, 172
were secured to the wall by a terra-cotta peg or pin (or nail = sikkatu) with a
bulbous head passing through a hole in the centre of the plaque. Both the peg
and the plaque are equally decorative and it may be that the pegs or similar
devices were also used separately on their own account. Again it seems this
earthclay 119
device derives from earlier stone plaques axed in the same manner (R. Moorey, Glazed
Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, pp. 31314; A. Nunn, Die Wandmalerei und der brick his-
glasierte Wandschmuck in Alten Orient, pp. 160 .). torical
develop-
ment
Mesopotamian Glazed Brick
A striking feature of monumental brick building in Mesopotamia during the
later second and the rst millenium BC is the incorporation of moulded relief
and/or glazed ornament on the face of walls both internal and external. Indeed
the profusion of glazed bricks in surface debris was a principal motive prompt-
ing the original German excavations programme in Mesopotamia. It is possi-
ble to notice the practice here although it was clearly decorative in intent rather
than structural, since the vehicle is burnt brick which may protect a mud brick
core. Unfortunately whereas its decorative connections have been closely stud-
ied and dealt with at length in manuals, structural questions (i.e. the construc-
tion of the walls, with the attachment or incorporation of the facing) have been
generally by-passed.
The use of glazed brickwork appears to have a well marked succession in
173177 Mesopotamia. In fact for the later second millenium BC, although there are
textual references to the practice, there is little surviving archaeological evidence
of it. In Assyria during the late Assyrian period (ca 1,000 BC600 BC) deco-
rated glazed brickwork became an important feature in monumental building.
Here the glazed decoration was pictorali.e. it was the equivalent of mural
painting on, e.g. stucco, plaster etc. Then in Babylon during the Neo-Babylonian
era (7th6th century BC) glazed brickwork became an even more striking fea-
ture of display architecture, with the salient development that now the deco-
ration was not only pictoral but was also expressed in relief. And this feature
was maintained by the Achaemenid rulers in their capital at Susa (R. Moorey,
Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, pp. 31519 .; H. Frankfort, AAAO, pp. 80, 108,
23031; A. Nunn, pp. 34141).
Since glazed brick represents an ultimate stage in the linear development
from mud brick through burnt brick, some mention of the processes involved
is indicated, even though the feature in itself has little or no structural signicance
(NB it is only a question of ring at a suciently high temperature to transform
terra-cotta into a vitreous material). The following remarks are limited as far
as possible to the building operations connected with glazed brickworkthey
do not deal with the chemistry of glazing nor the technique or applying the glaze.
It is useful to begin with one or two general observations. The most basic
consideration of all is quite noteworthy. Down to the end of the Babylonian
regime the composition of brick destined for glazing appears to have been the
120 chapter four
Assyrian normal brick mixture. However in the Achaemenid period a special brick was
glazed fabricated, which in broad general was not loamy, but was a special mix of
brick lime and sand (i.e. after the nature of modern sand-lime bricks). (R. Moorey,
pictorial p. 319.) Two interests may have been envisaged in this regard.
decoration
(a) to ensure better adhesion of the glaze
(b) to avoid damage to the body mixture during the second (higher tempera-
ture) ring of the glaze.
The second general consideration is that is has always been accepted in dis-
cussion that these glazed bricks must have received a double ring, one at a
moderate temperature to re the body material, and a second at a consider-
ably higher temperature to re the glaze mixture. This, of course, renders the
manufacture of the glazed bricks more onerous, and some modern praticing
potters might question the necessity for this, unless it can be conclusively demon-
strated. However in the following outline the position is accepted.
The Assyrian use of glazed brickwork, decorated only pictorially is straight-
forward to characterise. It comprises the following stages:
(1) Normal burnt bricks are laid in a temporary mock-up to give a panel of
sucient size to accommodate the pictorial decoration.
(2) The pictorial decoration is painted in outline on the face of this brick panel,
and then the glaze is applied to the design.
(3) The individual bricks are then marked and numbered (e.g. on the back) to
record their position, course by course, in the panel.
(4) The numbered bricks are then dismantled and red in a kiln a second time
at a higher temperature to eect the glazing.
(5) After ring the glazed bricks are laid in their correct position on the wall
in accordance with the numbering.
Far otherwise is the situation with the brickwork decorated in glazed relief at
Babylon and Susa in Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid times. These features 174177
are correctly estimated as world masterpieces of decoration, and have been
much discussed. However the discussion has not explained convincingly crucial
technology in their execution.
Given the nature of the body material of the bricks and that of the glaze to
be applied, there are four processes to be eected:
(1) The working of the relief decoration on the surface of each individual brick.
(2) The application of the glaze.
earthclay 121
(3) The ring both of the brick and of the applied glaze. Neo-Baby-
(4) The laying of the nished glazed bricks. lonian
glazed
Much of the published discussion is taken up with details of the latter three brick relief
factors, but the crucial question of imparting the relief decoration to the face decoration
of the individual bricks has not been settled. The most recent general survey
of glazed brickwork is that of Moorey (Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, pp.
31532). He states that the relief on the face of each individual brick was
imparted to it at the time of its original moulding, without giving any sucient
explanation of how this was done (R. Moorey, p. 321). He says only that an
original negative mould was made of the entire relief feature and from this
master mould the face moulds for each individual brick were preparedand
somehow incorporated into the mould for each individual brick. How? Such a
proceedure seems so dicult that it requires detailed explanation.
There are two basic alternatives which are logically possible:
(a) The relief was formed by an additional subsequent moulding after the orig-
inal brick had been given its form but was still in a plastic condition.
(b) The relief was not moulded at all, but was modelled or carved while the
bricks were in a plastic condition and assembled together in the mock-up.
These remarks are clearly provisional only and subject to modication arising
from detailed study of the material remains (cf A. Nunn, pp. 15152).
Greek and Etruscan Fictile Revetments

The Classical Greek Temple included as one of its signicant formative ele-
178 ments an idiosyncratic and highly successful use of terra-cotta claddingoften
referred to as ctile revetments. Developments in construction were such that
Greek temples later grew out of the manner, but as the temple was evolving
quickly into its standard make up during later archaic times (6th and early 5th
century BC) the crowning parts of the building presented an expansive aspect
of terra-cotta with its lively warm texture further enlivened with relief and
painted polychrome decoration. However this striking aspect was not the orig-
inal raison dtre of the feature. Terra-cotta sheathing was applied to these parts
of the temple in the rst instance to protect the largely wooden construction
expressing the new peristylar, gabled roofed design. This exposed woodwork
may well have been found to deteriorate more rapidly than the masonry of the
walling, thus requiring protection to bring a balanced durability.
Great mastery was being acquired over moulding and ring terra-cotta and
122 chapter four
Fictile the use of this medium was extended from the roof tiling and its associated
Revetments ornament to manufacture plaques and sections to sheathe and box in these
Historical exposed wooden membersfunction for which terra-cotta was well suited as it
develop- was specially resistant to weathering. In addition the material and the process
ment in of manufacture (moulding) made it possible very readily to apply decoration to
Greece this terra-cotta cladding. The members could be given mouldings and also
and Italy relief decoration, while the smooth surface was an admirable ground for colours.
So ctile revetments developed out of the functional need for revetting exposed
woodwork.
Soon, however, much of this woodwork was being replaced by dressed stone
members. This notwithstanding it appears that for some time the accustomed
device of decorated terra-cotta sheathing of the entablature members contin-
ued with terra-cotta elements xed to the stone grounds in the same way as
they had previously been xed to the wood. At this stage the practice was los-
ing its functional basis of protection. The stone structure did not require pro-
tection and in fact could itself be the vehicle for the decoration applied to the
terra-cotta. In this way terra-cotta revetting became outmoded in the 5th cen-
turyand the growing use of marble was diametrically opposed to it (R. Martin,
pp. 87112; A. Orlandos, pp. 7580). Only in Italy it continued in vogue. Since
the entire superstructure of the Etruscan Temple continued to be built of mud
brick and wood, terra-cotta cladding remained relevent. And where Roman
temples of the Late Republic maintained a traditional Etruscan style, terra-cotta
cladding continued also in Rome (A. Boethius, Etruscan and Roman Architecture,
pp. 5154).
An arresting matter concerning ctile revetments is the technology involved.
Since this is seldom referred to in detail, it is worth while mentioning here
some of the technological problems, even if they can not be fully resolved.
Revetting entablature units with terra-cotta entails the following processes: (1)
Mixing; (2) Moulding/Modelling; (3) Firing; (4) Fixing; (5) Decorating. Each of
these processes involves diculties of detail; and their combination adds up to
very advanced technological productionon the face of it more recondite tech-
nology than ne stone dressing which succeeded it.
It would be of interest to learn whether special clay was mixed for ring
these terra-cotta revetments. Orlandos (p. 80) in passing remarks that clay of
dierent consistencies was employed for dierent components of an acroterion.
However it is the detailed proceedure of moulding which evokes most ques-
tioning. The form of the revetments themselves do not import undue diculties
in principle they are either plates or open box sections with the inner faces not
exposed. Thus they are amenable to moulding in one piece moulds. However
when this revetting incorporates relief decoration, then in theory the procedure
earthclay 123
becomes very problematical. Individual circumstances vary widely, but in prin- Fictile
ciple two categories of ornament are in issuearchitectural proling (mould- Revetments
ings) and facial decoration, often gural. Obviously the former, the mouldings, Fabrica-
were worked in the mould which formed the revetting. This, however, raises tion &
a question as to the material of the moulds. It is dicult to see that these forms Fixing
were carved or constructed in negative in wood. So presumably the moulds
themselves were also of moulded clay. However when relief facial decoration,
including e.g. water spouts, comes into the reckoning, there are obvious problems.
Theoretically a number of dierent processes could have been employed as
apposite. The most straightforward theoretically is to incorporate all the fea-
tures in the original mould and thus produce the entire terra-cotta revetting
element with all its decoration in one operation. This, however, does not appear
very practical for salient features, e.g. water spouts. It is thus worthwhile indi-
cating alternative processes such as could have been applied by subsequent indi-
vidual moulding (or impression). Another alternative would be for some (projecting)
mouldings to be worked entirely separately and later axed in some way to
the revetting (e.g. by luting). There is also the viable alternative of working
relief decoration in the face of terra-cotta revetting not by moulding at all, but
by modelling. Indeed where the decoration is gural and unique this would
seem the most economic procedure. It should be noted that much of the above
circumstances apply also to procedures employed in ornamental plastering.
Equally the process of ring terra-cotta revetting is not obvious. There are
two main alternatives. Either such material was fashioned in terra-cotta ateliers
together with roong tiles, away from the site, or (far more likely) an atelier
was established at the site including a kiln or other ring device. However here
another factor enters into consideration. Much of the terra-cotta revetting was
painted in polychrome. These colours were subsequently very exposed. Was the
terra-cotta painted before ring to better x the colours? In which case ring
would inevitably be in a kiln.
With regard to xing the revetting to its grounds there is evidence that this
178 was eected by large copper nails. This is a logical and straightforward process
when the grounds are wood, and the practice emphasizes that ctile revetments
originated in connection with wooden entablature members. However to ax
terra-cotta revetting to stone is by no means a straightforward process. Nonetheless
it appears that the process of nailing or spiking was continued. Only here com-
plications ensued. Some sort of plug needed to be let into the stone to take
the naila rawlplug in current English expression. This must have been of
wood sunk into a cutting in the stone.
The antecedents of Greek ctile revetments are obscure. Nothing directly
ressembling this structurally is known from the Ancient Middle East (although,
124 chapter four
Brick fac- of course, motifs of decoration in considerable measure are derived from Assyria).
ing to On the other hand this inuence can be regarded as far reaching, since a great
Roman deal of the sculptural ornament of the Classical Greek temple appears to have
concrete been rst carried out in terra-cotta. The rapid rise and fall of these revetments
must be one of the most spectacular vagaries in ancient building technology.
It illustrates the changes endemic in building which are not always attributable
to material factors, but on occasion may accrue from conicting and changing
ideological attitudes operating in a quite unlooked for way.
Opus Testaceum
It is generally reckoned that by the middle of the rst century AD it had
become a norm to use burnt bricks reduced to a triangular shape as lost shut- 238241
tering for Roman Concrete wall construction. This further promoted the devel-
opment of Roman Concrete since these triangular bricks were easier and quicker
to lay than the material previously used for this purpose, small block stone
masonry in various forms (opus incertum, opus vittatum, opus reticulatum). Also the
triangular form of the units in conjunction with their bonding provided for an
eective keying between the core material and the facing.
It has been supposed that these triangular units were rst obtained by divid-
ing up old roong tiles and square bricks of standard format, but that later tri-
angular shaped bricks were specially moulded for the purpose (for detailed
treatment v chap. 6 below). The length of these facing bricks varied from ca
20 cms to ca 45 cms depending on the size of the original square brick form
and the method of dividing it diagonally into triangles. The tailing into the
wall was somewhat less. The bricks were at, ca 34 cms in thickness with the
mortar joint something like half this thickness. The successful functioning of
this form of burnt brick facing is attested by the fact that it remained the norm
until Roman Concrete Construction was abandonedi.e. it continued in use
without modication for ca 250 years. The many passage of opus testaceum still
surviving further demonstrate its structural eciency and its durability. They
also illustrate its ne aspect. However it must be understood that the latter
attribute was not a concern in antiquity, since such wall faces were normally
plastered or revetted with marble ( J.-P. Adam, pp. 15762; F. Sear, Roman
Architecture, p. 76).
Roman Wall Tiles

Wall tiling was not a noticable feature of Roman building constructionand
it is dicult to establish parietalis (= wall tile) as a term in ancient usage. However
earthclay 125
there is evidence that on occasion tiles were hung as facing to internal walls. Roman
In the main this practice may have been more general in colder regions of the wall tiles
Empire, e.g. Britain. So far as is apparent such tiles were not distinctive in
form. To facilitate ring Roman burnt bricks were of a minimal thickness, and
thus the normal burnt brick was only ca 35 cms thick; which was a func-
tional section for wall tiling. What, in fact, identies units as wall tiles are two
secondary factors:
(a) lozenge pattern scoring on the rear

(b) marginal notches or, alternatively, nail holes.
These are devices to facilitate securing the tile to the wall, and respectively they
indicate two distinct manners of using wall tiles. In the rst instance tiles can
be hung directly against the face of the wall, where the scoring aords better
keying into plaster grounds, and the tiling is simple nishing. In the second
instance the notches or holes may operate in conjunction with cramps etc which
x the tiling in advance of the core face, so that in fact the wall becomes a
cavity wall. This may serve several functional purposes (e.g. damp proong for
mural decoration), but principally it is to provide for central heating, so tht hot
air from hypocausts circulates in the most extensive way (G. Broadribb, Roman
Brick and Tiling, Gloucester, 1987, pp. 5860). Such tiling is then entirely par-
allel in function to tegulae mammatae or contiguously set tubuli which are employed
to line walls in the heated rooms of bath buildings ( J.-P. Adam, pp. 29293).
For convenience oor tiling may also be noticed here. In spite of the pop-
ularity of terra-cotta oor tiling throughout Mediterranean regions in modern
times, such ooring was not common in antiquity. However instances occur in
180 Roman Italy of ooring arranged by setting normal tiles on edge in herring
bone bond ( J.-P. Adam, p. 25).
Terra-Cotta Roong Tiles

Terra-cotta roong tiles have been an important feature of building since the
182186 second millenium BC in the Western World. They never became naturalised
in the East, and their presence in the Middle East is always a sign of Western
inuence. They infer roofs with a distinct pitch, where their function is to water-
proof the structure so that water is shed from it forthwith, not absorbed into
it. Thus they indicate expectation of sucient rainfall that the roof is not con-
sidered as convenient living and working space. In general terra-cotta roong
tiles will bear the weight of a man, but he must go gingerly on them.
Terra-cotta tiles are sizeable and heavy. The at pantile is rectangular, and
126 chapter four
Terra- a median dimension of ca 60 cms is not outsize (e.g. ca 70 cms 50 cms);

cotta normal thickness is, say, 23 cms. The weight of such a terra-cotta tile is ca
roong 1314 kilograms. Thus the gross weight of tiling to cover a small room of e.g.
tiles 3 m 3 m would be well over 1 ton. The load of the terra-cotta roong to
a large Greek temple, e.g. the Parthenon, is very considerable indeed, say 500
tons. This means that the supporting spars of the timber framed roof must be
very solid.
It is essential that roong tiles be rmly xed in position (they are the most
exposed to elemental forces of all the components of a building). This entails
both that they must be xed to one another and that they must be xed to
the roong structure. In this way, ideally, the tiling becomes a single unit which
does not slip down-slope or lift o its grounds. This xation is eected in part
by the dead weight of the tiles, and in addition by various interlocking engage-
ments built into the detailed design of the tiles. The tiles may be set directly
on a suitably prepared wooden frame or be embedded in plaster grounds.
The principle of Greek terra-cotta tiling is simple. It is to set tiles in con-
tinuous rows running down the slope of the roof, so that each row constitutes
a gutter to discharge the water directly down slope to the verges and o the
roof. For this purpose the cross section of the tiles stands high at the sides and
low in the middle (like a gutter), while the toe of the tile upslope overlaps the
tile downslope. The upstanding sides of the tile minimise water penetrating
between the tiles set side by side, while the overlap minimises water penetrat-
ing between higher and lower tiles in the same row. This basic concept is fur-
ther developed in the detailing. The but joints between the lateral upstands of
the tiles are covered by descending rows of special cover tiles, and the termi-
nal overlap is arranged with regard that water does not drive back up-slope or
creep back up slope by capillary action.
To provide for these overall requirements two or three distinct systems of 183
terra-cotta roong tiles were developed by Greek builders, and carried on in
Roman building. A brief resum of the forms is given here, but the detailing
is intricate and can be quite tricky to appreciate. There is also a complemen-
tary factor in that roof tiles are rather useful generally and very often re-used
in various ways. For this purpose cuttings and chippings were made which are
confusing (in general Martin, pp. 65106; Orlandos, pp. 8197; Adam, pp.
23031).
Whereas it was once assumed that all Bronze Age roong in Greece and the
Aegaean was the at mud terrace roong employed so generally, it is now 182
realised that a considerable amount of Greek roong during the 2nd millenium
BC was set at a gentle pitch and covered with terra-cotta tiles of roughly the
same nature as those used in Classical times.
earthclay 127
It is thus a vexed question whether some conception of roong tiles contin- Terra-
ued across the centuries from the end of the Bronze Age until roong tiles cotta
became a standard building material (by ca 600 BC). Pliny (NH VII 56, 195) roong
preserves a fable that roong tiles were invented by Kinyras (King of Paphos tiles
in Cyprus). This on the face of it might suggest that tiles were regarded as
having a Phoenecian origin, but such a view is completely against all archae-
ological evidence. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that when increasing pros-
perity during later Archaic times made the manufacture of terra-cotta tiles viable
economically, chance survivals of Bronze Age tiles (in rubbish heaps etc.) served
as models to instigate inventiveness. The example of Mycenaean roof tiling
182 commonly illustrated (e.g. Martin, p. 87, g. 38) shows a system resembling
that later known as Sicilian, (i.e. at roof tiles (tegulae) covered with tiles of
curved section (imbrices)). The at tiles are simply detailed. They have lateral
upstands (anges) like classical tiles, but the overlap is secured in an elemen-
tary way. The tiles are not rectangular; the sides splay apart so that the narrower
downslope end will slide down inside the broader upper end of the lower tile
for a short distance before jamming. These at tiles were not provided with
any other devices to assist engagement or promote water proong. They were
bedded on the plastered surface of the roof.
Whatever may or may not have been its background the development of
classical terra-cotta roong tiles was accelerated and widespread. Two readily
distinguishable systems evolvedthe simpler one perhaps more widely in evi-
dence at the beginning. These systems have come to be termed respectively
183 Laconian and Corinthian; but while there may be some regional basis to their
origins, very quickly they came to be alternative choices available everywhere.
In later times there is evidence that both types were manufactured at the same
factory.
Laconian style roong tiles are simpler in detailing. Equally they have a more
rustic appearance and thus are better suited to less monumental building.
The roof tile (tegula) is in cross section a shallow one set concave, while the
cover tile (imbrex) is often roughly semi-circular in cross section and set convex.
The proportion in breadth between the roof tile and the cover tile is ca 2:5,
which is common to all classical tiling. In the nature of things the roof tiles,
because of their curvature, were usually embedded in plaster to secure them
to the roong structure. The overlap was secured and stayed by a rebate across
the underside of the downslope end of the tile, so that the tile overrode the
next lower tile and was stopped from slipping further down slope by engage-
ment at the back of the rebate. Such a detail means that the surfaces of the
two tiles are in contact where they overlapand this is not ideal since damp
can ascend upslope between the tiles by capilliary action. This can be pre-
128 chapter four
Terra- vented by providing a downstand ange across the downslope end of the tile
cotta (a toe). Such a detail is best described in connection with the Corinthian style
roong where it is more typical.
tiles Well detailed Corinthian terra-cotta roong is very neat and ingenious build- 184
ing construction. It is eminently congruous for monumental gabled roong,
since the gabled section of the cover tiles chimes with the overall form of the
roof. The roof tiles (tegulae) are large, at tiles with upstanding lateral anges.
Also an upstanding ridge runs across the upslope end of the tile, generally about
half the section of the ange. This serves as a weathering bar to impede water
passing upslope and down behind the tile. On the contrary the foot of the tile
is downturned to form a toe (in section something like the lateral anges). This
is designed to rest on the upper surface of the next tile downslope several cen-
timetres in advance of its weathering bar. Thereby it constitutes an overlap
where the surfaces of the two tiles stand free of each other so as to avoid capil-
liary action. The lap is secured by sinking troughs at the front corners of the
underside of the tile which are negatives of the lateral anges of the tile below,
and engage with them to x the two tiles together. The lateral abutment of
adjacent tiles is weather proofed by rows of cover tiles with distinctive gabled
form set astride the lateral anges. These cover tiles keep step with the (exposed
downslope) foot of the roof tiles but are not attached to them by any inter-
locking device. Like the roof tiles the cover tiles overlap and are stopped against
the next lower one by lodging in rebates in the outer surface at the rear of the
downslope tile and/or being tapered so that the narrower foot ts inside the
broader head of the downslope tile. Cover tiles thus formed discrete rows rest-
ing stably on the roof tiles by dead weight and further weighing down the roof
tiles.
Ideally (as in the above account) the detailing of the tiles together with their
dead weight suce for their xation. They do not require any additional attach-
ment to one another or the underlying roof structure, i.e. by way of nailing
down or cementing together. However, in fact, tiles are found with nail holes
or traces of cement. It is normal practice to bed tiles on plaster grounds, but
plaster or cement between tiles or over tiles is a weakness since it promotes
the entry of damp. Unlike modern Marseilles tiles which incorporate arrange-
ments for wiring them to the underlying timbers, ancient roof tiles were not
reckoned to require nailing to the roof structure. The explanation of the pres-
ence of nail holes (as indeed cement) is that they provide for exceptional cases
or later repairs. It is also possible that auxilliary fastening is more a feature of
Roman times (C. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile, pp. 911). The most obvi-
ous case for nailing tiles in position is the lowest course of tiles, particularly if
these are hung as protecting eaves tiles, where some fastening would be oblig-
earthclay 129
atorytegulas primores omnes in antepagmento ferro gito marginem imponito (Lex Terra-
Puteolana 105 BC, CIL 2 698). cotta
In explaining the system of tiling using two separate forms of tile, the roof roong
tile and the cover tile, the following matter should be noted. From the very tiles
beginning of development versions of roong tiles were manufactured combin-
ing roof tile and cover tile into a single uniti.e. a form resembling modern
Marseilles tiles. However this scheme never became standard. Since it aords
obvious advantages in laying the tiling, these advantages must have been out-
weighed by countervailing disadvantages. Perhaps increased fragility in handling
may have been a factor. Certainly complication in the process of manufacture
would be very great. Was this reected in the price? If so the question may
be sucient resolved.
Only sucient has been said here to indicate the basic ratio of terra-cotta
tiling. In addition to the common roof tile and the cover tile, it is obvious that
a number of other forms were required for special emplacementse.g. ridge
186 tiles, valley tiles, gutter tiles, skylights etc. Such specialised tiles give over to
associated terra-cotta elements which are largely or wholly decorativee.g.
water spouts, antexae, acroteria etc. There are also quite dierent tile forms
for use with circular, or rather conical, roofs (i.e. for tholoi). These in general
are at and (either angular or curved) overlap after the manner of sh scales
(Orlandos, pp. 8889, g. 62; G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile, p. 18).
The two basic systems of roof tiling, so quickly evolved towards 600 BC,
remained, in principle, current as long as the classical tradition of monumen-
tal building survived. (There was, in fact, a third variant termed Sicilian, where
185 the roof tiles were at like Corinthian and the cover tiles curved like Laconian.)
It is often possible to distinguish later Roman tiling from earlier Greek tiling,
because of the cruder form of the detailing in the Roman tiles; however the
systems were obviously ecient and maintained their identity for a very long
period, i.e. approaching a thousand years. Nonetheless they eventually declined,
and they did not outlast the ancient world. These systems of terra-cotta tiling
were designed for covering plane surfacespitched roofs of some sort. With
the increasing presence of vaulted and domed roong in the monumental con-
struction of late antiquity the traditional tiling was less ideal. Allied with this
was the diculty of manufacture. Moulding and ring (especially) the Corinthian
type roof tile (tegula) with its complicated bifacial detailing was very demand-
ing. (It is recorded that when the Stoa of Attalos in the Athenian Agora was
rebuilt in its original design and construction during the 1950s, one third of
the roong tiles manufactured had to be discarded because of defects.) In this
way the form of tile which remained more functional, aspectually appropriate,
and also was simpler to manufacture was the curved Laconian type. Also, as
130 chapter four
Terra- a further simplication, only one form of tile (the cover tile) was esssential. It
cotta could be set in rows alternately concave and convex thus overlapping laterally
roong as well as vertically. This was the simple form of terra-cotta tiling that survived
tiles into the modern world and is now known variously as mission tiling, monk and
nun tiling or (misleadingly) as Roman tiling.
Very little has been said anywhere about the manufacture of terra-cotta
roong tiles, which on the face of things was no simple operation. The tiles
were red in kilns in the same manner as pottery. Surviving remains of kilns
have been identied as specically for the production of roong tiles; and it 164, 165
seems such kilns were rectangular rather than the circular design of pottery
kilns. It is likely that other (ornamental) terra-cottas associated with roof tiling
were also red in these kilns, e.g. acroteria, antexae etc. (However it is unlikely
that these kilns were also used for ring burnt bricks, the production of which
remained most probably always a separate industry.) Unfortunately the manufacture
of green tiles appears to have been little investigated. Obviously the tiles were
moulded but no moulds are discussed or illustrated in the manuals. A surprising
number of models have been discovered and appear in the manuals (Orlandos,
pp. 90, 91; gs. 6365; Martin, p. 68, g. 23). These, however, are versions 187
of tiles carved in stone intended to record the standard form and dimensions
of roof tiles so that production is uniform. They are not moulds, although
moulds could be prepared from them. It is supposed that moulds were wooden.
Certainly moulds were required to be sturdy, yet reasonably light for ease of
handling since production of tiles needed to be at a quick tempo to be economical.
Two very basic questions concerning moulding tiles have not been resolved,
indeed not discussed. Was the process in outline like that of brick making
i.e. the moulded green tile was immediately freed from the mould and deposited
on the ground to dry in the sun until competent for handling, then stacked to
dry further in the sun before being placed in the kiln for ring? There are
diculties here. Unlike bricks, roong tiles have fragile projections which would
greatly complicate the process of extracting them from the mould and resting
them on the ground. However an even more basic question is the process of
moulding and the nature of the mould. If the mould were an open mould,
only one face of the tile can be mouldedand all roong tiles vary in the
detailing of the upper and lower faces. In some instances it can be envisaged
that one face (the upper) can be moulded while the lower face is modelled,
incised and impressed etc by hand. However, in other instances, the detail on
both face is equally complicated. In some instances (e.g. combined roof and
cover tiles) the detail is very elaborate indeed. N. Winter appears to indicate
the successive use of two separate open moulds, but the explanation is not rig-
orous (Greek Architectural Terra Cottas, pp. 30506). In this connection it is instruc-
earthclay 131
tive to mention that roong tiles in later classical times (5th century BC) were Water
also fabricated from stone. The dressing of these stone tiles must have been supply
a very delicate, time consuming and costly operation. And it would be very and
interesting to compare the relative cost of carved marble and of terra-cotta drainage
roong tiles. ttings
Terra-Cotta Service Auxillaries

Its impermeability makes terra-cotta a very suitable material for fashioning con-
duits and containers. In some ways the invention of pottery vessels was neces-
sary for the full development of sedentary village settlement. It provided for the
transport and storage of water as required on an increased scale. More notably
still, urbanisation transformed this aspect of things. High density habitation
within city walls demanded superior facilities of hygiene, sanitation etc which
could only be provided by ecient water supply and drainage. This, in turn,
depended on available conduits of all shapes and sizes. These were the equiv-
alent of one time pottery vessels carried on heads etc, and they were manu-
factured in the same way out of the same material (terra-cotta). From the
192194 beginning of urban development in Mesopotamia terra-cotta units, where nec-
essary of sophisticated form, were produced which could be tted together in
a watertight fashion to form water-pipes, drainpipes, gutters, runnels, sinkage
shafts, sumps etc. Additionally it was always possible in this interest to adapt
standard pottery shapes which were suitable to the purpose (e.g. amphorae) by
piercing through or breaking away extremities and connecting the vessels together.
Use of such terra-cotta devices was widespread in the ancient world beyond
195197 Mesopotamia from the Bronze Age onwards, e.g. in Crete and the Aegaean
(C. Hemker, Alt Orientalische Kanalisation, Munster, 1993).
The great progress in living conditions under the Roman Empire also occa-
sioned large scale use of terra-cotta devices in connection with arrangements
for heating. Heating, water supply and drainage facilites all came together in
the development of bath buildings (thermae) as a basic amenity of civilised life.
However, with the spread of civilised living to colder regions (e.g. Northern
Europe) arrangements for central heating of houses and villas became an every
day concern. Terra-cotta, since it has already been burnt (red) at a high tem-
perature (ca 1000C) is a very heat resistant materialmuch more so than e.g.
sedimentary stone or metal. Thus it was the structural material employed in
188191 the heating chambers (ovens, hypocausts); and also for the ues, ducts, pipes
etc. (tegulae mammatae, tubuli, etc) to conduct the hot air around the living apart-
ment walls to produce a relaxing environment (G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and
Tile, Gloucester, 1987, pp. 6394; T. Rook, The Eect of the Evolution of
132 chapter four
Earth in Flues upon the Development of Architecture, in A. McWhirr, Roman Brick and
building Tile, B.A.R. Int Ser. 68 1979, pp. 30308).
structures
C. Use of Earth Materials
Earth in its various preparations is an all purpose building materialand

dwellings constructed entirely out of earthern materials are not a rarity. This
arrangement generally entails a beehive type of building. It is only ttings like
doors and shutters which require use of another material (e.g. wood). On the
other hand terra-cotta is a very convenient material for many auxilliary ser-
vices, e.g. water supply and drainpipes, ovens and ues.
Foundations
Mud bricks are not at all suitable for foundations and ancient builders did not
favour burnt brick as foundations, for which purpose it is well suited. Although
on occasion in Mesopotamia burnt brick was used e.g. as a raft for the con-
struction of mud brick ziggurats. Thus it is earthworks which gure most in
connection with foundations, particularly for building on tells. Here principles
of soil stabilisation were apprehended both mechanical and chemical. It is a
subject which warrants scientic study. Also contrary to proverbial injunctions
against building houses on sand, this can be arranged to positive eect. Sand
is virtually incompressible, so it is possible to use it to provide strong and sta-
ble foundations. Both in Mesopotamia and in Egypt at an early stage in mon-
umental building sand was sometimes used in this way, since in both countries
pure desert sand occurred in close proximity to settled and cultivated areas.
Sand could be spread as a layer over the entire building site (e.g. sacred area),
so as to constitute raft foundations. Alternatively thick beds of sand were set
at the foot of the trenches where, laterally restrained, they provided good foun-
dations for walls. Whereas there are manifest structural advantages in this pro-
ceedure, it is also clear that it possesses a symbolic signicancei.e. it isolates
sacred buildings from the contamination of human use and refuse!
Walls
Every type of earthern material is suitable for building walls: terre pis, pud-
dled mud, mud brick, burnt brick. The superior crushing strength of burnt
brick means that such walls can be narrower than those from other earthern
materiala matter of great importance in high density urban building devel-
earthclay 133
opment, and it was subject to building regulation and control at Rome. This Earth in
concern, however, may run directly counter to that of heat insulation (e.g. the building
superlative air conditioning of the enormously thick mud brick walls of ancient structures
Mesopotamia).
Also it is very common for earthen materials to be used for walls in con-
junction with other materialse.g. mud brick is set as a superstructure above
a plinth or substructure of rubble. In Mesopotamia burnt brick can be used as
a substructure with a mud brick superstructure. Mud brick is also used exten-
sively as inll panelling in wooden framed construction (cf housing at Pompeii
and Herculaneum). Again burnt brick is employed in a number of dierent
ways as facing (revetting) to walls of a dierent material (cf Mesopotamian cone
mosaics, Greek ctile revetments, Roman opus testaceum).
Columns, Pillers, Piers

Earth is a surprisingly eective material for constructing these members and
was so employed during antiquity in dierent ages and places. Very massive
columns and engaged semi-columns in prehistoric Mesopotamia (Uruk period,
ca 3,000 BC) were constructed out of mud brickand it was especially con-
172 venient to protect and decorate their curved surfaces with cone mosaics. Later
columns of standard proportions were built up out of burnt brick components
181 purpose moulded into suitable forms (e.g. sectors, segments etc) which gave
good bonding broken between courses. Examples exist not only in Mesopotamia
during Seleucid and Parthian times but in contemporary Hellenistic building
200 in e.g. Southern Italy (cf Pompeii). However this form of construction remained
regional and did not become a standard one in Roman architecture and is not
found in Byzantine building.
Lintels, Beams, Arches

Earth products are not reckoned to develop any useful strength in tension and
thus cannot be put in bending. Therefore to serve as spanning members such
161 materials must be employed in arch form (i.e. put in compression). Often burnt
bricks are preferred for arch construction when the principle fabric is mud
brick. For arches of curved prole the bricks are moulded into wedge shaped
voussoirs similar to voussoirs of dressed stone. However it is possible to con-
struct at arches out of normal bricks by splaying the bricks apart at the
mortared jointsalthough, of course, special voussoir bricks can also be used.
Brick arches of curved contour (generally semi-circular or segmental) were used
in the Ancient Middle East and were taken up in Hellenistic and Roman archi-
134 chapter four
Earth in tecture for lintels and arcading and continued into Byzantine architecture. The 168, 169
building at arch to simulate a stone lintel is much employed in Roman concrete con-
structures struction, but it did not continue into Byzantine construction.
Floors
The simplest possible ooring is the beaten earth oor and this is found in
rudimentary building of all ages. Earth can be readily compressed to something
up to twice its natural density. In this condition it functions very adequately as
utilitarian ooring, as it gives a smooth hard surface, easily swept clean which
does not crumble or deform. It will not bear concentrated point loading such
as accrues from heavy furniture standing on legs. However such furniture was
not usual in simple, domestic building in the ancient Middle East. Sitting, eating
and sleeping were arranged on the oor by unrolling coverings, bedding etc.
Mud bricks can be used as ooring but are not very sutiable and are rarely
used. However in Egypt a oor construction has been reported using square
mud bricks as a base surfaced with mud plaster. Burnt bricks or tiles produce
a very functional oor and have been used in all ages and places down to the
present day. A very solid burnt brick ooring was devised in Roman times by
setting at bricks on edge, arranged in herring bone pattern like modern par- 180
quetry oors (testacea spicataVitruvius VII.1). Burnt brick oors have the great
advantage that they are reasonably impervious, and thus can be washed down
easily. Also they can be used where water is normally encounterede.g. as in
bathrooms. In this latter case an impervious jointing was often provided using
bitumen. Such arrangements were very common in ancient Mesopotamia.
Ceilings
On occasion in Roman times at bricks/tiles were used as a suspended ceil-
ing, e.g. to protect wooden roong beams from a damp atmosphere (as in baths)
where a vaulted ceiling was impractical. The tiles were set on metal bars held 299
by hooks xed in the timber beams (Vitruvius V.10.3).
Roofs
The use of earth and earth products was basic in the construction of roofs
throughout the ancient world, but in a variety of quite dissimilar, even con-
trasting, fashions.
The simplest form of roong is the at mud terrace roof, where a more or 32
less horizontal framework of wooden beams, poles and matting supports a thick
earthclay 135
160 layer of mud (plastic earth) to form a terrace which is a valuable working and Earth in
sleeping space. The earth is compressed by rolling and protected by a surface building
of (lime) plaster. Although endemic for simple domestic building in reasonably structures
dry weather conditions (e.g. Middle East and Mediterranean), this form of
roong is far from ideal. The weight of the earth is very great and deforms
the supporting beams, while wet conditions can wash the roof away and/or
cause collapse.
An alternative to this at terrace roong is some form of vaulted construc-
tion. This can be carried out in both mud brick or burnt brick. Often the sys-
tem employed is not that of radially jointed voussoirs or voussons as in nely
dressed stone vaulting. Normal at square bricks are used either laid horizon-
166 tally, each course oversailing the course below (corbelled vaulting); or are set
edge to edge as an arch with each arch canted out of the vertical so that it is
leaning on the arch behind it (pitched vaulting). The latter system was widely
161 used in Mesopotamia and Egypt with mud bricks. Subsequently various devel-
opments of it were employed in Later Roman and Byzantine architecture using
burnt brick. To be noted here is the adaption of pottery vessels (e.g. amphorae)
to serve as light weight units in vaulting structurea mode particularly devel-
oped in North Africa during later Roman times.
182186 Finally there is the use of terra-cotta tiles as a covering (tegument). Originally
182 introduced in Bronze Age Greece as a covering for slightly pitched mud roong,
the system was developed in classical Greece and Rome for the covering of
heavy timber framed roong of medium pitch. It comprised two elements: the
roof tile or pantile (tegula) and the cover tile (imbrex). The detailing of these tiles
to obtain the overlap was involved, and also the system was not well adapted
to vaulted roong. Thus with the increasing preponderance of vaulted and
domed roong in later Roman and Byzantine building, the system of large at
pantiles and narrow cover tiles gradually became obsolete and a simplied sys-
tem took its place. This was reduced to a single form of tile, semi-circular in
section, the survival of the old Laconian cover tile. These were set so that the
adjacent descending rows were alternatively concave and convexthe convex
tiles covering the joints between the adjacent concave tiles. It was this simplied
system which survived into modern use.
Service Auxilliaries
Because of its impermability and resistance to heat together with the fact that
it could be readily fashioned into complex forms, terra-cotta was the original
188197 basic material used for water pipes, drain pipes etc., and also for ues, heat-
ing ducts, etc. This use was well developed at the beginning of urbanisation in
136 chapter four
Sources of Mesopotamia (i.e. ca 3,000 BC) and became widespread. It was further enhanced
earth and extended, notably under the Roman Empire. For something like half a
materials millenium after the break up of later antiquity, this usage virtually ceased in
in ancient the western world. It was then revived in later Mediaeval times to endure into
Middle our own day, but terra-cotta has been latterly displaced in considerable mea-
East sure by other (e.g. synthetic) materials.
D. Supply of Earth Materials
A universally recognised advantage of earth as a building material is that it is

freely available to hand almost anywheresave perhaps in sandy deserts or
eternal snows. And there is no doubt that supplies for most earth building in
antiquity were obtained in the vicinity of the building site. NB the semi-sunken
emplacements of early round houses may have supplied some required earth
material. Also a distinction is observable in the material used in the ancient
Middle East (e.g. Mesopotamia). Colour and texture shows that, in addition to
outside eld earth, on occasion recycled habitation earth/detritus obtained
from within the settlement (tell) was employed. These statements however refer
to everyday, domestic building. Where special building projects are concerned
the question of the supply of earthern materials comes into issue and there are
some parallels with that of supply of stone.
The question of special non local supply of earth for building can accrue on
two grounds: (a) quantity, (b) quality. That of quantity is the prior issue. In
connection with outsize projects (e.g. ziggurats, pyramids, etc.) the enormous
mass of earth required could render it more economic to exploit a particularly
favourable source of supplyi.e. where the extraction was extremely conve-
nient and supply unlimitedeven though this involved extended transport to
the building site. Here it should be remembered that earth is not convenient
material to transport. From earliest times to the present day in the Middle East
it is shifted by basketing, which is labour intensive, and any long journey would
involve repeated handling. Equally no one wishes to move mud bricks about
more than necessary, since they are brittle. The only regions in the Ancient
world where building projects were on a large enough scale possible to require
long distance transport of earth material were Mesopotamia and Egypt.
For Mesopotamia a very considerable amount of information deriving from
epigraphic sources is available regarding the modality of supply of earthern
building materials. This has been assembled in various connections (cf,
e.g. A. Salonen, Die Ziegeleien im Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki, 1972), most recently
by Sauvage. Although not specically directed to this end, the notices of Sauvage
earthclay 137
(cf pp. 7880, 8283, 95, 157) conform exactly what common sense would Transport
estimate of the transport of earthern building materials: it was on the one of earth
hand a function of large scale public works and on the other the materials materials
transported were in form those most convenient for transport. Given the pre- in ancient
disposing circumstances great quantities of earthern building materials were Middle
transported in Mesopotamia over long distances (by river) to be stacked and East
stored as convenient to supply continuing demand of public works. Although
reference to the specic material transported is not always explicit the desig-
nated units usually refer to bricks (rather than earth for brick making). A unit
much used for calculation was the nazbalum which denoted the number of bricks
one man could transport over a given distance per month. This provided a
measure of piece-work for which there was a xed reward. The unit devolved
from local handling of bricks but its use showed that mud bricks were trans-
ported over long distances when required. In due course the picture was com-
pletely transformed when building entirely in burnt bricks became a norm for
large scale public works (during the 1st millenium BC). Whereas to a greater
or less degree both earth and mud bricks are inconvenient to transport, burnt
bricks are readily transported. Indeed until recent times they were reckoned
good ballast for cargo ships. In later antiquity burnt bricks were thus more
convenient to transport than building stone, being not susceptible to damage
and easier to handle.
The parallel question of major centres of supply and long distance transport
of earth material in Egypt has been raised (Kemp, pp. 8384). However detailed
evidence has not been assembled as for Mesopotamia. Nonetheless such a pre-
sumption exists on the analogy of the arrangments obtaining for the supply of
stone and timber. Large scale public works in mud brick never lapsed in spite
of the establishment of ne stone masonry during the Old Kingdom as the pre-
mier form of monumental building. In particular during the Middle Kingdom
great monuments were erected out of mud brick, e.g. The Brick Pyramid at
Dashur. These incorporated several million bricks. As a matter of course build-
ing stone was transported from one end of Egypt to another. Some evidence
for parallel arrangement with mud bricks is the practice of stamping odd bricks
with the ocial stamp of government administered worksa practice which
ourished from New Kingdom times down to the end of Pharaonic rule
(v Spencer, pls. 2136). Concerning the supply of mud bricks in Graeco-Roman
times, much information is available from papyri. In general they were ordered
in large bulk (by the thousand from a supplier) and transported to the site
(cf Martin, p. 62).
When attention is shifted from the ancient Middle East to the Graeco-Roman
world, then the question of centralised production of earthern building materials
138 chapter four
Supply of may well stand in the light of superior quality. In Graeco-Roman times mon-
bricks in umental building projects demanded burnt brick and terra-cotta in quantity
Greece although in Greece mud brick was still used on a large scale, e.g. for fortications
and Rome and enclosure walls.
Greek building contracts and specications provide detailed information regard-
ing the supply of earthen materials (v Martin, pp. 5764, in much detail). Mud
bricks were purchased from a supplier (sometimes distant). Alternatively mate-
rial (e.g. straw) could be ordered separately and transported to the site for on
site production of mud brick. In either event transport costs were itemised
and were considerable, amounting to twice the original cost of the bricks for
transport from Syros to Delos; or the same as the original cost of the bricks
for transport from Eleusis to Athens (Martin, p. 62). Terra-cotta roong tiles
were purchased by the building commissioners from a workshop and trans-
ported ready made to the site; they were not manufactured on site (their forms
were quite rigorously standardised). Generally they were stamped, sometimes
identifying the maker. Production of architectural terra-cotta was more or less
assimilated to that of pottery. Certain clay deposits of special excellence were
widely renowned as also certain centres of production, cf the Kerameikos at
Athens (Martin, pp. 8187; Orlandos I, pp. 6769).
The Roman concrete revolution and the use of brick facing (opus testaceum)
utterly transformed the question of supply of (burnt) bricks so that it assumed
international status. There was a vast development in the burnt brick industry
during the rst century AD and brickyards (originally at Rome but also else-
where) began to identify their products by impressing stamps into the plastic
clay. These stamps originally gave the name of the brickyard ( glina), but came
to add more detail (e.g. proprietor (dominus/a)works manager (ucinator); con-
sul etc.; but also type of product etc). These stamps give much information
concerning the brick industry, its organisation and history; but important mat-
ters of interpretation remain in dispute. The matter of immediate interest here
is the economics of supplying bricks and tiles to distant places from favoured
centres of production. Many instances exist of bricks with Tiber Valley stamps
used in distant provinces (e.g. North Africa, Dalmatia). Unfortunately whereas
physical analysis of clay used for pottery is now much in vogue to provide
information on origins and trade, such analysis is not yet common for brick.
It is not possible therefore to generalise whether such distribution is a matter
of simple economics, or whether it signies special quality ware. Even it has
been disputed that it signies export of material in any fashionit could rep-
resent a recommendation of quality through a local brickyard operating under
license of a famous Italian producer to use the trade-mark as a sign of relia-
bility. However in terms there seems to be little doubt that brick supply was
in part met by wide ranging export, the suitability of brick as ballast for ship-
earthclay 139
ping being a conducive factor (cf the presence of European bricks in early colo- Supply of
nial America and Australia). bricks in
The second matter testied to by brick stamps is the historical development Roman
of the industry. This is a striking one. The stamps show that the vast increase world
in demand for brick and tile products during the rst century AD was met by
very successful private enterprise. Something of the organisation of the indus-
try is indicated. Two classes of individuals are named: the dominus/domina (estate
owner, proprietor) and the ucinator (lessee, concessionaire, managing director).
This state of aairs is attested throughout much of the rst two centuries AD
with an all round peak of excellence in brick construction during Hadrianic
and Antonine times. However in Severan times at the end of the second cen-
tury AD there was a momentous change to this organisation of the brick indus-
try. In eect the developmental pattern of the supply of building stone was
repeated. Something like a century and a half after the sequestration of major
quarries by Tiberius, all signicant brick works passed into Imperial control.
Brick production, the basis of the vast public works programme, became a state
(imperial) monopoly. Brick stamps with their indication of private production
ceased after the reign of Caracalla. Stamps are found again a century later but
they are government records ( J.C. Anderson, Roman Society and Architecture, pp.
15662). With inexorable consequence this meant that with the political col-
lapse of the Imperial Government in the Western Empire, the supply of ne
building material broke down. Thereafter for repairs and maintenance of exist-
ing buildings as for the erection of new buildings in principle the source of
supply of basic material was reuse of the fabric of old buildingsspoil, demo-
lition, scrap. This is a matter where the history of building technology merged
into general history (cf B. Ward Perkins, From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages
in Italy, Oxford, 1984).
General References
Geology. Soil Science. Properties of Earth.

T.R. Paton, The Formation of Soil Material, London, 1978.
W.H. Dennen & B.R. Moore, Geology and Engineering (Chap. 4 Soils) Iowa, 1968.
R.E. Grim, Applied Clay Mineralogy (Soil Stabilisation), New York, 1962.
G. Minke, Earth Construction Handbook, Southampton, 2000.
Earth Works. Excavation, Piling, Levelling, Scarping

R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. VII (Ancient Geology, Ancient Mining) Leiden, 1966.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria & Palestine, Vol. I, p. 31; Vol II, Figs. 211, 212
(underground dwellings)
140 chapter four
T. Watkins, The Origins of House and Home. WA 21 1990, pp. 33646 (semi underground
dwellings)
J. Guilane, La France dAvant la France Paris, 1980. (pp. 6177 for the Tumulus as the visible
aspect of Megalithic Monuments).
O. Pelon, Tholoi, Tumuli et Circles Funraires, Paris, 1976.
G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I, pp. 156, 176, 18286, 36263, 38182. (levelling, scarping for foun-
dations and building emplacements).
Manufactured Earth MaterialsGeneral

O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale Vol. I chap. 2. La Terre, pp. 4572, Paris 1981.
S. Kozlowski & A. Kempisty, Architecture of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik
Iraq, WA 21 1990, pp. 34862.
P.B.L. Smith, Architectural Innovation and Experimentation at Ganj Dareh, Iran, WA 21
1990, pp. 32335.
B. Kemp, Soil (including Mud Brick Architecture) in Nicholson and Shaw ed. Ancient Egyptian
Materials & Technology, pp. 79103, Cambridge, 2000.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine, Vol. I. Clay, pp. 34863, Leiden, 1985.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus Vol. I Earth/Clay pp. 37684, Leiden, 1992.
R. Nauman, Architektur Kleinasiens, Erde, pp. Tubingen, 1971.
A. Orlandos, Les Matriaux de Construction et la Technique Architecturale des Anciens Grecs, Vol. I,
Chap. II, LArgile, pp. 5796, Paris, 1966.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine LArgile, pp. 6168, Paris, 1989.
C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, pp. 911, London, 1986.
Compressed Earth/Beaten Earth/Terre Pis

S. Kozlowski & A. Kempisty, Architecture in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic Settlement in Nemrik, Iraq, p. 358.
G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I Terre Pis, pp. 36061.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque I, p. 48, Paris, 1965.
J.-P. Adam, LArgile, p. 63.
H. Wichman ed., Architektur der Verganglichkeit, pp. 179211 (for survival in Marocco).
G. Minke, Earth Construction Handbook, pp. 5667 (for traditional modern analogies).
Plastic Earth/Puddled Mud (Tauf, Kahgel, Zubur etc.)

G.R.H. Wright, Puddled Mud Walling, MDOG 115 1983, pp. 915.
G. Minke, Earth Construction Handbook, pp. 8286 (for traditional modern analogies).
Mud Brick
O. Aurenche, LOrigine de la Brique dans le Proche Orient Ancien. M. Frangipane et al.
ed. Between the River and Across the Mountains, pp. 35282, Rome, 1993.
A. Salonen, Die Ziegeleien in Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki, 1972.
M. Sauvage, La Brique et sa Mise en Oeuvre en Mesopotamie, Paris, 1998.
A.D. Spencer, Brick Architecture in Egypt, Warminster, 1979.
E. Shaw, Minoan Architecture. Materials and Techniques. Mud Brick, pp. 187206, Rome, 1971.
earthclay 141
A. Guest-Papamanoli, LEmploi de la Brique dans la Domaine Egen lEpoque Neolithique
et lAge du Bronze, BCH 102 1978, pp. 324.
R. Martin, La Brique, pp. 4662, Paris, 1965.
A. Orlandos, LArgile, pp. 5774, Paris, 1966.
J.-P. Adam, LArgile, pp. 6365.
Mud Mortar and Plaster

R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Industries, Mud Plaster, p. 329, Mud Mortar, p. 331, Oxford,
1994.
O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale Mortier, p. 72.
M. Sauvage, La Brique . . . en Mesopotamie, Mortiers et Enduits, pp. 7071.
A.D. Spencer, Brick Architecture in Egypt, Mortar and Plaster, pp. 13334.
B. Kemp, Soil, Mortar, Plaster, p. 92.
G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I Mud Mortar, Mud Plaster, pp. 35961.
Structural Burnt Brick

A. Salonen, Die Ziegeleien in Alten Mesopotamien. Teil IV Ziegelfen, pp. 11934. Helsinki, 1972.
M. Sauvage, La Brique. Cuisson de la Brique, pp. 2326.
M. Sauvage, La Construction des Ziggurats sous le Troisime Dynastie dUr, Iraq LX 1998,
pp. 4563.
D. Spencer, Brick Architecture in Egypt. Burnt Brick, pp. 14041.
R. Martin, La Brique, pp. 6364.
A. Orlandos, LArgile, pp. 6775.
J.-P. Adam, LArgile, pp. 6568.
G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile, pp. 3458, Gloucester, 1967.
G. Webster, Tiles as Structural Component, pp. 28593 in A. McWhirr, Roman Brick and
Tile, Oxford, 1979.
H. Dodge, Brick Construction in Roman Greece and Asia Minor, S. MacReady et al. ed.
Roman Architecture in the Greek World, pp. 10610, London, 1987.
O. Reuther, Parthian Architecture, Chap 23 in A.U. Pope. A Survey of Persian Art, Vol. I,
London, 1938.
P. Boucheron ed., La Brique Antique (Collection de lEcole Franaise de Rome, 2072) Rome,
2000 (for organisation of industry).
J.C. Anderson, Roman Architecture and Society. Brick & Tile, pp. 15165. Baltimore, 1997 (for
organisation of industry).
E. Mambery, Les Briques Byzantines, Byzantion 19, 1949 (for organisation of industry).
C.A. Mango, Byzantine Bricks, AJA 54, 1950, pp. 1927.
Terra-Cotta Revetting/Fictile Revetments

R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Decorative Techniques in Mud Brick
Architecture (Cone Mosaics etc.), pp. 30922.
R. Moorey, Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia, Glazed Brick Work etc. pp. 17187.
A. Nunn, Die Wand Malerei und die glazierte Wandschmuk in Alten Orient, pp. 142149, Leiden,
1988.
142 chapter four
A. Salonen, Die Ziegeleien in Alten Mesopotamien. Teil IV Ziegelfen, pp. 11934. Helsinki, 1972.
R. Martin, Les Terres Cuites Architecturales, pp. 87112.
A. Orlandos, Elements Architectoniques en Terre Cuite, pp. 7580.
E. Douglas van Buren, Archaic Fictile Revetments in Sicily and Magna Graecia, London 1923.
, Figurative Terra-cotta Revetments in Etruria and Latium in the VI. and V. Centuries B.C., London 1921.
, Greek Fictile Revetments in the Archaic Period, Washington DC 1973.
N. Winter, Greek Architectural Terra Cottas, Oxford 1993.
G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile. Facing Tiles (Parietalis), pp. 5860.
Terra Cotta Roong Tiles

O. Wilkander, Ancient Roong Tiles, Op Ath. XVIII 1988, pp. 20310.
H.S. Robinson, A Roof Tile of the Early 7th Century BC, A.M. 99 1984, pp. 5566.
R. Martin, Tuiles, pp. 6587.
A. Orlandos, Tuiles, Vol. I, pp. 8192.
G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile. Roong Tiles, pp. 530.
T. Rook, Tiled Roofs, pp. 295301 in M. McWhirr, Roman Brick and Tile, Oxford.
G. Lugli, Tecnica Edelizia Romana, pp. 54150.
Earth Material in Mixed Construction

R. Nauman, Architecktur Kleinasiens, Holzfachwerke, pp. 91188.
O. Callot, Remarques sur lArchitecture, p. 172V. Karageorghis Excavations at Kition V.I.
Nicosia, 1985.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, Opus Testaceum, pp. 15763.
K. Wallat, Opus Testaceum in Pompeii, RM 1993, pp. 35280.
R.J.A. Wilson, Terra Cotta Vaulting Tubes (tubuli ttili), JRA 5 1992, pp. 97122.
Water Supply and Drainage. Terra Cotta Accessories

C. Hemker, Alt Orientalische Kanalisation, Munster, 1993.
A. Trever Hodge, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply, Pipes, pp. 10615, London, 1999.
G. Broadribb, Roman Brick and Tile, Pipes and Drains, pp. 8488.
Heating. Terra Cotta Accessories

G. Broadribb, Tegulae Mammatae, Flues, Cavity Walling, pp. 6083.
J.-P. Adam, Le Chauage, pp. 28794.
Supply of Earth Materials

A. Salonen, Die Ziegeleien in Alten Mesopotamien, Helsinki, 1971.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, pp. 5764; 8187.
J.C. Anderson, Roman Architecture and Society, Baltimore, 1997.
CHAPTER FIVE
LIME AND GYPSUM
A.Nature and Qualities of Lime and Gypsum

B.Supply of Lime and Gypsum
C. Manufacture of Lime and Gypsum
D. Uses of Lime and Gypsum
Plaster
Earth Construction
Burnt Brick
Dressed Stone Masonry
(1) Protection and improvement of stone
(2) Polychrome painted decoration
(3) Modelled Stucco decoration
Mortar
Appendix: Scientic Analysis of Plaster and Mortar
It is clear that lime and gypsum have always been functionally important mate- Early
rials in building, and in the light of recent archaeological investigation, it appears origins
that these materials are equally important historically. And they are important
not only in building history but in the general history of mankind. They are
the rst examples (ca 8th millenium BC) of manufactured materials where the
process of manufacture chemically transformed the material (W.H. Goudin &
W.D. Kingery, The Beginning of Pyrotechnology I, JFA 2 1975, pp. 13353;
II JFA 15 1988, pp. 21944). In this respect they proceeded the burning of
plastic earth/clay to produce terra-cotta pottery vessels (ca 6,000 BC), and they
long preceeded the common burning of moulded mud bricks to produce burnt
bricks (ca 3,000 BC).
For several reasons it is preferable to treat these materials in conjunction. In
the rst place they were used in the ancient world for exactly the same pur-
poses. Also their appearance and composition as they occur in building is so
similar that it is impossible to be certain which is which, unless careful labor-
atory tests are made. In this way reported identications in the eld of one or
the other are for the most part unsure and not sucient evidence on which
to base arguments. This is manifestly so in modern archaeological reports (which
are sometimes travesties e.g. referring to the one item indiscriminantly as both
substances!). However references in ancient authors also appear to confuse the
two materials.
144 chapter five
Lime and Since in nature and use lime and gypsum have so much in common, it is
gypsum helpful to prex an account of the two materials by tabulating some signicant
contrasted
dierences between them.
(1) Supply. One raw material, limestone, is well nigh ubiquitous, and is without
doubt the most commonly occuring type of rock. On the other hand, rock gyp-
sum in its several forms is not a very common rock. However its distribution
is relatively pronounced in the ancient world of the Middle East and the 198
Mediterranean. Also and to more signicant eect, while it is possible to nd
blocks of limestone in place or lying about on any ancient monumental building
site, the occurence of blocks of gypsum rock on ancient building sites is rare.
(2) Manufacture. The requirements for burning the raw materials, limestone and
rock gypsum, dier radically between the two substances. To burn lime neces-
sitates a temperature approaching 1000C maintained over a period of several 199202
days. This requires a good supply of fuel and preferably some arrangements to
conserve the heat generated. Gypsum can be burned on an open hearth at a
temperature of 100C200C (usually at ca 130C) maintained for ca 24 hours
only. Also when limestone has been burnt to powder, this needs careful han-
dling to convert it into a plastic state ready for use; since dry it is caustic to
the skin and considerable heat is generated by the reaction with water. On the
other hand to prepare a gypsum paste is a quick and straight forward aair
of mixing powder and water, which process does not generate excessive heat.
(3) Operation. The plastic materials dier in their mode of setting. Gypsum sets
very quickly and bulks somewhat in the process. Lime takes considerably longer
to set and shrinks during the process. However in certain conditions it can set
underwater.
(4) Preservation. When set lime is relatively hard and durable, and does not dis-
solve easily in water. Gypsum plaster is markedly less resistant to dissolution in
water.
There is also another matter of considerable interest which is worth mention-

ing as a preliminary. This process of burning lime and gypsum is often cou-
pled with that of ring clay/earth as striking examples of early technology
(pyrotechnology as currently termed). Very rarely, however, is the total dierence
in the aim and operation of these processes pointed out. Lime and gypsum are
burnt to transform solid rock into unconsolidated sediments which are to be
transformed into a plastic state. Clay/earth is burnt to transform plastic earth
(mud) into a solid state. This is a matter of some signicance in illustrating
lime and gypsum 145
mans intellectual capacities and development, and will be referred to again The prop-
later in that connection. erties of
cohesion
and adhe-
sion in
A. Nature and Qualities of Lime and Gypsum lime and
gypsum
Lime and Gypsum are both preparations from rocks in the form of powdered
substances, in turn to be made plastic substances manifesting very strong prop-
erties of cohesion and adhesion. Then by the operation of nature they are
transformed (i.e. they set) into rigid solids, and also attach themselves strongly
to other substances. The use in building of lime and gypsum involves a com-
plete cycle of disintegration and re-integrationa man made cycle paralleling
that which is continually occuring in nature to produce sedimentary rocks
(cf I.S. Allison & E.F. Palmer, Geology, pp. 17998, Rock Weathering and Soils,
New York, 1980). There is no question but that the substances were invented
and developed by neolithic men because they were very superior to mud in
their properties of cohesion and adhesion. In this way discussion of their nature
and properties should begin with some explanation of the forces of cohesion
and adhesion. However no manual of building construction or science pretends
to give any signicant explanation of these forces, and a contemporary layman
has no more insight into their operation than the neolithic users of lime and
gypsum.
The forces of cohesion and adhesion are obviously the same in operation
except that cohesion operates between elements of the same nature, whereas
adhesion operates between elements of a dierent nature. A demonstration of
the dierence between cohesion and adhesion, apparent to the senses, is pro-
vided by the behaviour of liquids in a capilliary tube. If examined closely the
upper surface of the liquid is found to be either concave or convex. In a liquid
like water the force of adhesion to the glass is stronger than the force of cohe-
sion within the water, therefore the water wets the glass as particles of water
are drawn towards the glass and mount up against it. On the other hand the
force of cohesion in mercury is stronger than the force of adhesion (to the
glass). And thus the surface of the mercury bulges upwards drawing particles
away from the contact between the mercury and the glass.
This example also illustrates the fact that cohesion and adhesion are forces
which operate between surfaces. The specic surface of a substance has been
noted as it operates in determining the cohesion between particles of earth. It
is also of relevence in the adhesion of some materials. It is a matter of com-
mon sense that adhesion is increased if the base material to which the adhe-
sive substance is applied is roughened up, scored etc., to provide a keying.
146 chapter five
Lime This operates by way of increasing the surface area between which the forces
manu- of adhesion operates.
facture Theoretically it should be possible to quantify the force of adhesion (and
cohesion); however this seems scientically very dicult, and never enters into
manuals of building construction or science. Empirically, dierent strengths of
adhesion and cohesion are patent. Neolithic builders perceived the superior
potential in this connection of lime and gypsum over mud. Doubtless they also
became aware of the dierential in this connection between raw and cooked
lime and gypsum. It would be interesting to have on hand the relative adhe-
sive strength of lime and gypsum, but these values are not made available in
any work dealing with building materials. It is commonly assumed that gyp-
sum is much more strongly adhesive than lime, it certainly establishes the bond
more quickly.
Lime
Lime is a white caustic earth (Calcium Oxide) obtained by burning limestone
(Calcium Carbonate) at a high temperature so that it disintegrates. Burning the
limestone at a temperature of ca 800C900C for several days eects a chem-
ical reaction so that carbon dioxide (CO2) is driven o as a gas from the lime-
stone (CaCO3) leaving a residual material Calcium Oxide (CaO) which is known
as quicklime, since it is chemically active or alive (= quick). With careful and
controlled handling this substance is then transformed into a paste or putty by
adding it to water (not vice-versa) in the weight ratio of 3:1, and stirring the
mixture so that the quicklime takes up water whereby its liveliness becomes
slaked and it is called slaked lime (Ca(OH) 2). Both heat and sound are gener-
ated during this process which requires caution (and protective clothing). Slaked
lime possesses adhesive and cohesive properties so that it can be used as a basis
for preparing mortar and plaster (e.g. 1 part lime and 2 parts sand makes the
common lime mortar). When slaked lime is allowed to stand exposed to the
air for a considerable time it reacts with the atmosphere, taking up carbon
dioxide so that it resumes its original limestone constitution, i.e. calcium car-
bonate (CaCO3) as a rigid solid. This process is termed setting. Thus the use
of manufactured lime in building involves a complete cycle of transformation
from a rigid solid through a cohesionless solid into a plastic material and nally
back to a rigid solid which has roughly the same compressive strength as the
original limestone. In short lime (or a lime mixture) can be readily applied
when plastic in building and then sets hard as applied into a substance which
is durable and suciently strong in compression so as to approximate these
qualities in the original limestone. The precise level of these qualities can be
lime and gypsum 147
varied by the choice of the particular type of limestone burned as also by the Gypsum
inclusion of various additives (e.g. ash from the burning). manufac-
Also it must be noted that a material of similar appearance and with prop- ture
erties to a degree akin to burnt lime can be obtained by the simple process of
crushing up limestone into dust or powder. To distinguish this latter material
from true lime it should be referred to in English as crushed limestone. This
material was more used in ancient building (and it still is in traditional Middle
Eastern building) than it is in modern building.
Gypsum
As opposed to the currency of the two terms lime and limestone, the one term
gypsum is used in two senses. Firstly it refers to the mineral calcium sulfate
(Ca SO4) as constituting in various developments sedimentary rocks such as
alabastor, selenite, satin spar. There is no generic term in English for these
rocks other than gypsum, although where confusion might arise, rock gypsum
can be applied as an unmistakeable descriptive term. Also the term is equally
current as signifying a material manufactured from these rocks, which has var-
ious uses in building parallel to lime. The process of manufacture is simpler
than calcining limestone, since it requires a temperature of no more than
100C200C (usually ca 130C) which can be produced in any open campre
suitable for boiling waterand needs be maintained for a shorter period (for
some hours only in optimum conditions). Equally the preparation for use of
the burnt powder is simple. If water is added to the powder, a workable paste
forms immediately (unlike the carefully controlled slaking process for lime).
The process is as follows. When the rock gypsum is burnt at a temperature
of ca 130C three quarters of its water of crystallisation is driven o from the
calcium sulfate dihydrate (Ca SO4 2H2O) to give the powdered hemihydrate
(2 Ca SO4 H2O). This is called gypsum plaster or Plaster of Paristhick beds
of gypsum rocks underly the Montmartre area. The paste formed by mixing
this powder with water sets quickly when exposed to the air into a rigid solid
to reform the original dihydrate (Ca SO4 2H2O) constitution of rock gypsum.
There is thus no chemical distinction between the composition of natural rock
gypsum and solidied burnt gypsum plaster and the two substances can not be
distinguised by routine chemical analysis. The microstructure, however, is changed
in the rehydration. In place of the tessera like appearance of natural rock gyp-
sum, the microstructure of rehydrated gypsum plaster consists of a tangle of
well formed needle like crystals, the interlocking of which gives the new mate-
rial its rigidity (v JFA 2 1975, pp. 13435, gs. 13).
This rehydrated gypsum plaster is much used for industrial and artistic mould-
148 chapter five
Lime and ing. Equally if the material is mixed with some other substances (e.g. sand or
gypsum stone dust), a mixture can be obtained with plastic and adhesive properties suit-
prepared able for use in building as mortar or plaster.
locally It should be noted that there is another means of producing set gypsum plas-
ter. This is to use not the hemi-hydrate calcium sulfate derived from calcining
rock gypsum, but calcium sulfate totally deprived of its water content. This
occurs naturally as anhydrite rock (Ca SO4); but can also be manufactured by
burning rock gypsum at a temperature of above 400C to drive out all the
water from it. When water is added to this anhydrous substance it sets more
slowly than Plaster of Paris and needs the addition of accelerators to facili-
tate its use, rather than the retarders required by Plaster of Paris.
B. Supply of Lime and Gypsum
The chemistry of lime and gypsum is an important factor governing their sup-
ply. Slaked lime was (and is) said to improve in its functional properties by
being stored for a longer period. Wet storage of lime putty for two weeks or
so promotes the slaking, but thereafter continued storage eects little further
improvement. In any event the storage of lime and gypsum must be in rea-
sonably airtight conditions, otherwise the materials will re-act with the atmos-
phere and set piecemeal, i.e. revert to their original solid rock consistency and
so become useless for building purposes. In modern times slaked lime and
Plaster of Paris are dehydrated and bagged so that they preserve their nature
(in the case of lime putty it is stored with a covering of water in closed vats
or bins). Neither of these proceedures was practical in ancient times when trans-
port over any distance was involved. Therefore the use of lime and gypsum in
building could not be long delayedin the dry conditions of Mesopotamia and
Egypt the products might remain (in part) serviceable for about six months or
so. This means that the manufacture of lime and gypsum for building purposes
was carried out locally for imminent use. The only means of reasonably
air-tight storage available for the materials would have been in pottery vessels
and this, clearly, was serviceable only locally and in the short term (cf J.W.
Shaw, Minoan Architecture, p. 213; J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, p. 78,
g. 160).
It is theoretically possible that the raw materials, limestone and rock gyp-
sum, were transported from a distance, but this has never been the case with
lime and gypsum production in traditional modern building. Always the mate-
rial has been burned close to the source of supply. The upshot of all this is
that in antiquity lime and gypsum for building purposes were more or less per-
lime and gypsum 149
ishable goods and it is unlikely that at any stage large scale centralised pro- Raw
duction in naturally favoured sites supplied the materials across a wide area (as materials
with e.g. bricks or quarry stone). mined
The supply of lime and gypsum derives from the raw materials limestone (not quar-
and rock gypsum. Both of these substances are sedimentary rocks, yet it is ried)
doubtful that formations of either were much quarried in antiquity to provide
material for the manufacture of builders lime and gypsum. In fact the term
quarrying is inappropriate and misleading in this connection. Limestone and
e.g. alabastor are quarried to provide blocks of stone for use as such. Here the
commodity sought after is not blocks of stone but a mineral (Calcium Carbonate
or Calcium Sulfate) thus the operation is mining not quarrying (= squaring up).
And this brings into issue the obvious parallel between lime and gypsum and
metals: their extraction by digging and their preparation by burning/smelting.
When the manufacture of lime and gypsum was invented early in Neolithic
times, digging into the ground to obtain a useful mineral was not a novelty.
Already man had dug shafts and adits in soft rock to obtain lumps of quartz
(chert) i.e. ints for manufacturing tools and weapons (cf Grimes Graves in East
Anglia, v supra, pp. 34 & 239290). In turn during later days when metal work-
ing had been invented men obtained the raw material by digging out lumps
of metalliferous rocks (ore). The subsequent treatment was also parallel. The
desired mineral, e.g. lime (CaCO3) or copper (Cu) was procured by burning
broken rock. In this way the circumstances of smelting ores oers some anal-
ogy to the production of lime and gypsum. However it is worth noting that
metal ore was not always smelted at the pit-head. On occasion it was trans-
ported over some distance to be smelted at metal workshops in towns (cf G.R.H.
Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus I, pp. 32530).
Probably in the ancient world on overall consideration the bulk of raw mate-
rials for producing lime and gypsum was obtained in three ways:
(1) Gathering eld stones

(2) (Mis) appropriating blocks of building stone
(3) Digging away surface deposits of marl like consistency.
Supplies of both lime and gypsum could be obtained from any of these sources
but not necessarily to the same degree; the underlying factor being that the
mineral calcium carbonate (limestone) occurs much more commonly in nature
than calcium sulfate (gypsum). Gypsum rocks are formed only in shallow waters
(e.g. lakes, lagoons) where there is a high evaporation rate, i.e. in hot climates.
In later times with the more extensive development of agriculture it was a
standing order to clear elds of stones. Very frequently the eld stones were
150 chapter five
Surface calcareous and so could be burnt for lime. Since lime was a material of con-
deposits of siderable use in farming (e.g. as a fertiliser and as a disinfectant) this was a
secondary good thing all round. Accordingly Cato the Elder (234149 BC) in his treatise
limestone on agriculture (de agricultura) is perhaps the most informative ancient source on
(huwwar) lime burning. Obviously eld stones are much more signicant as a source of
supply of limesince outcrops of gypsum rocks are rarer than limestone.
The subversion of blocks of stone used previously in buildings to burn for
lime is one of the most familiar facts of archaeology. This is very marked in
a period of declining material civilisation as in Late Antiquity. Lime kilns were
set up among the ruins of a monumental site, and their remains can survive
as the last evidence of antiquity on the site. This source of supply is very
signicantly directed to the production of lime.
Perhaps the most signicant source of supply in antiquity for the manufac-
ture of lime and gypsum were the marl like surface formations which could be
broken up and dug away after the manner of earth. It may be remembered
that Theophrastos in the well known passage where he notices gypsum remarks
that, among other unusual characteristics, although a rock, it is not quarried
out but dug away (Peri ton Lithon 6466).
Certainly where attention has been directed to the source of gypsum used
today in traditional building in the Middle East it was found to be from dig-
ging such surface deposits (O. Aurenche & C. Marchal, Note sur la fabrica-
tion actuelle du pltre . . ., Cahiers de lEuphrate 4 1985, pp. 22126). An instance
where this source of supply is known to have persisted in ancient times and
remained in service until today is Egypt. In ancient Egypt it seems lime mor-
tar and plaster were not used before the Ptolemaic period (A. Lucas, Ancient
Egyptian Materials and Industries, p. 96). Geological studies remark on the plenti-
ful occurence of gypsum in Egypt. This is manifested in two quite distinct man-
ners. Solid rock gypsum outcrops (e.g. as alabastor etc.) in various localities
(west of Alexandria, The Fayyum, Suez, the Eastern Litoral). However in addi-
tion to this, gypsum occurs widespread near the surface of the limestone desert
in the form of loosely consolidated masses of crystals which can be dug away
easily (A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, p. 97; P.T. Nicholson &
I. Shaw, ed. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Technology, pp. 2123). These deposits
provided the raw materials for making gypsum plaster throughout antiquity,
and in traditional building they still do so today.
The remarks of Theophrastos concerning gypsum, which include its charac-
teristic occurence in loose surface deposits, evidence some conation with lime.
Certainly similar circumstances are even more endemic in connection with the
supply of lime. These circumstances were still of importance in traditional Middle
Eastern village life until within living memory. In many ways the extraction
lime and gypsum 151
and use of a substance known as huwwar in Arabic and, from this, Havara Huwwar
(Chavara) in modern Greek was of importance in village economy (it was gen-
erally reckoned womans work). Huwwar is a secondary (or redeposited) lime-
stonevery soft like marl and occuring as a surface layer. The predisposing
factors are a calcareous terrain with rainy winters and long hot dry summers.
In this way precipitation percolates down through supercial earth into under-
lying limestone series and there dissolves and leaches out calcium carbonate
from the rock. During the long hot summer the ground water then rises to the
surface by capillary action bringing with it its contents of lime held in solution.
Here the water is evaporated and the dissolved lime is redeposited to form beds
of very soft limestone which can be dug into and away with a pick. In this
manner e.g. storage pits, tombs etc are hollowed out easily, while the spoil is
in fact crushed limestone which can be used in a variety of ways.
On all accounts it is likely that these extensive deposits of secondary loosely
compacted material provided the basic supply for burnt lime and gypsum in
Middle East regions where the use of the materials was rst developed during
early Neolithic times. There is also another aspect to this matter: the use of
this material in its natural state crushed to powder (where it is very dicult to
distinguish from burnt lime or gypsum powder).
Much use, and vital use, was made of huwwar as crushed limestone particu-
larly in ancient Palestine and Syria for site development, soil stabilisation and
foundation engineering. This use has been discussed previously (v supra, pp.
8384). Another common use was in surfacing and weather proong mud ter-
race roofs. Also it may be noted that in traditional modern village building
crushed limestone was frequently used to adulterate true burnt lime. While
in a measure this practice may have been dishonest, crushed limestone is a
valid additive to lime (and gypsum) plaster to improve certain qualities e.g. rate
of setting, hardness etc. (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I, pp. 43738).
A special question attaches to the supply of raw materials for manufacture
of lime and gypsum. The substances were used for exactly the same range of
purposes. Thus the question arises, what governs their respective use? Why for
one and the same purpose was lime used in this instance and gypsum in that?
One obvious approach is that there was a regional distribution in their use
i.e. gypsum was preferred in certain areas of the ancient world and lime in
other areas (O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale, p. 28). For this there might have
been dierent reasons or dierent combinations of reasons. Clearly when gyp-
sum or lime was used it occured in the area, however it is never apparent that
when one substance was used very largely, it was because of the dierential in
the supply of the raw material. In areas where one substance is used very
largely the raw material for the other is equally available; while in some instances
152 chapter five
Original the raw material is notably present (e.g. rock gypsum in Cyprus) yet the man-
burning ufactured substance is not employed to any degree. The well nigh total pref-
on open erence for gypsum in Egypt has been explained as a conation of several factors;
hearths gypsum is freely available, fuel is scarce (lime burning requires much more fuel;
while the climate is very dry) thus outdoor use of gypsum is not exposed to
great damp.
The question of the preferential use of lime or gypsum will be taken up
again subsequently.
C. Manufacture of Lime and Gypsum
Little attention has been given to the historical development of lime and gyp-
sum manufacture. It is the latest arrangements in antiquity which are well
attested, both by material remains and by literary references. Thus Roman
practices are sometimes assumed uncritically to be also those of earlier ages.
The situation parallels that of burnt bricks.
The circumstances of the discovery of lime and gypsum burning appear obvi-
ous. Prolonged burning on a limestone or gypsum emplacement (hearth) would
result in calcination, with subsequent presence of water causing the calcined
material to set. Thereafter previous experience with domestic cooking ovens
aorded the expertise required for development of pyrotechnology ( J.D. Frierman,
Lime Burning as the Precursor of Fired Ceramics, IEJ 21 1971, pp. 212 .,
cf p. 213 At ca 750C, the temperature of a brisk wood re, it would take
approximately 8 hours to calcine pieces of limestone or the surface of a hearth).
The earliest (neolithic) burning for lime and gypsum doubtless reproduced these
circumstances quite closely and no permanent structures were set up to facili-
tate the process. These simple natural arrangements are still to be observed
today in gypsum burning for domestic use in a Middle East village economy.
A shallow pit (ca 1.50 m2.00 m in diameter and 10 cms15 cms deep) is dug
out by pick in a surface outcrop of gypsum, and the rock spoil is further bro-
ken up somewhat. It is then replaced in the pit mixed with fuel (dried dung).
The re is ignited with kerosene and allowed to burn for a day or so. Then
after a lapse of 6 or 8 hours the powdered gypsum is removed by a ladle or
trowel (O. Aurenche & D.C. Marchal, Note sur la Fabrication Actuelle du
Pltre, Cahiers de lEuphrate 4 1985, pp. 22126).
Additional to the practical possibility of burning lime and gypsum in more
or less open pits, there are archaeological references extending through the
Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods to ovens built (presumably) more or less after
the manner of domestic cooking ovens, which were apparently used for this
lime and gypsum 153
purpose since traces of lime or gypsum powder were associated with them. The Lime kilns
sites mentioned extend from Western Iran to Palestine (O. Aurenche, La Maison
Orientale I, p. 29). The question here is supplying the very considerable bulk of
lime or gypsum plaster used in Neolithic building. The answer may lie in the
proliferation of such ovens, which seems to be the circumstances indicated at
Umm Dabaghiyah (R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, p. 331).
Notwithstanding the prolonged and extensive excavation in the Middle East
little information is available regarding installations for burning lime and gyp-
sum. Discovery of a lime kiln (ca 2,500 BC) at Khafage in the Diyala region
of Mesopotamia was reported by the Oriental Institute Excavatorsits purpose
conrmed by the presence of calcium carbonate. However its structure and
functioning is largely conjectural (P. Delougaz, The Temple Oval at Khafaje, Chicago,
1940, pp. 13133; R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, p. 330). In Egypt,
as is well known, lime burning was reckoned not to have been practiced before
Ptolemaic times (R. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials, p. 96); while gypsum burn-
ing, in view of the low temperature needed, may not have required substan-
tial installations. With respect to Greece neither Orlandos nor Martin, both of
whom discuss lime and gypsum working in detail, give any attention to the
production of these materials. Orlandos (p. 138) simply states production was
as in modern times, the material being burnt in hive shaped kilns, red with
wood (but now see B. Demierre, Les Fours Chaux en Grce, JRS 15 2002).
It is only with the Roman period that the question of lime kilns and lime burn-
ing is discussed in manuals of ancient building ( J.-P. Adam, La Construction
Romaine, pp. 6979).
In discussion of ancient lime burning, very frequently reference has been
made to traditional modern practices. However two quite dierent systems for
burning lime subsisted in traditional modern practice, both of which could have
been equally well employed in the ancient world. Accordingly it may be use-
ful as a preliminary to distinguish these dierent systems.
Lime kilns have always tended to be circular in plan and have a vertical
development. However in later Roman times some kilns were squat and rec-
tangular. Since the heat required is great, eort is made to take advantage of
the terrain so as to insulate them by setting them into the earth as far as is
practicalwhich means into the face of rising ground. In the overall these
remarks could stand also for pottery kilns. However immediately a very salient
dierence between lime kilns and pottery kilns is to be noted. Although to
external view one could pass for another the interior functional design is quite
dierent. A pottery kiln comprises two compartments set one above the other,
one for the fuel and one for the chargea lime kiln does not. And this in turn
draws attention to the salient dierence (indeed total antithesis) in the purpose
154 chapter five
Lime kilns of lime kilns and pottery kilns. Firing pottery in a kiln is the ultimate process
in a chain of operations which transforms unconsolidated sediments (earth/clay)
into an articial rigid solid body. In eect the material leaves the kiln in its
nal state. Burning lime is the initial process in a chain of operations which
transform a rigid solid (limestone) into a new solid of quite dierent shape and
form. Thus the material leaves the kiln in an interim (unconsolidated) state
which has no resemblance to its nal appearance. This matter is mentioned
also because of the considerable powers of conceptualisation required by neolithic
man to perceive that two such utterly dierent purposes could be achieved by
the same process (combustion).
A lime kiln, then, is designed as a single chamber to contain both the fuel
and the material (limestone) and the degree to which they are intermingled or 199202
kept apart depends on the arrangements for operating the kiln. It is here that
the two systems used in traditional modern lime burning dier. The inter-
mittent or periodic kiln is where a separate ring is required each time the
kiln is loaded (i.e. after the manner of a pottery kiln) and the kiln must be
allowed to cool down before the lime can be removed. This system may be
convenient to operate but is relatively less economic since the kiln is only pro-
ductive part time. The continuous kiln, on the other hand, is arranged to
burn uninterrupted so that the charge of limestone is constantly augmented as
the burnt lime is removed. Other things being equal, this is more economic
system since production continues uninterruptedly.
The traditional modern intermittent or Flare kiln is loaded by fashioning
a vault at the base of the kiln from the larger lumps of limestone (e.g. by
corbelling). Some support for this can be arranged (e.g. by wooden props). Then 200
the remaining material is stacked above to ll the kiln. A re (once of wood)
is started in the reserved space below the vault at the bottom of the kiln and
kept burning for several days until less smoke indicates that the limestone is
burnt out. The burnt stone settles but remains more or less in place as a coher-
ent powdery mass. The kiln is allowed to cool. The ashes and other fuel
remains are then raked out and the burnt quick lime (a caustic substance)
removed with long metal bars and rakes (N. Davey, A History of Building Materials,
pp. 98100).
This is clearly the system prescribed by Cato in his instructions for building
a lime kiln on agricultural estates. Its merit is to keep the charge out of con-
tact with the fuel as far as possible, so that the burnt lime remains as pure
(clean) as possible. Numbers of such Roman kilns have been excavated. There
are also establishments or plants grouping together several kilns. In this way 201
production could be continuous as the operation of the individual kilns was
staggered so that some were always being emptied while others were being
lime and gypsum 155
loaded and red (B. Dix, The Manufacture of Lime . . . . in the Western Lime kilns
Roman Provinces, OJA 1 1982, pp. 33145). and other
The other type of traditional modern kiln is the continuous (Running Kiln ring
or Draw Kiln). The principle of this type is in some ways more basic. Whatever devices
the structure, the system consists of arranging some grating on the bottom of
the of the kiln, above which fuel and limestone are stocked in alternate layers.
This highly combustible mixture is then ignited by starting a re in the space
below the grating. As the limestone above burns and settles, the lowest level
falls through the grating into the bottom compartment whence it can be raked
out and further fuel and limestone replaced at the top of the kiln. It is reck-
oned that in the continuous system it takes about a week for the limestone
layer at the top of a normal kiln to pass down through the bottom grating as
quick-lime. The fuel layers provided must be something like one quarter the
mass of the layers of stone. While in some ways this system is more basic, the
operation might be more demanding. Also it is obvious that the yield will be
a mixture of burnt lime and fuel ash and detritusi.e. less pure that that from
a are kiln. There is no textual or archaeological evidence that this continu-
ous system was used in antiquity, so there are no grounds for precising any
particular form of ancient kiln. Modern continuous (Draught) kilns are usually
represented as similar in design and construction to intermittent kilns.
In spite of lack of evidence it is impossible not to think something of the
continuous system of lime burning was practiced in antiquity. In fact the essen-
202 tial of the latter is intermixture of the fuel and the limestonedirect combus-
tion it might be called. Here the question of burning lime in the ancient world
comes to parallel that of burning bricks. Thus the form of the kiln is a sec-
ondary factor. Indeed the question can range all the way from the precise
design and construction of a permanent kiln, to arrangements where there is
no permanent structure at all, and limestone is burnt in clamps like bricks.
Here heat is conserved by the ad hoc device of cladding the clamp with a skin
of substantial limestone blocks. When these are not fully calcined they can be
burnt again in the next ring. In some ways this process is simpler in the case
of lime burning (than in burning brick) since there is no concern about nega-
tive eects on the aspect from direct burning of the material. Whether there
is a permanent kiln structure or not, one ever present diculty is the arrange-
ment of the base beneath the mixture of fuel and stone so that a draught is
obtained to promote the burning. This can be arranged in modern times by a
strong metal grating but this was not so easily done in the ancient world. And
here the diculty exactly parallels the construction of a perforated sole plate
strong enough to bear the heavy load of a large stack of bricks.
It seems that the question of burning lime in the ancient world ends up with
156 chapter five
Early the same unsupported supposition as that of burning bricks. In both cases there
Mesopo- is evidence for burning in kilns during Roman times, but all considerations
tamian point additionally to burning the materials in clamps where the material and
lime and the fuel are mixed together. In the instance of lime, theoretical reason can be
gypsum found for use of the two dierent systems according to the nature of the desired
bricks product. The intermittent are kiln fed with a (pure) white limestone produces
(pure) lime suitable e.g. for moulding or modelling in stucco work. Direct burn-
ing mixed with fuel of other (impure) coloured limestones containing argilla-
ceous matter produces impure lime mixed with ash suitable for use as mortar
and protective external renderings. But as stated here this is only speculation
based on modern practice, and the question is further discussed in connection
with the uses of lime and gypsum.
D. Uses of Lime and Gypsum
Lime and gypsum were used for three purposes in ancient building: as a load
bearing structural material (i.e. as a primary material); as a plaster and as a
mortar. The latter are termed secondary materials as they must be used in con-
junction with another primary load bearing material, although they are by no
means of lesser importance in building construction. Use of lime and gypsum
as plaster and mortar was their main use. In fact their use as a principal struc-
tural material was very restricted indeed. It may be dealt with more or less in
passing at the outset. In early (pre-pottery) neolithic times when load bearing
earth construction was developing quickly and freely, excavators report the
occurence at sites in Middle and Northern Mesopotamia of hand modelled
(cigar shaped) bricks and also pis or tauf parallel to the mud bricks etc known
elsewhere at this time (e.g. in Palestine); but of a consistency and (white) colour
which appeared to be lime. However it is not made clear whether the mater-
ial was true burnt lime or crushed limestone (huwwar) or, indeed, marly earth
or chalk (M. Sauvage, La Brique, p. 89).
Whether or not these circumstances amount in any way to antecedents, a
feature with some resemblance to them was noted much later at the end of
prehistoric times in Mesopotamia.
At sites in Southern Iraq of the Uruk period (4th millenium BC), e.g. Uruk,
Eridu, Uqair, Ur, a puzzling type of small block masonry was reported by exca-
vators before the second World War. It appeared to be gypsum but whether
it was dressed stone or articial material remained questionable. Now after
many years the question has been taken up again and it is established that the
material consisted of moulded gypsum bricks of small format. (It is also sug-
lime and gypsum 157
gested that gypsum may have been employed in another way as a structural Neolithic
material, i.e. as gypsum pis or the like.) Whatever the antecedents of this usage plaster
of gypsum may have been, it appeared to have no lasting development and is oors
not heard of again in later ages. It evolved at an experimental period con-
temporary with the appearance of burnt brick. And evidently burnt brick was
found to be a superior structural material ( J.-L. Huot & D.C. Marchal, LEmploi
du Gypsum en Mesopotamie du Sud lEpoque dUruk in J.-L. Huot et al.
ed. De LIndus aux Balkans, pp. 26173; R. Moorey, Mespotamian Materials,
p. 332, Gypsum Bricks).
Detailed attention is now given to lime and gypsum used as plaster and mor-
tar. The original use was as plaster for ooring but it is worth noticing that
niceties of classication are in point here.
The early Neolithic plaster oors are chronologically the beginning of the
unbroken tradition which still ourishes of lime and gypsum plaster work and
must be considered as such. The material whether lime or gypsum based is a
plaster. However considered functionally here the lime and gypsum can also
be thought of as a primary structural element. They do not comprise the ren-
dering of the oor, they are the oor itself. The rst permanent dwelling places
in early Neolithic times in the Middle East region evolved about a durable
oor which supported continual hard use involving live loads, and also could
be kept very clean (i.e. swept and washed). This was by no means a small
order, and it was found that a manufactured plaster which resumed the con-
sistency of its rock origin was ideal for the purposebeing, in fact, a small
expanse of articial bed rock which could be positioned at will.
Originally about this oor space a low barrier wall was erected and an over-
head canopy shelter was set up. The inevitable development was that the bar-
rier and the canopy were combined into the one enclosing structure, but still
the oor remained the prime element and the hard and durable plaster was
the primary structure of the oor.
This is a signicant matter and it is worth while interpolating something of
its background. Our perception of the very early burning of lime and gypsum
in Neolithic times arose from recognising receptacles fashioned from these mate-
rialsthe white vases (vaiselles blanches). These containers were obviously articial
versions of the familiar stone vessels of Pre-pottery Neolithic times. They were
in fact articial (plastic) stone vessels in every sense. They had a restricted his-
tory as they were superseded by the invention of pottery vessels in the course
of the 7th millenium BC. (C. Marchal, Vaisselles Blanches du Proche-Orient,
Cahiers de lEuphrate 3 1982, pp. 21751; L. Rekhof et al. Plasters, Gypsum or
Calcite, Palorient 16 1990, pp. 7987). It was then realised that these white
vessels had their counterpart in the very ne plaster oors which characterised
158 chapter five
Neolithic the pre-pottery neolithic round houses. Moreover the white vessels are an aid
plaster in understanding the nature of the plaster oors. The latter also could be
oors regarded as articial stone (or plastic stone). And this character of articial stone
has always remained allied to plaster, e.g. it has been made much of during
the present age in connection with (often misguided) eorts to restore ancient
stone monuments.
The neolithic plaster oor evidenced a typical detail. It was turned up in a
quadrantal moulding to form a skirting about the enclosure wall. This was a
functional measure to promote cleanliness and has survived for this purpose to
the present day, e.g. in hospitals. In this way the use of lime and gypsum for
ooring inevitably passed over into use as wall plaster. This process abutted on
contrasting development. The use of the materials as superior ooring did not
nd continued favour over the ages, whereas lime and gypsum wall plastering
has always remained a standard practice. The ne plaster oors of the pre-
pottery neolithic round houses lapsed and never became such a notable fea-
ture again. For domestic utilitarian building their place was taken by beaten
earth,* while other devices were introduced for monumental building, e.g. paving
stones, mosaics. Where ne plaster was subsequently employed for ooring, it
was generally in conjunction with some inset material, e.g. pebbles, stone chips
etc. A very characteristic type of pavement found in Crete from Middle Minoan
times onwards has come to be called tarazza, after the term used by Evans. It
consists of a sti lime plaster into which are set small pebbles ( J.W. Shaw,
Minoan Architecture. Materials and Techniques, pp. 21822). Another, later, analogue
in the Roman opus signinum where a lime plastering sometimes fortied with
crushed brick or tile is inlaid with chips of stone etc ( J.-P. Adam, La Construction
Romaine, p. 253, g. 542; R. Ginouves & R. Martin, Dictionnaire Methodique I,
p. 51, pl. 40, gs. 7, 8).
Awareness of the properties of lime and gypsum opens equally onto their
use as plaster and as mortar. However in terms of the surviving evidence it
appears that the major use of lime and gypsum was rst as plaster rather than
as mortar. As noted, the Neolithic plaster oors were made continuous with a
wall skirting so that it is dicult to isolate them from wall plaster. Accordingly
the use of lime and gypsum as plaster will be outlined rst, but it must be
* An interesting intermediary between ne plaster oors and the beaten earth oor is ooring
of crushed limestone (huwwar). Here a solid layer of dry huwwar is laid down and compressed
by rolling, then a surfacing of a uid mixture is oated over this in the manner of the liq-
uid cement surfacing to a modern concrete oor. Such oors have been noted in Bronze Age
Palestine e.g. at Megiddo (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I, p. 438). They are probably inuenced by
the surfaces of at terrace roofs.
lime and gypsum 159
born in mind that often they were in use as both mortar and plaster in the Protection
same building. and deco-
ration
Plaster
Plastering the surface of a building element serves two distinct purposes: pro-
tection and decoration, which resolve severally into serving the interest of the
structure and of the aspect of the building. There can be no doubt that preser-
vation of the material plastered in the structural interest was the original basic
purpose of plastering. The plaster coating may be harder or more durable than
the material it covers, but even if it is not the ease with which it is applied
means that it can be renewed regularly so as to protect the underlying struc-
ture from degradation. However it was immediately apparent that the texture
of plaster and its extended plane surface made it an excellent vehicle for applied
decoration (e.g. incised, painted etc.). More to the good there was no conict
between the two interests of protection and decoration. Plastering did not in
any measure become less of a protection because it was decorated. (Only
when it was renewed in the normal course of events, the applied decoration
disappeared and, if required, new decoration had to be applied. In this way
successive replastering often conserves important evidence of development
in art history.) Thus it can be said that throughout antiquity no concern oper-
ated against plastering the surfaces of buildings. Any concurrence came from
other (more costly) forms of facing (e.g. marble revetting, metal sheathing,
mosaics etc.) not from misgivings about the eects of plastering. In fact it was
very general for all sorts of building materials to be plastered over. This is
a necessary observation because of very basic attitudes developed by modern
architecture of the last century or so. There it became a canon of good taste
that the structure of building element should be expressedi.e. it was dishonest
205, 206 and thus wrong to cover over and conceal the structure by a facing of another
material. This was falsication. The upshot of this is that it has been dicult
for men to accept that e.g. the superb appearance of Greek ashlar masonry
could be stuccoed over, or that the strength of Egyptian Pharaonic masonry
revealed by the great size of the blocks should disappear behind overall plastering.
Hence it is now not obvious how important plaster was in ancient building.
The history of plastering is an interesting and important part of building his-
tory. Unfortunately earlier developments are little known since archaeological
literature on the subject is decient. There are few attempts at surveys;
while such individual notices as are found in excavation reports are very often
uninformed and unreliable in their identication of the material (M. Sauvage,
La Brique, pp. 7071). Also the occasion when some concern is shown for
160 chapter five
Applica- the nature and composition of wall plaster is generally one when it is the vehicle
tion of for interesting decoration (cf A. Elber, Entwicklung und Werkstoe der Wandmalerei
plaster to von Altertum, Munich, 1926; A. Nunn, Die Wandmalerei in alten Orient; R. Ling,
dierent Stucco Work and Painting in Roman Italy) which can give a distorted view of the
building matter. What is required is a survey of plastering according to the following
materials considerations:
(1) The type of building element plastered (i.e. monumental or utilitarian)

(2) The building element plastered over (i.e. oor, wall, ceiling etc.)
(3) The building material plastered over (i.e. mud brick, burnt brick, rubble,
dressed stone)
(4) The plastering material and technique (i.e. lime or gypsum based. NB other
materials were used in antiquity, e.g. mud, bitumen)
(5) The applied decoration (i.e. painted, incised, moulded, modelled).
With the information currently available it is impossible to give a synopsis of

the subject on these systematic lines, and only some leading issues are men-
tioned here.
Perhaps the most convenient way of ordering these remarks on lime and
gypsum plastering is according to the building material plastered. Considered
in the broadest of divisions this gives earth and earth associated construction;
burnt brick and dressed stone. Such a presentation also imports a certain mea-
sure of historical order, since earth construction begins the record in early
Neolithic times when burnt lime and gypsum were rst manufactured; while
burnt brick marginally antedates the development of dressed stone masonry ca
4,000 years later (ca 4th3rd millenium BC). In the historical instance a pre-
liminary observation is in point. Whereas the history of ne plastering masonry
with lime and gypsum materials begins in early Neolithic times (ca 8th mille-
nium BC), the process of plastering itself was then already ancient. It was vir-
tually an aboriginal building process which preceeded load bearing masonry
construction, taking the form of mud plastering over branches and reeds etc.
(v supra pp. 9394).
1. Earth Construction
The essentials of ne plastering were quickly established during early Neolithic
times in the extended Middle East region (i.e. Levant, Anatolia, Mesopotamia,
Iran). According to present indications its beginnings were in ne plaster oors
fundamental to sedentary life. These for functional and technical reasons were
turned up to form a skirting around the base of the walls (plastering always
lime and gypsum 161
tends to round o angles). There is little surviving evidence to show how high Plastering
up the walls the skirting was generally carried. At an early Neolithic site in to mud
Northern Syria, the excavator noted lime plaster below and above this mud construc-
plastering to the face of the wall (at Tell Abu Hurreyra v O. Aurenche, La tion
Maison Orientale, p. 139 and note 359). At another site in the same region the
excavator specied that the interior face of the earth wall was plastered with
gypsum based plaster, while the exterior face was plastered with lime based
plasterin accord with the relative solubility of the two materials. It is not
stated initially whether the plastering extended the full height of the walls, or
whether mud plaster underlay the gypsum and/or lime.
Again from about the same age in South West Anatolia well preserved remains
have survived of extended ne wall plastering strikingly decorated with both
203, 204 painting and modelled relief ( J. Mellart, atal Hyk, London, 1967; O. Aurenche,
La Maison Orientale, p. 227; A. Nunn, pp. 3551).
In this way by ca 6,000 BC the salient characteristics of plastering were
already manifestedcombination of ne plaster with earth plaster; recognition
of diering properties of dierent plasters (hardness, stability etc.); recognition
of diering status of dierent surfaces (e.g. interior and exterior surfaces); and,
very notably, exploitation of plaster as a vehicle for decoration. Perhaps the
one signicant factor not yet in evidence was the type of building to be plas-
tered. At atal Hyk striking dierence in the plaster decoration evident
between the various buildings led the excavator to attempt to use this as a cri-
terion for distinguishing between functional types of building, i.e. between shrines
and houses. This was not convincing (e.g. many more shrines were identied
than houses!). In fact it is more likely that at this period there was no distinc-
tion between shrines and houses. Religion in early Neolithic times was proba-
bly ancestor worshipi.e. a domestic cult, and each mans house was equally
his temple and his tomb. The distinction between the decoration of public and
domestic buildings was thus a later issue (O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale,
p. 228). In any event virtually all the essentials of plastering evident in Neolithic
atal Hyk survived in the domestic buildings of the modern traditional Middle
East village.
A very basic factor was obviously the application of plaster in several coats
of diering consistency, indeed of dierent materials. This matter was brought
to the fore at the outset by the nature of some of the construction to be plas-
tered in the earliest times. It is readily apparent that the function of the mate-
rial applied directly to the surface of the building (the rst or inner coat) is
quite dierent from that of the nal or outer coat exposed to view. The inner
coat must adhere well to the building material and true up its irregularities.
The outer coat gives a good appearance and (where required) forms a ne
162 chapter five
Plastering textured vehicle for painted decoration. It is very frequent that the transition
to mud between these functions was made in stages by a succession of coats (three or
construc- more). A form of the masonry in use from earliest Neolithic times in the Middle
tion East was rubble (e.g. eld stones) in mud mortar. The stones were often rounded
and irregular so that the outer face of the masonry was very uneven. To true
up the surface required a very thick coat of plaster, e.g. sometimes up to 25
cms thick. For the best attachment to the mud mortar mud plaster was indi-
cated while the successive coats were increasingly ne grounded and of mix-
tures containing a larger proportion of lime or gypsum to the earth. Economic
considerations operated strongly in the same sense. Since lime and gypsum were
manufactured by burning and fuel was expensive, mud plaster was much cheaper
than lime or gypsum plaster. Thus in measure that the plaster coat contained
a higher proportion of lime or gypsum it became thinner. The nal coat was
often a lime wash/white wash (distemper), a liquid mix obtained by dissolving
slaked lime paste in an excess of water. From earliest times this was very often
the nal coat applied to earth construction (either directly or ultimately).
An interesting instance has been reported of the gradation of plaster coat-
ings at Kuntillet el Ajrud in the Sinai peninsula during the rst millenium BC.
A chapel wall bore crude painted plaster decoration (of great religious impor-
tance). The inner coat was stated to be of unslaked gypsum and the outer
coat was of slaked gypsum. What was meant is that the inner coat was of
unburnt gypsumi.e. crushed/powdered gypsum rock (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP
I, pp. 375, 421). The use of crushed limestone or gypsum is little regarded
today for plaster as having no chemical properties (of adhesion). However
this is not so in fact. It is eective in these connections, although not to the
degree of burnt lime or gypsum; and it can be and was used, either alone or
in conjunction with the latter substances, for plastering (G.R.H. Wright, ABSP
I, pp. 37072, 43738).
The application of lime and gypsum plasters to earth construction so fully
established during Neolithic times in the Middle East remained standard build-
ing practice in all subsequent ages down to traditional modern building in the
region. Unfortunately little archaeological concern has been shown for the mat-
ter, and details of this plastering are seldom specied in archaeological reports.
In this way, when the subject has been taken up in recent surveys, much of
the illustration is taken up from traditional modern practice. A needed history
of ancient plastering would require much research. A supercial general resum
of ne plastering on earthern construction would be that perhaps lime and gyp-
sum plastering was relatively prominent during the very early Neolithic period
following on the discovery of the manufacture of these substances. Thereafter
for simple domestic building it was used on occasion (depending on various
lime and gypsum 163
considerations), but that quite generally mud plastered earthern construction Plastering
remained exposed, both internally and externally. When distinctive public build- to mud
ings (i.e. monumental temples etc.) were constructed (during Chalcolithic times construc-
in Mesopotamia), ne plastering in lime and gypsum became general for inte- tion
rior decoration, but not necessarily requisite for external surfaces. These could
have been plastered on occasion or otherwise mud plaster or structure was
exposed. However when decoration was incorporated on wall faces, either inter-
nal or external, then ne plaster was always used as grounds.
A very marked exception to the general lack of attention to plastering occurs
in Cretan archaeology. A close study of the decorated plaster at Knossos was
made during Evans excavations (N. Heaton, The Mural Paintings of Knossos,
Journal of the Royal Society of Arts VII 1910, pp. 20712; Minoan Lime Plaster
Fresco Painting, Journal of the Royal Institute of Brittanic Architects, 1911, pp. 677710).
This interest has been continued by later excavators at other palace sites (e.g.
Myrtos) and an informative synopsis of the subject has been published ( J.W.
Shaw, Minoan Architecture, pp. 20716). Cretan building in the Bronze Age is
quite central to the history of ancient ne plastering (i.e. from Middle East
Neolithic to the Roman Empire), so the substance of Shaws account may pro-
vide some specimen sample of the missing history.
Essentially the following matters are noticed:
(1) Minoan palace building is largely earth constructionviz rubble in the earth
mortar for ground storey and mud brick for upper storey. This construction
was invariably plastered (pp. 7383). The construction was associated with pas-
sages of dressed stone (ashlar) as orthostates or coursed masonry. However on
close investigation it seems the dressed stone was not plastered over! (pp. 10709).
(2) The system of plastering comprised a thick inner coat of mud plaster to
true up the irregular faces of the earth construction, succeeded by one or more
coats of ne plaster. The outermost coat was often a liquid wash (pp. 78, 215).
(3) Plastering the surfaces of earth built walls was originally carried out in the
interest of stability and preservation of the fabric; but with improved construction
the main purpose of plastering passed from preservation to decoration, i.e. from
structure to aspect (pp. 78, 21112).
(4) The chief application of plaster was on the interior faces of rubble and
earth walls.
(5) Mural decoration was always painted on a ne plaster ground. It was never
painted directly on stone or mud plaster (pp. 21516).
(6) In spite of the prevalence of rock gypsum and its use as a building stone
in palace construction, the ne plaster is (burnt) lime based (i.e. CaO) not
gypsum based, as originally suggested (pp. 10709).
164 chapter five
Plastering The story of ne plastering of cruder construction can be brought down to a

to mud later stage by another sampling. Much information is available concerning the
construc- ne plastering of mud and rubble walling in Graeco-Roman times. This devolves
tion from interest in the applied decoration, and since the modes of decoration are
not limited to plastering on mud and rubble but are common to plastering on
other surfaces, the matter will be taken up again in a nal rsum. However
a few observations are necesssary here.
A succession of sites have been excavated from the late 4th century BC
onwards (e.g. Olynthus, Delos etc.) with well preserved remains of more or less
well to do housing. These show that it was a norm for the internal wall face
to be very carefully plastered with systematically graded coats of lime or gyp-
sum based plaster, so that the nal coat was very pure, of ne even grain, so
as to provide a vehicle for sophisticated painted decoration. Although this dec-
oration is of compelling interest in the study of ancient painting, it is outside
present concerns. Only the subjects show that there was a continuous devel-
opment in this tradition of painted wall plaster from Hellenistic Greek buildings
down through the famous examples at Pompeii, Herculaneum and other Roman
sites. They also reveal that essentially the aim of the decorated plaster was to
similate the aspect of nobler building construction (nely dressed stone masonry) 213
for walls of cheaper structure (mud and rubble); with the rather untoward result
that the internal walls of houses were given the aspect of the external walls of
monumental buildings. This process ran counter to a basic classical Greek feel-
ingan aesthetic of integrity which required the structure to govern the aspect,
and will be touched on again (R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, pp. 42341;
A.G. McKay, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World, pp. 14651).
2. Burnt Brick
In spite of eorts to provide a continuous history of the use of burnt bricks in
the ancient world, the overall picture remains divided. There is an earlier life
cycle in the Middle East, notably in Mesopotamia (ca 3,500 BCca 300 BC);
and a later one in the Roman world during the Christian era. Consideration
of plastering burnt brick can not avoid this division. The earlier Mesopotamian
cycle is in itself divided into two phases: an earlier phase when burnt brick was
largely a material used in special circumstances for its hardness or imperme-
ability; and then a later period, notably in Neo-Babylonian times, when burnt
brick became a standard general purpose building material. In neither instance
was lime or gypsum plastering over burnt brick much in evidence.
When used to provide an impermeable surface, the standard surfacing (if 250253
any) of burnt brick was bitumen (M. Sauvage, La Brique . . . en Mesopotamie, pp.
lime and gypsum 165
7071; C. Hemker, Altorientalischer Kanalisation) and this also obtained when a Plastering
special hard protective surface was required, e.g. a protective buttressing at to burnt
252 ground level to exposed external faces of walls. The question of ne plastering brick
to burnt brick when it later became a standard material for monumental con-
struction has not been specically considered. A speculative assessment is that
there was a sharp distinction between the circumstances of interior wall faces
and those of external wall faces. Where interior faces of walls were of burnt
brick, then almost certainly these would have been ne plastered in the same
manner as they would have been if of mud brick. However it is dicult to say
what the general practice was for external faces. Perhaps this varied. However
the prevalence of glazed brick and of decorated glazed brick, e.g. at Babylon
174176 and Susa (R. Sauvage, La Brique. . . . en Mesopotamie, pp. 2935; R. Moorey,
Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, pp. 31214) indicates that exposed burnt brick
wall faces were accepted for exterior situations.
The plastering of burnt brick in Roman times is again not well studied as
238241 a category. In the Roman world by the beginning of the Christian era much
urban building construction was faced with burnt brick and by the end of the
1st century AD the excellence of brick work reached a level which has never
been surpassed. Whereas this brick work was almost entirely a facing, in time
167168 burnt brick came to be used as a solid load bearing material in itself (v supra
pp. 116, 117). Thus over a period of more than half a millenium at the end
of the ancient world burnt brick in one manner or another was the signicant
material used in substantial building construction. The question of ne plas-
tering this enormous amount of burnt brick construction is one of great his-
torical importancenot only in the history of architecture, but in economic
and social history as well. Throughout most of the Roman world the ne plas-
ter used for this purpose was lime based. Thus the production and distribution
of slaked lime for use in building became a staple requirement of great public
concern, and this necessitated its regulation and supervision by governmental
authorities as much as the supply of burnt bricks themselves or of quarry stone
(B. Dix, The Manufacture of Lime, p. 343).
Although the subject has not been well studied in its overall aspect, it can
be assumed that interior surfaces of burnt brick walls were in principle all lime
plastered (in the same fashion as we know in modern traditional building).
However, for the expanse of exterior burnt brick facing, the general situation
is not clear. It is here that contemporary taste nds most repugnant conceal-
ment of the impressive patterns and texture of brickwork by smooth expanses
of featureless plaster. Nonetheless it is likely that the general rule of Roman
242, 243 builders was not to leave faades of burnt brick exposed but to plaster them
over (G. Lugli, Tecnica Edilizia Romana, pp. 10241).
166 chapter five
Plastering Telling evidence here in the nature of ancient representation is found on

to burnt wall plaster itself. As stated there is no doubt that internal faces of walls in
brick urban building were plastered (if not revetted in more costly materials). In con-
siderable measure this plaster bore painted decoration, the standard subject
matter being representations of walls of views of buildings (either as principal
subject or as background). Now the building construction depicted on the wall
paintings (cf The Pompeian Styles) is ne stone masonry of various description
(or indeed painted plaster representations of ne stone masonry). Never so far
as is generally known, does decorated wall plaster represent exposed brickwork
which is today found so admirable in aspect ( J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine,
pp. 23546; A.G. Mackay, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World, London,
1975). Although not conclusive, this is strong circumstantial evidence that the
external faces of Rome brickwork were not exposed to view, but were rendered
with ne (lime) plasterat very considerable expense, the area of the surfaces
concerned being very great. Any logical reason for this plastering can derive
only from two considerations: protection or decoration. If protection then it is
not for the superior resistance of the plaster, which is far less durable than the
burnt brick wall face. Any protective virtue lies in the regular renewal of the
plastering. On the other hand if the reason for external plastering of burnt
brickwork is in the interest of decoration, then this can only mean that the
Romans regarded exposed brickwork in a negative light (i.e. for them a smooth
face was better than a rough one! de gustibus . . .).
The above assessment of Roman plastering of burnt brick refers essentailly
to opus testaceumi.e. the facing of Roman concrete with burnt brick which was
a ruling mode of building for something up to 300 years. However it did not
survive the transfer of power to Byzantium and burnt brick construction, which
remained as signicant as formerly, evolved into other mannerse.g. solid, load
bearing masonry which became widespread through the later Roman and early
Byzantine world for another 300 years, from ca 350 AD650 AD. Again while
interior faces of monumental burnt brick construction received a plaster dcor
(or other more sumptuous decoration) the presentation of external faces of burnt
brick monuments has seldom been reviewed. The material is not assembled for
passing overall opinions, however it may be suggested that the tendency was
away from external wall plastering so that brickwork remained exposed. This
is suggested by the eventual evolution in Mediaeval Byzantine times of orna-
mental brickwork and monumental mixed stone and brickwork on outer faces
of churches, where polychrome decoration is obviously aimed at ( J.A. Hamilton,
Byzantine Architecture and Decoration, London, 1956, p. 62).
It is evident that the above sketch has been conned to one manifestation
of wall plasteringsimple nishing of construction by a supercial plaster coat-
lime and gypsum 167
ing. There is another and very signicant use of plaster work in building, which Plastering
is usually associated with the term stucco. This consists in building up solid of
three dimensional ornament out of plaster by modelling or mouldingi.e. the Egyptian
application of decorative form as well as nish to construction. However since stone
this important category is equally associated with the plastering of dressed stone masonry
masonry, it will be treated in that context as a single entity.
3. Dressed Stone Masonry

Plastering over the face of nely dressed stone masonry is an oence in mod-
ern eyes, yet this occured during antiquityand more often than is realised
even now. When the practice was rst ascertained for classical masonry in the
19th century, it was presented in an apologetic fashion. Also it is often associ-
ated with polychrome painted decoration which likewise was something of a
shock to sensibilities conditioned by the noble nudity of antique stone. The
true amplitude of the practice has not been fully established and only some
observations are made here. There is little to suggest that ne stone masonry
in the Ancient Middle East was plastered overe.g. sculptured orthostates of
the Levant. Assyria or Achaemenid Persia (although these might well have been
painted). The two signicant contexts are Pharaonic Egyptian masonry and
Classical Greek ashlar. Circumstances dier but the issue is at bottom the same.
Egyptian Pharaonic Stone Masonry. For the most part this masonry has remained
exposed for several thousand years and thus virtually all traces of surfacing have
disappeared. The picture presented to modern view is bare monumental
stoneworkcharacteristically occurring in 3 states: dressing of exposed faces
unnished; exposed faces nely dressed; exposed faces nely dressed with addi-
tional sculpted gural decoration in relief. There is no question of plaster on
the unnished faces which are very uneven with craggy bosses; the nely dressed
faces sometimes show remains of gypsum plaster apparently used to true up
defects in the stone or the dressing, and it is possible that in some instances
such faces could have been completely plastereda strange vagary since the
smoothly ground surface of the stone would militate against the adherence of
the plaster. It is the third category of wall faces covered in relief decoration
205, 206 where plastering is most in point. Overall relief decoration of temple wall faces
in Egypt was a development which achieved its full measure in the New
Kingdom. And this relief decoration was in turn completely painted in striking
colours. It is sometimes stated the Egyptians painted directly onto stone, how-
ever the relief decoration pays no regard to the jointing of the masonry, and
this is an added concern where the decoration is completely painted, motifs
168 chapter five
Stucco-ill and eld alike. Obviously an uninterrupted eld is preferable, so there is an a

dened priori preference for some form of plastering to eliminate the masonry jointing.
term The subject is a very basic one quite outside the ambit of building materials,
and can not be taken up here. The latest treatment of Pharaonic masonry rests
somewhat non-commital on this score (D. Arnold, p. 124). Certainly nely
dressed Egyptian stone masonry does not (readily) accept as an adjunct three
dimensional ornament built up in plaster, although gypsum was used as articial
stone for repairs. NB. In decorated rock cut tombs the rock surfaces were
almost always plastered as a vehicle for the painted decoration ( JEA vii 1921,
pp. 15860).
Classical Greek Ashlar Masonry. The plastering of Greek Ashlar masonry is a tan-
gled subject, involving contrasts and conicts. Also it aords the earliest evi-
dence of ne plastering in Graeco-Roman times, and some of the developments
initiated there run over into plastering on other construction. The following
discussion thus partly encompasses a wider eld.
In discussing plastering of Greek ashlar masonry it is well to settle on some

distinction between the terms plaster and stucco. These terms are variously used
without any uniform distinction so as on occasion to overlap almost entirely.
Stucco may be reckoned a type of plaster which is dened either according to
its composition or its function, ideally both combined. In terms of its compo-
sition, stucco is a plaster mix which contains stone dust/crushed stoneprefer-
ably marble. The base may be either lime or gypsum, but gypsum is generally
held to be the more ecient material for the purpose. In terms of function
stucco is plaster material when used not simply as a nal coating, i.e. a nish
to a pre-existing form; but when it is built up solid to give the required form
to a building element constructed out of another material. In this sense stucco
connotes form as opposed to simple nish. The material evidence is that both
lime and gypsum based plasters are used for this purpose, but ideally the mate-
rial should be gypsum based containing powdered stonei.e. stucco has anities
with the concept of articial stone. Certainly stucco is expected to be hard,
resistant and durable, as also dense and ne grained so that it is waterproof
and threfore equally protection as decoration.
It would be of great benet to studies of lime and gypsum if the term stucco
had never entered into this record in any languageor if it could be deleted
completely from the record in this connection. However neither of these things
can be. The term is in use in all European languages, it will stay in use, and
any treatment of lime and gypsum as building materials in the ancient world
must take account of its usage. The rst thing to be said in any attempt to
lime and gypsum 169
rationalise this is that the term does not originate in antiquityit is not derived Stucco-ill
from Greek or Latin, and there is no term in Greek or Latin which corre- dened
sponds to any distinctions or limitations assigned to stucco in modern times. term
The principal term for lime or gypsum working in Greek is konia, and in Latin
opus tectorium. Neither of these terms imply any specic distinction or limitation
to particular aspects of plaster work, either in the nature of the materials or
in the mode of their employment. These terms (and their derivatives) simply
mean plastering/plaster/plasterers in general, and correspond well with the
English term plaster/plasteringthe material being any substance which can
be applied to and spread over the surface of another substance so that it adheres
to it, i.e. it is a plastic substance (whether based on lime, gypsum, mud, etc.).
Thus plaster as used in English is sensibly based on etymology (plaster and
plastic both derive from the Greek plassein = to mould, e.g. in clay).
On the other hand, stucco (Italian and English), stuc, stucs (French) all derive
(improbably) from an old German word stukki (= crust) which has survived
stongly in Modern German as Stuck (= a piece). the English stick, stock, stuck
in some of their varied usages are all semantically related as they are phonet-
ically similar. Thus stucco, at least, makes some etymological sense in English;
which it does not in Romance languagesthe position of French being further
bedevilled by the unfortunate misappropriation of pltre for gypsum (plaster),
i.e. plaster of Paris (the plaster par excellence). Thus it is that Frizot, the author
of the most thorough detailed studies of lime and gypsum working in antiq-
uity, wishes categorically to disassociate stucco from any reference to a partic-
ular material or, on the other hand, from a generalised reference to ne plastering
at large (M. Frizot, Stucs de Gaule et de Provinces Romaines, pp. 35; but NB
Ginouves, Dictionnaire Methodique I, pp. 50, 138 retains the denition of stucco
as a plaster which incorporates powdered marble). Frizot wishes to limit the
use of stucco in his study to signify plastic decoration in relief. This is a use-
ful ad hoc measure, but it is a matter of convenience not based on philology.
In the following remarks all that can be done is attempt to make the best of
a bad job and accept a term used in all preceeding literature, while endeav-
ouring to recognise and conform with some rational common denominator in
its usage. As a witness to the complete lack of precision in English usage, the
denition of stucco in the glossary to Robertsons Greek and Roman Architecture
is cited: Stucco. A coating applied to sun dried brick, coarse stone, light wooden
framework, etc. The nest stucco is made of powdered marble, but there were
many varieties. See especially Vitruvius VII, 2, 17.
Although the plastering of ashlar masonry can not be reduced to a unied
development, several main instances can be discerned, which also fall into a
certain historical succession:
170 chapter five
Stucco (1) As protection and improvement of inferior building stone.

applied as (2) As grounds for polychrome painted decoration.
facing (3) As vehicle for modelling architectural ornament.
These instances dier functionally but the plastering in each case can be rea-
sonably considered as stucco.
(1) Protection and improvement of stone

Some early archaic temples (6th century BC) retain traces of the general appli-
cation of stucco to the masonry. This consisted of a thin (overall) coat of hard,
ne grained white stucco. In these cases the limestone material was relatively
soft and coarse grained, also in certain instances shelly. These characteristics
made it little resistant to weathering, thus liable to erosion and decay. Also
coarse grained and shelly limestone can not be worked to a nely dressed sur-
face; and when this texture was allied with a dull colour, the building mater-
ial did not do full justice to the design and construction. Both protection to
the fabric and improvement to its appearance were aorded by coating it with
hard, ne textured, clear white stucco (R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque,
pp. 42933). The degree to which all evidence of the masonry jointing disap-
peared beneath a uniform smooth white surface is dicult now to assess. To
the degree that it did, this would conceal the harmony in jointing which was
certainly a matter of intellectual concern for Greek architectsi.e. there was a
conscious attempt to keep each block in ordered relation to the whole assem-
bly, like the notes of a musical composition, i.e. the design of a temple was
also a matter of the marriage of harmony and invention.
It is clear that awareness of the inferiority of building stones devolved from
comparison with marble, and a better but much more costly remedy for short-
comings of building stones was not to stucco them, but to replace them with
marble. A facing of marble gave an ideal aspect, and greatly improved the
structural qualities (i.e. resistance to weathering); while an entirely marble con-
struction was an excellence never again achieved. All this was a recognisable
tendency in classical ashlar masonry construction during the 4th century BC.
However this development in favour of expensive marble in place of cheap
stucco was not the only issue of concern.
(2) Polychrome painted decoration

The then surprising fact that Greek ashlar masonry sometimes was covered
with painted decoration was established early in the 19th century; and recon-
structions of this decoration were published in strident colours. However it is
still dicult to appreciate the degree and overall aspect of this painted deco-
lime and gypsum 171
ration. The practice involves the use of stucco since it is reckoned that Greeks Stucco
did not paint directly on stone, but rst applied a stucco ground. The use of applied in
stucco operated equally with marble fabric as it did with limestone; and it is relief
here that an antinomy appears in our eyes since the aspect of marble seems
to us the noblest imaginable. Perhaps polychrome painting was restricted to
members bearing architectural ornament, i.e. columns and entablature. It would
then seem, at least to this degree, marble ashlar masonry was stuccoed
(R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, pp. 42933). In any event the stucco-
ing of ashlar masonry during the 5th and 4th centuries BC as grounds for
painted decoration gave onto the plastering/stuccoing of other baser materials
(e.g. mud brick and rubble) for the same purpose during the following cen-
turies (as has already been noted). Here more logically the baser material was
given a counterfeit aspect of the nobler marbleand beauty was accepted as
being only skin deep (R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, pp. 43335); which
attitude continued through the Hellenistic and Roman ages, involving exten-
sive use of stucco for interior decoration.
(3) Modelled stucco decoration

Ashlar masonry imitated in painted plaster decoration was frequently margin-
ally draughted, bossed masonry. This appearance could be conveyed adequately
by painting in a trompe loeil technique. However it soon became evident that
the bossing also could be represented verissimo by modelling the plaster. At this
stage ca 300 BC began the third manner of Greek stucco-work, the one which
today is thought of as stucco decoration proper. It was the age when the orders
of Classical Greek architecture were (in part) to lose their structural identity
and become decorative compositions engaged to walls; and this engaged deco-
ration could be rendered by plasterwork applied to the wall face more conve-
niently than carving it in the stone. Equally it was perceived that the nal
207211 detailing of architectural ornament (e.g. capitals, bases, triglyphs, etc.) on free
standing stuctural members could also be rendered in applied stucco rather
than carved in the stone. Modelling is a more exible process than stone carv-
ing and can be carried out more quickly. Moreover, depending on the qual-
ity, stucco is not necessarily less resistant or durable than stone.
In this fashion Hellenistic civilisation was marked by widespread use of mod-
elled stucco decoration as a substitute for architectural stone carving. This began
with stucco modelling applied to ashlar stone masonry where the required con-
tours were roughed out in draught form as grounds. However since the mate-
rial which lay behind the stucco facing was in no way evident, moulded stucco
incorporating architectural ornament proper to ashlar masonry could be (and
208, 211 was) applied to any building material, e.g burnt brick, mud brick, rubble, etc.
172 chapter five
Stucco in Thus, if desired, a mud brick structure could be given the aspect of ashlar
Mesopo- masonry by means of overall modelled stucco facing.
tamia This development was a revolutionary one in Greek aesthetics which cannot
be discussed here. Only it must be observed that it was essentially a koin fea-
ture and occurs with remarkable uniformity from Sicily and Italy to Iran and
Central Asia. Indeed attention was rst drawn to the feature when it was seen
to be a characteristic of Parthian building in Mesopotamia. In this connection
its various possible origins were carefully considered (W.C. Debevoise, The
Origin of Decorated Stucco, AJA 45 1941, pp. 4561). However it is now
clear that modelled stucco in Parthian architecture was a regional expression
of a very basic development in Greek art (R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque,
pp. 44041). Thus modelled stucco in eastern regions of the ancient world is
one important manifestation of Non Mediterranean Descendents of Greek Art
(D. Schlumberger, Syria 37 1960, pp. 13166, 263318). It is also interesting
to note that it was essentially via this eastern extension that modelled stucco 223, 224
survived the ancient world. It was taken up by the Arabs in the East and spread
by them during early Mediaeval times, e.g. as far west as Spain. Whereas it
did not remain a feature of great consequence in late Roman and Byzantine
bulding; however cf the plastering in the 6th century AD monuments at Ravenna
(C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture, p. 12).
At this point it is relevent to mention the handiwork and technique of using
lime and gypsum products in building, since although the brick layer and the
stone mason must themselves carry out all mortaring necessary, ne plastering
(= plasterwork) has always been a separate trade. On the one hand it is an
onerous trade physically and can be very heavy work; on the other it verges
into the artistic. Yet, in spite of this, the tools are of the simplest. Associated 212
with this is the fact that manipulating plastic substance was one of the earliest
of mans experiences with materials. Palaeolithic man modelled clay or mud
and fragments of this work are found in open camp sites of Upper Palaeolithic
times. While Pre-Pottery Neolithic men, using plaster, modelled delicate fea-
tures over skulls (G.R.H. Wright, The Severed Head in Earliest Neolithic
Times, JPR II, 1988, pp. 5156).
Fine plastering building surfaces requires in the most basic instance covering
the underlying material with plaster which is rmly attached, presents a good
appearance and is nished in a true plane. To cover the underlying material
with plaster involves the operations of applying, spreading, smoothing. The plas-
terer applies the plaster to the surface in discrete increments, then spreads these
into a continuous layer and then smooths the layer into an even surface. He
applies the material either directly with a tool or else with the tool ings the
plaster against the surface so that the force of the impact increases the adhe-
sion. That the smooth surface forms a true plane is established by rst apply-
lime and gypsum 173
ing narrow strips of plaster at the margins of the surface, i.e. for an internal Plastering
wall horizontal strips near the oor and ceiling, and vertical strips near the procedure
angles. Then a long straight edge (oating rule) is traversed across the surface
built up between these strips. (This proceedure is thus the inverse counterpart
to the marginal draughts initially worked in a block of stone in order to dress
it into a plane surface.) The only tools required in this work are a pointed
trowel, a at piece of wood with a handle (a oat) and the long straight edge
or oating rule.
All ne plastering is worked in a succession of coats, basically threei.e. a
213 rendering coat to adhere to the underlying material and reduce its irregu-
larities; a oating coat to bring the plaster into the required true plane; a
nishing coat to provide the desired texture and appearance. The plaster
mixes vary for these operations in view of their diering purposes, and in all
cases pass from coarser grained to denser, ner grained material.
The above described operations are but the basic ones of plastering. Often
the plaster is decorated, which can be carried out by incising, impressing or
painting etc. In all such operations the work is facilitated by the plastic consistency
of the material and its subsequent transition to rigidity. These operations men-
tioned are ones of nishing applied to the form of the underlying material.
There is a further mode of decoration which amounts to a dierence in kind
i.e. the dierence between decorated plaster and plaster decoration, one where
the plaster not only gives nish to the underlying material, but also gives it
form. this is relief decoration, often associated with the term stucco work.
The rst additional factor this involves is complication in the arrangements
for attaching the plaster. The attachment of simple (successive) coats of plaster
214 is promoted by roughening up the underlying surface by way of scarifying, scor-
ing etc. However the projecting mass in relief demands extra xation. The
devices for this are obvious and have been employed since earliest times (e.g.
in ancient Mesopotamia); wooden pegs inserted in the mortar joints of the
216220 masonry, or nails etc driven into the backing material (cf structural details of
the well preserved plasterwork in the rst century BC Nabataean temple described
in H. Kohl, Kasr Firaun in Petra, Leipzig, 1910).
This matter leads on to an important question of principle. In principle all
the stucco relief decoration of the ancient world was eected in situ on the wall
face. There is no published record of prefabricated decorative elements in plas-
ter, i.e. produced in the workshop and then axed to the wall in a nished
state, which is, of course, perfectly practical. In todays terms ancient plaster-
work was all solid plasterwork as opposed to brous plasterwork. The lat-
ter denotes elements fashioned out of gypsum plaster/plaster of Paris, canvas
and lathes in the form of sheets and runs of mouldings prepared ready for
xing (nailing) into position. This proceedure has great advantages of lightness
174 chapter five
Plastering and speed of erection; and is (or was) in very common use for highly orna-
procedure mental work (also it aords very convenient means of housing concealed ser-
vice ttings, e.g. for lighting, ventiliation, etc.).
Since nothing of this nature has been recognised in ancient stucco, then all
ornamental relief in solid plasterwork was carried out by way of moulding or
modelling in situ. The use and re-use of one mould has been identied on
dierent building projectsindeed on dierent sites in dierent regions. However
no examples of ancient moulds have been discovered (or rather published).
They were most likely of gypsum plaster (or of terra cotta). An alternative
method to modelling in certain instances (e.g. linear architectural mouldings)
was by drawing out, i.e. dragging a template along the required line of the 215, 220
moulding. And it has been opined that where both methods were feasible, the
West preferred this method while in the East Parthian decorative stucco pre- 223
ferred moulding. Finally elaborate ornamental detail (e.g. that on naturalistic
capitals) was modelled by hand (the equivalent of free masonry in stone work-
ing). Here simple wooden tools (stylus, spatula etc) could be of assistance, but
the principal tool was the ngers of a mans hand (M. Frizot, Stucs de Gaul
et des Provinces Romaines).
N.B. Recently close study of a wealthy town house at the Cypriote Salamis
ca 400 AD has revealed a total exception to the general principle that stucco 222
relief in antiquity was in situ work on the wall face. Much of the elaborate
architectural stucco ornament here was pre-fabricated in sections and subse-
quently attached to the wall and xed in position, similar to much modern
plaster work (O. Callot, Dcor en Stuc Salamine).
Finally another basic question may be mentioned, although it is outside the
scope of this book as a purely decorative matter. All sorts of plastering in the
ancient worlds was paintedthe vogue culminating in Hellenistic and Roman
times (cf the well known four styles at Pompeii). The method of carrying out
this mural painting has been debated many times. Was it always one method,
if so which; or did it vary? The general opinion prevailing now is that it was
in tempera, not fresco, i.e. painted on the wall surface after the plaster had
dried out. This technique is in some ways less demanding since the speed of
execution is not governed by the period taken by the plaster to dry out ( J.-P.
Adam, La Construction Romaine, pp. 23639, Les Enduits.) However the most recent
study of the subject states exactly the opposite There is little doubt that the basic
technique of Roman wall painting was fresco (R. Ling, Roman Painting, p. 200).
Mortar
Mortar is in considerable measure the controlling factor in masonry develop-
ment in the ancient world. Some overall features can be seen, notably a gen-
lime and gypsum 175
eral progression in binding property from mud mortar where this is linked to Late
moisture content and largely disappears with dessication, to lime and gypsum develop-
based mortars so tenacious that the structure will crack and break across the ment of
stones rather than lose its mortar binding. Within this general development lime or
there are some particular features: the basic anity of mud mortar with crude gypsum
rubble and with mud brick; the overall preference for gypsum based mortars based
with ne stone masonry and for lime based mortars with burnt brick masonry. mortar
There is also the basic polarity between massive, nely jointed stone masonry
where any mortar binding is otiose (grand appareil ) and masonry dependant on
mortar binding for its strength and stability ( petit appareil ). Indeed it is possible
to see developments in ancient load bearing masonry construction between con-
struction the virtue of which depends upon the strength of the individual blocks
and construction the virtue of which derives from the eciency of the mortar
which binds together components of little individual strength. The acme of the
former is classical Greek ashlar, and of the latter Roman concrete. (This is a
question for fuller discussion in the succeeding chapter dealing with concrete
construction).
All considerations favoured the use of mud mortar with mud brick or mud
and rubble construction, and there is no evidence that a change of this prin-
ciple occurred in ancient times. Variation in colour between the mortar and
the bricks has been a practical basis of eld archaeology (excavators perceive
the net pattern of the mortar joints before they distinguish the mud bricks;
whitish mortar may indicate use of marly earth, but this was ad hoc and never
amounted to a systematic program. In short, as a general rule, there is very
little dierence in composition between mud bricks and mud mortar. Thus lime
or gypsum based mortar as a standard building material came into use only
with the development of other types of constructiondressed stone and burnt
brick. And this is to say several thousand years later than the use of lime or
gypsum as plaster.
Moreover circumstances were such that the use of lime or gypsum based
mortars as staple materials was even later than might have been expectedin
fact not until Graeco-Roman times, very notably in Roman times. This came
about as follows. The preferred mortar for burnt brick in Mesopotamia was
bitumen or bitumen based (cf Gen 11.3: And they said one to another, Go to
let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone
and slime (bitumen) had they for mortar. NB the date of this passage is post
exilic!) On the other hand the two ruling modes of nely dressed stone masonry
in the ancient world, Pharaonic Egyptian masonry and Classical Greek Ashlar,
consisted of large blocks set without any mortar for xing. Thus lime and gyp-
sum denitely have a far longer history as plaster than as mortar.
Perhaps the earliest emphatic witness to the use of lime or gypsum based
176 chapter five
Gypsum mortar is not archaeological evidence, but literary reference. The philosopher
mortar Theophrastos (Aristotles successor) wrote a treatise on stones (Peri ton Lithon, ca
300 BC) in the course of which he discussed gypsum in detail, using the term,
as we do, for both the rock and the powdered substance produced from it by
burning. He noted (Peri ton Lithon 6466) that rock gypsum was plentiful in
Cyprus and that a highly cementitious substance was prepared from it, which
could be used to cement other materials together. In particular it was used as
a mortar so strong that the blocks of stone would break apart before the
mortared joint would fail. This statement raises interesting questions. First it is
conveyed in that tone of wonder which Greek comment adopted when speak-
ing of outlandish marvels. Thus gypsum based mortar was not current in the
Greece of Theophrastos day (ashlar masonry was still set dry stone). Therefore
this strong gypsum based mortar was used in Cyprus and the region (i.e. Syro-
Phoenecia). But with what sort of masonry, since it was superuous with nely
dressed stone and wastefully inappropriate with rubble. The obvious class of
masonry to admit of its use was the bastard ashlar current in the Levant and
Mediterranean from Bronze Age times, where the facing blocks could have
been set in such mortar for a register at the face where the jointing is ne,
with their tails and the rubble core set in mud. However there is little evidence
of such sophisticated mortaring (cf the parallel circumstances in Roman con-
crete). In general bastard ashlar appears to have been set with mud mortar. In
fact what Theophrastos was referring to most probably was the special case of
the masonry of city walls. It was the age of the taking of cities; thus a special
cement was used between blocks to x them together, so that they were not
jarred from their bond by siege enginescf the walls of Tyre which resisted
Alexander for so long (Arrian Anabasis 2, 21, 4); and also the surviving circuit
walls of Dura Europas which are contemporary and are fashioned from gyp-
sum blocks, both dressed and rubble, xed with gypsum mortar ( J.-P. Adam,
La Construction Romaine, pp. 59, 69; A. von Gerkan, Dura Europos The Fortications,
Yale, 1939; J.-C. Bessac & P. Leriche, LAnalyse de Technique de Construction
en Pierre, Les Dossiers dArchaeologie 171 1992, pp. 7081)). In short Theophrastos
statement regarding gypsum based mortar as a wonder falls into line with the
archaeological evidence that strongly cementitious mortars were not in com-
mon use in his day.
These general circumstances were radically altered a century or so later with
the development of Roman Concrete construction. This depended essentially
on a very strong cementitious mortar, which was manufactured from lime with
the additive volcanic earth (or its substitute, e.g. crushed terra-cotta). And this
lime based mortar was used for concrete construction which prevailed across
most of the Roman world, from the rst century BC onwards. Thus lime
became one of the most important of building materials and its manufacture
lime and gypsum 177
was a very signicant factor in the Roman economy. Although Roman con- Lime
crete lapsed as a building material in the 4th century AD, lime based mortar mortar
survived for use with burnt brick construction through later antiquity and on
into modern times.
Appendix: Scientic Analysis of Plaster and Mortar
Relatively speaking little scientic analysis of plaster and mortar has been car-
ried outand what is published is not very meaningful to the layman. Indeed
most of it is published in journals of physical sicence not in those of art, archi-
tecture and archaeology. (M. Frizot, Mortiers et Enduits Peints, pp. 85140 gives
a rsum).
The following remarks attempt to indicate in plain language terms issues
comprehended in scientic analysis. The composition of plaster and mortar used
in building depends on three factors:
(1) The petrology of the raw material (limestone, rock gypsum).

(2) The process of manufacturing lime and gypsum (burning in kilns or clamps
etc.).
(3) The materials added to the lime and gypsum to form the plastic mixture
for use as mortar or plaster.
It is not at all simple to identify which of these factors is in issue, although the
recognition of this question may be of signicance in the study of the material.
It is obvious that various outcrops of limestone and of rock gypsum dier
considerably in their petrology. The dening mineral of limestone is calcium
carbonate (CaCO3) and that of Gypsum Calcium Sulphate (Ca SO4). To the
degree that other minerals are present in the rock the lime or gypsum manu-
factured from the rock will be impure as containing minerals other than lime
(CaO) or gypsum (Ca SO4). Fortunately both Calcium Carbonate and Calcium
Sulphate are white in colour. Thus coloured stone e.g. grey limestone, banded
limestone etc indicated to the ancient lime burner the presence of impurities
in the raw material. But these impurities did not necessarily import negative
qualities in the manufactured product. They imported dierent qualities, appro-
priate for dierent purposese.g. pure (white) lime produced the more plastic
substance best suited for moulding and modelling; coloured (impure) limestone
produced harder, stronger material.
Again if limestone were burned in a are kiln where the lime manufactured
could be kept unmixed with ashes or other detritus of combustion, then a pure
white lime was obtained. If, on the contrary, the limestone was burned by
178 chapter five
processes involving the mixing together of limestone and fuel (in alternate lay-
ers), then the lime produced would be grey or blue as containing ash etc. And
these impurities again gave the substance strength or hardness when set.
Also the additives to the mortar/plaster mix were chosen to maximise what-
ever quality was required for that particular mix, i.e. appearance, strength,
coarse grained or ne grained texture, plasticity for working, hardness or imper-
meability etc (cf the counsels of Vitruvius (VII, III) in this connection).
An additional matter is worth nal note concerning the scientic analysis of
ancient mortars and plasters. Simple observation and also tests carried out on
the strength of Roman mortars and plasters indicated that often they were far
superior to modern products. Hence grew up the idea that the Romans had
secret knowledge (since lost) of materials which produced this superior quality
mixture. Accordingly eorts were made during the 19th century to reproduce
these lost virtues and a mixture was developed and marketed as Roman
Cement. This was an eective building material which continued to be pro-
duced commercially until about the middle of the 20th century, and it can still
be obtained from institutions concerned with the restoration of monuments.
However the name is quite misleading, as there was nothing Roman about the
product. In fact it exemplies the salient dierence between Roman and mod-
ern manufacture of lime and gypsum based mortars and plasters. The Romans
(as all the ancients) burned limestone and rock gypsum to obtain lime and gyp-
sum, and then added other substances to the product so as to form a plastic
mixture with more or less strong adhesive and cohesive properties. To obtain
a substance with the strongest possible adhesive and cohesive properties mod-
ern manufacturers during the last century or so have burned together a mix-
ture of substances, e.g. crushed limestone, earth, clay, etc. This is indeed a very
salient dierence in manufacturing processes which is seldom commented on
(M. Frizot, Mortiers et Enduits Peints, pp. 10203; A. Desquines, Pierres, Mortiers
et Briques du Palais des Thermes Paris, Gallia X 1952, pp. 3164). To the
degree that the modern material is classied as cement (Portland Cement),
then nothing to be so classied was manufactured in the ancient World (at
least, so far as is generally known). This matter is taken up again in the fol-
lowing chapter on Concrete.
The actual explanation of the superior properties of Roman mortar and plas-
ter is two fold, as has been demonstrated by recent chemical analyses. The
materials used by the Romans were the same as are used today, only they were
well chosen and well processed. On the other hand, the main author of the
superiority of the ancient product was not man but time. The passage of 2,000
years has increased the crushing strength of ancient plaster and mortar up to
ve or sixfoldi.e. from ca 20+ kg/cm2 to 150+ kg/cm2 (M. Frizot, Mortiers
et Enduits Peints, pp. 96, 32930)omnia fert aetas.
lime and gypsum 179
General References
Technical
The scientic and technical literature is beyond record as indicated in the bibliographies of
Frizot cited below. Elementary practical remarks appear in:
H.F. Moore & M.B. Moore, Materials of Engineering, pp. 21519 Cementing materials, lime,
gypsum. New York, 1953.
A.G. Gleeson, Building Science I, pp. 15359, Lime and Plaster, London, 1965.
General
G.P. Bankart, The Art of the Plasterer, London, 1908.
M. Cagiano de Azevado Stucco in Encyclopaedia of World Art XIII, 1967.
M. Frizot, Mortiers et Enduits Peints Antiques, Dijon, 1975.
M. Frizot, Stucs de Gaule et des Provinces Romaines, pp. 318. Introductory General Survey Dijon
1977 (both the above works include outstanding bibliographies and collections of ancient
literary references).
A. Nunn, Die Wandmalerei und die glasierte Wandschmuk in alten Orient, pp. 116, Leiden,
1988.
Neolithic Origins
H. Balfet et al., Une Invention Neolithique sans Lendemain . . . Sols Enduits. . . . . du. . . . .
Proche Orient Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique Franais 60 1969, pp. 18892.
W.H. Goudin & W.D. Kingery, The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology, I, JFA 2 1975, pp. 13353.
The Beginnings of Pyrotechnology II, JFA 15 1988, pp. 21944.
J.D. Frierman, Lime Burning as the Precursor of Fired Ceramics, IEJ 21 1971, pp. 21216.
L. Rehhof et al., Plasters Gypsum or Calcite. A Preliminary Case Study on Syrian Plasters,
Palorient 16 1971, pp. 7897.
O. Aurenche, La Maison Orientale I, pp. 2230 Chaux et Pltre Paris, 1981.
G. Marchal, Vaisselles Blanches du Proche Orient. . . . et lUsage du Pltre au Nolithique,
Cahiers de lEuphrate 3 1982, pp. 21751.
Y. Garnkel, Burnt Lime Products . . . in the PPNB Villages of the Near East, Palorient 13
1987, pp. 6976.
Mesopotamia
R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, pp. 32932. Gypsum & Lime, Oxford, 1994.
J.-L. Huot & D.C. Marchal, LEmploi du Gypse en Mesopotamie du Sud LEpoque dUruk
in J.-L. Huot et al. ed. De lIndus aux Balkans, Paris, 1985, pp. 26173.
C. Debevoise, The Origin of Decorative Stucco, AJA 45 1941, pp. 4561.
O. Aurenche & D.C. Marchal, Note sur la Fabrication Actuelle du Pltre, Cahiers de lEuphrate
4 1985, pp. 22126.
180 chapter five
Egypt
D. Arnold, Building in Egypt, pp. 29194, Mortar and Plaster, New York, 1991.
A. Lucas, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, pp. 9398, Mortar and Plaster, London, 1948.
Palestine and Syria

G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Palestine and South Syria I, pp. 36975, Lime and Gypsum
Leiden, 1985.
A-G. Barrois, Manuel dArchologie Biblique I, pp. 11718, Mortiers et Enduits, Paris, 1929.
S. Gibson, Lime Kilns in North East Jerusalem, PEQ 1984, pp. 94102.
Anatolia
R. Naumann, Architektur Kleinasiens, pp. 5455, Kalk, Tbingen, 1971.
Mediterranean
J.W. Shaw, Minoan Architecture: Materials and Techniques, pp. 2023, Gypsum; pp. 20718, Lime . . .
Plaster, Rome, 1973.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus, pp. 38696, Lime and Gypsum, Leiden, 1992.
Greece
A. Orlandos, Les Matriaux de Construction. . . . des Anciens Grecs, pp. 13553, Les Mortiers, La
Chaux, Le Gypse, Paris, 1966.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, pp. 42241, Les Enduits, Paris, 1965.
B. Demierre, Les fours chaux en Grce, JRS 15 2002, pp. 28296.
Rome
M.E. Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy . . . to Augustus, pp. 30823, Mortar and Similar
Mixes, Washington, 1947.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, pp. 6979, La Chaux, Les Mortiers; 23639, Les Enduits,
Paris.
C. Wetter, The Possibility of Dating Roman Monuments Built of Opus Caementicum by Analysis of the
Mortar, Opuscula Romana, 12 1979, pp. 4566.
D. Strong & D. Brown, Roman Crafts, Stuccowork, pp. 20921, London, 1976.
M. Frizot, Stucs de Gaule et des Provinces Romaines, Dijon, 1977.
R. Ling, Roman Painting, chap. 10 Cambridge, 1991.
R. Ling, Stuccowork and Painting in Roman Italy, Aldershot, 1999.
B. Dix, The Manufacture of Lime and its uses in the Western Roman Provinces, OJA 1
1982, pp. 1821.
O. Callot, Presentation des Dcors en Stuc . . . Salamine in Salamine de Chypre, ed. M. Yon,
Paris, 1980, pp. 34173.
CHAPTER SIX
CONCRETE
Preliminary Synopsis Modern Concrete and Roman Concrete
A. Nature and Qualities of Roman Concrete

in (1) Foundations
(2) Walls
(3) Roong
as (1) Aggregate
(2) Mortar
(3) Facing
B. Supply of Materials
(1) Aggregate
(2) Mortar
(3) Facing
C. Concreting Work
D. Uses of Concrete
The Rise and Fall of Roman Concrete
Concrete is the apt designation applied in modern times to the building mate- Roman
rial developed in late Republican and Imperial Rome (i.e. ca 100 BC350 AD) concrete
where an aggregate of uniformly graded rubble (often builders waste) was and
modern
cemented together (concretus) to form an integrated compound substance (concre- concrete
tio). As a categoric this name is not ancient although it is possible that it may
have been employed in ancient descriptive comment. The same term is used
in English to denote the modern material which during the course of the later
19th and 20th centuries AD has become the standard all purpose building
material of the age. This fact has given rise to after thoughts concerning the
use of the term in ancient building; since although both the ancient and the
modern material answer well enough to the term concrete, there are very
signicant dierences between them. Therefore, recently, it has been recom-
mended to use Roman Concrete to distinguish the ancient material designated
by the Romans opus caementiciumand this fashion is adopted here. However
when the context is clear the simple term concrete may be used for brevity.
There is no gainsaying that the use of the same terms for both the ancient
and the modern building material occasioned confusion in understanding Roman
Concrete construction. This was manifested in a singular pattern. Where a par-
ticular structure was investigated by someone with a background in building,
182 chapter six
Vitruvius the record was sensible and consistent (e.g. R.A. Cordingley & I.A. Richmond,
on con- The Mausoleum of Augustus PBSR X 1927, pp. 2335). However when the
crete con-
Roman construction was discussed in general terms by a scholar (as in a man-
struction
ual) then the comment was often vitiated by inconsistencies (a notable excep-
tion was Choisy, an architect by origin). This is not the place for a critical
rsum of previous literature, however the reader is warned that basic com-
ment on Roman Concrete appearing in manuals is misleading. Also in outlin-
ing the nature and qualities of Roman Concrete it is necessary to make reference
to modern concrete to emphasize the dierences which account for some of
the confused comment in manuals.
There is also another matter for preliminary mention. Vitruvius has much
to say about Roman Concrete construction in Book II, chapter 8. He rightly
recognises that the use of this material represents a basic change in the ethic
of building from Classical Greek monumental constructionalthough he does
not say so directly. Vitruvius was a man of practice not theory (notwithstand-
ing that he harped on the importance of the latter), and he could not express
abstract issues clearly. The upshot of this was that, being of conservative tem-
perament, he consistently disparages the incipient Roman Concrete construc-
tion of his day. However he does this by (often unfairly) pointing out particular
shortcomings of the construction in comparison with Greek building modes.
Now it is clear that he is denigrating the (new) concrete style of building but
it is not at all clear what mode of Greek building he is holding up in favourable
comparison to this. Certainly it is not Classical Greek Ashlar masonry since at
the beginning (II.VIII.5) he says he is referring to how the Greeks build when
they forego ashlar. The curious result of this is that Vitruvius is clear as to
what he dissapproves, but unclear as to what he approveswhich is, in fact,
a rather basic human failing. Thus in outlining the nature and qualities of
Roman Concrete it is very necessary to indicate its evolutionary background.
An approach neglected in the past.
Modern Concrete and Roman Concrete. A Synopsis
It is preferable to give a notice of the dierences between modern concrete

and Roman Concrete construction as a preliminary measure, rather than to
pick up these dierences separately as they come up in context. The dierences
are salient yet there is an underlying parallel between the two materials.
In the rst place, and very obvious, is the fact that modern concrete is a
very articial substance which is mixed together prior to placing in the required
position (i.e. as foundation, wall, roof, etc.), whereas Roman Concrete is a sub-
concrete 183
stance which acquires its (unitary) nature and qualities after its constituent mate- Modern
rials have been separately set in place (i.e. foundation, wall, roof etc.). This has concrete
and
been noted in most (not all!) comment. However the very signicant conse-
Roman
quences of this dierence are never adduced. The dierence concerns both the concrete
materials and their working, as also their use; and it can be set out rst of all
in tabular form.
Modern Concrete Roman Concrete
Constituent materials Coarse Aggregate Coarse Aggregate

Fine Aggregate Cementitious Mortar of
Cement Slaked Lime
Water Sand and/or
Volcanic Earth etc and
Water
Working Processes Mixing Concrete Mixing Mortar

Placing Concrete Placing Concrete
Shuttering Facing
Pouring Setting Core
Vibrating (Coarse aggregate
and mortar).
Mode of Use In architecture virtually In architecture always

always reinforced in situ mass concrete
concrete, either pre- In engineering occasionally
fabricated or in situ as pre-fabricated mass
as framed construction concrete (e.g. for harbour works)
Occasionally in
engineering as mass
concrete (then generally)
in situ.
Static Properties As mass concrete Strong as e.g. limestone

strong as e.g. limestone in in compression but with
compression but with only negligable tensile strength
10% or less of this and not used in tension
strength in tension.
As reinforced concrete,
steel reinforcing
inserted to bring tensile
strength up to requirement.
From this table it can be seen that the eventual nature and qualities of mod-
ern concrete and Roman Concrete are not at all dissimilar, but that they are
184 chapter six
Roman arrived at by dierent approaches. These two approaches are rather comple-
concrete mentary; sometimes one approach is more direct, sometimes the other. Individual
and dierences will be noted in the course of the remarks on Roman Concrete, but
modern some general observations can be made here.
concrete In general terms the two substances contain the same materials, but they are
incorporated in a dierent way. For both substances the basic material is a
strong cement. In modern concrete this comes to hand ready made, ex works,
as bagged Portland Cement (the product of burning crushed limestone and clay
etc.). Whereas for Roman Concrete this must be manufactured on site by mix-
ing together a lime mortar containing also volcanic earth or e.g. crushed terra-
cotta (tiles, potsherds etc.).
Thus the crucial cement is separately mixed as a mortar in Roman Concrete,
whereas in modern concrete it is included in the general mixing process. This
mixing is a vital process in making modern concrete but it does not form part
of Roman Concrete making. Equally sand as ne aggregate is part of the con-
crete mixing process for modern concrete, but there is no separate ne aggre-
gate in Roman Concrete and sand enters into the substance as part of the
mortar. Volcanic earth or its substitute, which is vital in making the cementi-
tious mortar for Roman Concrete, is not a separate component of modern con-
crete but its function is incorporated into the ready made Portland Cement.
The basic idea of modern concrete is to produce as dense a material as pos-
sible and therefore are as strong as possible in compression. This is achieved
by, as far as possible, eliminating voids in the substance. In turn, this is arrived
at by grading the materials used in descending order of unit size so that the
ne aggregate (sand) lls the gaps between the coarse aggregate (gravel, crushed
stone etc.) and the very ne grained cement lls the gaps between sand, while
water percolates into all the remaining interstices. The optimum density is
achieved by prolonged and vigorous mixing which is the crux of modern cement
work. This process is entirely absent from Roman Concrete, where the mor-
tar and the coarse aggregate are placed in situ separately.
Modern concrete is placed by pouring the liquid mix between previously
erected forms (shuttering). There is thus a concern to ensure that the mixture
thoroughly lls the alloted volumes contained by the shuttering and through-
out is distributed in thoroughly mixed condition. This is promoted by vibrat-
ing the material. In Roman Concrete the facing and the core (coarse aggregate
plus mortar) are set together at the same time by hand, so that there is little
problem concerning the core material occupying the required volumes.
If modern concrete has been properly mixed and placed, it develops its full
strength in situ fairly slowly over a passage of time. To ensure that this process
transpires to the best advantage, various measures are taken which are termed
concrete 185
curing. These are again vital in producing good strong concrete. Modern con- Roman
crete hardens and becomes strong through the chemical reaction of the water concrete
in the mixture with the cement components. This takes place (at a diminish- and
ing rate) so long as there is water present in the mix and the temperature is modern
not too low (obviously not below freezing point). Curing then consists in tak- concrete
ing measures to protect the concrete from exposure to low temperatures and,
equally, to prevent the rapid loss of water by evaporation in high temperatures.
The circumstances with Roman Concrete were quite dierent. The core mix-
ture was permanently shielded from exposure to intemperate air by the facing
(that is, for walling). With respect to Roman Concrete roong, some measures
akin to curing may have been taken. However the chemistry of the two con-
structions was quite dierent. In fact the concerns for Roman Concrete con-
struction while it was hardening were equally real, but in a dierent connection.
They relate not to chemical processes but to mechanical onesviz the thrusts
exercised by the, as yet, unsolidied mixture. They are very signicant and will
be discussed in context.
Finally although the historical rles of modern concrete and of Roman
Concrete were parallel, the mode of implementing these rles varied. Both mod-
ern concrete and Roman Concrete provided a new type of monumental build-
ing construction to serve in place of dressed stone masonry (or solid brickwork).
However, whereas modern concrete changed the previous load bearing con-
struction into a framed system of construction, Roman Concrete continued on
as a load bearing system of construction. This resulted from the fact that mod-
ern concrete was always reinforced when used in buildings. Steel bars and rods
were englobed within the concrete calculated to augment its strength in com-
pression and to provide it with tensile strength. In this fashion a framework of
pillars and beams etc supported all loads and were inlled with light panelling.
Roman Concrete was not reinforced. Thus walls were load bearing and it was
only by using arcuated forms (arches, vaults, domes) that Roman Concrete
could be made to span across space. However on occasion experimentally, sev-
283284 eral metal tie bars were set between columns to support the sote of brick
faced concrete lintels! ( J. Delaine, pp. 42122).
(A) Nature and Qualities of Roman Concrete
In speaking of the nature and qualities of Roman Concrete it is the surviving

building remains which are discussed. Whether these remarks do/did (in all
cases) constitute concrete, a unied compound material, rather than a mixed
construction of several substances (lime, sand, rubble) can not be veried
186 chapter six
Use in experimentally in each case, and here no scientic analysis of the question is
dierent entered into. It will be assumed that the construction as a rule attained its opti-
elements mum development. This is suggested by the surviving condition of many exam-
of build- ples. However it must be born in mind that here no note is taken of the fact
ing that much Roman Concrete did not survive, and this may be due in some
measure to its inferior nature, which did not achieve the consistency of con-
crete but remained rubble and mortar evenutally to fail after the manner that
Vitruvius predicted.
So far as possible the following description generalises, aiming to characterise
what makes Roman Concrete dierent from other building materials, e.g. stone
and earth. Roman Concrete is a decidedly articial material, a compound of other
materials themselves articial (e.g. burnt lime, crushed terra cotta, burnt brick
and tile). Thus the historical development of this articial compound material
from natural materials (e.g. stone, earth) is important in its understanding. In
these circumstances the material will rst be surveyed according to the adopted
programme and then on this basis will follow by way of conclusion some his-
torical explanation of its origin and developmentits very striking rise and fall.
In describing the nature and qualities of the material concrete theoretically
it should not be necessary to qualify the description according to the various
ways in which it was used in buildings. However since concrete is an articial
compound material, it is dicult to avoid this entirely, because the compound
varies somewhat depending on the construction. Accordingly some reference is
made to these matters as an aid to understanding, but they will be dealt with
substantively in their context (e.g. under concrete working and uses of concrete).
Roman concrete is (ideally) an articial compound material consisting of three
components: a uniform aggregate of small fragmented stone or terra-cotta, a
highly cementitious mortar (or cement), and a facing. The latter is not essen-
tial, structurally speaking, and is not always present. And chiey in this con-
nection arises the need to make preliminary mention of the ways in which
concrete was used.
In broad general terms Roman Concrete was employed as a building mate-
rial for foundations, for walls, and for roong. It was virtually never used for
free standing columns or piers. When Roman builders departed from stone for
such items, they employed load bearing brick (v supra, p. 133)however for a
column of Pompeii apparently of opus mixtum v Adam, p. 169. It is possible to 247
classify the uses in building of Roman Concrete more closely (cf Lugli, pp.
38590) but the three above mentioned items serve present purposes.
concrete 187
(1) Foundations
What properly should be termed articial foundations (i.e. as opposed to nat- The fac-
ural foundations, the ground underlying a building) can be reckoned as masonry ing of
set below ground level designed to avoid damage to the building because of concrete
movement of the earth below it, whether occasioned by the load of the build- and its
ing or by other disturbance. This is, in fact, simplistic; but it will suce in the signicance
present context. Although other dierences may accrue, the principal distinc-
244246 tion in Roman Concrete as used for foundations is that it was not faced. Here
an important distinction operates as to whether or not the concrete bears the
impression of timbering on its vertical surfaces. This matter will be discussed
below in detail (v infra, pp. 205206) since these negative impressions in the
vertical surfaces of concrete remains have been the source of arrant confusion
in the understanding of Roman Concrete in general. Here it must be remem-
bered that they appear only on the remains of foundations never on those of
upstanding walls.
(2) Walls
Surviving remains of Roman Concrete for the most part take the form of
upstanding wallsand these remains are plentiful and widespread (in a variety
of climes). Furthermore a good proportion of them have never been buried,
but have stood above ground level exposed to the weather for approaching
2000 years. This, in itself, is some refutation of Vitruvius adverse assessment
of the durability of the construction (cf II.VIII.13). The characteristic feature
of concrete walling is that it was always faced with another material (stone or
burnt brick in various forms). Sometimes this facing has not survivedit has
226, 235, fallen away or has been stripped o, thus providing further refutation of Vitruvius
236 adverse assessment of the stability and durability of the core material (II.VIII.8).
It also demonstrates the essential purpose of the facing which in the ultimate
analysis is not protection of the core material, although Roman builders clearly
considered this to be a basic function. Neither was the original purpose of the
facing decorative; although as it survives, according to present day taste, it is
often highly decorative. The simple fact is that almost universally Roman
242, 243 Concrete walling was stuccoed over or else revetted with marble slabs and thus
the constructional facing was not visible (Adam, p. 152, g. 330). The purpose
of the stone or brick facing was to establish and conne the volume of the
walling so the core of aggregate and mortar could be placed very quickly and
ecientlyand also be conned and retained in position while the material
was setting into a solid mass. In a word, the facing of Roman Concrete walls
acted as lost shuttering (to use modern concreting terms). This is an ancilliary
188 chapter six
Concrete function. However, because of its prominence much previous analysis of Roman
vaults and Concrete has been in terms of the nature of the facing (giving an altogether
domes unbalanced view of the construction).
(3) Roong
A surprising amount of Roman Concrete roong survivesin a number of
instances virtually intact (cf the Pantheon). This testies to the eciency of the
construction, and also it preserves much detail for investigation. However this
well preserved detail remains controversial to a considerable degree. Roman
builders were aware that their concrete construction had the compressive strength
of stone, but they did not reckon it to possess any tensile resistance at all to
speak of, and avoided placing it where tensile stresses occured (as in beams or
slabs, i.e. structural members in bending). Accordingly all roong eected in
Roman Concrete of necessity took the form of vaults or domes. Thus being
concrete the roong required shuttering; but also being of necessity arcuated,
it also required centering. And the combined function of centering and shut-
tering made for diculties in modern understanding. Even more confusing is
the presence in concrete vaulting of burnt brick arches etc., resembling rib 248
arches in Gothic vaults. It was at rst assumed that these features were simi-
lar in function, however further investigation has shown that this idea is dicult
to sustain and is most unlikely (cf D.S. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture,
pp. 23334; J.B. Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture, pp. 24148).
Thus with concrete roong the question of facing is pre-conditioned. The
roong concrete cannot be placed until the sote is shuttered in the correct
form. However the Roman builders often managed this in a very adroit way.
In the abstract it might be imagined that the builder constructed a combined
centering/shuttering for the roong out of substantial timbering which they
struck when the concrete vault had set solid. They did not. Such timbering
and its carpentery would have constituted a very expensive item and the Roman
builders economised on this very cleverly. They constructed an open work cen-
tering of light planks spaced apart so that it would support a continuous sote 249
of at burnt bricks or tiles well mortared together. The bearing strength of this
double wooden and brick construction was then strong enough to support the
placing of the concrete vault (Adam, pp. 192205 following Choisy). In many
instances this brick sote facing was strengthened (given added rigidity) by
developing above it upstanding brick ribbing which interpenetrated the con-
crete when poured (and which will be discussed in detail below). When the
concrete was placed and had set rigid encompassing the brickwork, the struc-
tural work of the roong was complete. The sote was then decorated with
concrete 189
stucco (Adam, p. 193 & g. 445) and the exposed extrados of the vault (dome) Compo-
clad with Roman/Mission style tiling. sition of
These quite salient dierences accruing from the structural rle of the build- material
ing element relate, in fact, to the work of concreting rather than to the nature
and properties of concrete. Essentially the nature and properties of the (core)
material remained very uniform wherever it was placed, as is apparent in the
following outline.
(1) Aggregate
Although the basic load bearing component of the material, the aggregate is
the least closely studied. Yet on the nature of the aggregate and the manner
in which it is placed depends (equally with the mortar) the setting of the com-
ponent into a single uniform material. With experience several desiderata emerged
relating to the size (and shape) of the aggregate, and above all, to its unifor-
mity. The point was to ensure on the one hand that the aggregate could be
placed very rapidly (by unskilled workers), but that on the other the consis-
tency of the mixture was uniform throughout and no voids developed in it.
225 Essentially it was found that it was best to maintain the aggregate of uniformly
small sized units. The size of these units was not as small as the pebbles/gravel
sized coarse aggregate of modern concrete, which is determined by the require-
ment that the units can pass into and through the interstices of the reinforc-
ing rods and barsa consideration which does not apply to Roman Concrete.
The standard for Roman Concrete came to be something no bigger than a
mans outstretched hand, and of this at disposition. This shape maximises the
surface area to the volume (the specic surface) and thus promotes adhesion
with the mortar (adhesion varies according to surface contact). Such units can
be found occuring naturally, e.g. as water born/water worn stones. However
the ideal source was fragmented building waste and scrap, both stone and terra-
cotta brick and tiling. (E.B. Van Deman, Methods of Determining the Date of Roman
Concrete Monuments, pp. 234/245). Such fragments, moreover, incorporated to
advantage the angularity which further promoted adhesion with the mortar
(v supra, p. 145).
(2) Mortar
Without doubt the virtue of Roman Concrete construction was founded on the
highly cementitious mortar which was developed because of the accidents of
supply in the vicinity of Rome and in the Campagna. This cementitious mor-
tar did not automatically ensure the production of Roman Concrete. It needed
to be incorporated correctly in the correct mix. However without it no con-
crete could be produced. It was the equivalent of Portland Cement in modern
190 chapter six
Composi- concreting. It consisted of a mixture of slaked lime and good clean (angular)
tion of sand. Also the sand was supplemented by another material possessing chemi-
material cal properties reacting with the lime to produce a cement which set very
strongly. Avoiding detailed chemistry it may be stated that when earth/clay/sand
is burned at a high temperature, some of its basic elements (silicates) are partially
decomposed so that they react eectively with lime. This quality occurs natu-
rally with volcanic earth which, of course, has been burned at extremely high
temperatures. Such earth was plentiful in the region of Mt. Vesuvius and has
remained to this day well known as pozzolana ( pulvis puteolanus), earth from
Puzzuoli (the ancient Puteoli). It is extremely porous even when compacted so
that both mechanically and chemically it is well disposed to work strongly with
lime (ecit naturaliter res admirandos according to Vitruvius II.VI.1).
Pozzolana was not at all the only earth known in antiquity to work won-
ders in cementing things together. Equally famous was (and still is) Theraike ge,
earth from the volcanic isle Thera (or Santorini). This is still used (transported
by sea) as a material in the manufacture of cement at Eleusis. Also there were
deposits of somewhat similar volcanic earth hard by Rome. Some of these the
Romans recognised and used, some not. In short a principal reason for the
development of Roman Concrete was the fact that by the good grace of nature
a vast supply of volcanic earth, well known for its cementitious properties, was
available in the region. Vitruvius accords a chapter (II.VI) to the material. This
and other literary references have occasioned confusions in modern interpreta-
tions. Even the most knowledgeable (e.g. Delbrueck and Van Deman) have
sought to identify in some measure pozzolana with a type of sand. Considered
simply as geology this is strange, since both in form (grain size and texture)
and chemical composition, pozzolana and sand have nothing in common. When
volcanic earth/dust/powder ( pulvis) is well compacted, it forms the porous rock
tufa and deposits of volcanic material are found in all stages of compaction
between pozzolana (dust) and tufa (rock). However no such material would nor-
mally be described as sand (arena). All this was pointed out clearly long ago by
C. Densmore Curtis (The Dierence between Sand and Pozzolana JRS III,
1913, pp. 197203). The matter has been reviewed by Lugli (pp. 39499) cit-
ing detailed earlier studies but expressing vague reservations about Curtis. More
recently a simplied chemical explanation of the matter has been given by
C. Wetter, The Possibility of Dating. . . . . opus caementicium by analysing the Mortar,
pp. 4546.
The rationale of placing Roman Concrete was to minimise the skilled labour
involved together with the use of tradesmans tools. In brick and stone masonry
(even rubble masonry) each unit must be correctly bedded in position by a
competent tradesman. The object of both modern concrete and Roman Concrete
concrete 191
construction was to transform this process into a mechanical mass production Composi-
one. In principle this was eected for Roman Concrete by laying down alter- tion of
nate beds of mortar and aggregate, so that the small at units of aggregate material
sank somewhat into the underlying mortar, and the beds of mortar penetrated
down into the underlying aggregate. In this way there was an optimum inter-
penetration of the aggregate and the mortar. And all of this could be done
with the use of shovels and rakes.
(3) Facing
The full eect of the above proceedure was dependent on establishing conning
limits to the placing of the aggregate and mortar. It was not that Roman
Concrete could not be built up without this connement. It could. But this
involved much greater care and time. Conning the mortar and aggregate was
eected by what is called the facing to Roman Concrete.
As is known to everyone the nature of the concrete facing manifested sev-
eral striking mutations during the course of its history. These mutations have
become standard chronological indicators, but little or no attempt has been
made to explain the sense of them in construction. However something can be
said in this connection.
During the formative stages and earlier history of Roman Concrete instances
occur where it, or something like it, is placed behind or between solid squared
220 masonry (opus quadratum). Such walls, of course, are massive and will retain any
quantity of unconsolidated mortar and aggregate (Lugli, pp. 42021). Then as
concrete construction became standardised the standard facing is small random
227, rubble walling of a single block thickness (opus incertum). This again, although
228, 229 imsy as walling is reasonably stable in itself and can be built up free stand-
ing to a reasonable height to retain a ll of unconsolidated rubble and mor-
tar. (Lugli, pp. 44583, Adam, pp. 13941). At the end of the second century
BC opus incertum facing begins to evolve into another type of facing which is
not only markedly dierent in appearance, but also betokens a signicant devel-
opment in the construction itself. The small rubble blocks of opus incertum give
place to smaller units of stone originally with faces not dissimilar to opus incer-
tum, but with sides splayed inwards at something like a 45 angle to form small
230 pyramid shapes or truncated, pyramid shapes (opus quasi reticulatumLugli, pp.
50105, Adam, pp. 14243). These units developed regular diamond or lozenge
shaped faces (ca 4 cms6 cms across) so that they were set in a regular net
like (reticulate) pattern with continuous jointing running diagonal wise (opus
231234 reticulatum)Lugli, pp. 489513, Adam, pp. 14347, Van Deman, pp. 25051.
It might be thought that this type of facing was developed for its decorative
virtueas exposed presently in ruins it is very decorative with, on occasion,
192 chapter six
Facing units of dierent coloured stone arranged in geometric patterns (Adam, pp.
material 146, 160; gs. 313, 314, 317, 350). By the vagaries of history it has also become
the inspiration of modern decorative wall tiling, often executed in polychrome
patterns. However these considerations have little or nothing to do with its use
in Roman Concrete walling, since as a matter of course, it was generally stuccoed
over, or otherwise concealed behind revetting (cf Adam, p. 147, g. 316).
The essential development was not in its aspect but in its structure. The pyra-
midal form of the units recalled and reproduced on a small scale, the advantages
of the old bastard ashlar masonry technique. This is to say while preserving a
nely dressed exterior, the units were not bedded or jointed closely one with the
other, but were simply assembled in a mortar matrix. This speeded up the set-
ting of opus reticulatum. However more than that, the structure of the facing was
quite altered. The small stone units did not constitute a stable free standing wall.
They could not be built up to any height to withstand the pressure of a consid-
erable mass of unconsolidated rubble and mortar while it was setting. This meant
that henceforth the facing and the core of Roman Concrete had to be built up
together step by step. The facing was set in place to a height sucient to retain
several layers of aggregate and mortar and then the several layers of core were
placed to this limit, keying into the serrated rear of the facingthe process being
repeated continually da capo. The facing could never stand up to any great height
in advance of the core. Equally the smaller standardised units of the facing
reected the similar development in the nature of the aggregate which came to
be well sorted small fragments of stone etc. In this way the lateral pressure exer-
cised by the setting core on the facing was always kept to a minimum. With this
the essentials of Roman Concrete construction were attained. Small units, easily
handled and quickly set in place.
Vitruvius (II.VI.1) deprecated the structural virtues of opus reticulatum facing
on the grounds that the continuous joints constituting the net pattern were a
source of weakness and promoted cracking. Actually the disposition of the joint-
ing on the diagonal has advantages, since it avoids the planes of normal stresses;
and that may well have been the reason for its adoption (it was certainly known
in ancient brick work).
However there is very grave snag with opus reticulatum which is never mentioned
in literature, although it is obvious and severe. When opus reticulatum was the
ruling type of concrete facing, these small units had to be turned out in their
thousands. Now dressing small units of stone is very unloved by stone masons, 233
indeed it is anathema to them. On the one hand it is extremely wasteful both
of stone and labouron the other it is a frustrating process since it is dicult
to keep the unit stable beneath the impact of the tooling. There must have
been ways to mitigate this diculty, but it is one of great consequence, and as
yet entirely unaccounted for. It has been noticed that opus reticulatum units beto-
concrete 193
ken a change to industrialised mass production (F. Rakob, following von Gerkan, Facing
Opus Caementicium und die Folgen, pp. 360, 372), but how were they mass pro- material
duced industrially? Also Coarelli (Public Bulding in Rome. . . ., PBSR XLV,
1971, p. 18) says that perhaps the facing units were produced in quarries and
supplied to building sites en masse but how were they produced in quarries?
For whatever reasons opus reticulatum did not long continue in vogue as the
standard form of concrete facing. From the mid rst century AD it was increas-
238241 ingly replaced by the use of burnt brick (opus testaceumLugli, pp. 529630,
Adam, pp. 15763), although on occasion it remained in use together with
burnt brick as opus mixtum (Adam, pp. 15356). Opus testaceum also, as now
exposed appears extremely decorative to us, but in antiquity it was for the most
part invisible beneath rendering (Adam, p. 199, g. 442). The individual units
of Roman brick are so at (ca 3 cms in height only) that modern usage gen-
erally nds tile a more compatible term. Although fashioned from standard
burnt bricks and roof tiles, the form of opus testaceum facing carries over from
opus reticulatum. The units were reduced to triangular shape, thus becoming pla-
nar equivalents of the opus reticulatum pyramids, and maintaining the same virtues
of easy setting and good keying into the core material.
Originally these units were re-processed out of old terra-cotta tiling recov-
ered as scrap from demolition workand Vitruvius (II.VIII.1819) lays empha-
sis on the length of exposure to the elements in their former use in building
as a recommendation of their worth. When roong tiles were the source of
opus testaceum the anges could be broken away, but this was not absolutely nec-
essary and was not always done. All the standard sizes of brick and tile (bessales,
sesquipedales, bipedales) could be reduced to triangular units by halving or quar-
tering them diagonally (Adam, p. 159).
Here again a matter of great practical concern is never commented on in
the literature on the subject. It is often stated (or left to be assumed) that the
239 re-used tiles were sawn into triangular form. And again, exactly as with opus
reticulatum facing units, these triangular bricks were required in their thousands.
Now terra-cotta is a very hard substance and sawing through it in modern
times with power tools is a laborious time consuming business. Unless the
Romans had some secret brick-saw, it would be virtually impossible to produce
these units on the required scale by hand sawing. The only reasonable means
of dividing up reused bricks and tile would seem to be knicking them and snap-
ping them along this line as is done with modern ceramic tiles. (Whether or
not this is practical would seem to be a crucial issue to be determined by exper-
imental archaeology). One piece of evidence in favour of such a solution is the
discovery of bricks with diagonals incised on their faces before ring. This is
condently stated to represent markings to guide the sawing of the blocks into
shapea futile waste of time since no guide line is necessary to saw anything
194 chapter six
Monolithic apart diagonally. On the other hand, if the units were snapped apart along a
construc- knick, then to incise the knick in the leather hard clay before ring was a sen-
tion sible measure (cf van Deman, pp. 395, 424).
Be all this as it may it is reckoned that eventually triangular brick units were
produced de novo, purpose moulded. However the problem of supply was met
opus testaceum was obviously the optimum device for facing Roman Concrete
construction. Its lightness and ease of handling made it the most exible of all
the facing materials. It could be combined with whole tiles or bricks to frame
apertures and to compartmentalise the core (van Deman, p. 413). And it was
of equal service in roong as in walling. It remained in force until the end of
concrete construction and thus enjoyed a much longer period of use than the
other styles (indeed than the other styles combined). So salient are its remains
that the uninformed visitor to Rome commonly assumes that the ancient city
was largely brick built.
If the materials were well chosen and placed in the correct manner, the con-
crete construction described above is considered (in archaeological reference) to
be monolithic. This is to say that specic elements of a building or indeed the
whole building should behave as though carved out of solid rock (to wit, a sort
of breccia). But what behaviour is this presumed to signify? There are, in fact,
many instances of building elements which are true monolithscolumns, walls,
roofs; indeed entire buildings. However the statical properties of dierent rocks
vary considerably. And it is doubtful that there is any comparitive study of the
statical behaviour of various architectural monolithsat least studies accessible
to archaeologists.
If the concrete building unit referred to is entirely in compressione.g. a
column or a wall axially loaded, then the signicance of it being a monolith
(in theory) is evident. The strength of the unit should be that of the compres-
sive strength of the stonenot something less because of reductions which must
be made for the jointing and mortaring. The pratical eect of this is that to
support the same load monolithic walls can be designed of slighter proportions
than masonry ones of the same stone. Now the compressive strength of con-
crete (modern or Roman) is of the same order as that of stone (although, of
course, varying as does stone). In terms then to support the same load walls
constructed of Roman Concrete may be slighter in thickness than masonry
walls. This, of course, was a prime consideration in the urban tenement build-
ing boom at Rome and Ostia which saw the development of Roman Concrete
construction (A. Boethius, Etruscan and Roman Architecture, p. 118, cf the concern
of Vitruvius II.VIII.1718). However it is doubtful that archaeologists have these
circumstances in mind when they refer to the monolithic nature of Roman
Concrete.
concrete 195
Specic reference to monolithic construction usually appears in connection Monolithic

with concrete roong in the form of domes. It would appear that archaeolo- construc-
gists assert the monolithic nature of concrete domes in two interests: tion of
domes
(1) to controvert the statical function of brick arches etc encased in the concrete.
(2) to controvert that any outward thrust is exercised by concrete domes.
Either or both these interpretations may be correct, but this does not neces-
sarily involve the construction being monolithic.
It is not opportune here to enter into (abstruse) questions of statics (trans-
mission of stresses in materials). Only it may be observed that modern con-
crete domes are not designed as mass concrete members, but are reinforced
with steel to provide strength in tension where it is likely that tensile stresses
may develop. It is also of interest to compare the fortunes of the Pantheon
dome with that of Ayia Sophia. These are among the largest domes ever con-
structed; the former of concrete, the latter of solid load bearing burnt brick.
Certainly the dome of the Pantheon, although 500 years older than that of
the dome of Ayia Sophia, has survived across the ages to vastly better eect
than the dome of Ayia Sophia. The latter has collapsed in part on several occa-
sions and has moved under the inuence of stresses so as to exert dangerous
thrusts on subjacent masonry. The collapses of the dome of Ayia Sophia
were occasioned by earthquakes and this may not make for fair comparisons.
Yet the dome of the Pantheon seems to have been much more stable and resis-
tant to stresses than that of Ayia Sophia. Nevertheless this is not necessarily
to be accounted for by the simple statement that it is a monolith. Those with
no knowledge of statics apparently take this to mean that the dome behaves
like an enormous slabwhich is clearly wrong and misleading. Probably it
would be helpful if the term monolith were to be replaced by good statical
explanation.
(B) Supply of Materials
The supply and (where necessary) transport of the materials of Roman Concrete
has seldom received notice, yet the circumstances are by no means fully under-
stood. Moreover not only are they of concern for the study of Roman Concrete,
but they have a wider signicancebeing of consequence in the general eco-
nomic history of the age (cf the lime burning industry and the brick making
industry).
196 chapter six
Availabil- Here a summary account is given of the circumstances of supply as aecting

ity of the several components of concrete.
materials
(1) Aggregate
Virtually any material, hard and strong in compression, is satisfactory aggre- 225,
gate for Roman Concrete. Both natural and articial material serves equally 226, 234
e.g. stone of any type or terra cotta. Ultimately shape and size are not critical.
Aggregate of all shapes and sizes is encountered; and irregular shape is no hin-
drance, indeed rather the opposite. However, according to the theory of con-
crete, aggregate should be of a certain disposition to form the best concrete,
to wit a truly unied material not a mixture. Ideally so as to maximise the
specic surface of the aggregate and hence the adhesive function of the mor-
tar, the aggregate should be of small units, uniform in size (i.e. well sorted) and
of at angular form. It is obvious that building waste and scrap is an excellent
source of supply for material of this description (van Deman, pp. 234, 245). It
is very generally available, indeed its disposal has always been burdensome.
Thus its re-use was extremely economic especially in large urban centres (e.g.
Rome, Ostia). Nonetheless aggregate reasonably approaching this optimum can
be derived from other sourcesto break up and crush materials is the simplest
of operations.
When aggregate departs from this type of material, then theoretically the
question of supply could be in issue. Theoretically variations in the nature of
aggregate may accord with:
(1) Function of the building element (e.g. foundations etc.).

(2) Date of construction (e.g. as before the optimum was understood).
(3) Region of construction.
Obviously it is the latter circumstance where the question of supply may arise.
Unfortunately no overall study has been made of this question. (Often the aggre-
gate is not visible.) Thus there is no conveniently available information show-
ing that e.g. Roman Concrete in Britain habitually uses a dierent type of
aggregate from that in Rome. Random observation may show that if some par-
ticular material is available on the spot and is suitable it will be used. Beyond
that it may be assumed that the aggregate material for Roman Concrete was
in common and cheap supply almost everywhere and there is no marked regional
dierentiation in the material used.
concrete 197
(2) Mortar
It is the cementitious mortar which transforms the several materials compris- Pozzolana
ing the construction into concrete. This mortar was in general terms itself com-
posed of three materials mixed in water: lime, sand and an additive which
reacted chemically with the lime to augment the setting strength of the mix-
turei.e. the cohesion and adhesion developed as the mixture dried out. Sand
of the required quality was to be found anywhere and lime could be manu-
factured almost anywhere. In this latter connection it should be noted that one
important eect of the development and spread of Roman Concrete construc-
tion was the great increase it entailed in lime burning. Also it should be noted
that lime burning is costly and that the large amount of lime required in mak-
ing concrete was possibly the most expensive item involved. The constant avail-
ability of large quantites of lime was so vital to the Roman building industry
that the government had to legislate in forceful terms to control and ensure its
regular supply.
The Romans were very aware of the eect in augmenting the strength of
the mortar and hence concrete through adding to the mixture volcanic earth
from the region of the Bay of Baiae and Mt. Vesuvius. They quite correctly
perceived that this resulted from the great heat to which this material had been
subjected below the surface of the earth. The material was, in fact, the prod-
uct of volcanic activity in past ages. The Romans did not grasp this, but thought
the heat had been transmitted from the numerous hot springs in the region
famous as medicinal springs of health resorts (Vitruvius II.VI.13). Nonetheless
they could appreciate that the natural virtue of this volcanic earth (or pulvis
Biaeanus/pulvis Puteolanus) might be produced articially by burning earth and
thus, by extension, by crushing up previously red earth, i.e. terra cotta. They
were also aware that deposits of earth elsewhere were known to possess by
nature similar virtues to that of the material from the region of Puteoli (e.g. at
Thera, and the environs of Rome).
Now at its oruit during the second and third centuries AD Roman Con-
crete construction (like modern concrete) was noteworthy for its wide geo-
graphical extension. The obvious question arises; how did Roman builders obtain
supplies of material providing the crucial cementitious properties for the mor-
tar used in concrete construction elsewhere (including distant regions, e.g. Britain,
Palestine, etc.). In fact, broadly speaking, four proceedures were available
to them.
(a) To import pozzolana. This was done in modern times when experiments
were being made to redevelop a powerful cement (e.g. by Seaton for the rebuild-
ing of Eddystone Lighthouse). The proceedure was well known in antiquity,
198 chapter six
Substitutes signicantly at Rome itself and Ostia ( J.B. Ward Perkins, Etruscan and Roman
for poz- Architecture, p. 241; C. Densmore Curtis, JRS, III p. 202 n. 3); but probably did
zolana not provide for much concrete construction in distant regions. One instance
where an enormous amount of pozzolana was imported directly was for the
development of Herods harbour at Caesarea on the coast of Palestine. However
here the transport was entirely by sea from port to port (C. Brandon, The
Concrete Filled Barges of King Herods Harbor of Sebastos).
(b) To use other deposits of natural volcanic earth beds of which exist in many
places (e.g. in the Rhineland), some of which are still in use for manufactur-
ing cement. Where supplies of such material were conveniently available, they
were exploited, e.g. at Rome itself (Etruscan and Roman Architecture, p. 198).
(c) To use an articial substitutei.e. earth which has been burnt at a high
temperature; this, in eect, is crushed up terra-cotta (i.e. crushed brick, tile and
pottery sherds), the hamra of traditional building in the Middle East. This mate-
rial can be produced anywhere and was probably the most widely used sub-
stitute for pozzolana (v supra p. 197).
(d) It is possible that satisfactory Roman Concrete could be made without poz-
zolana or its equivalent as an additive. Burning lime from limestones contain-
ing a signicant proportion of clay (coloured, banded limestones or marble)
may have produced a mortar suciently binding. And indeed the same eect
(or stronger) may have been obtained by burning gypsum containing consider-
able clay (M. Frizot, Mortiers et Enduits. . . .).
In short there is little to indicate that Roman Concrete construction was inhib-
ited by diculties in the supply of volcanic earth or its equivalent.
(3) Facing
The facing of Roman Concrete has been closely studied for a century and a
type series has been worked out for it which permits concrete to be dated
eectively. (E.B. van Deman, Methods of Determining the Date of Roman Concrete
Monuments.) However no consideration has been given to the supply of materi-
als for the various recognised types of facing. And when attention is given to
this question, it is seen to be beset with diculties. These diculties are ren-
dered acute because of the prodigious scale of the supply requiredopus reticu-
latum and opus testaceum units being demanded in their thousands.
It is with the increasing sophistication of concrete construction that the sup-
ply of facing materials becomes dicult to understand. The supply of material
for opus incertum is straightforward. Opus incertum is, in eect, a spindly random 228, 229
concrete 199
rubble walland thus would be built from gathered eld stones or the like in Prepara-
the same fashion as any other random rubble walling. Appearances indicate tion of
230 that opus quasi reticulatum is a direct development from opus incertum. The face facing
area may be slightly regularised, but the signicant change is that other sur- units
faces are cut away from a rough block into something approaching pyramidal
form. This is basically a well known device in masonry to facilitate ease and
speed of setting at the expense of solidity of constructionthe relatively close
jointing at the face belies the lack of solidity of the interior, which becomes
more mortar than stone (v supra, pp. 6667). It is possible to imagine the rough
shaping of eld stones in this manner as a practical operation. However, as
231234 previously noted, the supply of units for true opus reticulatum is not straightfor-
ward. These units are in form very regular small pyramids or truncated pyra-
mids of stone. The reasonably ne dressing of these small units of stone is
extremely uneconomical both of stone and time; it is also very inconvenient for
masons to dress small units of stone accurately, since it is dicult to immo-
bilise them during the operation. How facing units of opus reticulatum were pro-
duced quickly in large quantities is not evident.
238240 The replacement of opus reticulatum facing to concrete by opus testaceum was of
distinct advantage in construction. The terra-cotta units were easier and quicker
to handle, and were more exible in their applicationserving equally for a
variety of functions in walling and roong. However the supply of these trian-
gular shaped units is again not a straightforward matter. In principle it is stated
that these units were originally supplied by way of re-used burnt brick and
roong tiles; while later newly manufactured, purpose moulded units were sup-
plied. But this simple account conceals serious practical diculties. In the rst
instance there is the question of the source of used bricks and roong tiles dur-
ing the early period of the use of opus testaceum. Terra-cotta roong tiles, cer-
tainly, had been previously in use and there was no diculty about a supply
of such units from the demolition of old buildings. However, so far as is gen-
erally understood, burnt brick was not a common material of Roman con-
struction in times previous to opus testaceum, so it is dicult to see where the
supply of used bricks originated.
Even more questionable is the preparation of the triangular units from reused
239 bricks or roong tiles. It is stated that old bricks and tiles were sawn up diag-
onal wise to give the required triangular units (cf van Deman, e.g. pp. 395,
424). Sawing through bricks and tiles is a slow and laborious business with con-
temporary power driven circular saws. That this could be done by hand saw-
ing quickly and conveniently enough to cope with the massive demand of
Roman concreting is very dicult to imagine. On the other hand one of the
virtues of Roman Concrete was precisely that it was economic in its re-use of
old building material (van Deman pass).
200 chapter six
Facing as There is obviously some explanation resolving these practical diculties in

Lost the supply of facing units, and it would seem that this is a good eld for exper-
Shuttering imental archaeology.
(C) Concreting Work
Although general assessments are often made of the advantages of Roman

Concrete work, in fact compared with e.g. stone masonry the details of this
are not well established. However there is no question but that it became highly
sophisticated. Grossly misleading and inconsistent statements have been made
about the process of Roman concreting, and traces of these still colour supercial
discussion. The following account gives the present general understanding as
arrived at by the elimination of demonstrable misconceptions. However other
interpretations are theoretically possible (v infra, pp. 212213). Although these
matters may be reckoned more to fall under construction rather than materi-
als, it is proper to take note of them here since the material concrete only
becomes such by chemical reactions which occur over a period of time when
the components are properly placed together in situ to form a building element.
With experience it was found that the best concrete was formed by using
aggregate well sorted to uniformly small sized angular fragments (the root mean-
ing of caementa is broken up, fragmented). Not only does this give the strongest
setting concrete, but it was the quickest and most convenient to handleand
thus the most economic. This was placed by laying it down on and spreading
it over a previously laid bed of mortar extending across the trace of the wall.
This process was then continued alternately (mortar, aggregate, mortar) to con-
stitute the core of the wall.
Although it is possible that upstanding concrete structures could be built up
in this fashion with careful manipulation at the margins, the process was improved
in all ways by rst setting a curb to conne the layering of the core material.
This curb was constructed in dierent manners as previously described so that
it constituted shuttering to the core material while it was setting and also fac-
ing to the wall when the construction was completedi.e. it was lost shut-
tering in modern building terminology. This is the process now generally
accepted; however the mechanics which alone made it practical are never
explained in detail.
It was in the nature of the development of Roman Concreting that this fac-
ing construction evolved into ever lighter forms. Accordingly it would only
conne and retain the lateral pressure exercised by the concrete core while set-
ting if this mass were kept to a minimumi.e. the facing was built up only to
concrete 201
a very restricted height, and then the core material was placed within it. Only Facing as
when the mass had achieved some stability was the process repeated: the fac- Lost
ing was carried up a further stage and then more core material placed as pre- Shuttering
viously. Unless this were done the setting core would displace and thrust out
e.g. opus reticulatum and opus testaceum facing.
The practical necessity of this proceedure was well demonstrated on reconstruc-
tion work carried out by the writer. A construction similar to Roman Concrete
was used to make good the considerable lacunae between surviving masonry of
an Eyptian temple. The facing was of small sand lime bricks set (for aesthetic
reasons) without mortar joints. They were xed with chemical adhesive. So long
as the work was carried out in limited vertical registers (several courses of bricks
only) it proceeded very well. However when, because of externally imposed dead-
lines, attemps were made to speed the work up by increasing the height of the
increments, in subsequent days stretches of the facing would be seen to be bulging
out because of the lateral pressure exercised by the increased mass of core mate-
rial. These circumstances involved much loss of time through taking down pre-
vious construction (G.R.H. Wright, Kalabsha III, Mainz, 1987).
In addition to or (depending on circumstances) merged with this proceedure is
the periodising of concreting into more distinct vertical registers of greater
height. These represent stages at which it is convenient to halt the construc-
tion for a longer period to allow the register to set more strongly (W. Macdonald,
p. 156). Equally this allows the scaolding to be carried up a further stage to
permit subsequent operations to be performed more conveniently. Thus these
stages can often be recognised in rows of putlog holes (Adam, pp. 8790, gs.
18190; Ward Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture, p. 248). Also in the inter-
est of more eectively compartmentalising the core construction, so as further
to limit possible thrusts while setting, these constructional stages were frequently
delimited and sealed o one from another by several through courses of burnt
bricks (Adam, pp. 8790, gs. 311 ; van Deman, p. 413; cf Vitruvius non
patiuntur ruere materiam).
More detailed evidence of this proceedure should be preserved than is recorded.
The circumstances become systematic with the development of opus reticulatum.
Here the facing material is imsier and is not suited to being carried up as an
independent structure. On the other hand the tailing of the units is specically
adapted to keying into the core material. In this way the pyramidal units should
have been mortared together only at the face (presumably with a specially
strong quick setting mortar) leaving the snag-toothed tailing open so that it
could be properly keyed into the core matrix. There is no point in the pyra-
midal form of the units unless this proceedure obtains. These circumstances are
202 chapter six
Concrete even more pronounced with opus testaceum. Thus close examination should show
Vaults a dierentiation in mortar between that used to build up the facing and that
and used for the core construction. However these details are never referred to or
Domes illustrated (but cf Adam, p. 80, g. 168).
When systematised in the fashion described, the advantages of Roman con-
creting are clear: they minimise the time and expense of setting and xing
masonry. In brick and stone masonry each unit of brick and stone must be
separately handled by a competent tradesman and set with care so that due
bond etc is maintained, equally whatever xing is incorporated proceeds unit
by unit. With concrete the material is set and xed en masse and, apart from
the facing, all the work can be done by unskilled to semi-skilled operatives (as
is the case with modern cementing). Also the use of tools is reduced to a min-
imum and these are of the simplest, e.g. shovels and rakes. On large scale pro-
jects this is an enormous economythe structure is mass produced and only
the aspect is craftsmans work. In this way concrete construction invokes a very
distinct and realist division between structure and aspect in building, something
entirely alien to classical Greek idealism.
All this is directly apparent in concrete walling. However perhaps the most
spectacular application of Roman concreting was in the arcuated roong over
great halls by way of cross vaulting and domes. Was it possible to extend the
advantages and economies of concreting to these structures? It is clear that
every eort was made to achieve this.
Although the material has never been assembled to this end (but cf Adam)
it would seem that in earlier concrete vaulting fairly large units of aggregate
were placed radially after the manner of masonry vaulting and cemented together
with mortar. This was carrying on the tradition of rubble vaulting with stronger
setting mortar to unify the construction. However in developed Roman con-
crete vaulting (i.e. from the introduction of opus testaceum onwards) by various
devices the concreting of roong was assimilated as far as possible to that of
walling. This means that the same material was preferred and it was placed in
the same way as that of wallingi.e. the aggregate was of the same well sorted
small fragments (not such as could be separately positioned radially) and the
aggregate and mortar were placed as far as possible in horizontal layers. Since 249
the spatial disposition of roong construction was very dierent from that of
walling construction, this latter proceedure required some wisdom and device.
The diculty of placing mortar and aggregate in horizontal layers is that
this requires more or less vertical shuttering. The intrados of vaulting had to
be centred and shuttered in any case (Adam, pp. 192205) so this gave no con-
cern, but the extrados was quite another matter. It was here that adjustments
had to be made to render practical the placing of concrete in the same man-
concrete 203
ner as for walls. The extrados facing could only be vertical, and the question Concrete
was how to adjust this requirement with the incurving contour of the vault. Vaults
This was managed by several devices generally in conjunction. In the rst and
instance the drum was carried up externally far above the springing of the Domes
dome. This, of course, was structurally advantageous as strengthening the
haunches of the dome in the vulnerable tension zone, and when faced it allowed
the placing of concrete in the standard way for, say, the lower third of the
dome. Above this for, say, another third of the height of the dome the extra-
dos could be carried up in a series of retreating steps and the (vertical) risers
could be faced in the normal way (or otherwise shuttered), thus permitting the
middle third of the height of the dome to be concreted normally. This left only
the upper third of the dome. And here the problem was of a dierent order
249 since because of the hemispherical curvature the extrados was approaching the
horizontal. While often in monumental work the actual crown of the dome was
left open as a circular skylightan oculus (Adam, pp. 20003, gs. 443, 4458).
Also in addition to the device of carrying up the extrados by vertical incre-
ments, the horizontal bedding of the concrete was facilitated by another dierent
measure. This was the system of brick arches forming vertical ribbing in the
concrete, the function of which has been controversial. In fact, whatever other
function they may have exercised, these brick arches, by compartmentalising
the volumes to be concreted, facilitated the placing of the aggregate and mor-
tar in the normal way. These ribs conned the volumes to be concreted
of core material into small units thus minimising their plasticity and also act-
ing as facing to the compartments to restrain ow while the concrete was
being placed. This primordial function has never been suciently emphasized
(cf D.S. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, pp. 23234). Not only did brick
ribbing in concrete vaulting reduce and restrain thrusts while the concrete
was setting, it was a vital measure to make possible the eective placing of
the concrete (Etuscan and Roman Architecture, pp. 50911; Adam, p. 192; Choisy,
chap. II).
When these devices are considered it can be seen how sophisticated Roman
Concrete practice became. The strongest mix and the most economic method
of placing it were developed together and great ingenuity was shown in devis-
ing means so that the proceedure could be used in virtually all circumstances.
Beyond this, one or two other renements of practice may be mentioned
here. Although, so far as is known, they were without any means of accurately
determining loads, stresses and resistances, it was obvious to Roman builders
that the load and thus stress in compression on structural elements increased
downwards. Thus it was rational to use stronger material in the footing of a
structure diminishing in strength towards the crown. In the case of a dome no
204 chapter six
Concrete material at all was necessary at the crown, which could be left open as an
Vaults oculus. Now with concrete it was the aggregate which principally supplied the
and compressive strength of the mixture, so it was rational to use dense hard and
Domes thus stronger material as aggregate for the lower part of structures and pro-
gressively lighter and weaker material for the upper (H.-O. Lamprecht
Rationalisiertes Bauen durch opus caementicium pp. 13739 in BdA Berlin
1991). This not only eliminated surplus bearing strength in the upper portion,
but also reduced the overall loads of the structure since simply by varying the
mix of the concrete a great deal of the structure could be built in lighter mate-
rial without impairing its strength. It had always been obvious that the lighter
the construction of a dome the better, but in some instances (e.g. the Pantheon)
there was a graduated reduction in the weight and strength in four or ve
stages from the footings of the structure upwards, eected by varying the aggre-
gate from fragments of strong dense rock (e.g. basalt) to fragments of porous,
and thus very light, tufa or pumice (Etruscan and Roman Architecture, p. 259). In
this way all the advantages of standard concreting proceedure were retained
while eecting the structural economies which in other modes of building were
obtained by changing the materials of constructione.g. dressed stone footings
then rubble, brick, wood etc.
The degree of expertise achieved in Roman concreting by the 2nd century
AD when the core material was disposed in conjunction with burnt brick is
evident. The historical development and eventual disappearance of such a build-
ing process is thus a question of great interest and specic attention to this
signicant question will be given by way of conclusion to the chapter.
(D) Uses of Roman Concrete
Roman concrete was apparently developed in the rst instance as a material

for constructing buildings, but it should be pointed out that the Romans
made use of their concrete for engineering works equally as for building con-
struction. Concrete was extensively used in road works, and it came to be vital
in harbour works, both vital concerns in the international world of the Roman
Empire. Although outside the scope of this book something is said about the
latter concern, harbour works, since it is only here that prefabricated concrete
(so familiar in modern concreting) was used on a large scale in Roman times.
Roman merchant men included large vessels of a burden comparable with
modern coasters. Such shipping could not be beached on a shallow coast or
shelter inside any river mouth, but required protected deep water harbours.
Thus the construction of moles, groins or the like running out into deep waters
concrete 205
to provide for the extensive development of wharves and quays was a routine Concrete
project of Roman civil engineering. Here really massive units of material were in Civil
required to establish the core of such underwater constructions. Then (as now) and
concrete units were perceived to be indicated for this purpose. They could be Military
produced to requisite dimensions ad lib in the near vicinity (indeed on the very Engineer-
spot). The proceedure was to cast them in boats or barges and sink the ves- ing
sels in the exact position desired. One instance where the proceedure has been
well studied and reported is Herods harbour works at Caesarea where poz-
zolana was imported direct from the Bay of Naples to ensure manufacture of
hydraulic cement (C. Brandon, The Concrete Filled Barges of King Herods
Harbour of Sebastos).
Although unusual, it seems Roman Concrete was also used on occasion for
military engineering. A very unexpected instance of this has come to notice
recently at Samosata, a large city on the East bank of the Euphrates and cap-
ital of the province Commagene. From the capture of the city by the Romans
in 72 AD various parts of the urban fortications were raised with a concrete
like core and a facing variously of opus quadratum, opus incertum, opus reticulatum
and opus mixtum. (A. Tirban, Roman Masonry Technique at the Capital of the Commagenean
Kingdom.) In another instance when it became necessary to fortify cities in Gaul
at the end of the 3rd century AD, the fortications were often of concrete
structure faced with opus mixtum or with small block masonry known as opus vit-
227 tatum (Adam, pp. 15556).
As for the use of Roman Concrete in constructing buildings it is immedi-
ately obvious that typically the use of the material was a total oneexcept,
that is, for ttings like doors. The import of this is that while individual ele-
ments of another material may appear in a concrete building, it is very unusual
for a single element of concrete to be incorporated in e.g. a stone or brick
building. Wooden framed oors may be used in a multi storied concrete ten-
ement house, since concrete vaulting would be wasteful of space; but it is very
dicult to nd instance of e.g. a concrete roof to a stone building. Something
has been said already (v supra, pp. 186188) concerning the use of concrete for
various building elements and only brief observations are added here.
It was normal for monumental buildings in Roman Concrete to have sub-
stantial concrete foundations. Where (as would have been common) these were
laid underground in foundation trenches, then it seems frequently the earthern
walls of these trenches were retained by timbering, since the impression of posts
234236 and planks is often visible on the sides of these foundations now exposed by
the vagaries in ground level. This timber lining the trenches would also serve
the important function of preventing the water content of the mortar from
being sucked out by the surrounding earth to which it otherwise would be
206 chapter six
Concrete directly juxtaposed. There are also foundations and substructures of unfaced
Founda- concrete which do not bear impressions of timbering uprights. It seems likely
tions that these structures were originally not conned by earth but freely accessi-
blethey would thus be shuttered in the normal way, so that the posts set out-
side the boarding left no impression on the face of the concrete after the
shuttering was struck. These concrete substructures were either subsequently
buried or else were in positions not publicly visible. As for the core concrete
of foundations, probably in large part it was dierently constituted from that
of upstanding walls. In many instances the space to be concreted was not read-
ily accessible below the ground and the material was dumped in from above.
In these circumstances the aggregate could have been anything that came to
hand and of assorted sizes, including large fragments and boulders.
The other uses of concrete in building which required some adjustment to
standard practice was in vaulted roof construction. Clearly it was sought to
align the practice here as far as possible with that in walling, however, inevitably
some variation accrued. The overall concern was for lightness of construction.
As pointed out this was furthered by using the lightest material as aggregate
(e.g. pumice), but in addition other devices were employede.g. immuring
amphorae in the concrete core, and indeed the practice began of largely replac-
ing the concrete fabric with rows of interlocking clay units of tubular form
(v supra, p. 204)
The facing of vaulting roong was also sui generis. Here weather proong was
of prime concern and the standard systems of wall facing (reticulatum, testaceum)
were not developed to this end. In their place the concrete was sealed with
renderings of strong hydraulic cement etc. and clad with roong tiles of appro-
priate form, in the most monumental circumstances bronze tiles. (W. Macdonald,
The Architecture of the Roman Empire, pp. 110, 160). The interior of domes were
almost invariably decorated with stucco coering (Adam, p. 202, g. 445).
There is also a salient feature of general application associated with the use
of concrete in building. The Romans regarded this material as of structural
signicance only. Whereas the aspect of e.g. nely dressed stone masonry was
of concern to them either in combination with the structure, or on its own
account (e.g. as revetting), the concrete core material was never intended to be
exposed and even the quite ornamental appearance of faced concrete (opus reti-
culatum, opus testaceum) was as a matter of course stuccoed over or revetted 242, 243
with marble. It is of some interest to note that this attitude reappeared with
the development of modern concrete construction and it was a considerable
time before exposing unrendered concrete to view gained any acceptance. An
interesting demonstration of Roman antipathy to exposed concrete facing
(here opus incertum) can be seen in the Herculaneum Gate at Pompeii (Adam,
concrete 207
p. 152, g. 330). The stucco refacing in Augustan times was decorated with Concrete
false jointing (mis)representing opus quadratum! This device of false jointing on in its
plaster refacing was once quite common in modern European provincial work. social
Roman concrete was a very purposefully developed articial material. Thus, context
in addition to speaking of the uses it was put to in any given building, it is
also necessary to speak of the overall eld (e.g. social, economic, geographical)
of its use. Such questions help in the understanding of its development.
Roman Concrete in its origins was not much dierentiated from construc-
tions elsewhere in the Hellenistic World using rubble of small format and a
highly cementitious mortar. It was the wealth of Late Republican and Early
Imperial Rome coupled with the continuing building boom to house an inated
population which turned Roman Concrete into an idiosyncratic building mate-
rial. In this way it may be said that its origins were narrowly linked to a met-
ropolitan setting. It was essentially an urban based material not a rural one,
and it was best adapted to a large scale project not a small one. When the
material had achieved its full development by the mid rst century AD, its
advantages were such that all these formative connes were transcended. Good
Roman Concrete construction was spread throughout Italy and much of the
Empire. Indeed what in the past appeared to be regional limits (e.g. a virtual
absence in the Eastern provinces) are now losing cogency. Such was the ver-
satility of the material (cf Mesopotamian mud brick) that Roman Concrete
came to be used for monumental temples as for some rural villas. However
its most characteristic development remained large scale, urban, secular build-
ing projects; cf the insulae at Ostia and Trajans Markets (W. MacDonald,
The Architecture of the Roman Empire II, J.B. Ward Perkins, Etuscan and Roman
Architecture).
The Rise and Fall of Roman Concrete
Roman Concrete in the main has been regarded by modern enquiry as a very
individual type of building construction which is representative of the Roman
genius. And so it isnotably during the rst two centuries of the Christian era
when it ourished fully developed so that it was used to carry out building pro-
jects almost anywhere. However Roman Concrete is a purposefully developed
compound material. It did not appear suddently in the repertoire of building
materials like some newly discovered natural resource. It was evolved out of
antecedents and in turn was replaced by other modes and materials of con-
struction. Accordingly something is said of the relationship between Roman
Concrete and these various other modes and materials of ancient building. This
208 chapter six
Evolution is a eld hitherto not much enquired into; but is the background to under-
out of standing the rise and fall of Roman Concrete and its spectacular rle in ancient
other building. However it must be stated in advance that the following remarks seek
forms of only to recognise matters of broad principles.
construc- During the last generation or so an established trend has been to ascribe an
tion even earlier date to the origin of Roman Concrete. Where once this was put
in the days of Sulla at the beginning of the 1st century BC, it is now spoken
of as a century or more earlier (F. Coarelli, Public Building in Rome between
the First Punic War and Sulla; F. Rakob, Opus Caementicium und die Folgen).
It is possible that the facts on which this assessment is based might be char-
acterised in a more revealing way. Rather than speak of the much earlier ori-
gins of Roman Concrete it would be as well to refer to the open ended status
of Roman Concrete and the length of time elapsed before it assumed its denitive
character. The components of Roman Concrete are said to be a core of bro-
ken up material united by a highly cementious mortar and generally, but not
always, some facing material of a more regular disposition. Now building con-
struction can be found in other places and at an earlier date which could be
described as of similar composition. It thus requires closer description of the
materials, and, more signicantly, close specication of the way they were incor-
porated together before the true nature of Roman Concrete can be established.
As an eort to approach this matter in the most direct possible fashion the
following long established modes of building are noted as of relevence to Roman
Concrete:
(1) Mortared Rubble

(2) Terre Pis
(3) Bastard Ashlar
(4) Inserted Facing
Roman Concrete which is now considered to be of an earlier date than pre-

viously thought is, generally speaking, opus incertum. This class is recognised by
its facing which presents the appearance of random rubble walling. In fact
where investigated it seems to be a spindly random rubble wall, one stone in
thickness. Little is reported of the core material, but the overall impression is
that, in the main, this consists of varied unsorted material including rock frag-
ments not dissimilar from the facing (Van Deman, p. 245). In this fashion the
essential construction follows that of the age old tradition of mortared rubble.
The more regular stones are used in the facing, other stones together with small
fragments and pebbles are disposed in the ll. The dierence between tradi-
tional random rubble walls and opus incertum is, of course, in the mortar.
concrete 209
Traditional random rubble was put together with mud mortar, while opus incer- Concrete
tum uses cementitious lime mortar. However highly cementitious mortar was and Terre
not an invention proper to Roman Concrete. The strength of such mortar (used pis
e.g. in the East) was always a source of wonder. Such mortar was often thought
to be gypsum based, and recently archaeological investigations have been carried
out on masonry in the Hellenistic East using strong gypsum mortar (v supra,
p. 176). Thus there is little of characteristic novelty in opus incertum construction.
However instances are found of concrete construction where only the core
survives and this bears the impression of posts and boarding which was appar-
ently shuttering to conne the core material while the mortar was setting. Some
of this construction appears to be of an early date. It is now generally under-
stood that such unfaced construction is for foundations which were never intended
to be exposed (Macdonald, p. 155). However this distinction was once not
appreciated and it was often inferred that all Roman Concrete was built up
between shuttering. This seemingly mistaken idea brought in issue another long
established building tradition, terre pis (v supra, pp. 8790)especially since
the Western Mediterranean (e.g. Africa, Spain) was a centre for this type of
construction (v supra, p. 90) and it gures in Delbruecks account of Hellenistic
Building in Latium (pp. 8587).
In fact all shuttering is similar in nature and mode of use; but beyond the
degree to which foundation concrete was shuttered (a matter by no means fully
evident) terre pis does not appear to stand in the main line of development
of Roman Concrete. There is a salient distinction which has been little appre-
ciated. The core of Roman Concrete foundations are shuttered because the
mortar is placed in a (semi)-liquid condition and needs to be conned while it
is setting. Terre Pis is shuttered because the earth mixture employed is uncon-
solidated, not because it is liquid or semi-liquid. It is not! A little water is added
to lay dust and facilitate handling, but to transform the earth into mud defeats
the process of terre pis. As the name pis correctly indicates, the essence of
pis construction is that it is rammed or stamped (i.e. compressed) and for this
the earth must be dryyou can not compress mud (v supra, pp. 8990). This
blind alley is probably the reason behind statements that the aggregate and
mortar core of Roman Concrete was compacted by tamping etc. The process
of forming concrete is one of mixing not compressing. What Adam (p. 81,
g. 170) illustrates as ramming is not to compress the concrete core material,
but is the equivalent of todays rodding etc., i.e. to ensure that the mixture
fully occupies the formwork.
It appears that a basic change in building construction at Rome came about
in the days of Augustus. In the rst place this is attested to contemporaneously
in two extremely well-known sources, although it has never been the fashion
210 chapter six
Concrete to consider them in conjunction. Both the Emperor and his self-proclaimed
and the architectural expert refer to this basic change in decided terms. Unfortunately
transfor- they appear to be talking about quite dierent things, and neither the state-
mation of ment of one nor of the other is easily aligned with the surviving evidence of
Rome material building remains.
from brick As all know, Augustus said he found Rome brick and left it marble. In this
to marble he must have been speaking of the aspect of building construction. Since there
are virtually no buildings of solid load bearing marble (e.g. like the Parthenon)
at Rome, it is clear that Augustus meant by marble, buildings revetted with
marble facing. What he meant by brick is still debated. It is generally accepted
that he meant buildings of solid load bearing mud brick, plastered perhaps but
not faced with any other material. If so both assertions would seem to be over-
statements in the interest of expressiveness. Mud brick construction in Rome
when Augustus came to power would have been limited to some domestic build-
ing (van Deman, p. 388). (Archaeology identies no evidence of solid burnt
brick building in pre-Augustan Rome, and the many buildings faced with burnt
brick are all dated after his death.) Perhaps a better expression in English of
the Emperors meaning is that he found it mud (faced). That he exagerated
the amount of marble revetting he introduced more or less goes without say-
ing. In any event Augustus makes no mention of concrete (structura), which is
rather strange. He must have had some intimation of this type of building mate-
rial which was probably the most common structural material employed in
Rome. In his time concrete structure was being faced in the new fashion of
opus reticulatum, a very striking net like pattern of small stone units. Augustus
makes no mention of this, presumably because for the most part such facing
was not visible, being plastered over.
On the other hand Vitruvius (II.VIII) has much to say about developments
in building construction during his own time (and that of the Emperor) in the
interest of thoroughly denigrating them. Sometimes it is dicult to know whether
Vitruvius is referring to the aspect or the structure of buildings. However his
strictures are specically directed towards the new style of concrete construc-
tion faced with opus reticulatum on the grounds that this mode of building dis-
regards traditional commonsense provisions for ensuring the solidity and stability
of the structure.
If the statements of Augustus and Vitruvius are referred to archaeological
ndings for conrmation, the position seems to be as follows. While there is
abundant evidence that buildings were revetted with marble slabs, the surviv-
ing material remains do not indicate that there was a marked deterioration in
building structure in the time of Augustus. It is, of course, always possible to
assert negative evidence on this score, and say that construction which elicited
concrete 211
the condemnation of Vitruvius was so defective (as he says) that it collapsed in Vitruvius
short order and has left no tracebut this is not very realistic. and
The most reasonable concordance for the statements of Augustus and Vitruvius Augustus
is that if one vaunted the improvement in appearance of buildings during the
period and the other condemned the deterioration in their structure, then the
only conclusion which can be drawn is that there was an even more trenchant
separation between the structure and the aspect at that time. And this seems
to be apparent in the surviving evidence of the building remains.
It may be put this way. The development of a monumental construction out
of the old utilitarian mortar and rubble involved a distinction between the
appearance (facing) of building and its structure (core), but during the time of
Augustus with new walling these became totally disconnected one from the
other. The Emperor cared nothing (knew nothing) about the structure of build-
ings and was proud of new appearances; the architect was preoccupied with
the structure of buildings and was ashamed of the (imagined?) defects newly
introduced into previously good building practice by abandoning the old unity
of face and core (structure and aspect).
The essential novelty of the new manner of concrete construction developed
in Augustan times has not been kept under scrutiny. The novelty was not sim-
ply a dierent style of facing. At this period the core construction eectively
passed from being rubble masonry which may have been transformed into con-
crete depending on the setting strength of the mortar to become a substance
which of necessity was concrete since otherwise it would have been an ineective
mixture of mortar and small pieces of stones etc. That is to say the construc-
tion passed from being mortared rubble to stiened cement. This essential devel-
opment was noted in passing a century ago by E.B. van Deman (pp. 235,
n. 8, 245). With this development any homogeneity between the facing and the
core of Roman Concrete walls was lost, so that a wall was resolved into three
distinct vertical elementsand Roman Concrete departed from the category of
masonry. Deplorable developments according to Vitruvius. They were certainly
very basic and far reaching onesand ultimately their merit or demerit could
only be revealed by the passage of time. In fact Roman Concrete walls appear
to have stood the test of time very well.
Given this basic change in building construction away from masonry (i.e. the
ordered assembly of similar units into a composite fabric), it is of interest to
enquire into the possible relevence of preceeding modes of building. In fact the
very idiosyncratic nature of opus reticulatum facing suggests anities of principle
with past building practices. The inward tapering (pyramidal) form of the units
rehearses on a very small scale, the system of bastard ashlar masonry, whereby
masonry units were fair faced but the joints were splayed inwards so that, except
212 chapter six
Concrete for the face, the masonry was not nely dressedthus, in eect, it passed from
and the ashlar facing to rubble structure (v supra, pp. 6667). The advantages of this
distinction device are signicantly aspectual, they enable a wall with the external appear-
between ance of ashlar to be built with economy of dressing and setting proper to rub-
structure ble construction.
and aspect There is, however, another building mode very ancient in date where par-
allels in appearance with opus reticulatum are uncannily close. This is the cone
mosaic device of wall cladding developed in early Mesopotamia (v supra,
p. 118). These units were circular at the face and thus cones rather than pyra-
mids. But in size and arrangement they were identical with opus reticulatum
facing, even to the practice of arrangement in polychromatic patterns. This was
standard practice with cone mosaics, but is also found on occasion with opus
reticulatum facing (v supra, p. 191).
The signicance of this comparison is not to infer any direct connection
between the two traditions which are so widely separated chronologically. The
signicance is that the close parallel in form between the two devices may legit-
imately infer a parallel in the process of setting them in place. If so this would
occasion a complete reversal in the current understanding of Roman concret-
ing. The early Mesopotamian cone mosaic was a facing to mud brick con-
struction originally in the interest of protecting the exposed mud brick surface
by cladding it with a much harder material. In this fashion when the mud
brick structure (wall, column) was completed, a heavy layer of mud plaster was
applied to it into which the cones were inserted. The cone faces came to be
varicoloured so that they were arranged as patterns (hence cone mosaics) to
constitute decoration as well as protection. Originally these cones were of stone,
but later during their oruit they were of burnt brick. The convergence (as
they now say) in detail here is very striking. Were opus reticulatum units, then,
another instance of inserted wall facing?
In addition to the comparitive evidence of the cone mosaics details evident
in the material remains of opus reticulatum support this seemingly historical inter-
pretation. The point of opus reticulatum as lost shuttering is that the serrated tail-
ing aords excellent keying with the core mixturein which case a distinction
should be apparent between the mortar used at the faces for setting the units
and the mortar of the core mass interpenetrating the tails of the units. Such a
distinction is never illustrated. On the other hand numbers of instances occur
where the pyramidal units have been weathered out of their emplacements leav-
ing intact the network of mortar into which or by which they were xed. 235, 236
Several of these instances are illustrated (e.g. Adam, p. 145, gs. 310) and the
detail of the surviving mortar patterns strongly suggests that the units were
inserted into the mortar exactly as were the Mesopotamian Cone (wall) Mosaics.
concrete 213
In this event the concreting process associated with opus reticulatum would be Excep-
quite other than is now generally accepted. The concrete core would have been tional sta-
built up between wooden shuttering (as with terre pis) and when the core of tus of
the wall was complete the face would have been plastered with a thick coat of Opus
mortar into which the reticulatum units would have been inserted. Reticu-
There are, of course, very strong generic arguments against this proceedure. latum
It is less economic than building up the face and the core pari passu which
avoids the need for shuttering. And it leaves the facing without any essential
function (according to the wisdom of hind sight?). The imagined function would
be that of protection (as with the cone mosaics), but (unlike the cone mosaics)
the stone pyramids are in fact no harder and more durable than the wall core.
The reticulatum facing units are (like the cone mosaics) undoubtedly decora-
tive, however (unlike the cone mosaics) they were generally plastered/stuccoed
overso it is dicult to see how this consideration could have counted for
much. Of course, these things could have appeared very dierently to con-
temporary understanding, and certainly the norm has always been for facing
to be applied after the core has been built. Did opus reticulatum involve a muta-
tion in concreting proceedure? If so the strictures of Vitruvius appear in a new
and more cogent light. The facing of opus reticulatum walls clearly has no
organic connection with the structure and the wall is eectively separated into
3 vertical slices (exactly as Vitruvius (II.VIII.7) says: Ita tres suscitantur in ea struc-
tura crustae, duae frontium et una media farturae. Furthermore the core material is
not substantial blocks of masonry, but an aggregate of small broken up mate-
rial. This was rubbish according to Vitruvius, who apparently did not grasp
the principle of concrete at alli.e. the mortar and the aggregate together bear
the load and the unity of the compound substance depends on the greatest
possible surface contact between the mortar and the aggregate. He could only
perceive (II.VII.8) the insubstantiality of the core (e molli caemento).
If there is anything circumstantial in such conjectures they have an interest-
ing sequel. The oruit of opus reticulatum was relatively brief, and not long after
Vitruvius condemnation it was ousted by opus testaceum, where the concrete core
of walls was faced by triangular burnt bricks or tiles. Now it is clear that these
bricks or tiles were not inserted into plaster, but were laid in the same man-
ner as any brick masonry, i.e. by being bedded and jointed in mortar. Thus
if indeed opus reticulatum involved an aberration in concreting procedure, cir-
cumstances may have got back into line again fairly quickly with the advent
of opus testaceum. In which case perhaps Vitruvius wrote to some eect.
In any event it is in the mode of opus testaceum that Roman Concrete sta-
bilised and ourished for 250300 years. And in this mode it disappeared. Its
disappearance remains an enigma of historyunaccounted for and, indeed,
214 chapter six
Sudden virtually unconsidered. Whereas the development of Roman Concrete was a

end of hand over st aair so that it is dicult to say when it began, this ruling mode
Romanic of construction without manifesting any signs of deterioration or decadence fell
concrete out of use completely in a very short time. Its fall was astoundingly sudden
almost within a single generation and well within two generations during the
rst half of the 4th century AD. The dramatic nature of this can only be appre-
ciated by imagining the complete disappearance of contemporary reinforced
concrete construction between the present day and before the year 2050. It is
unimaginable! When the Pantheon was built in the lifetime of the Emperor
Hadrian at the beginning of the 2nd century AD it was unthinkable that the
grandiose project of roong a vast clear space by arcuated construction should
be carried out in any other material than Roman Concrete. When Ayia Sophia
was built about 400 years later to an identical structural programme, it was
out of the question that anything like Roman Concrete would be employed.
The material was forgotten, long out of mind. A visitor from Constantinople
to Rome at that time, when he saw the Pantheon would have automatically
assumed that the rotunda was solid brickwork. Exactly at the middle of this
time interval, i.e. 200 years previously, Roman Concrete construction disap-
peared within a lifetime. How? Why? The structure of the Pantheon rotunda
is built entirely out of the one material, Roman Concrete; any other material
present is surface embellishment which can be removed without aecting the
stability of the structure. Compare this with the polyglot structure of Ayia
Sophia, where monumental nely dressed stone, mortared rubble, burnt brick
and very much metal all play a part in the structure. Why this passage from
unity to diversity of materials?
The place of Roman Concrete in building history is clearits rise and fall.
Its progressive development ousted various types of masonry, and it reverted
to or was replaced by masonry of various types. Prior to its development Greek
and Roman building made use of various materials in conjunction to consti-
tute the structural fabric of a building, e.g. stone masonry foundations and walls
with wooden framed terra-cotta clad roong. And this practice returned when
the unied single material construction in Roman Concrete lapsed. So much
is obvious on the face of things. There are explanations (rapidity, mass opera-
tion, simplicity, etc.) for the fact that masonry construction using a variety of
material was largely set aside for 300400 years by Roman Concrete. But why
did the use of Roman Concrete lapse suddenly to be replaced by masonry con-
struction using a variety of materials. And lapse so totally, that nothing like it
appeared again for another 1,500 years, until the industrial revolution in mod-
ern Western Europe. The one lasting eect of Roman Concrete construction
is that in its sequel burnt brick masonry became as important in Western
Building construction as stone masonry, if not more so.
concrete 215
Such a question is a challenge to historical enquiry and theory. Yet nowhere The fall
in the manuals of building history has this question been specically addressed. of Roman
On the face of it the sudden lapse of Roman Concrete construction can not concrete.
be due to the simple transference of the Imperial Capital from Rome to Possible
Constantinople. Nor can it be due to technological reasons, i.e. the func- analyses
tional superiority of replacement materials. Thus its solution must lie in the
socio-economic plane. Perhaps articles in Economic History journals may
deal with the problem but they are not cited in the literature of the history of
building.
The striking history of Roman Concrete construction warrants a concluding
summary. All the materials and their virtues were long known; and indeed on
occasion the advantages of using them in combination had been realised. There
was a gradual development into the highly systematised Roman Concrete con-
struction extending over perhaps two centuries. Then the fully evolved system
appeared rather strikingly at the time Vitruvius was writing his treatise and it
remained a dominant building mode for about 300 years. Then even more pre-
cipitantly, during the middle of the 4th century AD, it totally disappeared and
nothing like it was known again for almost 1,500 years.
Unfortunately this outline is not readily substantiated in the manuals, being
based on the disposition of the core: the material and how it is placed together
with the mortar. It is also an attempt to divine salient developments in a mass
of diversely reported facts. And these putative trends also should be repeated.
Where the core often consists of sizeable pieces of stone not much diernt from
the facing (opus incertum), the work is still within the mortared rubble masonry
tradition and it is only the strength of the mortar which constitutes its dierence.
It is possible that the small units of opus reticulatum go with the great change in
structure to small well sorted fragments which stien the mortar into concrete.
Finally with the use of terra-cotta for facing (opus testaceum) the use of broken
fragments of brick and tile as aggregate increases markedly. Perhaps this latter
241 development had within it the seeds of a complete transformationthe replace-
ment of concrete with solid load bearing brick masonry. However the motiva-
tion for this transformation is not in any way obvious.
General References
General
H.O. Lamprecht, Opus Caementitium, Dusseldorf, 1968.
G. Lugli, La Tecnica Edelizia Romana, Rome, 1957.
J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, Paris, 1989, pp. 14366.
216 chapter six
G. Giovannoni, Building and Engineering, in C. Bailey ed., The Legacy of Rome, Oxford, 1924
(1964), pp. 42974.
W.C. Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I, Yale, 1965, (82) pp. 13772.
H.N. Walsh, How to Make Good Concrete, London, 1955 (for analogies with modern concrete)
Historical Development
C. Wetter, The Possibility of Dating Roman Monuments Built of Opus Caementicium by
Analysing the Mortar, Opuscula Romana XII, 1973, pp. 4566.
E.B. van Deman, Methods of Determining the Date of Roman Concrete Monuments,
AJA XVI 1912, pp. 2351, 387432.
M.E. Blake, Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus, Washington, 1959,
p. 230.
M.E. Blake, Roman Construction in Italy from Tiberius through the Flavians, Washington, 1959.
M.E. Blake, Roman Construction in Italy from Nerva through the Antiones, Philadelphia, 1973.
L. Crema, LArchitettura Romana, Turin, 1959.
R. Delbrueck, Hellenistische Bauten in Latium II, Strasbourg, 1912.
F. Coarelli, Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla PBSR 45,
1977, pp. 119.
F. Rakob, Opus Caementicium und die Folgen RM 90 1983, pp. 35972.
G.R.H. Wright, Masonry Construction at Marib and the Interwoven Structure ABADY 1987,
pp. 7986.
Regional Distribution
W. Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire II, Yale, 1986.
J.B. Ward Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture, London, 1970.
L. Crema, LArchitettura Romana, Turin, 1959.
P. Aupert, LEvolution des Appareils en Grce lEpoque Impriale, BCH 114 1990.
R.L. Vann, A Study of Roman Construction in Asia Minor (DISS), Cornell, 1976.
A. Tirpan, Roman Masonry Technique at the Capital of the Commagenian Kingdom in
D.H. French & C.S. Lightfoot ed. The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (BAR I.S. 573)
Oxford, 1989, pp. 51930.
F.W. Deichman, Westliche Bautechnik in Rmischen und Romischen Osten, RM 86 1979,
p. 473.
Supply of Materials
M. Frizot, Mortiers . . . Antiques Dijon, 1978.
W.L. Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I, Materials, pp. 14554.
Concreting Technique
A. Choisy, LArt de Batir chez les Romains, Paris, 1873, pp. 1129.
W.L. Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I, Methods, pp. 15461.
concrete 217
Concrete Vaults and Domes
A. Choisy, LArt de Batir chez les Romains, Paris, 1873. pp. 51101.
J.J. Rasch, Spt Antike Caementicia Kuppelen, B d A pp. 14996.
Reinforced Concrete
J. Delaine, Structural Experimentation: the. . . . (metal ) tie in Western Roman Architecture,
WA 23, 1990, pp. 40724.
H.-O. Lamprecht, Opus Caementitium, Dusseldorf, 1968.
Prefabricated Concrete
C. Brandon, The Concrete Barges of King Herods Harbour of Sebastos, in S. Swiny et al.
ed. Res Maritimae (ASOR), Atlanta, 1977, pp. 4558.
CHAPTER SEVEN
BITUMEN
A. Nature and Qualities of Bitumenous Materials

B. Supply of Bitumenous Materials
C. Bitumen Working
D. Uses of Bitumen
R.J. This chapter must be prefaced by a matter of anecdotal interest. The present
Forbes series Technology and Change in History was conceived as a revitalisation
and his of the work of R.J. Forbes who during the middle of last century produced ten
Studies of
Ancient
or so volumes covering the history of technology in many diverse elds. Forbes
Techno- was originally a petroleum scientist in the employ of Royal Dutch Shell, and
logy was deputed by the company to write a history of Petroleum in Antiquity
intended to serve promotional purposes by illustrating the historical signicance
of petroleum products. In the upshot Forbes did the work with such lan that
he spent the remainder of his life continuing to write successive volumes of
Studies of Ancient Technology. This chapter thus doubles the point of depar-
ture for a great voyage, and is the appropriate occasion to pay due tribute to
the monumental achievement of R.J. Forbes.
Certainly in the brief compass available here it is impossible to rehearse the
compass of Forbes Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity; and it is very dicult
to add anything of signicance to his remarks. In addition to his scientic
knowledge Forbes was very strong on ancient sources. If the reader wishes to
gain a fuller understanding of the application of bitumenous substances in all
branches of ancient technology, he is recommended to consult Forbes work on
the subject.
There also falls to be mentioned here an issue which is of endemic concern.
This arises from the fact that the rule of this book is to deal with all subjects
in plain language terms, avoiding reliance on scientic formulae or symbols.
Unfortunately a number of terms are employed in English covering a seman-
tic eld related to bitumenand it is dicult to specify uniform rational dis-
tinctions in their usage. The following words (at least) are used in the present
context: bitumen, asphalt, naphtha, tar, pitch, mastic. For these words the stan-
dard dictionary entries give notably circular denitions, e.g.:
bitumen 219
asphalt a bitumenous substance or product R.J.

naphtha oil got by distillation of organic substances as coal or petroleum; Forbes on
Bitumen
volatile liquid issuing from the earth.
tar dark resinous substance distilled from tar or turpentine.
mastic gum or resin exuded from bark of certain trees (but now much
used in compounds of asphalt).
Obviously Forbes was concerned to try to resolve the confusion of nomen-

clature as far as possible, and he devoted much enquiry and learning to this
end. However since his treatment of the question extends to 23 pages and is
summed up in a table which occupies a triple fold out, only the briefest ref-
erence to it can be made here. In fact Forbes was dealing with a much broader
eld than the present chapter, since his concern with bitumen was not restricted
to its use as a building material (although he gave a full measure of attention
to this subject). Moreover he was specically committed to explaining the ancient
terminology for bitumenous substances, i.e. in the Sumerian Semitic, Egyptian,
Latin and Greek languages where he adduces well over fty principal terms in
ten or so languages.
When concern is restricted only to building materials much of Forbes study
can be set aside. The use of bitumenous substances as building materials in
antiquity was concentrated almost exclusively in the ancient Middle East, where
the source of supply was mineral oil in origini.e. petroleum associated. Such
products also occurred in areas of the ancient world other than the Middle
East (e.g. in the Balkans) and were exploited, but the products were not used
in any signicant way as building materials. On the other hand bitumenous
like products distilled from cellulose (wood) or the fossilised remains of cellu-
lose (coal) could be and were manufactured in many regions of the ancient
world outside the Middle Easte.g. in many provinces of the Roman Empire.
However again these products were not used in a signicant way as building
materials, although they were put to other important uses (NB ship building
and seafaring). Thus much of Forbes study deals with substances which did
not enter into the technology of ancient building.
Equally the relevant English vocabulary with its potential confusion can be
reduced. Reverting to the terms listed and their circular denitions, viz bitu-
men, asphalt, naphtha, tar, pitch, mastic, it can be seen that tar and pitch are
not of concern for building materialsand in its strict meaning neither should
mastic be. Nonetheless the latter term has gained a wide currency in modern
English trade terminology used in a metaphorical sense which is relevant.
Thus it is the terms bitumen, asphalt and naphtha which should remain in
220 chapter seven
Bitumen considerationand it is interesting to observe that all these words derive directly
considered from ancient languages and were considered in detail by Forbes.
here only In his comparitive analysis of bitumenous materials Forbes in essentials follows
as mineral the scheme established by H. Abraham (Asphalt and Allied Substances, New York
oil sub- 1945), which has the merit of logical simplicity. This proceeds on a double dis-
stances tinction between substances: rstly according to their natural genesis, i.e. the
physics and chemistry of their origins; and secondly according to the treatment
(if any) required to prepare them for use, i.e. whether they are natural or
articial materials.
The rst distinction aords a primary division between, on the one hand,
substances derived from fosilised mineral oils (petroleum products) referred to
in various developments as bitumen, asphalt, naphtha; and on the other, sub-
stances of vegetable origin whether the origin be subsisting ora (e.g. trees) or
fossilised remains (coal). Substances of both primary classes may be of natural
occurrence or they may be processed in some manner. The substances obtained
from wood (cellulose), i.e. tar/pitch always involve distillation and rening etc.;
but since substances of vegetable origin were not used as building material in
antiquity these processes are not discussed here. (NB the virtue of tar/pitch as
a preservative, especially for wood was known in classical antiquity and this
substance was painted on some building surfaces in this interest, v supra,
pp. 18, 32). The present concern is restricted to substances originating in min-
eral oils (petroleum products). Such substances are often natural: natural bitu-
mens when more or less liquid, and natural (rock) asphalts when more or less
solid. However in both instances they can be processed to improve their ser-
viceability. Treatments in the nature of rening (and its counterpart condens-
ing) essentially based on heating and distillation (or simple evaporation) can be
applied to both bitumen and asphalt in order to change the consistency of the
material in one way or another, or make an extract from it. In a contrary
sense the addition of substances like sand, lime etc). to act as llers to stien
the material and reduce its uidity or plasticity is very necessary in many
instances to produce a serviceable building material. Such materials today are
referred to as mastics (i.e. gums, used metaphorically e.g. mastic asphalt,
mastic felt etc.).
It is hoped that the foregoing remarks provide some general background to
the account of bitumenous substances used as ancient building materials. However
these remarks may be found less than exact in the light of detailed scientic
knowledge; also use of terms in everyday speech may not at all adhere to the
distinctions proposed. In fact it is impossible to draw any clear distinction in
everyday usage between bitumen and asphalt; while tar sands do not desig-
nate sediments permeated by tar but sediments permeated by bitumen. It is
bitumen 221
probable that in popular understanding bitumen connotes a substance with Geological

some degree of uidity, whereas asphalt is plastic rather than uid in nature. back-
Such a distinction, of course, is a very important one when considering how ground
the material is worked (i.e. can it be poured ?). However the denition given
in a geological dictionary does not abide by this distinction, e.g.
Bitumen Naturally occurring tar like hydrocarbon material of indenite com-

position. It varies in consistence from a thick liquid to a brittle solid
(cf asphalt).
Asphalt Naturally occurring hydrocarbon of very viscous character. Some
asphalts are just pourable under normal conditions whereas others
are virtually solid . . . The most noted occurrences are the Trinidad
Pitch Lake and the Athabasca Tar Sands (D.G.A. Whitten, Dictionary
of Geology).
A. Nature and Qualities of Bitumenous Materials
Bitumenous substances were used in antiquity as building materials almost

entirely in the Middle East, principally in Mesopotamia but to some degree in
the Levant (Palestine and Syria). They were also used very extensively in the
Indus Valley Civilisation (at Mohenjo Daro, Harappa etc.), but this region is
beyond the geographical limits of the present study. All the substances employed
were fossilised hydro-carbons of organic origin. In the broadest terms the process
of fossilisation was a follows. When deposits of sediments were being laid down
eventually to form sedimentary rocks (sandstone, limestone etc.), the material
sometimes included organic remains chiey of minute animals (e.g. plankton).
These organic remains decomposed to be transformed chemically into crude
oil and natural gas. Generally such oil bearing strata were sealed above (and
below) by impermeable rocks, so that they retained their oil and gas (plus water)
content as reservoirs or traps. In modern times deep drilling induces the oil
(under pressure from the gas) to issue forth at the surface. Such drilling was
unknown during antiquity. However the fossilised organic remains became acces-
sible at the surface in several manners so that the material was also available
to men in the ancient world (S. Allison & D.F. Palmer, Geology, pp. 50509).
250 In the rst instance the overlying strata could be ssured by earth move-
ments so that the liquids and gases trapped below could escape upwards to
form seepages or pools above ground (also, at times, vents of gas which,
ignited, became pillars of re). Alternatively the oil bearing strata might out-
crop at the surface of the earth. In this event the gas content escaped and the
222 chapter seven
Properties lighter liquid components rose up and evaporated slowly leaving the surface
of rock permeated with the heavy crude oil component. Thus the surface outcrops
Bitumen were bitumenous rock or rock asphalts, generally with a bitumenous content of
ca 5%20%. In this way ancient men could gather supplies of bitumenous
materials at the surface of the earth in all states from viscuous liquid to solids,
including, at times, a state appropriate for use as a building material. Also when
the bitumenous material came to hand naturally in too liquid or too solid state
to suit requirements it could be processed to tranform it into the required
consistency.
Bitumenous material so derived possessed two qualities which made it a very
useful building material. In a viscous state it was preternaturally sticky, i.e.
it possessed extreme cohesive and adhesive strength; while in any state it was
an aquifuge, i.e. it was completely waterproof. These properties were recog-
nised, appreciated and utilised from very early (e.g. chalcolithic) times in regions
where the material was plentiful. On the other hand the properties were con-
sidered wonderful and the materials thought of as somewhat uncanny by clas-
sical authors who retailed legendary tall stories about them, e.g. The bitumen
which is elastic and lazy cannot be torn apart. It sticks to everything with
which it comes into contact (Pliny NH, VII.65). It cannot be cut etc. and can
be separated only by bizarre means. Thus not surprisingly when used as mor-
tar for burnt brick, the masonry is stronger than rock or any kind of iron
(Cassius Dio 201 after many similar observations).
B. Supply of Bitumenous Materials
In the very recent past exploration and geo-prospecting for oil has become such
a staple feature of life that it is dicult to realise what a curiosity the occur-
rence of oil at surface level constituted in the ancient worldparticularly so
when complete ignorance prevailed concerning the relevant geology (A. Leverson,
Geology of Petroleum). In this way classical authors frequently commented on the
phenomenon, and their remarks remain the principal source of information
regarding the supply of bitumenous materials in antiquity. Also this informa-
tion may be corroborated by records of the phenomenon in later times (e.g.
by mediaeval Arab geographers and by renaissance European travellers). It
should be noted however that little direct archaeological investigation has been
carried out into the supply of bitumenous materials in antiquity, although now
it is advocated that samples should be taken of such materials to investigate
whether they can be assigned to specic sources or elds as presently surviv-
bitumen 223
ing (R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials, pp. 33334cf the work of Occurence
Connan & Duchesne, Le Bitume dans lAntiquit). of
The tendency has been rather to note the use of bitumen as a building mate- Bitumen
rial, and from this infer that there was a source of supply in the general region,
which attitude may be, in the main, just. Bitumen is not an extremely conve-
nient material to transport, and it is known that it was an international trade
item in antiquity. However bitumen had many uses other than as a building
material (e.g. in medicine); and the impression is that it was traded for these
purposes over long distances rather than in the bulk required as a building
material (R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology I, pp. 2729). Thus it is rea-
sonable to assume that where bitumen is used freely as a building material,
250 there was a source of supply not too far removed. Obviously such sources in
the Middle East are within the area of modern oilelds and distribution maps
have been prepared to show this relation (cf Forbes, Vol. I map facing, p. 2).
In fact the three centres of supply of bitumen in Ancient Mesopotamia: the
Kirkuk region of Kurdestan, the Middle Euphrates, and Khuzistan correspond
to modern centres of oil exploitation and furthermore are conveniently situated
for transport of the product by water (Moorey, p. 333).
However there are dierences in the criteria. The ancients did not drill for
their supplies of bitumen, thus the supply was limited to material occuring at
the surface. On the other hand oil is sought in modern times as a fuel, but in
the Ancient Middle East bitumen was required as a building material and it
could be so employed notwithstanding its occurrence in a variety of states (i.e.
as a liquid, plastic or solid). Strong seepages would form pools of liquid bitu-
men (notably in the area of Hit and Ramadi near the banks of the Euphrates
Forbes I, pp. 3536, 40). Also, conveniently, such material does not mix with
water and is lighter than water so that it oats to and on the surface of water
(e.g. at Hit when the Euphrates oodsForbes I, p. 39; and at the Dead Sea
Forbes I, pp. 2830). In such instances it comes to hand in the form of plas-
tic lumps or ribbons (snakes) which are convenient to recover, to transport
and to work. Another source of bitumenous material was in a solid or near
solid state where old seepages had impregnated the soil to form natural rock
asphalt. These variously embodied bitumenous substances were all readily
employed as building materials on two counts: they were employed for dierent
functions (v infra, D. Uses of Bitumen) and they were prepared for use by pro-
cessing and mixingi.e. in general natural bitumenous materials were trans-
formed into articial products for use in building (v infra, C. Bitumen Working).
224 chapter seven
C. Bitumen Working
Gathering Although bitumen gures so prominently in the surviving remains of Ancient

bitumen Mesopotamia, and furthermore is often mentioned in epigraphical records,
nonetheless little or nothing has been transmitted directly from antiquity con-
cerning the technique of its production and usei.e. concerning the bitumen
craft and industry as a branch of the building craft and industry. Written records
are not technical in scope. In this way our knowledge of ancient bitumen work-
ing is archaeologically basedi.e. it is inferred from a study of the ancient
material remains (Moorey, p. 332). To this there is one adjunct: analogies drawn
from bitumen working in the region during later times, e.g. Mediaeval Islamic
times, and indeed traditional building in modern times. In the nature of things
it seems just to assume that, in essentials, little changed in the handling of this
staple commodity until its presence brought the scientic industrial revolution
of Western Europe to the region at the beginning of the 20th century.
In general terms it would seem that supplies of bitumen during ancient times
were for the most part directly gathered by hand (Forbes, pp. 4445); that is
to say little equipment or capital was required, and in this way the raw mate-
rial should have been relatively inexpensive in the areas where it occurred. This
statement applies in the rst instance to supplies of bitumen occuring in a semi-
liquid or plastic state. Where solid asphalt was exploited then it was by sur-
face mining which still required nothing more than a pick. In short, if bitumen
was a middling expensive building material then this was due to subsequent
increments, i.e. the costs of transport and manufacture. This raises the impor-
tant issue that, as a general rule, bitumen was not used as a natural material
but as a manufactured one. Furthermore even if it were gathered in a condi-
tion that would have permitted its direct use, transport requirements were such
that it would have been dicult to deliver it on site in this condition. The
basic issue here is that in general the rst requirement in its use was a high
power of adhesion. This depended on a certain degree of liquidity or rather
plasticity. On the other hand to perform its function in building the mass of
applied bitumen needed to possess or develop stability to a degree which var-
ied according to its precise function. This meant that even where bitumenous
material could be gathered in a fairly liquid condition, it was easier for require-
ments of transportation to let it solidify to some degree (i.e. through compressing
it by hand and/or drying it in the sun). Archaeological evidence shows that it
was transported in baskets rather than in jars/amphorae (Moorey, p. 334).
Thus the rst step in preparing bitumen on site for use in building was
generally to reliquify it to some degree, doubtless for the most part by simple
heating or by more elaborate processes if necessary e.g. uxing (Forbes I, pp.
bitumen 225
4951, 64). At this stage the material could be contained in pottery vessels. Prepara-
Then following on this the bitumen was brought to the appropriate degree of tion and
plasticity required for its application by mixing with it llersi.e. inert mate- modes of
rial such as sand, earth, lime, bres etc. Forbes I (pp. 5666) has examined application
this matter in detail based on exhaustive chemical analysis of a dozen or so
samples covering a variety of function in building construction.
The application to their grounds of bitumenous materials is a matter where
virtually the only guidance is provided by later analogies (Forbes I, p. 66).
Clearly methods vary according to the situation and function of the bitumen
(and its relevant consistency). Where a sizeable horizontal surface is to be covered
253 then the most convenient method of application is by pouring, but as previously
explained it is virtually impossible to retain the material in this state until it
can be put to use on site. Where bitumen is poured into position it may well
be that llers were strewn over it in situ to produce the required mastic state.
This proceedure would be analogous to old fashioned macademised road repairs
(cf repairs to New Street in early mandate Baghdad, Forbes I, p. 59, g. 6).
The appropriate tools would be strip headed rakes of some sort and small hand
rollers. There would also be the signicant question of protective foot gear.
Quite dierent circumstances would apply where the bitumen was spread on
253 a vertical surface (e.g. as a Damp Proof membrane) or when it was used as
mortar for burnt brick construction. Here the material must be in a mastic
state when applied and thus suitable tools are required for its application. The
bitumenous material is, in eect, a mortar or plaster like any other (e.g. lime
or gypsum) and can only be applied by similar tools, e.g. trowels of some sort.
The live question at issue here is the inordinate stickiness of the material
(Forbes I, p. 55). How to prevent the blade of a trowel from becoming fouled
up and unserviceable with the bitumen adhering to it? Forbes I (p. 66) records
possible terra-cotta trowels for use with bitumen from Ancient Mesopotamia
and suggests that they may have been kept serviceable by (continually) recoat-
ing with lime etc. This seems to be a eld for experimental archaeology.
D. Uses of Bitumen
In spite of its prominence in the building remains of Ancient Mesopotamia,

bitumen was a secondary materiali.e. it did not constitute the structure in its
own right but was always used in conjunction with another (primary)material
(e.g. stone, earth, wood). However, according to the strictest letter, this cate-
goric statement is not absolutely correct. Solid bitumen rock was a strong and
workable material which was used on occasion e.g. for sculpture (Forbes I,
226 chapter seven
Highly p. 97). In this fashion, in very rare instances, it may have been used as masonry
adhesive blocks in building construction (Forbes I, p. 19), but this is of the most mar-
and ginal signicance. There is also record of the use of moulded bitumen bricks
imperme- (Forbes I, pp. 7778) after the manner of the moulded gypsum bricks used at
able sub- Eridu, Uruk, Ur etc. during the Uruk period (Moorey, p. 332, cf supra, chap
stance 5 p. 156).
Bitumen possesses other notable qualities (e.g. inammability) but its use as
a building material proceeds from two qualities, adhesiveness and imperme-
ability, which it possesses to a marked degree. Thus in the ordinary course of
events bitumen can be used as a mortar or plaster. While in wet conditions it
is a very eective water proong material, both as a sealant or as a continu- 251, 253
ous barrier, as coating or a membrane (i.e. a DPC). The eectiveness of bitu-
men as a waterproong material meant that it was much used in hydraulic
engineering projects, i.e. as protection for quays, wharves, embankments etc. 252
but here discussion will be limited to its uses in buildings.
There is also another matter of endemic signicance in the use of bitumen
which is, in fact, obvious but is seldom noticed specically. Bitumen gures as
a staple material in Ancient Mesopotamia because it is closely allied with burnt
brick (and terra-cotta). The physical properties of bitumen are in accord with
those of burnt brick. This accord is such as to account for the exaggerated
repute among classical authors of the strength of Babylonian walls of burnt
brick with bitumen mortar: stronger than iron etc., they could not be prized
apart. In fact it is semantically possible to consider this construction as con-
crete (to wit Mesopotamian concrete).
Of course this highly eective construction was made possible by the copi-
ous supply of bitumen in Mesopotamia. In this connection it is interesting to
note that when burnt brick came to be a principal material in Roman build-
ing, bitumen was not adopted as the mortar. There was no local supply and
to import bitumen in the quantity required would have been impossibly incon-
venient and expensive. On the other hand, in Mesopotamia where bitumen
was in plentiful supply, it was used predominantly with burnt brick/terra-cotta
and only very exceptionally with other materials, e.g. stone masonry (Forbes I,
pp. 34, 72, 82). This, of course, has its expression in the chronology of Bitumen.
Bitumen came into use on a large scale in building with the adoption of burnt
brick, and it went out of use on a large scale in building when construction in
burnt brick lapsed (v infra, pp. 228, 229).
The use of bitumen as a mortar and its use for water proong are closely
inter-related, since burnt brick itself is a relatively impervious material, and this
fact played a large part in the introduction and development of bitumen.
However burnt brick was also used because of its strength (v supra, pp. 114,
bitumen 227
115) and the virtues of bitumen as a mortar were equally signicant in this Mortar
connection. It is thus, perhaps, better to take some note of the use of bitumen for burnt
in general purpose masonry before discussing its very important special rle as brick
a damp proong and water proong material.
The introduction of burnt brick as a building material in Mesopotamia was
in the period not long before 3,000 BC. Although the matter has not been
closely investigated, it seems from the very outset the mortar employed in such
masonry was bitumen (based) rather than the mud mortar used with mud brick.
This was a decisive innovation. In the rst instance it was prompted by the
fact that mud mortar was not suitable for use with burnt brick and has never
been used with burnt brick in any age and place. Mortar must have approxi-
mately the same stiness as the material it binds. If it is too soft or weak it
will not x the units togetherif it is too strong and sti it will cause the
units to break up when they are stressed rather than become displaced at the
joints. So much is clear and bitumen mortar was of the stiness appropriate
to use with burnt brick. But so was lime mortar which has been in general
use with burnt brick in other regions down to modern times. Why was bitu-
men preferred in Mesopotamia? Presumably because of its convenience and
cheapness of supply. Production of lime occasions considerable expense for the
fuel required. The burning of gypsum is far less costly and accordingly was
much more common in Mesopotamia than lime, however gypsum mortar
does not appear suited to burnt brick, and has never been used in conjunction
with it.
Burnt brick construction was much more expensive than mud brick and
accordingly it was introduced as a special purpose material (i.e. for use in lim-
ited passages of construction in a building) and eventually because of its supe-
rior quality it became a general purpose material (i.e. it was used throughout
certain superior buildings). Such buildings were of greatly increased cost, thus
in principle they were public buildings rather than private domestic buildings,
but the distinction is not absolutely rigid.
The special requirements for which burnt brick was originally used in build-
ing construction comprehended both those of strength and impermeability. So
far as strength is concerned, this had two applications. Strength in compres-
sioni.e. resistance to high stresses (e.g. in the lower parts of tall buildings or
at coigns etc. In this connection the compressive strength of burnt brick was
ca 5 times higher than that of mud brick and also higher than that of some
stone (e.g. limestone). Also burnt brick was strong in resisting surface damage
i.e. it was very hard. In this way it was indicated for use as a facing to mud
brick walls as a protection against mechanical damage or erosion. With respect
to water proong mud brick was quite inadequate as a material exposed to
228 chapter seven
Water wet conditions, e;g. in bathrooms, basins etc. And here burnt brick again was
proof as good as or better than stone for impermeability.
material In both of these connections the use of bitumen mortar was ecaceous. Not
only was bitumen mortar a strong substance (i.e. much stronger than mud mor-
tar), but it also accorded well with burnt brick so as to act conjointly with it.
Ancient burnt brick permitted bitumen mortar to seep into the surface of the
bricks and so fortify their composition as to increase their compressive strength
considerably (Forbes I, p. 69). Thus to some degree the two elements, burnt
brick and bitumen, grew together and might be regarded in some measure as
a concrete construction. This was obviously the basis for the tremendous strength
and resistance that classical authors ascribe to Mesopotamian walls of burnt
brick and bitumen (Cassius Dio LXVIII.27). On the other hand where the con-
cern was for water resistant construction bitumen mortar acted as a very ecient
sealant to the joints of burnt brick masonry which otherwise would have facil-
itated the penetration of the water into the fabric.
In the above connection it is obvious that the bitumen mortar must have
been applied in the same way as any other mortar, i.e. it could not have been
poured but was spread by trowel as a mastic substance of the same order as
other mortars. To this end the bitumen before use was mixed with appropri-
ate llers to bring it to the necessary mastic consistency, and it could not have
been used hot. Unfortunately as noted (Sauvage, p. 70) there has been little
specic study of Mesopotamian mortars, and their developments across the ages
have not been elucidated.
With this as a general background it is possible to bring into better focus
the other use of bitumen, i.e. as a waterproong material in itself, divorced
from its structural rle in burnt brick masonry. In using bitumen for this pur-
pose it was not in any way restricted to association with burnt brick. Indeed
the most striking instances were in engineering contexts rather than architec-
tural ones e.g. the extensive monumental arrangements for embankments and
wharfage along the Euphrates. Particularly in Assyria these were eected in
dressed stone, and the use of bitumen to waterproof the stone construction was 252
lavish! In domestic building, on the other hand, all the facilities associated with 253
bathrooms, pools, basins, conduits, drains, sewers etc made use of bitumen.
Above all oors or pavements in areas where water was to be in use were con-
structed with great care to prevent water from seeping down into the under-
lying ground, both by way of bitumen damp proof courses in the foundations
and also by surfacing with waterproof bitumen plaster. It was with bitumen
works of this sort that the appropriate mixture could have been applied by
pouring hot and then adjusting with rake and roller (Forbes I, pp. 7480;
C. Hemker, Alte Orientalische Kanalisation).
bitumen 229
Chronology. Bitumen was used for its virtue as an adhesive, i.e. as a cement, Historical
before it became a building materiale.g. ints were attached to hafts and develop-
shafts etc with bitumen in Neolithic times (cf arrowheads, int toothed sickles ment
etc.). Then the use of bitumen for mortar in burnt brick construction in
Mesopotamia at the end of the 4th millenium BC transformed bitumen into
one of ancient mans staple materials. However this state of aairs did not
endure on uniterruptedly into modern times when bitumen products have again
become of salient importance. After the decline of Mesopotamia as an aborig-
inal centre of civilisation to be replaced by foreign rule (Persian, Greek, Arab
etc.), the staple use of bitumen in building waned (Forbes I, pp. 52, 70). In
mediaeval Arab times the properties of bitumen were known and the material
was valued as an exotic product for use, e.g. in medecine; but it was no longer
used as a staple building material. In this guise it had a history of something
like 3,000 years, to all intents conned to Mesopotamia and closely adjacent
regions. This was followed by a period of abeyance for something approach-
ing two millenia, until in quite recent time bitumen products again came into
general use in building as damp proof courses, insulation etc in the form of
bitumenous felts and mastics (S.K. Sharma & B.K. Kaul, A Textbook of Building
Construction, New Delhi, 1980, pp. 17689).
During the period when bitumen was a very signicant building material in
ancient Mesopotamia, it is of interest to enquire if there were recognisable
developments in its use which might aord some useful chronological infor-
mation. Such information is only to be derived from close physical analysis of
ancient material remains, and unfortunately Mesopotamian archaeology hith-
erto has not been activated in that interest. Nevertheless Forbes in his consid-
eration of the subject advanced some general ideabut this was 50 years ago
and more so they may not be considered authoritative today. In brief Forbes
sees a decline in the quantity of llers used to produce a bitumenous mastic
so that in Neo-Babylonian times almost pure bitumen was used for mortar.
Then in Persian and Hellenistic times building in burnt brick was continued,
but bitumen was only used as an extraneous additive to other types of mortar
(e.g. mud mortar). Then in Parthian times building in solid load bearing burnt
brick lapsed to be replaced by rubble and mortar construction. Mud mortar
has always been used with rubblerubble requires a very great amount of
mortar for its bedding. Bitumen mortar was not adapted to rubble construc-
tion and from Parthian times onwards disappeared from use in standard build-
ing practice.
230 chapter seven
General References
Geological Background
I.S. Allison & D.F. Palmer, Geology, pp. 50813, New York, 1980.
D.G.A. Whitten, Dictionary of Geology, s.v. Asphalt, Bitumen, Hydro-Carbons, Oil, London, 1972.
A.I. Leverson, Geology of Petroleum, San Francisco, 1967.
Bitumen and Related Substances (Petroleum Background)

H. Abraham, Asphalt and Allied Substances, New York, 1947.
R.J. Forbes, Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity (Studies in Ancient Technology I), Leiden, 1993.
Bitumen in Ancient Building
(A) In Middle East Generally

R.J. Forbes, Bitumen and Petroleum in Antiquity, Leiden, 1993.
O. Aurenche, Dictionnaire de lArchitecture du Proche Orient Ancien, s.v. Asphalte, Bitume, Lyon,
1977.
J. Connan & O. Deschesne, Le Bitume dans lAntiquit Le Recherche 225 (Feb 1991, Vol. 22),
pp. 15259.
C. Hemker, Alt Orientalische Kanalisation, Munster, 1993.
(B) In Mesopotamia
R. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries, pp. 32235, Oxford, 1994.
M. Sauvage, La Brique et sa Mise en Oeuvre en Mesopotamie, pp. 7071, Paris, 1998.
(C) In SyriaPalestine
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine I Bitumen, pp. 37577, Leiden, 1985.
P. Hammond, Bitumen Industry at the Dead Sea, Biblical Archaeologist, 22 1959, pp. 4048.
CHAPTER EIGHT
METALS
(A) Nature and Qualities of Metals

(B) Production and Supply of Metals
Mining
Metallurgy
Supply
(C) Metal Working
(D) Uses of Metals in Building
(1) In the Structural Interest
(2) For Fittings and Services
(3) For Ornaments
A. Nature and Qualities of Metals
It is very dicult to state clearly the nature of metalsi.e. to dene metal. Imprecise
Certainly in the English language this can not be done to any real eect in denition
everyday speech. It may come as a surprise to learn that even in some tech- of metal
nical literature a denition is renounced and metal is characterised solely by
listing everyday apparent qualities. In architectural and archaeological publi-
cation no attempt is ever made to dene metal. Part of the diculty arises
from the fact that metals appear very dierently according to the connection
in which they are viewed. When considered in the context of their occurrence
in and on the earth, their discovery and removal (i.e. in a geological context)
metals appear closely linked with other substances with which they occur. When
considered in connection with preparation, working and manner of use (i.e. in
an industrial context) metals appear to be of a completely dierent nature from
those substances. This matter is bound up with the distinction between natural
and articial materials. In general terms metal (as used in building) is a highly
articial material. However this statement is not of universal validity; and the
distinction of natural and articial is an important one in the development of
metals in useand by extension, it is reckoned to be signicant in the devel-
opment of civilisation.
Metals can occur in their (more or less) pure denitive state. In this state
they are commonly referred to as native metals, but it is not an apt term
and there are ambiguities in its use. Moreover on occasion due to various
232 chapter eight
Geological processes of physiography native metals are found on the surface of the earth 255,
Back- as sizeable units (nuggets). In these circumstances metals are natural materi- 256, 257
ground.
alsthey can be gathered up and directly fashioned into the form required for
Stones
and use. The only metals where these circumstances are of any practical concern
Minerals are gold and copper. Furthermore the relative incidence of this naturally occur-
ing metal is slight compared with what is obtained by complicated processes
applied to other substances so that the resultant metal is yielded articially.
(The importance of the part played by the early use of native metals in devel-
oping metallurgy is debated.)
In turn this distinction between native and manufactured (articial) metal
explains something of the diculty in dening the nature of metal. When it
occurs in its native state it is automatically likened to a stone. In regions where
it is evident that experience of metals was limited to native metals gathered
from the surface of the earth, the word for metal is frequently stone qualied
in some way, cf North American Indian languages red stone, yellow stone,
soft stone (R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, IX, p. 5). However when
metal is a manufactured substance the processes involved in its treatment dis-
associate it entirely from stones. At every stage re and fusion are involved, it
is made molten; circumstances destructive to stone. In this way the word metal
scarcely nds a place in geological manuals and dictionaries.
At all events it was this anity for the uid state which impressed ancient
men when they tried to envisage the nature of the material they smelted, rened,
alloyed etc (NB one Mesopotamian term for metal is the fusible substance,
R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. IV, p. 93). At the height of Greek
philosophical interest in the constitution of the natural world both Plato (the
Timaeus) and Aristotle (the Meteorologica) concerned themselves with accounting
for the nature of metals. Both accepted that their nature was essentially that
of a uid, although at all normal temperatures they appeared as solids. (In this
basic attitude these philosophers exactly anticipated the account given of glass
by modern physicsand indeed on the evidence of the senses there is some
resemblance between metals and glass.) Speaking very broadly Plato and Aristotle
thought of a metal as any substance which was mined, but both contrasted its
nature with that of rocksthe former being essentially moist (liquid) and the
latter dry (solid). Thus they reasoned that if the substance was melted by heat,
it was originally solidied by coldand this provided in outline an idea of the
origin of metals which parallels modern scientic explanation of metals as a
magmatic (hydrothermal) exhalation which penetrated into country rock and 254
cools there to give a mineral deposit ( J.F. Healey, Mining and Metallurgy, pp.
1617).
Modern understanding of the term metal is not rigorous. It is accepted that
metals 233
metals are obtained by mining (the Greek root = to search for/to prospect), Atomic
thus they are minerals in the narrow sense of the termi.e. inorganic solids Structure
each of a specic chemical composition. However the distinction which con-
stitutes them a separate category is not common knowledgethe dictionary
denition of metals is generally substances of a class that have the qualities of
metals (specifying gold, copper, lead etc.). An accessible distinction of metals
is that they are elementsi.e. composed of a single uniform elemental sub-
stance (Au; Cu; Pb etc.) and are not formed out of a chemical compound of
several elements (CaCO3; Ca SO4 2H2O etc.). However although all metals are
elements, nothing like all elements are metals. Furthermore, if the distinction
is narrowed to mined elements, this still does not establish the class, since
other substances conform to this denition but are not imagined as metals
e.g. diamonds.
It seems the only denitive criterion is one of modern atomic physics. Among
the several dierent patterns of sub atomic particles which may serve to bind
one atom to another is one termed metallic bond. Here the atoms readily
lose an electron but do not readily acquire an electron. In this way the con-
nective bond between the atoms (cohesion) is secured by a cloud of free elec-
trons rather than by certain shared electrons. Thus perhaps the connection may
be likened to a hinge rather than a bolt.
It is virtually impossible to convey in plain language how this atomic dispo-
sition results in the striking idiosyncratic qualities of metals. Speaking almost
metaphorically it might be said that metallic qualities arise from the cloud
of free electrons. They are called conduction electrons and increase the con-
ductivity of metals. Thus not only heat and electricity ow freely through metal,
but also stress and shock are distributed easily without causing local fracture
hence the malleability of metals amounting to local plasticity. Again because of
the high conductivity of metals waves are reected from a metal surface, which
in the case of light waves gives metal surfaces their shining appearance (metal-
lic lustre).
If it is dicult to fathom the nature of metals, the qualities of metals are
reckoned to be unmistakeableand some of these qualities are highly signicant
in its use as a building material.
Metals are hard, dense, strong and durable substances generally bearing a
smooth surface which displays a characteristic sheen or lustre (on occasion tak-
ing a polish so that it can become brilliantly shiny). They are good conductors
of heat so that heat is quickly and evenly distributed throughout their mass.
With heat they become less hard and sti and eventually melt readily. However
it is the detailed expression of some of these qualities which give metals their
idiosyncratic nature. Their strength is uniformly disposed. It is transmitted evenly
234 chapter eight
Charac- so that they are strong in compression, in tension and in sheer. Also they are
teristics of uniformly resistant, i.e. they are equally strong no matter from what quarter
individual the load is applied (they are isotropic). In spite of their hardness, rigidity and
metals strength metals are not brittle. Generally they are malleablethey can be shaped
by repeated percussion. This quality may be viewed on occasion as a semi-
plastic condition. The malleable quality of metals in increased by heating. In
this way while hard and strong, metals are very workable.
Although possessing something of these qualities in common, the individual
metals vary considerably in the way the metallic qualities are manifested.
Accordingly a brief account is appended of the qualities of the various metals
used as building materials, insofar as the qualities are relevant to such use.
Copper (R.J. Forbes, Vol. IX, pp. 1133)

The individual characteristics of copper are its striking and attractive aspect
(bright red colour); its durability and its workability. It is neither very hard nor
very strong; although it is relatively strong in tension and it can be hardened
by hammering (however excessive hammering makes it brittle). These qualities
mean that theoretically it is suitable both for utilitarian and ornamental employ-
ment in building. Its relative strength in tension makes it acceptable for use as
dowels and cramps in masonry construction and for auxilliary fastening devices
etc.; and its malleability and appearance t it for ornamental copper plating in
ancient building. While there is ample surviving evidence for copper cramping,
there is very little surviving evidence of ornamental copper plating in ancient
building. It is probable that re-use as scrap means that the use of copper in
ancient building as sheathing and also for auxilliary appliances is under-attested.
Tin (R.J. Forbes, Vol. IX, pp. 13470)

So far as is known the use of tin in ancient building was almost entirely as a
component in alloysit was never employed independently. Therefore its phys-
ical qualities are not greatly relevant to the study of ancient building materi-
als. Tin mixed with copper produced the standard bronze alloy used in ancient
building. Also a mixture of tin and lead made a solder for attaching metals
together as is still known today (Forbes, Vol. IX, p. 70).
Bronze (R.J. Forbes, Vol. IX, pp. 15260)

An alloy of 1 part tin to 9 or 10 parts copper produced the standard bronze
of the ancient world, which was a harder and stronger metal than copper. The
cost of this improvement was that bronze was less malleable (i.e. more brittle)
than copper and could not be forged by heating. Thus in this important respect
it was less workable. However, as opposed to this, bronze had excellent cast-
metals 235
ing properties. Also bronze readily accepts plating or gilding in precious metal. Charac-
In this way bronze roof tiling (or indeed gilded bronze roof tiling) was well teristics of
known in Hellenistic and Roman times. These tiles were doubtless cast, as was individual
much applied bronze ornament, e.g. the foliage of Corinthian capitals. metals
Lead (R.J. Forbes, Vol. VIII, pp. 196266)

Lead came to be so much used in buildings during the Roman Empire that
from this point of view the period might well be called the Lead Age. It is also
of note that, very exceptionally, its use in building constitutes an important
component of the use of the metal in general. Lead is of little use for tools,
implements, or weapons; and indeed in an early period gained inferior and
negative associations, which in (alchemic) symbolism it still retains.
Lead does not occur as a native metal and its occurrence in ore bodies is
always closely associated with that of other metals, chiey silver. In this way
the production of lead involves two processes; extraction of the metal from the
ore and then separation from the other metal (silver).
The qualities of lead are exceptional. It does not manifest the characteristic
metallic lustre and thus is not much valued as an ornament. It is also extremely
soft with little stiness and of no great strength (in compression). However it
possesses two qualities which make it of use in building. It is durable and almost
unbelievably easy to work. Where most metals require to be heated (e.g. to ca
600C) for many working processes (hot working), lead can be worked for
the most part while cold (cold working); and even where hot working is nec-
essary the required temperature is only that of very hot sun. Furthermore lead
has a low melting point and thus can also be used conveniently in a uid state.
These qualities combine to make lead a versatile building material. Its uses
fall into two categories: those directly connected with the structure of buildings,
and those connected with the ancilliary service appropriately termed plumbing.
293, In the former instance lead is used for masonry xing (e.g. cramps and dowels).
300, 301 It is also used to secure ideal bed joints in ne stone masonry, since in view
of its plasticity it will squeeze out and ll all irregularities in the bedding. Equally
302 it is used as a sealant and a membrance to eect water-proong. Above all it
is used as sheathing and ashing for roofs. In the second instance lead is the
303 traditional material for water piping and its auxilliary appliances.
Iron (R.J. Forbes, Vol. IX, pp. 187305; H.H. Coghlan, Notes on prehistoric and
Early Iron in the Old World, Oxford, 1956; T.A. Wertime & J.D. Muhly, The
coming of the age of iron, London, 1980)
To speak of the qualities of iron requires a more specic denition of the mate-
rial in question, since the qualities vary according to the several dierent types
236 chapter eight
Charac- of metal which can be produced from iron ore. Speaking in broad terms these
teristics of can be classed as wrought iron, cast iron, and steel, each with quite distinct
individual qualitiese.g. cast iron is strong in compression but brittle and weak in ten-
metals sion, whereas wrought iron is strong in tension and not brittle. However, in
fact, the only type of iron produced in the ancient world (certainly the only
type of iron used as an ancient building material) was a metal more or less
equivalent to wrought iron. Cast iron did not come into use (outside China)
until ca 1,500 AD; and if on occasion something like steel was produced in
the ancient world it was certainly not employed as a building material.
Iron came into general use in the ancient world later than other metals (e.g.
copper). This was not due to the limitation in supply (i.e. scarcity of iron ore),
but to the fact that the fusing temperature of iron is higher than that of other
metals, indeed so high that it was dicult to attain. In this way iron as used
in the ancient world was singular in the quality that it was produced and
worked without liquefying the metaland even so a high temperature was
required for all processes. A workable iron was produced from oxide ores by
continually reheating and hammering, which eliminated much of the slag and
left a spongy mass of metal. This could be further consolidated, and strength-
ened by hammering when heated (strike while the iron is hot), and if desired
the hardness could be increased by alternate heating and quenching (rapid cool-
ing) in cold water. Worked in this fashion iron (i.e. wrought iron) became a
useful building material in later antiquity. To all intents the use of iron was a
feature of Greek and Roman building during the last millenium of the ancient
world.
The appearance of iron was not at all attractive (it had little of the metal-
lic lustre of gold, copper etc.) and thus was not used as ornament. It was
employed in structure or structural auxilliaries, and for ttings and attachments
of all sorts. For these purposes it possessed superior qualities. It was both very
hard and very strong in tension. Its strength in tension was such that, even
though heavy, its strength/weight ratio was much higher than that of the only
other ancient building material of reasonable tensile strengthwood. In this
way iron was highly indicated for use as beams. Use was made of it for this
purpose in certain restricted circumstances, but iron beams never became a
standard feature of ancient building. However iron was used as reinforcing tie-
beams within ne stone masonry. Also as tie rods connecting building elements
together so that they mutually supported one another. Above all iron was the
strongest metal for use as cramps and dowels within ne stone masonry. In all
these examples it can be seen that iron as a building material fullled func-
tions previously or alternatively fullled by wood.
metals 237
As a detracting feature counterbalancing its strength, hardness and worka- Character-

bility iron was the least durable of all metals. Exposed to the weather it quickly istics of
corroded by way of rusting. This not only limited its utility in point of time, individual
but since rusting involved expansion the process could be extremely destructive metals
to adjacent stone masonry.
Gold (R.J. Forbes, Vol. VIII, pp. 15595)

Gold had only the most marginal rle as a material in ancient building, where
it was employed entirely as ornament. However there is an additional reason
for taking some note of it in that it occurs more commonly than any other
metal in its native statei.e. it can be gathered and collected in various ways
on the surface of the earth as a more or less pure metal. Also when it is found
underground in an ore deposit, again it occurs in a more or less pure state not
as an element in a compound mineral. Thus its mining is a matter of (mechan-
ical) extraction from the ore and does not signicantly involve release from its
chemical bonding with other minerals. In both instances gold was probably the
metal which earliest came to mens notice, and aorded them the opportunity
to become familiar with the properties of metals and how to deal with metals.
Gold is an extremely soft metal and not strong, although on the other hand
it is extremely heavy. Thus it is not of use for structural purposes in building.
However it possesses three advantageous qualities to an eminent degree (indeed
in excess of all other metals). It has a winning appearance (metallic lustre). It
is amazingly malleable. And it is so stable chemically that the processes of
nature do not spoil or tarnish its appearancei.e. it does not corrode and
retains its pristine appearance for everlasting. In this way a gold sheathing could
be applied to exposed surfaces in a building, aording on the one hand a supe-
rior appearance, and on the other a highly durable nish. Because of its mal-
leability gold plating could be of incredible nesse and thus a small mass of
gold could be made to cover an extensive surface area. This rendered gold
plating by no means as costly as might be imagined. Also other metals, e.g.
bronze, could be gilded by dipping into molten gold or by being sprayed with
gold dust, thus further ennobling their aspect.
A synopsis of the relative qualities of metals used in building is set out in the
table on p. 278, at the end of this chapter.
238 chapter eight
B. The Production and Supply of Metals
Mining
Geology In what follows the reference is limited to metals used as building materials.
& the presence of metals in the earths crust may be considered from the point
Mining of view of the formative process, the state of the metal and its location. Most
deposits of metal originate from an intrusion of magma into the earths crust,
the surface layer of the earth of limited depth (ca 5 kms40 kms) composed 254
largely of solid rock. By chemical reaction at the contact zone this results in
the formation of metals which under pressure are forced into the adjacent rock.
This rock (the country rock) may be of any type (i.e. igneous, metamorphic or
sedimentary), probably metals more frequently enter into sedimentary rock.
They penetrate the country rock by way of narrow seams, or on occasion,
by more voluminous masses known as lodes. In this process, very frequently
more than one metal is involved concurrently. The metallic intrusions may be
in the elemental state of the metal, i.e. relatively pure copper, gold etc.; gen-
erally they are in the state of a compound mineral, containing the metal as a
signicant component (e.g. sulphides and oxides).
The intrusion of the metallic substance very frequently alters the adjacent
country rock, so that the metalliferous intrusion often passes over gradually into
the country rock rather than by an abrupt transition. In this fashion when it
is sought to hew the metalliferous deposit out of the country rock, generally a
spoil of valuable metal, other minerals and some of the rock matrix is removed.
And this conglomeration (the ore) must be later treated to extract the desired
metal from the accompanying unwanted material, the dross, the gangue. ( J.F.
Healey, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, pp. 2027.)
After the process of ore formation has taken place (at whatever depth), sub-
sequent earth movements and other physiographic developments may change
the position of the deposit relative to the earths surface by burying it ever
more deeply, removing much of the overburden, or inclining what was once
horizontal etc. However the essential circumstance is that the deposit remains
in situ with respect to the surrounding country rock. In this way it is mined
generally by underground shafts and galleries, or if it is close to the surface by
open cast mining.
There is however another important dimension to mining. Metalliferous 255,
deposits may in one way or another come to outcrop on the surface of the 256, 257
earth. They then become subject to the agents of erosion, transportation and
deposition in the same way as any other surface material. They are detached,
broken up, carried away and deposited in a new location. Very often it is run-
metals 239
ning water which eects this and the metal fragments being heavy are deposited Develop-
in the beds of streams. Hence arises surface mining (placer mining) often of an ment of
alluvial nature, where unconsolidated surface sediments are collected and screened mining
for the presence of fragmented metals or metallic ones. NB It is, of course,
quite possible that such placers should be subsequently buried by earth move-
ments etc to be encountered as deep sedimentary rock with metalliferous deposits.
( J.F. Healey, pp. 3035).
In this context there is a special manifestation, perhaps more sensational than
of normal signicance. Sometimes the surface outcrop is pure metal and the
detached fragments are sizeable lumps. The metal most prone to this occur-
rence is gold, and thus sometimes large nuggets of pure gold are discovered
lying on the surface of the earth in desert places (R.F. Tylecote, A History of
Metallurgy, pp. 16). A strange homologue to this, but of an entirely dierent
aetiology, occurs with iron. Occasionally lumps or masses of iron (sometimes
as big as houses) are found on or in the surface of the earth. This iron how-
ever is meteoroic ironiron of an extra-terrestrial origin which has fallen out
of the sky in the form of a meteorite. Such iron was recognised by ancient
writers and its origin understood (H.H. Coghlan, Notes on Prehistoric and Early
Iron . . . Chap. II, pp. 2437).
Metals in all these states, conditions and locations were exploited by ancient
miners and copper, tin, lead, zinc and gold were made use of for building
either in their pure state or as alloys (e.g. bronze).
The general spectacle of ancient mining is astounding. Often in remote areas
where there was little other evidence of material development, companies of
men toiled their short lives through deep underground, hewing out shafts and
galleries in the hardest rock, breaking the rock up and lifting the heavy bur-
den to the surface. This incessant labour was carried out in mortal danger from
sudden rock falls, exposed to endemic disease from noxious exhalations and
dust laden air, the while in dampness and lasting darkness. The ancients were
(or aected to be) appalled at this spectacle. They moralised on hearts harder
than stone and the limitless excesses of purblind love of gain. How could such
things come about? The answer is, of course, by degrees and one thing leads
to another! Men came across bits and pieces of metal lying in the surface of
the earth and found them useful or ornamental. They then looked about for
them in a systematic way (prospecting), then they sieved earth and strained
water (panning, alluvial mining); they also dug down into the surface of the
earth and cleaned away the soil (open cast mining); and nally they abandoned
the light of day (underground mining). All these stages of mining still subsist,
but they are now carried on with modern sources of power, the highest technology
and rigid safety regulations. Ancient mining was carried on entirely by man
240 chapter eight
Historical power with the minimum concern for safety and with the simplest technology.
develop- This logical development of mining is obvious, and the chronology of this
ment of development is an important question. However before addressing this question
mining a preliminary observation is necessary. The products of mining (stone, copper,
bronze, iron) have been taken to characterise a chronological succession of the
ages of man. Yet in themselves they do not establish a chronological suc-
cession in the history of mining. Mining can be carried out deep underground
and in hard country rock using only stone toolsheavy sledge hammers, rams
and pounders of hard stone, very hard stone gads and chisels. In good measure
stone mining tools were not ousted by copper or bronze tools but continued in
use until they were replaced by iron tools in the last centuries before the Christian
Era, and signicantly in Roman mining (R.J. Forbes, VII, p. 198; Healey, p. 100).
It has been attested that surface gathering and searching for ores and native
metals with eventual open working occurred in Paleolithic times, while in
Neolithic times open working developed into sloping shafts eventually more or
less approximating galleries. In contemporary reckoning this would cover devel-
opments down to a period some time after 8,000 BC. Then in the Chalcolithic
period ca 5,0004,000 BC there was underground mining by way of vertical
shafts and horizontal galleries to mine copper ores while native metals (gold,
copper, meteoroic iron) were gathered and mined alluvially. An initial pathway
in this development was prehistoric int mining. Flint nodules are found embed-
ded in soft rock (e.g. chalk) which on occasion could be followed down from
surface outcrops. However quite elaborate workings have been investigated with
deep shafts terminating in caverns from which galleries radiate to follow int 56
seams existing at several levels. Such int mines exist throughout Europe from
Scandinavia to the Mediterranean and in the Middle East (e.g. Egypt). Dates
have been ascribed to them from ca 4th millenium BC onwardson the other
hand the tradition endured in isolated int using regions until the 20th cen-
tury (R.J. Forbes, VII, pp. 12023, with extensive bibliography, pp. 18486,
nn. 1718).
During the third millenium BC all the essential devices of mining were put
into practice underground to mine copper and tin ores, e.g. making use of re
setting to break up rock by inducing rapid expansion and contraction. During
the second millenium BC underground mining was carried down to deeper lev-
els to exploit the (usually deeper lying) sulphide ores. Then at the end of the
second millenium iron ores were mined. Henceforward underground workings
were elaborated with attention to drainage and ventilation. With classical Greek
mining iron tools became more common (cf R.J. Forbes, VII, Table VII, pp.
12023).
It is clear that during the Pax Romana of the Late Republic and High
metals 241
Empire mining boomed, particularly in Europe. The greatly increased capital Historical
available and the readiness with which this could be transferred made it pos- develop-
sible to operate on a large scale anywhere in the Roman World. Above all ment of
mines could be opened where the returns were not immediate, and equally mining
deposits of metal could be followed into rock where previously it had not been
possible to penetrate. The resources had become available to overcome obsta-
cles of sheer depth and hardness of rock or of drainage or of ventilation. This
development in Roman times was thus not so much one of change in princi-
ples or basic methods, but an increased capacity to carry out traditional prac-
tice (R.J. Forbes, VII, Ancient Mining Techniques, pp. 197248; J.F. Healey,
Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, pp. 86102).
Here Roman expertise in water supply and drainage had a salient impact
on mining. Underground water is a stopper to mining, and dewatering mines
is an essential part of mining practice. In place of baling with buckets the
Romans built great water wheels and also installed Archimedes screws in series.
On the other hand a strong head of water is a powerful adjunct to mining in
its several branches. Routine washing of ore needs an ample water supply; while
sluicing of earth and detritus in both placer mining and underground mining
depends on a continuous powerful jet. Wherever metals were located the Romans
could bring water onto the scene, if necessary by aqueducts many miles long
crossing broken ground. It has been observed that earlier mining enterprise
brought the ore to water, whereas Romans brought the water to the ore.
One thing is clear, the volume of ancient mining was at a maximum dur-
ing late Republican and Imperial times. And from early Imperial times onward
the economic history of mining fell more or less into line with that of quarries
and brickyards. Titular control over the industry could be asserted by the
Emperorand during the centuries when the Empire ourished important mines
all over the Empire were directly exploited by the imperial administration.
However in the declining prosperity of the later Empire, eorts were made to
restore the fortunes of mining by once more encouraging private enterprise in
this eld. Eventually with the downfall of the Empire in the West, mining enter-
prise in large measure lapsed over the Western provinces and was very restricted
during the Dark Ages. Nonetheless mining and metallurgy continued to be
important in the Byzantine World.
All the time when the production of metals greatly increased there was also
a building boom in the Roman world. However this increase in the produc-
tion of metals was not a direct consequence of increased demand for metals as
a building material. There was a marked change in the primary building mate-
rials used in Roman times, but this had a mixed eect on the use of metals
in building. The notable change, of course, was the introduction of Roman
242 chapter eight
Ancient Concrete as a material for monumental building in place of ne stone masonry.

metallurgy This very largely reduced the demand for iron cramps and dowels which were
and incorporated on such a large scale in Greek ashlar masonry. On the other hand
modern the much more extensive and highly developed plumbing incorporated not only
cooking in bath buildings but in many domestic buildings greatly increased the demand 303
for lead. The pattern of use of metals in building was in turn varied when
Roman Concrete disappeared suddenly in the Early Byzantine Period to be
replaced in part by stone masonry (v supra, pp. 214215).
Metallurgy
The degree to which the products of mining could pass directly into use for
building was quite negligeable. In large measure mining operations produced
fragmented ores which contained minerals, in some cases more or less pure
metals, but generally compound minerals with a metal component. The essen-
tial aspect of the metal industry was the capacity to smelt the material won so 259267
as to extract and separate the small residue of valuable metal from the dross
of unwanted substances in which it was contained. This activity is what is now
called metallurgy.
Ancient mans concern with acquiring, treating and working metals exercised
a rle in human development extending far beyond material technology. If agri-
culture provided man with the image of death and rebirth which formed the
basis of much of his subsequent religion, then metallurgy provided the image
for much of his subsequent spiritual development. In learning how to trans-
form materials man apprehended the possibility of transforming himself while
dwelling among his fellow men. Agriculture was a mystery enacted in another
world, metallurgy was a mystery enacted in the here and now, in the land of
the living. Ultimately ancient metallurgy stood behind both modern chemistry
on the one hand, and modern spiritual discipline and psychology on the other.
Its immediate child was alchemy, the parent equally of chemical science and
of spiritual renement.
In speaking of ancient metallurgy little enlightenment is to be gained by ref-
erence to modern metallurgy. Modern metallurgy is chemical engineering, an
applied scienceand a science of which ancient metallurgists were to all intents
entirely ignorant. If some familiar activity is sought to explain the nature of
ancient metallurgy, then it can only be cookingand this analogy is very close 263
and extensive. The expert cook has no scientic knowledge (e.g. biology, chem-
istry) of his operations, yet by the heat of a re he can completely transform
raw materials and produce from them extracts and mixtures of many dierent
sorts according to very exact requirements and specications. He does this by
metals 243
carefully controlling the supply of heat (its mode, intensity and duration) accord- Roasting
ing to sense perception. Likewise it is indeed wonderful that, when scientically and
tested by modern metallurgy, it is found that this ancient cooking of metals Smelting
produced substances of great purity very little dierent (e.g. generally less than
1%) from those produced by modern scientic metallurgy.
Forbes (Vol. VIII, p. 8) long ago proposed a useful scheme for characteris-
ing the historical development of ancient metallurgy. He saw essentially the fol-
lowing stages:
(1) Pre-metallurgical awareness of native metal as stones.

(2) Native Metal metallurgyi.e. hammering and other shaping of copper,
gold (and silver) as occuring in elemental form.
(3) Ore metallurgyextraction of pure metals from ores by smelting, and mix-
ing of ores to produce alloys (copper, tin, bronze, lead).
(4) Iron metallurgyprocessing of iron ores into hard strong metal objects.
To this may be added a fth stage, Roman metallurgy involving no new dis-
coveries but all round improvement to existing practices.
During the rst stage (i.e. in Neolithic times) the qualities of metals were
apprehended. During the second stage (Chalcolithic times) the surprising eects
on metals of hammering and heating were apprehended. During the third (the
Bronze Age) eorts were put to extracting metal from ores and combining pure
metals to form alloys. Then nally (in the Iron Age) the more dicult proce-
dures were mastered of extracting iron form the intractable iron ores.
To give any scientic account of the procedures of ancient metallurgy pre-
supposes a knowledge of physics and chemistry. Only a brief indication of their
scope is attempted here (R.J. Forbes, Vol. VIII, pp. 10554).
Taking the extreme case of several metals occurring in the same ore body,
each as an element of a mineral compound, then the production of pure metal
involves the isolation of the valuable mineral content from the worthless residue
of altered rock etc (the gangue); then the extraction of the valuable metal ele-
ment from the mineral compound, and where applicable the separation of one
valuable mineral (e.g. lead) from another (e.g. silver). These operations are
eected by a combination of mechanical and chemical processes. The mechan-
ical processes are essentially washing and crushing. These both depend on the
dierent (higher) specic gravity of metals compared with rock and earth, thus
the material containing metals can be separated from the remainder (in the
nal instance by hand picking if necesssary). The extraction of the metal ele-
259267 ment from the compound mineral is eected by pyrotechnology and depends
on the dierent fusing temperature of metals compared with other elements in
244 chapter eight
Predeter- the compound. Pyrotechnology comprehends two processes: roasting and smelt-
mined ing. Roasting is the heating of ores to a temperature below the melting point
origins so that the volatile elements (gases) are driven out. Smelting proper is the extrac-
involving tion of the metal from the solid mineral residue. In the nal instance the slag
long is run o, or the metals are run o or remain at the bottom of the crucible.
distance Where the valuable metal extracted is a natural alloy of two metals (e.g. lead
transport and silver), the ore is separated from the other often by employing the process
of cupelation. This operation is carried out in a vessel (cupela) made of absorbent
material which absorbs one metal and leaves the other to be run o.
The niceties of these processes were on the one hand to produce a metal
which was virtually pure, i.e. 98%99% copper, lead etc., but not at the expense
of leaving appreciable quantities of metal in the slag. The latter consideration
was endemic and demonstrable almost anywhere, e.g. at the famous silver-lead
deposits of Laurion in North Attica which were virtually the foundations of
Athens commercial prosperity and political power. Here metallurgical opera-
tions were of a high standard. Yet early Archaic slag was reworked protably
in Hellenistic times and then, after an interval, in Roman times, then nally
again in the 19th century by a French metallurgical company.
Supply of Metals
Metals can be supplied in several conditions;
(1) as ore
(2) as smelted raw metal
(3) as scrap metal
(4) as manufactured objects.
The supply of metallic ores or smelted metal involves the important consider-
ation that the ultimate source (the mine) cannot be positioned ad lib. The mat-
ter is geologically predetermined. On the other hand the durability of metal
combined with its fusibility makes scrap metal a signicant source of supply
which in some measure is a countervailing consideration. Finally the relative
convenience and economy of ad hoc fabrication as opposed to ready made arti-
cles has always been an issue in furnishing metal requisites.
The supply of metals for use in ancient building almost always involved ques-
tions of transportoften over very long distances. The production of many
commodities can be located in places to suit the market, the occurrence of met-
als remains xed in places sometimes extremely remote from centres of civili-
sation. Fortunately the transport of metals is not over problematical. Metals are
metals 245
in general heavy substances but they can be prepared for transport by the piece Cultural
so adjusted that in shape, bulk and weight the units are convenient to load eects
261, 262 and stow, e.g. ingots of standard form (cf copper oxhide ingots and H shaped
lead ingots). Metals are, of course, the very reverse of fragile commodites and
thus rough going and rough handling is of little concern. In this way consid-
erable evidence of their transport survives, notably in the cargoes of wrecked
261, 262 ships. Intensied marine archaeology over recent years has provided much infor-
mation concerning trade routes for the supply of metals. The supply routes
extended from one margin to the other of the ancient worldand far beyond
the limits of the ancient world as considered here. Tin produced in Cornwall
(the British Metal) was shipped to Alexandria and from there transhipped to
India, on occasion to be thence re-shipped back to the Persian Gulf. On the
other hand, the Romans valued a high grade of steel which they considered
was produced in China. In fact it was produced in India and exported to
Aksum (Ethiopia) as an entrepot, and the merchants there pued its value when
exporting it to Rome by passing it o as Chinese.
This manifest inter-regional nature of the supply of metals calls to notice an
associated matter. Mine managers, metallurgists, smiths transcended cultural
boundaries and moved (as they still do) anywhere metals were to be found and
worked. In this way they came to be regarded as a race aparteven with some
anities to the supernatural. This presence of remote aliens in mining centres
has had its eect in the diusion of civilisation and also on local characteristics.
Metals supplied from far distant regions must be smelted into a pure state
before consignment. However when metal is supplied from near at hand the
matter is less clear cut. In general the metal content in bulk forms but a small
part of the ore which contains it. Thus most considerations recommend that
the metal be extracted from the ore before transport. However there are con-
siderations to the contrary (e.g. availability of fuel), and neither in antiquity
(nor later) has all the ore mined been smelted at the pit head to reduce the
costs and diculties of transport. In many instances smelting ores is carried out
in two stages, which may be termed primary and secondary smelting. Again it
would be logical for primary smelting to be carried out at the pit head, so
reducing very greatly the burden of transport while leaving the secondary smelt-
ing to be undertaken with the resources of civilisation close at hand. However
there is evidence that in the ancient world (e.g. Bronze Age Cyprus) both pri-
mary and secondary smelting were sometimes carried out within urban centres
situated perhaps a weeks journey by pack animal from the mines. This involved
both burdensome transport and the inconvenience of grossly polluted atmos-
phere from sulphide ores (G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus, I, pp. 32627;
R.J. Forbes, Vol. IX, p. 30).
246 chapter eight
Manu- There is a complementary aspect to the question here discussed. The process
factured of smelting metal ores leaves as a residual an enormous bulk of slag, the waste
objects product of the operations. The presence of this material usually remains con-
spicuous down to modern timesand it has always been taken to indicate
ancient metallurgical working in the vicinity (which it usually does). However
slag heaps have been found in places where it is dicult to identify any ancient
metal working. Slag (even ancient slag) has been employed in modern times
generally as an engineering material (e.g. as road metal or ballast for rail track).
As yet such employment has not been reported in ancient building (cf J.D.
Muhly et al., Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, pp. 10102).
Now something must be said of the source of supply for metal working which
is available virtually anywhere, and this counters some of the problems dis-
cussed above. This is scrap metal. The reality of this source of supply in ancient
times is demonstrated by the numerous founders hoardscollections of scrap
metal secreted at times in the most unlikely regions. These represent the raw
material of (often travelling/nomadic) smiths (H. Hodges, Technology in the Ancient
World, London, 1971, gs. 1, 243). However this source of supply is not in the
main one for metal used in building. In fact the use of scrap metal is gener-
ally of reverse signicance in building. Its mirror image is unfortunately only
too evident in ancient building remains. There is systematic spoliation of ne 109
stone masonry to rob out metal cramps from the joints. Equally metal orna-
ment and revetting is readily stripped from monumental buildings in disturbed
times (cf Jeremiah 52.1723).
The supply of manufactured metal objects used in building has not entered
commonly into archaeological discussion. All the evidence is that in long dis-
tance inter-regional trade metals were supplied in bulk, not as manufactured
goodsthe shipwrecks do not include standard metal building appliances.
However more or less local supply of metal building materials is a question
which remains strangely indeterminate. This is partly due to the endemic melt-
ing down of metal objectsthe missing evidence is metal objects in stock. Also
a contributory factor is that in the main the use of metal in building is restricted
to more monumental public buildingwhere ad hoc on site manufacture is rea-
sonable. The demand for standard metal ttings from poorer domestic build-
ing was not great.
One or two specic instances may be considered. The bronze cramps used
in Egyptian Pharaonic masonry were most probably manufactured on site, not
procured ready made from some industrial establishment. The great quantities
of iron cramps and dowels used in Classical Greek Ashlar masonry (for the
most part in temple building) are something of a test question. The Greek
building contracts specify the form, quality and quantity to be supplied but they
do not state how the material is to be providedi.e. whether by on site man-
metals 247
ufacture or by purchase from merchants stock. Probably again it was by way Forging
of on site workshops. Perhaps the following are in a dierent case. Metal nails, and
studs etc. for attachments to wood came into widespread use with the devel- Casting
opment of iron. Nails have been specially forged until quite recently, however
at least in Roman times, supplies of nails must have been available commer-
297, 298 cially. Another metal item of endemic use in Roman building which likewise
must have been available manufactured in standard sizes were lead water pipes
303 and associated ttings. Also in Roman times metal fastenings and attachments
for doors and windows must have been available commercially.
C. Metal Working
Only the most cursory notice of ancient metal working is appropriate here.
Metal working is an intricate and highly technical art or craft for producing
ornaments, vessels, tools, implements, weapons, armour etc. It incorporates many
processes disposed in the ornamental interest or in the functional interest, some-
times in both combined, cf damascene sword blades. Contrasted with this the
working of metals for use as building materials is, for the most part, very sim-
ple and direct in its scope.
Therefore an attempt is made here only to indicate the principles and main
categories of metal working, avoiding all discussion of the intricate processes
which have little or no connection with metal building materials (R.J. Forbes,
Vol. VIII, pp. 13754; for some account of the detailed development of metal
work in general v H.G. Maryon, Metalwork, London, 1971). On the other hand
it may be noted that in spite of the fact that the working required for metals
used as building material is very simple, yet nonetheless it has received little
or no specic attention and thus in various instances it remains uncertain.
266, 268, Metal is worked in two contrasting ways: by hammering (forging) and by
269, 258, casting. A hybrid technique is also possiblehammering the metal into a mould.
276, 277 Although, in general, this is a marginal feature, yet it may be of considerable
signicance in connection with metal as a building material. Casting is a process
to which metal is subject in common with other materials, e.g. glass, plaster,
terra-cotta. However hammering is a process highly characteristic of metals and
which throws light on the idiosyncratic physical properties of metal. The mal-
leability of metals ensues from a sort of semi-plasticity which subsists in met-
als in spite of their relative hardness and rigidity. Hammering also brings to
notice the practice of annealing and the contrast between cold working and
hot working of metals. It is moreover the earlier mode of metal working and
the casting of metals may not have assumed an important rle until ca 2500
BC. Whereas casting is, in principle, a total operation which eects both the
248 chapter eight
Forging form and the ornamental aspect of the metal at one and the same time, ham-
and mering metals, in principle, resolves into two separate processes, (a) shaping the
casting material into the form required and (b) applying to the surface ornamental
embellishments. Although the latter have little place in building, they are men-
tioned here as an indication of the resources of metal working which can be
utilised if demanded when metal is used ornamentally in building. The princi-
pal techniques for decorating metals are:
(1) Embossing (rpouss work)raised ornament eected by hammering from

the reverse side.
(2) Chasinghammering and punching out the ornament directly on the face
of the metal.
(3) Inlayingxing various (precious) substances into the face of the metal.
(4) Enamelling, both champlev and cloisonn.
The process of hammering metals is conditioned by the physical qualities of

the particular metalits malleability: gold is highly malleable; the alloy bronze
not very malleable. Speaking broadly hammering metals has three inter-related
eects: it deforms them as desired; it increases their hardness and their strength;
and it reduces their malleability, i.e. makes them more brittle. The latter result
is in general counter-productive. And it is here that the process of annealing
and the distinction between hot and cold working became signicant. It was
soon found by experience that if a metal was losing its malleabillity and becom-
ing brittle by over hammering, then its workability could be restored by heat-
ing (annealing) to permit further working. Equally it was perceived that metals
reacted dierently (more responsively) to hammering if heated above a certain
temperature. The temperature must be considerably below the melting point
of the metal, but it is proportionate to the melting point of the metal. The
physics of this important factor in metal working devolves from the crystalline
structure of metals. Cold working produces a plastic deformation of the sub-
stance without aecting the crystalline structure. When the temperature rises
into the hot working range, hammering alters the crystalline structure (in gen-
eral reducing the size of the crystals).
Metals may be hammered into any shape desired, lumps, bars, rods etc. This
is the craft of the smith. His basic establishment and equipment consists of a
furnace (forge) and bellows to heat metal above the hot working temperature, 268, 269
a cold water cistern to quench heated metal; an anvil (orginally of stone, later 270
of metal) to hammer against, tongs for holding hot metal, hammers of all 271
descriptions and chisels, punches etc. Particularly useful in building is the capac-
ity to hammer metals out into thin sheetsi.e. to produce sheet metal. If nec-
metals 249
essary, dependent on the metal, such sheets can be very ne; gold sheets can Prefabri-
be small fractions of a millimetre in neness! Much early experience in the use cated or
of metals was by way of sheet metal work (e.g. for vessels). in situ
Casting metal does not present severe metallurgical problems. To (re)melt work
pure metal is a matter of achieving the required temperature only, without any
complicating factors (e.g. securing a reducing atmosphere). Moreover it is pos-
sible to use uxes to facilitate the process, recall Cellinis dramatic account of
casting his bronze Perseus, involving the sacrice of his household pewter as a
ux. Moulds of all materials (terra-cotta, stone, metal) are known from the third
millenium BC, used open as one piece moulds, or as two-piece moulds.
Furthermore not only solid casting but open casting by the lost wax process
was known. Perhaps it was in the Late Bronze Age that mastery was attained
in metal casting. At this period, ca 1500 BC, an Egyptian tomb relief from
Thebes shows in composite form various metallurgical operations involved in
258 casting bronze doors, without doubt the most signicant and demanding use
of cast metal in building (R.F. Tylecote, A History of Metallurgy, p. 23, g. 12).
However it is very often not clear how metal used in building was fash-
ionedarchaeological reports often ignore the question. Some guidance is pro-
vided by the particular metal used. In general terms cast iron was not produced
in the ancient world, thus iron tie beams, rods, cramps, dowels etc were wrought
(hammered/forged) not cast. Bronze and lead on the contrary have excellent
casting properties, so it is reasonable that devices of bronze or lead used in
building may be cast. However there are further issues involved. Bronze is not
well adapted to hammering so e.g. a bronze cramp is likely to be castbut
was it pre-cast or cast in situ? On the other hand lead is such a facile sub-
300, 301 stance to work that lead cramps could be pre-fabricated or worked in situ by
either casting or hammeringand in the latter instance they are in eect ham-
mered into a mould. Lead pipes as used in plumbing are prepared from (ham-
303 mered out) sheet metal, folded and seamed up. The bronze doors surviving
from Roman times (e.g. of the Pantheon) were hollow cast. The whole ques-
tion requires a special study.
Whether metal was cast or hammered (but particularly in the latter instance)
further operations were usually required to make use of it in building. When
these are considered, the idiosyncratic nature of metals is again apparent. The
devices and tooling used resemble those of carpentry more than stone masonry.
Metal can be severed cleanly by shearing apart with shears (or wire cutters
etc.); it can be sawn apart; or cloven by a (cold) chisel. Pieces of metal can be
joined together by welding or by soldering, or by rivetting; or by rolling up
the two extremities together. Metal sheets and plates can be xed to their
grounds by nailing, or better said tacking. Finally metal elements can be xed
250 chapter eight
Diversied into their housing by molten lead, or wedged tightly in place by hammering
use in sprigs of lead.
D. The Use of Metals in Building
In several spheres of activity the use of metal was vital to man, e.g. in the mil-
itary sphere (cf both for weapons and armour) and in the agricultural sphere
(cf spades, hoes, ploughshares etc.). However until very recently (the 19th cen-
tury) the use of metal was not of fundamental importance in building. It was,
so to speak, an auxilliary not a staple of building in antiquity. Never during
antiquity was the structure/structural frame of a building fashioned entirely out
of metal as in modern structural steel framed construction. And the numerous
references in ancient literature to golden houses, towers of brass etc., are all
metaphors, designating the nature of the whole after that of some characteris-
tic part. However although metals were not employed as a principal material,
they were used for very diverse purposes in ancient building; and the follow-
ing overall classication may facilitate a brief survey of their use.
(1) Use in the structural interest

(2) Use in an ornamental interest
(3) Use as ttings, xtures and auxilliaries.
As a preliminary it should be noted that metals may be used to serve two inter-
ests concurrently, e.g. their use as ttings etc can be highly ornamental. Also
it must be recollected that metals applied to the fabric of buildings are endem-
ically liable to be stripped away and melted down, so that a good measure of
the evidence for their use is contained in ancient literary sources, e.g. Pliny NH
33, 34 ( J.F. Healey, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, pp.
23839; J.W. Humphrey et al. ed. Greek and Roman Technology, London, 1998,
pp. 20533).
1. Use of Metals in the Structural Interest

The principal subject of this book is the structural use of materials in ancient
building, and their ornamental application has been regarded as of secondary
importance and dealt with only incidentally. In the interest of uniformity of
presentation this treatment is also followed here. However certain qualications
must be noted. In the rst instance adherence to this scheme entails dealing
with a minor mode before major ones; it also in eect means dealing with his-
metals 251
torically later occurences before earlier ones. In any event more systematic Ancient
attention must be given to the use of metals as ornament than for other mate- Middle
rials since the incidence of metals in ancient building was more related to aspect East
than to structure. columns
The structural use of metal in ancient building can be itself classied into
two main modes:
(a) Use as a principal load bearing material in itself.

(b) Use as a secondary (or auxilliary) structural material, i.e. one which to take
eect must be used in conjunction with another material as principal. The
bulk of the structural employment of metals in building is of this type and
it is manifested in several distinct categories.
Metal as a Principal Structural Material

This usage of metal is very restricted in ancient building and is attested by
interpretation rather than by direct surviving evidence. Although it has been
noted that ancient builders did not develop the metal framed construction of
modern structural steel buildings, by their nature metals are not to be used as
masonry units (i.e. bricks or stone blocks) but rather as substitutes for wooden
members in framed construction, i.e. as pillars / posts and beams. In fact rather
well known instances have been reported (or discussed) of a metal column and
a metal architraveboth pertaining to a developed stage of ancient building
(1st Millenium BC).
Metal Columns
Metal is a suitable material for point supports, as modern structural steel build-
ing testies, but the only solid metal column surviving from antiquity falls out-
side the geographical boundary of the present work. It is the famous Iron Pillar
now at New Delhi, in form a descendant of the Achaemenid order seen at
Persepolis. This astonishing piece of ancient metal work, forged out of mal-
leable iron (ca 330 BC), is nearly 8 m (23' 8") high and weighs ca 6 tons
(P. Brown, Indian Architecture Buddhist and Hindu Periods, Bombay, 1963,
p. 50).
There is, however, interesting evidence for the occurence of metal columns
within the area covered by this book. The Levant developed its own regional
building tradition, quite distinct from that of Egypt and of Mesopotamia between
which it was conned. This tradition admitted of columns in a minor way
i.e. not as the major feature seen in Egyptian and in classical Greek building.
Generally the columns were positioned anking monumental entrances. In sub-
stance the material used for such columns was wood, i.e. wooden shafts with
252 chapter eight
Hollow simple stone bases and capitals. Now it was an obvious development to enno-
cast ble the wooden shafts by metal platingand this feature will be discussed below
columns in its proper context. However in the present concern there is the distinct pos-
sibility that on occasion metal plating of wooden columns gave over onto
columns of structural metal (bronze).
There is an unequivocal statement to this eect in a well known ancient
source. The Bible draws attention to the fact that two symbolic columns (named
Jachin and Boaz) stood before the entrance chamber of Solomons Temple.
These pillars are said to be made of bronze and to be sizeable18 cubits high
(ca 9 m, thus roughly of the dimension of the Iron Pillar at Delhi). They are
spoken of in two biblical passages: the rst, I Kings 7.15, describes them in
connection with the construction of the Temple (ca 950 BC). The second,
Jeremiah 52.21 describes them in connection with the destruction of the Temple
by the Babylonians (ca 600 BC). The former description simply says they were
cast in bronze, but Jeremiah species that they were cast hollow, with the metal
wall four ngers thick (i.e. ca 89 cms thick). Such a section would be stati-
cally a very appropriate design for a column to ensure rigidity against buck-
ling under any normal loading.
Whether solid or hollow cast Jachin and Boaz show that by the rst mille-
nium BC men could construct structural members out of metal, although in
this instance it was clearly the aspect of the pillars which was of prime con-
sideration. As their names indicate they were intended to symbolise strength
and stable durability, which are both qualities of metal. (G.R.H. Wright,
ABSP I, p. 378, II g. 161.)
The detailed statement given in the Bible of the destruction and removal by
the Babylonian commander of all the metalwork of the Temple is sucient
explanation of the fact that so little archaeological evidence subsists of the struc-
tural use of metals. However at Ras Shamra in Northern Syria remains of cop-
per column bases suggested to the excavator that metal columns similar to
Jachin and Boaz may have existed there (Syria, XX, 1939, p. 288). Palm trunk
columns wrought by bronze plating seem an ancient and enduring Mesopotamian
tradition going back to early Sumerian times (1st Dynasty at Ur) and surviv-
ing to be imitated by the Greeks (R. Martin, p. 160).
Metal Beams
The Temple of Apollo at Bassae in the Peleponnese, ca 450 BC, marks an
early stage of the replacement by stone beams of the earlier timber ceiling
beams in Classical Greek temples. Now the ceiling beams of the external porch
of this temple have a very long clear span (over 4 m) and under self load plus
metals 253
that of the coered ceiling blocks which they supported the beams would have Graeco-
been heavily stressed. In fact, as was observed when the temple was rst studied Roman
in the 19th century, these ceiling beams were hollowed out from above, leaving beams
only a three faced hollow section, like a gutter. This, of course, diminishes their
strength, so that the unit stress remains the same. Accordingly in an attempt
to rationalise the feature, it was proposed in 1922 that the residual stone beam
was not designed to function as a load bearing member at all, but as a casing
278 to conceal an iron beam contained within the cavityfrom which iron beam
the casing was suspended by metal fastenings. In this way the hidden iron beam
was not reinforcing to the stone beam but was the structural member which
supported entirely both the stone facing and the coered ceiling blocks. This
condent interpretation would constitute an early use of structural iron beams
never repeated in classical architecture. However no material trace of such iron
beams remain (W.B. Dinsmoor, Structural Iron in Greek Architecture, AJA
XXVI 1922, pp. 14858; cf discussion in H. Dorn, A Note on Structural
Antecedents of the I Beam Technology and Culture, 9, 1968, pp. 41518, with
response by R.A. Jowett, pp. 41926, and rejoinder pp. 42729).
Another possible instance of structural metal beams in antiquity occurs in
281 the vestibule of the Pantheon at Rome. This possibility devolves from the draw-
ings and observations of Renaissance architects. These are not conclusive evi-
dence as they are susceptible to other interpretations. If the circumstances
constitute a structural use of metal (bronze), then the manner is directly con-
trary to that spoken of in the Temple at Bassae, ca 500 years previously. There
if the metal (iron) was the load bearing element, it was concealed from view,
boxed inside a sheathing of stone. Whatever the exact structural scheme in the
Pantheon may have been, the metal (bronze) was rst and foremost exposed
to view, which opens up other interpretations of its function.
Beams which support the ridged roof of the vestibule were observed by
Renaissance architects to consist of three bronze ats assembled together to
constitute an (inverted) trough section. Such a hollow, box section would be
eective for their statical function. (For Serlios sketch showing hollow metal
beams v Crema Architettura Romana, p. 379, g. 450). However reason and
experience suggest that if indeed such composite bronze elements existed, they
were not in eect hollow p form metal beams, but the visible casing of wooden
beams. In these circumstances they may be explained in two fashions (expla-
nations which are logically distinct, but in practice could shade into each other).
The bronze casings may be regarded as metal reinforcing of the wood, or they
may be regarded as ornamentthey were exposed to view from below ( J.-P.
Adam, La Construction Romaine, pp. 22930; W. Macdonald, The Architecture of the
Roman Empire, I, p. 145).
254 chapter eight
Metal Teguments
Tensile One of the salient products of the Industrial Revolution was metal sheeting of
reinforcing various forms (galvanised iron, corrugated iron) which provided the cheapest
in ashlar cladding available for domestic framed structures. Nothing of this nature was
masonry produced in antiquity. The nearest approach to it functionally were metal roong
tiles. The most famous example was the Pantheon. Its concrete dome was orig-
inally clad with bronze tiles, but these were stripped by the Byzantine Emperor
Constans II in AD 663 and lost in passage to Byzantium as spolia (H. Plommer,
Ancient and Classical Architecture, p. 333). Other instances of metal tiling are recorded,
e.g. Trajans Basilica Ulpia, and the practice was not a rarity (W. Macdonald,
I, p. 145, cf Pliny NH 34.13).
Metal as a Secondary Structural Material

There are many ramications to the use of metals as a secondary or auxilliary
structural material in ancient building, but a unifying factor is their eld of
application, the primary material with which they are associated. When met-
als are used in the structural interest it is in connection with stone masonry,
and specically with nely dressed stone masonry set dry jointed (i.e. ashlar).
There is no structural application of metals in earthern building or brick masonry
whether mud brick or burnt brick. Nor is there any application for the struc-
tural use of metals in mortared rubble masonry or in splay jointed, fair faced
stone masonry. (Egyptian small block masonry, the emplecton of Vitruvius.)
Equally there is no application for such use of metals in Roman Concrete con-
struction. This means in eect that the use of metals as a secondary structural
material is largely restricted to the Pharaonic large block masonry of Egypt and
to the ashlar masonry of Classical Greece. Between these two elds there are
notable dierences (the use of metals is more developed and diversied in Greek
ashlar masonry), but in principle the rationale is the same: to provide added
solidity in resisting disruptive tensile (or shear) stresses which may inopportunely
develop in the masonry. In this fashion the incorporation of metal in nely
dressed stone masonry parallels the incorporation of wood in mortared rubble
(v supra, pp. 2526). The varied use of metal to provide added strength or solid-
ity in ne stone masonry can be considered in two main guises: as reinforcing
and as xing.
Metal Reinforcing (Bars, Bands, Rods etc.)

This usage is virtually conned to Greek ashlar masonry and its tradition.
Eclipsed during the oruit of Roman Concrete, it was renewed emphatically
in Byzantine stone masonry. To all intents the material employed was wrought
iron, the tensile strength of which is ca 7 times that of wood (and the strength
in shear 9 times that of wood). A basic example of this reinforcing is the pro-
metals 255
vision of continuous tensile reinforcing running the length of masonry courses Tensile
in walls and foundations. In the rubble masonry of the Bronze Age this rein- reinforcing
3436 forcing was in the form of stringer beams of wood, which were sometimes in ashlar
developed into a systematic ordonnance (e.g. in Anatolia, v Nauman, pp. 91108, masonry
and cf the biblical specication I Kings 17.12 three courses of hewn stones
and a row of cedar beams). A parallel arrangement to this was incorporated
in the vulnerable limestone foundations of the Theban Treasury at Delphi.
282 Here great iron bars (9 cms 10 cms in section) ca 13 m on the anks ca
6 m at the ends were tied and made to overlap at the angles (W.B. Dinsmoor,
Structural Iron in Greek Architecture, pp. 14950).
Better known is the iron reinforcing in Greek entablatures. Substantial iron
bars were let into the lower beds of architraves (Temple of Zeus at Akragas)
280 and into the upper beds of architraves (The Propylaia at Athens) to distribute
the superincumbent load directly onto the columns. Also care was taken that
vulnerable cornice coronas were relieved by iron cantilevers inset at intervals
into the sima sotes (Temple of Castor and Pollux at Akragas) or beneath
pedimental statuary (Parthenon). (W.B. Dinsmoor, Structural Iron in Greek
Architecture, gs. 2, 3, 5, 6.)
With the understanding thus shown in the virtues of metal reinforcing to
provide tensile strength it might be thought that ancient builders would have
arrived at incorporating metal bars or rods in Roman Concrete so as to make
this material serviceable for use as beams or slabsi.e. to develop re-inforced
concrete as a building material. This would have been entirely practical. However
nothing like it materialised as a standard mode. NB Occasionally iron bars or
283, 284 rods anchored in tension were set through shallow concrete vaults to restrain
thrust or at the sote of concrete lintels to resist bending stresses. ( J. Delaine
WA 23, 1990, pp. 40724).
On the other hand with the development in Byzantium of arcuated con-
285287 struction with its thrusts tending to eccentric loading metal was quickly incor-
porated as reinforcing against these stresses. When it was seen that the surface
of columns began to ake and spall away because of the buckling stresses,
bronze collars were set around the circumference of columns and this became
standard practice. Also a profusion of heavy iron rods were run across to tie
point supports together and to adjacent wallsthis both in the clear and also
concealed in the masonry of oors. Here it may be noted that this did not
exclude the use of wooden tie beams employed in a similar fashion. (R.J.
Maidstone, Hagia Sophia, London, 1997, pp. 18789.)
Metal Fixing Devices (Cramps, Dowels, Poloi)

The use of metal cramps between blocks of nely dressed stone masonry was
probably the rst categoric employment of metals structurally in ancient build-
256 chapter eight
Fixing of inge.g. large copper cramps were set between the massive blocks of the Sphinx
ashlar Temple at Gizeh (ca 2,500 BC).
masonry Cramps and dowels in ne stone masonry do not act to increase the load
in Egypt bearing strength of masonry but to promote its stabilityi.e. to restrain units
from displacement due to the eects of abnormal (tensile or shear) stresses
induced by e.g. earthquakes or human battery. Thus substantially they serve
the interests of durability. Across the ages metal cramps and dowels have been
fashioned out of copper, bronze, lead, iron, and at all times from wood. Also
whenever there was a question of securing metal cramps and dowels rmly
in their emplacement, lead was used, either hammered in as wedges or poured
in molten. Cramps were manufactured in various standard forms designed
to secure good engagement between cramp and blocks (operating both hori-
zontally and/or vertically). Although in principle the mode of employment
of masonry cramps was the same in both Egypt and Greece, there was con-
siderable dierence in detailing and perhaps in manufacture between the two
regions.
Egyptian Cramps and Dowels

It is clear that cramping in Pharaonic Egyptian masonry diers considerably
from that in classical masonry, but the underlying dierences between the two
masonry systems is rarely pointed out in this connection. So called Pharaonic
style Egyptian masonry, although being equally ne jointed as Greek ashlar, is
constructed of far larger blocks (i.e. several to many times larger) which are in
considerable measure irregularly bedded and jointed (i.e. joints are severally
stepped, indented and oblique). In this way both by dead weight and by inter-
locking joints Egyptian masonry is more solidly xed than Greek ashlar, and
thus has less overall need for cramping. Thus the use of cramps and notably
of metal cramps, in Egyptian ne stone masonry may be characterised more
as an auxilliary measure in special circumstances than as a constitutional ele-
ment of the masonry ordonance.
In view of this it is not surprising that cramping in Egyptian masonry has
received only cursory attention. In order to become aware of the latent signicance
of the feature preliminary reference is necessary to fuller treatments of cramp-
ing elsewhere. Cf R. Ginouves & R. Martin, Dictionnaire Methodique de lArchitecture
Grecque et Romain I, Paris, 1983, pp. 10814; R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture
Grecque, Paris, 1965, pp. 23896).
The practice of cramping together blocks of ne stone masonry began in
Egypt with the earliest development of this form of building (early in the 3rd
millenium BC). The initial form was the large wooden swallow tailed cramp
metals 257
37 set narrowly in a similar shaped cutting running across the rising joint between Fixing of
two adjacent blocks in one course. From this initial device the practice evolved ashlar
across the ages into a highly developed generalised system. This evolution pro- masonry
ceeded on all accounts, viz the material, the form, the function. In brief, wood in Egypt
gave most place up to metals; the swallow tailed form was also supplanted in
considerable degree by other forms more relevent to metals; while from secur-
ing isolated individual blocks together cramps and dowels came to be employed
to secure all joints both in the horizontal as in the vertical sense.
As is self evident, the swallow tail cramp form was originally proper to wooden
members. The form was naturally to be whittled out of wood with a knife, or
else was fashioned by the use of a tool resembling our spoke shave. And in
Egypt cramps were virtually limited to the swallow tailed form. Throughout
the history of Pharaonic style building wooden cramps remained in common
37 use and were never ousted by metal ones. Moreover where cramps were made
300, 301 of metal they were fashioned in the same form as wooden ones.
A recent survey of Egyptian building in dressed stone considers it possible
to specify the (exceptional) cases where metal cramps were used, listing copper
and bronze cramps as occurring only in monuments of Chephren, Unas,
Hatshepsut, Nectanbo II and a monument at Tanis (D. Arnold, p. 25 &
n. 91). This very restricted assessment almost certainly reects the facts of sur-
vival (or accessibility) rather than the true incidence of use. Metal cramps have
always been specically sought after and robbed out for their value as scrap
metaland no amount of disappointment seems to have deterred the con-
tinuation of such mining operations. It is possible to add some instances
to the above catalogue, e.g. sizeable lead cramps were used to secure mas-
sive entablature blocks of the Nubian Temple of Kalabsha constructed during
300, 301 the rst century AD (G.R.H. Wright, The Temple of Kalabsha, Berlin, 1972, pls.
90, 91).
In fact very little information is readily available on actual metal cramps (i.e.
as distinct from their usage demonstrated by the cuttings to house them). The
basic question how such metal cramps were fabricated has been little discussed.
There are four processes theoretically possible. Metal cramps could be forged
(hammered) into shape or cast. It is also possible that in either case they could
be manufactured previously and then set into their emplacements, or they can
be fashioned in situ (i.e. in their emplacement cuttings). These possibilities are
not equally appropriate to the several dierent metals. If any iron cramps ever
existed in Egypt, they were certainly forged not cast. Copper could equally well
be hammered or cast into form. Bronze is perhaps more likely cast than ham-
mered. If cramps were cast then it is not improbable that they were cast directly
in their emplacements. If they were hammered into shape, then it is more likely
258 chapter eight
Fixing of that they were prefabricated. However lead cramps would have been so easy
ashlar to work in the Egyptian sun, that they could have been shaped in situ. Bronze
masonry cramps of Hatshepsut (at Deir el Bahari?) are said to be cast in situ (D. Arnold,
in Egypt p. 125).
Interesting evidence for in situ cast metal cramps is aorded by the detail of
some emplacements. This is a matter of general and lasting signicance so that
it warrants special mention. Some cuttings for cramps are provided with small
cylindrical recesses to take small pegs (dowels) projecting downward from the
underside of the cramps. Such a detail is foreign to wooden cramps and such
a metal cramp would almost certainly require to be cast, and cast in situcf
the bronze cramp of Unas illustrated by D. Arnold, p. 125, g. 4.25.
Irrespective of the material employed the incidence of cramping in Egyp-
tian masonry manifestly increased across the ages. NB The following account
however refers only to cramping between adjacent blocks in the one course.
Dowelling between blocks in successive courses never became a practice of
Egyptian ne stone masonry. Where such dowelling occurred, it was conned
to the special case of columns and their connection with architrave and base.
Originally used only where exceptional stress was envisaged or with exposed
blocks, cramping became a more common place measure during the Middle
Kingdom. Eventually in Graeco-Roman times cramping is thought to have
become a general practice in all ne stone masonry (D. Arnold, p. 125). However
these latter circumstances are not as self evident as has been assumed.
Direct evidence of cramps is not generally accessible since they are either
concealed in the masonry structure or where exposed, cf metal, they are long
since robbed out. However during the 1960s unexpected opportunities to observe
the cramping of Egyptian masonry occured on a vast scale. In an endeavour
to preserve the Nubian temples otherwise to be submerged in the lake created
by Nassers High Dam numbers of temples were dismantled block by block
and transported elsewhere for re-erection on new sites. In this way thousands
of cramp emplacements in the masonry were bared for observation. The results
were quite unexpected and remain inexplicable. The Temple of Kalabsha 60
kms to the south of Aswan erected during the 1st century AD was, as stand-
ing, composed of ca 15,000 blocks. The report of the work contains the fol-
lowing observation relating to this question (G.R.H. Wright, The Temple of
Kalabsha, p. 76).
Each block was furnished with emplacements for the insertion of dovetail
cramps, in normal wall blocks, one emplacement joins each pair of blocks end
to end. In positions of special stress (e.g. entablature and roong block) there
are a multiplicity of emplacements. Lodged in these emplacement are found
variously:
metals 259
(a) lead cramps (pls. 90, 91) Fixing of

(b) wooden cramps (pl. 92) classical
(c) cement or rather concrete ashlar
(d) nothing at all. masonry
The few lead cramps recovered (all from huge architrave blocks of the Hypostyle
Hall) are purposefully functional . . . The vast majority of the other emplace-
ments were completely empty. If cramps were ever placed in these cuttings,
they were removed again before the super-incumbent course was set. The only
explanation for this proceedure would seem that cramps were inserted tem-
porarily to hold the blocks rm during in situ dressinginvolving a ludicrously
disproportionate expenditure of labour.
To this conundrum there is a rider. Reused in the interstices of the heavy
walls of the Roman temple were blocks from an earlier Ptolemaic-Augustan
temple. Although cut down and trimmed for their new function it was possible
to consider the question of arrangements for cramping in their original form. In
general it would seem that there were no cuttings at all originally and thus cramps
were not employed in the normal wall blocks of the Ptolemaic temple (G.R.H.
Wright, The Ptolemaic Sanctuary of Kalabsha, Mainz, 1987, p. 47, ill. 37a & b).
Classical Ashlar Cramps and Dowels

The practice of cramping and dowelling together blocks in ne stone, dry jointed
masonry was originally developed in Egypt. Since this type of masonry did not
spread to other regions of the Mediterranean and Ancient East cramping in
pre-classical times remained essentially an Egyptian feature. During the Bronze
Age a type of closely jointed ne stone masonry was employed in these regions,
but it was ne jointed only in appearance. The jointing was close at the face
105 but splayed apart to the interior so that behind the face of the wall the blocks
were more or less mortared rubble. Cramping did not form part of such masonry
construction.
Isolated swallow tail cramps are found, e.g. in Anatolia and North Syria, but
they are associated with ad hoc circumstances, e.g. repairs (Naumann Architektur
Kleinasiens, pp. 10911). In Crete, reecting endemic Egyptian inuence, swal-
low tail cramp holes occur sporadically in monumental masonry. However they
are not a regular feature and most frequently seem associated with reused blocks
( J.W. Shaw, Minoan Architecture, Rome, 1973, pp. 15760). Cylindrical (and
squared mortoises occur frequently on the upper beds of stone blocks, but these
are to be associated with timber construction in the superstructure of walls, e.g.
stringer beams, posts or window frames ( J.W. Shaw, pp. 16185). Cramps and
260 chapter eight
Fixing of dowels in principle are not used to join stone to stone ( J.W. Shaw, p. 138).
classical Furthermore such evidence as survives indicates that where employed they were
ashlar of wood, and that metal cramps and dowels were not used in Minoan build-
masonry ing ( J.W. Shaw, p. 225).
Classical Greek architecture developed very quickly across say three genera-
tions straddling ca 600 BC. It was an expression of building in sizeable stone
blocks nely dressed so that each unit tted close together with its contiguous
units. No adhesive mortar was used in the joints but to secure the blocks from
displacement the restraint imposed by their considerable weight was supple-
mented by fastening the blocks one to the other by attachments running between
them xed into the stone. The basic concept of constructing a temple in this
manner of ne stone masonry came to the Greeks from their observation of
such construction in Egyptian temples. But the execution of the concept was
the product of Greek analytical intelligence. Once the Greek mind was put to
it, it never rested until it developed the concept fully in all details. Perhaps the
best detailed illustration of this process is found in the development of fasten-
ing blocks together in ashlar masonry. The horizontal bars and vertical pins
generally of wood employed on occasion was considered necessary were taken
over from Egyptian building. However they were continuously developed over
the course of ca three centuries into a pervasive system, as signicant a part
of the masonry construction as the stone itself. And indeed it was of the same
order of cost as the stone work, since it involved skilled labour and tons of
expensive material. (Over 300 tons of metal are reckoned to have been used
for cramps in the Colosseum.) Thus was eected within several centuries, a
more far reaching development of cramping and dowelling than had occurred
during several millenia in Egypt.
This intricate subject is dealt with in great detail by the manuals (Martin,
pp. 23896; Orlandos II, pp. 79122) and, moreover, is proper to the study
of construction. However since it comprises the most important use of metals 288294
in ancient building, some outline of the development is given here.
Late Archaic Greek builders took over from Egyptian practice a character-
istic swallow tail form (i.e. with concave sides, proper to carved wood), which
was used both for the emplacement cutting and the (generally wooden) cramp
inserted in it. On occasions cramps in this form were prefabricated from metal,
and on occasion metal (lead) was used molten to x the cramp rmly in place.
Rarely, and in special circumstances, a vertical peg or dowel (of wood) was
used to x superincumbent blocks together. At the term of the development in
Greek Ashlar masonry (in Hellenistic times) cramps were of metal (wrought
iron) bars turned down at the ends (i.e. pi form) to engage in the stone. And
the emplacement cuttings conformed to the same linear shape. Dowels were of
metals 261
varied shape according to requirements: cylindrical, a simple plate, an angle Fixing of

(G) plate, a T form plate. All these attachments were sealed in their emplacements classical
by molten lead poured in (where necessary through access channels cut in the ashlar
stone). These metal fastenings were regularly disposed throughout ashlar masonry masonry
292 construction so that each block was fastened to its contiguous blocks in the
same course and also to the super-incumbent block in the course above. In
addition to this standard scheme there were many variant attachments to suit
special circumstances, e.g. orthostates, column drums, entablature blocks, etc.
Many individual variations of detail in cuttings, in material and form of
cramps, and in their sealing, are manifested in the course of this development.
These do not all automatically signify a chronological sequence. Above all the
type of stone in use conditions to some degree the details of cramping, since
e.g. lodgements cut in soft stone have dierent criteria from those cut in mar-
ble. Thus dierent cramp forms appear in the same monument when dierent
types of stone are jointly employed. However in conjunction and in the over-
all sense a chronological pattern can be observed in them which is useful archae-
ologically. Accordingly a brief sketch of this overall development is appended.
In the earliest Greek temples (late 7th century BC) the presence is noted of
288 swallow tail cramps after the Egyptian style both of wood and of metal (bronze).
Also such metal cramps are sometimes equipped with small pegs/pins on the
underside the better to x the cramps into the stone. This would involve great
expense in extra labour. However it was apparent to Greek intelligence that
swallow tail cramps in metal were irrational skeuomorphs. The properties of
metal were such that the form appropriate to metal was the bar with trans-
verse end pieces to engage in the stone. At rst this new design was set into
the old swallow tailed cuttings drowned in molten lead. Also very frequently
the contour of the cutting was simplifed by substituting re-entrant angles for the
concave sides. However soon enough this irrational form of cutting also
disappeared to be succeeded by lodgements in the bar form of the cramps
themselves. Several simple designs were appropriate for metal cramps, the vari-
ation lying in the way the end pieces were set to anchor the cramp to the
stone. The simplest method was to bend the ends in the horizontal plane at
right angles to the shafti.e. the double G form. If both ends were bent to the
same side, then the form was that of a attened su=y. If the ends were bent
to the opposite side the cramp took on a Z form, (but generally the shaft and
the end pieces were at right angles, ). However these forms tended to be
replaced by the cramp with crossbars at both endsi.e. the double T form,
symbo). This, of course, involved more forging work. Ultimately the most eective
and economic form imposed itself as the form cramp where the ends of the
bar are bent not in the horizontal plane but vertically downwards like the Greek
262 chapter eight
Fixing of letter . This is the simplest and most eective form of cramp and remained
classical in use during later times whenever cramping of masonry was necessary.
ashlar Although the occurrence of these various cramp forms overlapped and indeed
masonry examples of almost any form occurred somewhere at almost any time, an over-
all succession is recognisable. An exhaustive recession of the usage of cramp
forms is given in tabular fashion by Martin as follows:
Table I (pp. 24247). Swallow tail lodgements and cramps without pins
Late 7th and 6th centuries BC.
Table II (pp. 24853). Swallow tail lodgements and cramps with pins
Late 6th and 5th centuries BC.
Table III (pp. 25659). Metal cramps in double sy form (sym)
5th century BC.
Table IV (pp. 26471). Metal Cramps in double T form (symb)
5th and 4th centuries BC.
Table V (pp. 27477). Metal Cramps in form (symb)
4th century BC and later.
Accompanying this development of cramping in Greek ahslar masonry was the
parallel concern for a system of dowelling (which was virtually absent in Egyptian
building). This practice developed later (in general terms well over a century
later) and was never applied as wholesale and systematically as was cramping
(Martin, pp. 27996; Orlandos II, pp. 1122).
The original form of dowelling was obviously the simple wooden peg or plug
(either cylindrical or cuboid). In the rst instance this centralised form was indi-
cated for securing column drums one above the other, and was used by Greeks 295
from the very beginning of building columns up out of drums (Vol. I, p. 96)
Here the device (the empolion) was divided with one half set in the bed of
each drum to incorporate the added renement of housing a central, axial pin
(the polos)at rst out of harder wood but later of metal, bronze or iron
(Martin, pp. 29194; Orlandos II, pp. 11215).
When, after a century or more use in columns, dowelling became standard
in normal ashlar masonry, the simple wooden plug or peg remained in use
often sheathed in a metal (bronze) casing and always secured in its emplace-
ment by molten lead. However with the development of systematic dowelling
during the later 5th and 4th centuries BC other dowel forms became standard
as rational and economic for use in metal. These were in section the simple
at, or small metal plate (I); the angle iron (sy ); and the T form (sym). It 290, 291
was, of course, vital to x these dowels imovably in their sockets with molten
lead. The simplest way of eecting this vertical tie was to recess the dowel into
the face of the exposed rising joint after setting the block. The dowel was thus
made to pass down from one end of the upper block into the middle of the
upper bed of the block beneath. It was englobed in molten lead by forming
metals 263
293 a cup-mould (of clay) around the emplacement and ladling molten lead into Fixing of
the compartment so formed. However in many instances dowelling was con- classical
sidered necessary and eected in positions removed from the surface of either ashlar
blocki.e. it was dowelling lost in the interior of the masonry. In these cir- masonry
cumstances the dowel was sealed with molten lead in one of the blocks before
setting, and after setting the other emplacement was lled with molten lead via
292 a channel cut from the most convenient proximate surface. This process was
greatly developed during the 4th century and later and involved much intri-
cate workmanship.
Roman Cramps and Dowels

The highly developed Greek system of metal xing in ne stone masonry was
continued by Roman builders where applicable. However since ashlar stone
masonry did not gure at all as prominently in Roman monumental construc-
tion (NB the incidence of concrete) as it did in Greek construction, metal xing
in Roman masonry was less prominent than in Greek masonry (G. Lugli, Tecnica
Edilizia Romana, pp. 23542; J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, pp. 5859;
W. Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I, pp. 14546).). Nonetheless
the full development of Greek cramping was retainedor, perhaps one might
say, rehearsed; since earlier (i.e. swallow tailed) metal forms were repeated in
Roman stone masonry (cf J.-P. Adam, p. 57, g. 126). However, in fact most
Roman cramping employed the form cramp as the most economic to fash-
ion (cf J.-P. Adam, p. 57, g. 128), and there was noticeably less recourse to
systematic dowelling than in Greek masonry. Where dowels were lost Roman
294 builders generally adopted a simple procedure. The dowel was set in its emplace-
ment in the (inverted) upper block and sealed with molten lead. Then when
this had set fast, molten lead was poured into the emplacement in the lower
block and the upper block set correctly so that the dowel penetrated into the
still molten lead lling the lower emplacement. If considered advisable a chan-
nel to the surface was also provided so that surplus lead forced out of the lower
emplacement did not spoil the setting of the block but escaped via the chan-
neli.e. the channels were escape channels, not pour channels. Unlike the
Greek monumental builders, the Romans were above all concerned for rapid-
ity and economy of construction. On the other hand, as opposed to the reduced
incidence in Roman building of systematic cramping in ashlar masonry build-
ing, there was a great increase in the use of iron cramps and attachments for
106 xing marble revetments, and all sorts of service accessories such as heating
188191 ues and water pipes.
The full development of cramping and dowelling in ancient ne stone masonry
is almost a bizarre phenomenon and prompts some overall observations by way
of conclusion.
264 chapter eight
Early In the rst instance this intricate development of metal fastening can be seen
nails in as one more example of the utilisation in another material of forms and prac-
the nature tices originally used in wood construction, since all cramps and dowels in
of tacks masonry have their analogues in joinery. Also there is an unavoidable moral-
or studs ising. This meticulously detailed system was signicantly a work of supereroga-
tion, daimon driven. Finely jointed massive ashlar properly founded stood in
no need of this additional xing (that is in the absence of earthquakes or human
battery). It can not be said that it contributed a great increase in the stability
of the masonry. It certainly occasioned a vast increase in the expense. And in
this connection it is interesting to note, that as a systematic feature of masonry
it disappeared in late antiquity. Mediaeval masonry made no use of it whatsoever.
Nails, Bolts, Screws, Hooks
Nails
When wood is a material of construction there is a parallel device to the use
of metal cramps and dowels for xing masonry in position. In these circum-
stances metal nails are employed. However whereas cramps and dowels are
well recorded and studied, very little information is available concerning the
use of nails in antiquity. Also the subject is obfuscated by the inclusive seman-
tic eld for the term nail. Nail is used in English for the sizeable metal spike
used to nail together wooden units of construction. However it is used equally
for the smaller device of dierent form used to attach other materials as a cov-
ering to wood. In the latter case tack or stud are more accurate terms, but
nail can always be employed in the generic sense.
This verbal distinction permits a very basic observation to be made con-
cerning the use of nails in antiquity. Very little use indeed was made in ancient
building of nailing in the sense of xing together two units of wooden con-
struction. Members of a wooden frame constructed of posts, beams, rafters etc
were xed together in the main by joinery (adjusting each unit by shaping to
engage one with the other), or in a more primitive form by lashing together.
Long and sturdy metal nails to secure together wooden units of construction
essentially came into standard use in Mediaeval building. In short there was
very little in the ancient world of carpentry as opposed to joinery. This gen-
eral situation as described however began to change in Graeco-Roman times.
Nails are (or were) cheap in the modern world. And mass production is so
eective that their retail price is generally reckoned simply according to the
weight of metal incorporated. Essentially nails are now produced by drawing
out metal wire of the requisite quality and calibre, then cutting it into appro-
priate lengths. Drawing out metal into wire (made possible by its ductility) was
metals 265
known in ancient times, but the functional application of this process was very Early
largely in jewellry ornament. Wire played virtually no part in building. In antiq- nails in
296 uity nails of all sorts were individually hand forged. (This sounds rather aston- the nature
ishing to modern ears, but it was practiced in remote places until quite recently.) of tacks
Thus nails in antiquity were labour intensive products and expensive. Considered or studs
in this connection the fact will be better appreciated that in large part the use
of nails in antiquity took on some ornamental signicance.
Speaking in broad terms it may be said that all mention of nails in (earlier,
pre-classical) anitiquity refers to tacks or studs used to x in place facing mate-
rial. In eect ancient nailing served to attach metal sheathing or plating to
wooden grounds. Here it can be seen that nails in English is a misleading des-
ignation and these objects are better described as tacks or studs. They are for
the most part only mentioned when sheet metal is present. The metal con-
cerned was variously gold, copper, bronze. Metal nails were obviously indicated
here since they were of the same material (and thus did not set up adverse
reactions). Over and above this, however, nails had in themselves, and in the
the patterns in which they were disposed, a decorative aspect. They were not
made inconspicuous like modern nails but the rpouss heads were disposed in
patterns to telling eect.
The Bible gives a well known illustration of this matter. When King David
decided (ca 1,000 BC) on the building of a temple in Jerusalem, but realised
that it was more tting this work should be directed by his son Solomon, he
made provisions in advance to facilitate the work. The rst provision stated is
that he prepared metal in abundance for the nails required (I Chron 22.3).
However when subsequently the building of the Temple is described in detail
(I Kings 67; II Chron 34), none of the structural features gives any occasion
for the use of nails, nor are nails mentioned in this connection. On the other
hand it is stated that all the interior faces of the walls were panelled with cedar
wood and this wooden panelling was largely or wholly faced with gold (I Kings
6; II Chron 3) and the weight of the nails used in plating the holy of holies
was 50 shekels of gold (II Chron 3.9). Thus it is made clear that nails as under-
stood in the Bible are the (ornamental) tacks and studs for attaching the gold
plating to walls and doors etc, not robust nails for securing structural members
one to the other.
Later developments in Graeco-Roman building led away from this rather
categoric position. Certainly both Greek and Roman hammer heads have been
preserved which resemble a modern carpenters hammeri.e. with a claw at
the rear designed for removing nails (cf Martin, p. 41, g. 15). One signicant
innovation in building construction which invoked the use of nails was the tim-
ber framed ridge roof of the Greek Temple. In some ways nailing here can be
266 chapter eight
Nailing considered an auxilliary structural device, on the other hand it is an extension

required of the old Middle Eastern practice that nails were used for axing, revetting
for shut- and cladding. It was not that all the terra-cotta roong tiles were nailed in
tering place to their wooden grounds. This was not so. However attaching a cover-
Roman ing to wooden construction meant that some nailing in place was inevitable
concrete notably about the periphery of the roof. All the reconstructions show terra-cotta
units here nailed or spiked to their grounds (Martin, pp. 10507, gs. 5355) and 178
there is evidence that in Archaic times these nails were often of copper or bronze.
The lowest row of roong tiles (particularly when they projected as over-
hanging eaves tiles) often stood in need of auxilliary xation; and it may be
that this usage became more prolic in Roman times (v supra, Chap. III pp.
128129). More striking was the xation required for the terra-cotta guttering
and other cladding of the face of the entablature (i.e. ctile revetments). This
was an everyday concern in earlier Archaic temples when it was a standard
device demanded by wooden entablatures. In later times when stone entabla-
tures replaced wooden ones, the obvious solution to the problem of xing terra-
cotta revetting to stone grounds was the modern rawalplug system. At appropriate
positions a wooden plug was let into the stone, and the terra-cotta xed in
place by nails driven into these inset wooden plugs.
It was, however, developments in Roman building construction which brought
about a revolutionary increase in the practice of nailing, so that iron nails came
into general supply on a scale not equalled until a much later age. The use of
concrete on a grand scale in monumental construction meant that all sorts of
timber work was needed by way of shuttering and centeringand the nature
and demands of the work were quite dierent from the requirements of con-
structing wooden buildings. The timbering associated with concreting had to
be set in place quickly and after a short time taken down again quickly. There
was no requirement of durability. It was temporary work. Thus elaborate join-
ery was quite out of place and nailing was routine (Vitruvius I.3.1; W. Macdonald,
The Architecture of the Roman Empire I, p. 146).
There was also the matter of wooden ooring, more or less inevitable with
multi-storied apartment buildings. Boards were nailed to joists (Vitruvius VII.1.2).
Clearly it was not possible to forge nails ad hoc for this routine work; and stocks
of nails to be generally available were required then as now. A staggering nd
of just such a stock was made in 1961 at the Roman fort of Inchtuthill in 197, 198
Scotland (ca 87 AD). This comprised nearly a million nails weighing 7 tons in
all. These were all big nails from ca 6" to 16" in length (i.e. ca 15 cms45
cms), and were probably the stock held at a legionary central construction depot
(W. Macdonald, p. 146 n. 11; J.F. Healey, Mining and Metallurgy . . ., p. 239;
R.F. Tylecote, A History of Metallurgy, London, 1992, p. 63).
metals 267
Here is also the occasion to make a general addendum to the foregoing The
account of the use of nails in ancient building. This has been presented in the roong
light of evidence which is almost entirely oriented to the ancient Middle East and truss
Mediterranean world. However in this region wood was not the principal mate-
rial of construction. It is the evidence from the cooler regions of northern Europe
where the primary building material was wood which is in point. Only when
detailed evidence for the use of nails both bronze and iron in northern Europe
becomes available will an account of nails in ancient building be circumstantial.
Bolts
The appropriate method of fastening units of structural timber with metal is
to bolt them together. There is very little record of this practice in antiquity.
However one structural device formed out of sizeable wooden members virtu-
ally demands it. This is the roong truss which all now agree was known and
used by Roman builders, and most recognise that it was also known to Greek
building from the 4th Century BC, if not earlier (e.g. in Sicily). The principle
of the truss is that geometrically speaking the triangle is a rigid form, i.e. it
cannot deform while it remains intact. This in turn means that the joints between
the wooden members of the truss must not give or yield under the stresses
induced by the load, so that the unity of the structure is lost. To eect these
joints various types of interlocking engagements can be incorporated in the tim-
bers themselves, but in addition the joints need extra fastening to render them
secure. This is provided by metal fastenings. Nailing is not strong enough for
this purpose and metal (iron) bolts and plates have always been used in tradi-
tional wooden carpentry to secure rigid joints between members of wooden
roong trusses. If (or, perhaps better, when) the roong truss was used in antiq-
uity similar arrangements must have been incorporated. This subject, however,
has received very little attention, e.g. the exhaustive analytic study T. Hodge,
The Woodwork of Greek Temple Roofs, Cambridge, 1960 scarcely alludes to it in
passing (p. 98).
The one example of a roong truss to have survived from antiquity is in the
pedimental vestibule of the Pantheon. Several Renaissance architects made draw-
ings of these trusses. These vary in the details shown, but all indicate the use
281 of heavy bolts or pins which must be metal. A summary review is given in the
manual H. Plommer, Ancient and Classical Architecture, London, 1956, pp. 30003;
cf also P. Varene, La Charpente de Comble chez les Grecs et les Romains,
in Comment Construisent les Grecs et les Romains, Dossiers de lArchologie, NovDec
1977, pp. 9299. The use of nut and bolt in combination was understood in
Late Hellenistic times and there is an unusual notice which refers to its appli-
cation in building. However this deals with tie rods between pillars incorpo-
268 chapter eight
Sheathing rating threaded connections so that the rods could be tightened. The occasion
sealing is Herods temple in Jerusalem with the purpose of rmly securing the taber-
and nacle ( Josephus, The Antiquities 3.12021).
D.P.Cs
Screws
Small metal screws are such ubiquitous features of modern building construc-
tion that it is dicult to imagine them absent from building sites. However this
was apparently the case throughout antiquity. In later Hellenistic time the prin-
ciple of the screw (the inclined plane in spiral form) was understood, and
directions for cutting threads in a nut (the female screw), which is a dicult
operation, are given in Heros Mechanics 3.21 (convenient translation J.W.
Humphrey et al. ed., Roman Technology: A Source Book, London, 1998, pp. 5556).
However the practical application of the principle was at a sizeable scale in
various machines. These were for the most part fashioned out of wood, which
simplied the manufacture somewhat. Well known applications are the com-
mon device for raising water known as Archimedes Screws. Also the screw
operated press used signicantly for crushing olives. Such machines became
common during the rst century AD (B. Cotterel & J. Komminga, Mechanics of
Pre-Industrial Technology, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 9496). No metal screws for attach-
ing together units in building construction have ever been found and they are
reckoned not to have been in use.
Hooks
A method of attaching building units together is to hang one from the other
and metal rods/attachments with a hooked end are most convenient devies for
this purpose. Here evidence has survived to indicate that in Roman baths a
vaulted plasterwork ceiling was suspended from roong beams by hooked iron 299
hangers (v BdA p. 100, g. 1; cf Vitruvius V. 10,3).
Protection of Structure
Another secondary function concerned with structure which metals have dis-
charged in building is protection. There are several applications of this. The
most obvious is metal sheathing of exposed surfaces. However the value of
metal was suciently high in the ancient world that generally speaking such a
proceedure was only practised where the metal sheathing was also ornamen-
taland it will be referred to again in that context. There were circumstances
where metal was introduced into building construction forming no part of the
aspect (i.e. it was invisible) in the interest of protecting the structure. The prime
purpose here was to protect the structure from the ravages of damp, the metal
metals 269
thus forming damp proof courses, membranes or sealings. In all these instances Doors and
the use of metals in Western buildings (Graeco-Roman) was a counterpart to gates
the use of bitumen in the Ancient East (Mesopotamia).
There are two distinct concerns. To protect the structure from the external
elements (rain), which process is properly to be called damp proong, equally
the process may be required to protect structure used in connection with water
and this may be better called water proong.
There are unexpected instances in Greek ashlar masonry where rising joints
were sealed with internal lead barriers to protect mural painting on the inner
face of the wall from the eects of seepage of rainwater through the masonry.
The cost of this proceedure must have been very great. It is to be hoped that
the results were commensurate. A well known example occurs in the Theseion
at Athens (Orlandos I, pp. 1189, g. 81). Here matching vertical grooves of
triangular section were cut in each rising joint ca 5 cms inside the face (so that
the intervention was invisible). This strip emplacement was then lled with
molten lead to constitute a damp proof barrier across the joint. An early exam-
ple of waterproong masonry construction with metal is found in a Cypriote
Late Bronze Age building at Hala Sultan Tekke. Here a bathroom with mar-
ble oor has the joints between the units sealed with lead (G.R.H. Wright,
ABC I, pp. 288, 397, 470, 520, 529, II g. 236). Whereas sheet lead was the
obvious waterproong in Roman Baths, Pliny (N.H. 39.153) records that as a
regrettable ostentation some womens private baths employed silver.
Uses of Metals for Fitting and Services

In a utilitarian connection there is no doubt that during antiquity metals were
employed most prominently about buildings as ttings or services. At the pre-
sent day metals are still notably employed in this fashion, but this usage has
been outstripped by their structural usage. However both in ancient and mod-
ern times when metals are used for ttings and services very frequently they
incorporate an ornamental signicance since their metallic lustre or sheen lends
itself very readily to this.
Fixtures and appliances of dierent sorts were disposed of in and about
ancient buildings and it would be a lengthy undertaking to make any inven-
tory of them. In fact this deals with ancient metal work rather than ancient
building. Accordingly reference is made here only to a few major types of metal
ttings as an indication of this usage.
Without doubt the most noteworthy instance is that of monumental doors
or gatesin principle those in public buildings. Here almost every concern
which can be attached to building materials is in issue: protection, ornament
270 chapter eight
Doors and and (very markedly) symbolism. Also developments in the use of metals on gates
gates form a very clear illustration of a principle of general interest.
The obvious method of making a substantial gate or door, and particularly
a large one, is to fashion a framed structure of wood. This ancestry is still
apparent in the design and construction of traditional doors in modern car-
pentry where the following types may be set in ascending order of dignity: bat-
tened and ledged doors; framed and braced doors; framed and panelled doors.
Battened and ledged doors are used in rustic and service building, e.g. cellars
and outhouses. Framed and panelled doors are for formal building. There is
another type of door in popular use today, which has tended to supplant the
traditional design, the ush door. But this design is a modern development
which was not used in ancient building.
Originally substantial doors and gates were constructed out of wooden mem-
bersplanks or boards for the panelling/facing and heavy timbers for the bat-
tens/braces or framing. To secure these latter members to the boarding very
heavy metal nails or studs came to be used. The bulbous heads of these nails
or studs constituted both an extra strength and protection to the gate and also
were recognised as constituting an ornamental pattern. When the gate was a
monumental external gate, e.g. a city gate or sanctuary enclosure gate, as a
natural extension the battens etc were fashioned of metal bands and straps.
Following on this the panelling could be completely metal plated thus trans-
forming a wooden gate into a half metal constructionwhere the metal aorded
increased strength, durability, re proong and was also highly ornamental
indeed the aspect was entirely of metal.
In the nature of things remains of such gates are rare, since wood is fugi-
tive and the metal components readily available for melting down into scrap.
However in exceptional instances gates of this nature have survivedthe most
notable example being the famous Bronze Gates of Balawat from Northern 272
Mesopotamia, now in the British Museum (M.S.B. Damerji, The Development
of the Architecture of Doors and Gates in Ancient Mesopotamia, pp. 12735). There is
also considerable reference to such gates in ancient literature. Moreover the
design of these gates is strikingly attested by the survival (especially in monumental
tombs) of versions of them carved out of stone, which reproduce all the elements
of their design and construction, cf, e.g. the Macedonian monumental tombs 273
(R.A. Tomlinson, Macedonian Vaulted Tombs, ABSA 82 1987, pp. 30512).
The nal step in the development of the use of metal for monumental gates
was to transform its use into a primary structural material. As stated this is of
general interest as aording factual evidence of a development in the use of
metal for e.g. columns. And it also parallels a deveopment in the use of other
materials (e.g. burnt brick). With increasing expertise in casting metals monu-
mental gates of this design were completely hollow cast in bronze. An Egyptian 275277
metals 271
258 relief from a Theban tomb, ca 1,500 BC appears to illustrate the processes of Fittings
casting bronze gates of this nature (R.J. Forbes in C. Singer, A History of for doors
Technology, Oxford, 1954, p. 580, g. 383). The logic of metal here as a and gates
structural material is obvious. These gates are sometimes very large and mas-
sive, yet they must swing open and close easily. Thus the strengthweight ratio
of the material is importantand that of metal is very high. Monumental
bronze gates of this design and construction were known to have been used in
274277 classical Greek temples (e.g. the Erechtheum); while actual metal gates of Roman
times have survived in use to the present day, e.g. the bronze gates of the
Pantheon (cf, also Pliny NH 34.13). Here can be seen running its full course
the process whereby costly building material with superior qualities is used orig-
inally as an adjunct in special circumstances and eventually becomes used as
a primary structural material in itself.
It is also appropriate here to mention the accessories to doors, gates (and
windows). These comprise the devices for attaching, barring, fastening, locking.
In the ancient world doors and windows were not as a rule hung (as we now
say) on horizontally axed hinges (although these were known in later e.g.
Graeco-Roman times), but operated on vertical pivots let into sockets or (above)
passed through loops. In monumental work both the pivot and the socket could
be metal shod or platedeven in gold where symbolism was important, e.g.
in the temple at Jerusalem (I Kings 7.52; G.R.H. Wright, ABSP I, pp. 37879).
Bars, bolts, locks etc could be of wood, but very generally were of metal (M.S.B.
Damerji, The Development of the Architecture of Doors and Gates in Ancient Mesopotamia,
pp. 15779; A. Orlandos I, pp. 10405; R. Ginouves, Dictionnaire Methodique II,
pp. 5558, pls. 2325). In Roman times all this iron mongery was in general
commercial supply as now.
Mention of doors and windows aords occasion to speak of another com-
mon xture or installation in ancient buildings. It was functionally important
and also highly ornamental. This conspicuous feature is the grille or screen. Its
elemental function is to admit light and permit visibility, but prevent or limit
38 access. Such devices can be of wood (cf modern lattice work) but generally (and
especially in public buildings) they are of metal (wrought iron as a rule). They
are set typically across doorways and in front of windows, but on occasion else-
where, e.g. between columns etc.). Although almost inevitably scrapped in
short order, their presence is attested by cuttings in the masonry and also in
ancient pictorial representatione.g. in Pompeian murals. (R. Ginouves, Dictionnaire
Methodique II, pp. 5051; for surviving metal remains, G. Webster, Roman
Windows and Grilles, Antiquity XXXIII 1959, pp. 1014, Pl. IV.)
A characteristic of metals is their impermeability. In this fashion they are
very suitable for use when water is present in and around buildings. Something
has been said of the negative aspect of this question: provision against damage
272 chapter eight
Water by water, i.e. damp proong and water proong. The positive aspect of the
supply question is of equal signicanceand indeed becomes of ever increasing impor-
and tance with the growth of material civilisation. Theoretically this question is not
drainage part of building construction proper, and is considered as an auxilliary service,
however in our own age it has become a basic essential which must be incor-
porated in all buildings. A similar development occured in later antiquity cul-
minating in the prosperity of imperial Rome. Then as now concern for reticulation
of waterwater supply and drainagebecame a fundamental of town plan-
ning and building construction ( J.W. Humphrey et al. ed. Greek and Roman
Technology, pp. 285309).
In older (pre-classical) times the obvious material used for water supply and 192196
drainage was terra-cotta supplemented by hydraulic plaster and bitumen (v supra, 224,
pp. 135136, 228). However the superior durability and impermeability of met- 250253
als together with their ready workability meant that they largely ousted terra-
cotta in this connection, particularly in the Roman world. Here, speaking in 303
general terms, the use of metals (exceptionally) was of purely utilitarian intent.
Far from exploiting the ornamental appearance of metals provisions for water
supply and drainage have always been considered unsightly and eorts are made
as far as possible to conceal them or render them inconspicuous. This in turn
has some inuence on the material used. Perhaps a distinction may be drawn
on the one hand between facilities of necessity prominently displayed (e.g. pub-
lic basins and also attachments such as spouts, taps, etc.) and those inconspic-
uous or concealed (e.g. piping) on the other. For the former copper and bronze
were used; for the latter lead.
An unusual record of the early (Ancient Middle East) use of copper and
bronze for display features connected with water supply appears in the Bible.
Various facilities were required for making holy water available (for ceremo-
nial ablutions etc.) to worshippers in Solomons templee.g. a great molten
sea reservoir and ten mobile basins. These were provided in highly ornamen-
tal bronze work. He then made the sea of cast metal; it was round in shape,
the diameter from rim to rim being ten cubits; it stood ve cubits high. All
round the sea on the outside under the rim . . . were two rows of gourds cast
in one piece with the sea itself. It was mounted on twelve oxen . . . their hind
quarters turned inwards etc., etc. (I Kngs 7.2346).
However the signicant and quite sensational use of metal in connection with
water services in the Ancient World was the development of plumbing (stricto
sensu) during Roman times. Urban water supply was one of the prides of Roman
civilisation (Pliny NH 36 12123). Water sources many kilometres distant were
tapped and the water conveyed by monumental aqueducts into the city. There
it was distributed to public fountains and public baths situated in various quar-
ters, but also in signicant measure to private dwellings. A great quantity of
metals 273
lead piping with ttings and appliances of various sorts was involved in these Roman
operations. This involved a notable increase in lead mining (A.T. Hodge, Roman bath
Aqueducts and Water Supply, London, 1992). buildings
The aqueducts themselves were designed to operate by gravity ow and thus
in the main the conduit was an open channel. Nonetheless exceptions were not
rare and instead of bridging broad and deep valleys by lofty masonry structure,
the water was directed down into the depths and up again in a U tube device
(the inverted siphon). This meant it was conveyed in strong pipes under, at
times, very considerable pressure. Here the pipes were lead (Vitruvius 8.6. 111;
Pliny NH 31. 5758). As opposed to this water reticulation within the city was
commonly arranged in leaden water pipes (Pliny NH 34. 164; P.F. Tylecote, A
History of Metallurgy, pp. 94 .) with the necessary distribution boxes and branch
pipes leading to individual outlets (Frontinus On the Aqueducts of Rome 1.
1736, 2. 75127). These services were such standard features of Roman town
planning and bulding that the necessary supplies of piping and ttings (distribution
boxes, stop cocks etc) were mass produced industrially as in modern times (W.
Macdonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire I, p. 146). Nothing like this was
seen again for many centuries until the Industrial Revolution.
This is, perhaps the context to mention Roman bath buildings. In principle
the structure and structural materials of such buildings are not dierent from
buildings erected for other purposes. However the storage, heating and distri-
bution of water demanded what are best called ttings and xtures of varied
descriptionse.g. reservoirs, cisterns, boilers etc., at times elevated to give a
head of water and thus requiring supports and staging. These provisions were
inserted separately rather than incorporated in the structure of the building,
and it seems all or much of these auxilliary furnishings were of metal. In this
279 way e.g. substantial wrought iron beams have been discovered in several bath
buildings in England and Germany (R.F. Tylecote, A History of Metallurgy, pp.
23839). This is of interest as demonstrating the technological capacity to employ
metal for structural elements in building, whereas the overall economics and
industrial capacity of the age were such that metal was not a viable standard
material for this purpose. Instead it was restricted to special circumstances in
auxilliary ttings etc.
Uses of Metal for Ornaments

The ornament and decoration of buildings is a very extended (and diuse) sub-
ject. Often material applied as ornament to buildings serves an additional
purposee.g. protection of the structure. Often structural material exposed to
view has a distinctly ornamental aspect. Metals by their nature (i.e. the metal-
lic lustre or sheen) have an intrinsic ornamental quality and this may be enhanced
274 chapter eight
Dierent by suitable preparation and treatment. The use of metals as building ornament
attitudes demands a signicant monograph, and is perhaps better discussed in the guise
in the of the history of art, rather than that of architectural history. The subject is
Ancient marginal to the present enquiry, and thus only spoken of in outline. However
Middle something is to be said of it because it forms an important part of the use of
East & metals in building (although, of course, it is of minor importance in the over-
in the all use of metals).
Graeco- The story of the use of metals as building ornament is a clear cut one. In
Roman eect metals were rst used as ornament to buildings in the Ancient Middle
World East during the third millenium BC and the practice always remained current
in the region. Then with Greek and Roman penetration and rule of the region
following Alexanders conquests the feature was admired and maintained in the
region by the new rulers, and more importantly imported and imitated in
Western realms where it had little or no previous background. This process
was such a noticeable feature, as to constitute something of a second orien-
talising period. In this way overall views of metal ornament are best found in
studies of Graeco-Roman building where care has been taken to provide a
detailed synopsis of the oriental background (R. Martin, pp. 16062; R. Vallois,
LArchitecture Hellenique et Hellenistique Dlos jusqu . . . 166, AJC, Paris, 1966,
pp. 299310NB this also includes Roman usage).
This pattern of use reveals some basic distinctions in attitudes to building
ornament which are worth mention.
Metal was used in the Ancient Middle East for ornamenting public building
(it was costly). This aesthetic has always remained acceptable in the East into
modern times, e.g. the attitude was incorporated into Islamic, Hindu and
Buddhist sacred building. Metal applied to the structure of private domestic
building never became an issue in the East. On the other hand when metal
ornament in buildings was introduced into the West during Hellenistic and
Roman times, it aroused a certain basic repugnance. Here the mode on occa-
sion extended to private domestic building of notablesand this was condemned
out of hand as vulgar display (cf Pliny NH 34.13). However even in august
public buildings while the current orientalising aesthetics admired the picture,
the practice never became truly naturalised; and from the end of that epoch
striking metal ornament has never been an acceptable part of building in the
West. It has always been regarded as inferior, i.e. in the nature of a gaudy dis-
play of jewellry. This is of interest since in the West as in the East valuable
(precious) metal ornament has always been acceptable as personal property (i.e.
as household equipment or personal jewellery).
Speaking in the broadest fashion it may be said that metal building orna-
ment takes two forms: overall plating and applied individual motifs. Both modes
metals 275
go back to early use in the Middle East and both were taken over in the West Logic of
during the Hellenistic and Roman vogue. However it is probably fair to say metal
that the second genre, applied motifs, was more a feature of later Western prac- ornament
tice and overall plating was more distinctive of Ancient Middle East practice.
The latter is linked to the precious metals, notably gold. Gold is highly func-
tional in this connection because of its extreme malleabilitye.g. a gold coin
can be beaten out into thin foil sucient to clad a reasonable sized roof. And
there are other processes of gilding which are even more economic ( J.F. Healey,
Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, p. 245; R.J. Forbes, Studies
in Ancient Technology VIII, pp. 14243). Also because of its extreme stability gold
does not deteriorate by exposure.
A universally known example of ancient gold plating is Solomons Temple
(I Kings 6.20, And he overlaid the sanctuary with pure gold, and so covered
the altar . . . So Solomon overlaid the house within with pure gold. And the
whole house he overlaid with gold). There is little notice of similar practice
in the Hellenistic and Roman world. However Pliny mentions (NH 33.57) gild-
ing and plating ceilings, vaults and even walls. He also states (NH 33.3.53) that
Nero clad the Theatre of Pompey with gold, but only for the day of a per-
formance. How this was arranged is not at all apparent.
On the other hand the most characteristic instances of metal ornament to
Greek and Roman buildings are applied individual items to embellish, not cover,
the material of construction. The appropriate material here is solid heavy bronze,
although this may well be gilded and alloyed in such a way as to simulate a
precious metal (cf Corinthian gold). Sometimes these items are very striking in
their eective display as ornament, e.g. rosettes, winged thunderbolts, etc. pinned
to the centre of coered ceiling blocks or of stucco coered vaults (also lion
head spouts; guttae; modillion details and obviously acanthas foliage of Corinthian
capitals (Pliny NH 34.57).
The overall logic of metal ornament to monumental building resides in the
structural material employed. When this is noble in itself, i.e. nely dressed
stone, then ornamental facing in metal is a repugnancy to the aesthetic of truth
is beauty. On the other hand when the material of construction is of lesser
worth, e.g. earth or wood, then revetment in metal is logical as at the same
time providing both ornament and protection. In this way the monumental
building of classical Greece and of Pharaonic Egypt (L. Borchardt, Metal Bellag
an Steinbauten, 1933) were less receptive to this mode of ornament than that of
the Ancient Middle East earthen and mortared rubble construction. But such
cursory observations are quite inadequate and good sense can not be made out
of this subject unless it is treated fully and enquiringly.
* * *
276 chapter eight
Metals Finally, and inevitably, some concluding remarks are added on the use of met-
and the als as signs, symbols, or analogies for stages/aspects of the human story. This
ages of use has been developed in two systems: one legendry in character, the other
man purportedly historical. The former seems endemic in the human understand-
ing, it is certainly very common in Aryan expression (e.g. Hindu; Iranian,
Classical). The latter was the idea of a Danish museum keeper early in the
19th century. The former seeks to justify the lot of man to himself, the latter
is a tool of the materialist determinist view of history. Thus the intent and
application of these schemes are quite dierent and it would be better if their
terminology did not overlap. However it does, and there is a cross reference
between the two. The symbolic ageless ages of man to which no one wants
to set a date are characterised as Golden, Silver, Bronze, Iron; while gold was
probably the rst metal that became familiar to man and iron was historically
the last metal to be brought into everyday use by man and succeeded bronze
for many purposes.
This is confusing because the same metal analogies/symbols have been applied
to successions conceived in diametrically opposite senses. The ages of man,
understood almost everywhere, is based on the pessimistic gnostic tenet of the
anterior high estate of the human soul progressively descending into hateful cir-
cumstances, the miserable estate of present day life. Thus the harsh destiny of
human life is regression. On the other hand the archaeological ages (Bronze
Age, Iron Age) employing the same names have always been seen as express-
ing a destiny of inevitable progress.
General References
Nature and Qualities of Metals

I.S. Allison & D.F. Parker, Geology, New York, 1988.
D.G.A. Whitten & J.R.N. Brooks, Dictionary of Geology, London, 1972.
C.S. Hurlbut, Danas Manual of Mineralogy, 1971.
A.H. Wilson, The Theory of Metals, 1966.
L. Aitchison, A History of Metals, London, 1961.
J. Dayton, Minerals, Metals Glazing and Man, London, 1978.
Production of Metals
General
P.T. Craddock, Early Mining and Metal Production, Edinburgh, 199?.
J.F. Healey, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World, London, 1978.
metals 277
Mining
R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. VII, Ancient Geology, Ancient Mining, Leiden, 1964.
R. Shepherd, Ancient Mining, New York, 1993.
O. Davies, The Roman Mines in Europe, Oxford, 1935.
Metallurgy
J.R. Marechal, Prehistoric Metallurgy, Lammersdorf, 1962.
R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. VIII, Metallurgy in Antiquity I, Leiden, 1972.
, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. IX, Metallurgy in Antiquity 2, Leiden, 1972.
P.F. Tylecote, A History of Metallurgy, London, 1992.
H. Garland & C.D. Bannister, Ancient Egyptian Metallurgy, London, 1927.
J.D. Muhly et al., Early Metallurgy in Cyprus, Nicosia, 1982.
R.D. Penhalurich, Tin in Antiquity, London, 1986.
H.H. Coghlan, Notes on the Prehistoric Metallurgy of Copper and Bronze, Oxford, 1975.
, Notes on Prehistoric and Early Iron in the Old World, Oxford, 1956.
T.A. Wertime & J.D. Muhly, The Coming of the Age of Iron, New Haven, 1980.
Metal Working
H.G. Maryon, Metal Work, London, 1971.
R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. l VIII, pp. 10554, Leiden, 1972.
D. Strong & D. Brown, Roman Crafts. Bronze pp. 2539; Iron Making, pp. 12741;
Blacksmithing, pp. 14253. London 1976.
Use of Metals in Building

L. Borchardt, Metallbelag an Steinbauten, 1933.
G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine, pp. 37779, Leiden, 1985.
, Ancient Building in Cyprus, pp. 32530, 39698, Leiden, 199.
R. Vallois, LArchitecture Hellenique et Hellenistique Delos jusqu . . . 166 AJC. Ornaments et
Revtements Metalliques, pp. 299310 (gives Oriental background) Paris, 1966.
R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque I, Les Metaux, pp. 155162.
A. Orlandos, Les Materiaux de Construction et la Technique Architecturale des Anciens Grecs I, Les
Metaux, pp. 97130, Paris, 1966.
W.B. Dinsmoor, Structural Iron in Greek Architecture, AJA xxvi, 1922, pp. 14858.
G. Lugli, La Tecnica Edilizia Romana, pp. 23142, Rome, 1957.
A. Homan, Konstruieren mit Eisen, in BdA pp. 99106.
278 chapter eight
Appendix: Properties of Metals Relevant to Structural Use in Antiquity
The melting point, specic gravity and hardness are well dened gures. The hot working
temperature, i.e. the temperature at which the metal can be annealed to restore its malleability
is better expressed as a possible range. In general this is something proportional to the melt-
ing point, and perhaps its operative sign would have been red heat. The strength of metals
used structurally is indicated with diidence. To give any strength depends on exactly how
the metal was used. In general the tensile strength of metals is greater than their compressive
strength. The structural use of metals in antiquity was generally as beams or reinforcing for
beams where they are in bending and the operative factor is their tensile strength. The val-
ues given here are crude relative ones estimated on a basis of the crushing strength of mud
brick as unity (cf. Table on p. 12.).
METAL Melting Hot Specic Hardness Relative Strength

Point Working Gravity (Mohs Compressive Tensile
Temp. Scale)
Copper 1,083C ~850C 8.96 2.53 12.5 75

Tin 232C 7.3 2.0
Bronze 950C1000C ~650C~900C 8.3 3 ~90 ~100
Lead 327C ~20+C 11.37 1.5
Wrought Iron 1,535C ~600C~1000C 7.86 4 50 70125
Gold 1,063C 19.32 2.53
CHAPTER NINE
GLASS
A. Nature and Qualities of Glass

B. Manufacture and Supply of Glass
Supply
(1) Raw materials
(2) Bulk Glass
(3) Glass Objects
C. Uses of Glass in Building
Glass Glass is an anomalous material. This much is apparent not so much in every- 304
properly day experience of the material, but whenever it is subject to conditions which
indicates a transform the physical nature of materials (notably heat). It is now second nature
physical
state
for most people to recognise that it is the microscopic structure (i.e. the
not a atomic/molecular structure) of a material which conditions its properties. In
particular this way it is reasonable that the basic states in which matter exists (solids, liq-
material uids, gases) are not to be dened by the impressions made on our senses (sight,
touch), but by the internal atomic structure of the material. Herein lies the
anomaly of glass. To our senses it appears and generally behaves like a solid,
but its atomic structure is not that of a solid proper. This state is sometimes
referred to as amorphous. However amorphous is not etymologically very just.
Astructural is closer to the mark, and perhaps loosely structured conveys what
is at issue. If glass is referred to as a loosely structured solid, some indication
is given of its physical nature; but, of course, the description bestrides both
approaches; the sensory and the scientic. Structure refers to the atomic struc-
ture of the material; solid proceeds from everyday sensory perception. In terms
of its atomic structure glass can not be justly described as a solid. This back-
ground of physics was unknown to the ancients, therefore they were all the
more struck by the anomolous behavious of the material. Thus glass manu-
facture and working was a very signicant source of ancient alchemy.
A. Nature and Qualities of Glass
Glass is a chemical mixture named because of its smooth shining appearance

(gloss, glisten etc.) which in turn is the result of its characteristic physical
280 chapter nine
constitution or structure. Material answering to this description occurs natu- Glass

rally, viz the volcanic rock obsidian (rhyolite) which appears similar to dark used in
ancient
coloured bottle glass and letchatelierite, a natural silica glass. However all glass
building is
used in ancient building is an articial material not a natural one; and in some highly
ways it is the most articial of all materials produced in antiquity since it is articial
composed of diverse raw materials in such a way that the manufactured prod- material
uct has little resemblance to the raw materials.
The material is produced from liquid substances or more expressly from
liquied substances which have the property of cooling without abruptly changing
their atomic/molecular structure into a crystalline form whereby the elemental
particles are strongly bound to one another in exact geometrical patterns
which is now reckoned the scientic denition of a solid. Instead the liquid
mixture gradually becomes increasingly viscous so as eventually to become rigid,
yet the molecular/atomic structure remains that of a liquid not a solidi.e. 304
the bond between the molecules/atoms is appreciable but not rigidly patterned.
It is dicult to nd suitable plain language terms to express this state, since it
is not one which can be assimilated by sense perception. Thus glass has been
termed an immobile/immobilised liquid, or an undercooled/supercooled
liquid.
Although perhaps not of great concern in everyday use of the material, this
anomalous physical state is vital in conditioning the manufacture and working
of the material. There is no point of fusion/melting point with an abrupt muta-
tion from the solid (rigid) to a liquid state of a given uidity. Instead the material
over a very considerable range of temperature (several hundred degrees centi-
grade) passes gradually through a changing state of viscosity. This in turn per-
mits varying modes of processing the material, some quite curious and unexpected.
In very general terms the material once it has cooled and assumed a rigid
condition has qualities which make it useful for a variety of purposes. Glass in
the ancient world was used in three principal connections: as ornaments; for
containers; and in building. And its use both for containers and in building
could assume a highly ornamental expression. Considered over the entire range
of its use in the Ancient World the use of glass in building occupied a minor
rle, and quite often the subject of glass in antiquity has been treated without
attention to its use as a building material. Glass was used for ornaments and
containers for something approaching 3,000 years before it was employed in
building. This occurred at the beginning of the Christian era to ourish throughout
the Roman Empire, but for several centuries only. Then its use as a building
material declined in the Western Provinces. Although it did not fall into complete
abeyance, during later antiquity the use of glass in building became more rudi-
mentary than during the high empire. (Its later revival was in Gothic building.)
glass 281
Qualities In this study consideration of the nature and qualities of glass is limited
of glass entirely to glass used in building. Here it may be noted that the material is
quite strong in compression (e.g. as strong as terra cotta), but it has very little
strength in tension. This is the basic reason that glass is very brittle, i.e. it
cracks and breaks readily. Generally glass is employed in thin sections (sheets)
so that it is easily put into bending or buckling and thus localised tensile stresses
develop which are propogated rapidly through the section. On the other hand,
apart from its fragility in tension, glass is a durable material since it is very
hard. It is relatively little subject to erosion either mechanical or chemical com-
pared with other building materials. However the quality of glass most signicant
for its use in ancient building is its anomalous optical behaviour. Unlike most
rigid substances it is, or can be, translucent and transparent. It is not the only
rigid substance to possess these qualities, as some true solids (e.g. stones of var-
ious sorts) are also translucent and to some degree transparent. However in
specic details the transparency of glass ressembles that of ordinary liquids (e.g.
water) rather than that of transparent crystalline solids.
In the above outline of the nature and qualities of glass nothing has been
said of its chemical composition. This is because glass has no specic chemi-
cal composition, and many chemical compounds can be manufactured into glass
(The Corning Glass Museum has registered ca 75,000 chemical formulae for
glass!). Indeed theoretically any liquid, if it can be cooled rapidly enough should
be transformable into a glassy state). Glass thus refers to a physical state of
matter not to its chemical composition. The term is properly to be set in appo-
sition with solid, liquid or gas as a fourth state of matter. Thus all individual
substances which manifest this state should be considered as glasses (cf solids,
liquids) not glass. Nonetheless in practice certain chemical elements are most
suitable as raw materials for the production of glass, notably silica, lime and
soda ( J. Henderson, The Raw Materials of Early Glass Production).
B. Manufacture and Supply of Glass
The manufacture of glass for use as a building material remained essentially

the same operation using the same installations, processes and raw materials
as the manufacture of glass for other purposes. Indeed it is evident that some
ancient glass factories produced glass of all description including glass for build-
ing. Therefore it is possible rst to speak of the manufacture of glass in gen-
eral terms having overall application to the manufacture of glass for use in
building; and then to make specic qualications concerning the latter.
Glass making, which is a form of pyrotechnology, was probably discovered
282 chapter nine
by accident in the course of smelting metals (metallurgy), cf the well known Manu-
story of the accidental discovery of glass on the Syro-Phoenecian coast when facture of
soda was burnt up by chance with a special sand (Pliny NH 16. 19094) the glass
product (by product) of such operations was probably satisfactory for making
into small ornaments (beads, amulets, etc.). From this origin the technology of
glass manufacture developed so that dierent types of material could be glazed
and then extremely convenient and hygenic containers were made. Finally at
(sheet) glass was manufactured which played an important role in building. In
its denitive development two processes are involved in the manufacture of
glass:
(a) to change the physical state and chemical composition of certain raw materials
so that they coalesce and form a new substance.
(b) to fashion individual objects from the new substance.
Very often these two processes were carried out in conjunction as part of the
one overall operation; but it was also possible to eect them separately. The
glassy substance could be produced in bulk at one factory as a complete indus-
trial operation in itself, and then supplied in bulk to other factories as mate-
rial ready for making into the required glass objects. This question will be
further discussed in connection with supply of glass, but it may be noted here
that the separation of the two processes involved no change in their nature.
To produce a viscous material suitable for making into glass objects requires
a high temperature ca 1100C1500C, i.e. higher than for burning gypsum,
lime, clay, and in the region of that required for metal working. Thus the man-
ufacture of glass necessitates an appropriately designed kiln (oven, furnace).
Accordingly, in general, there is a parallel with lime, pottery and brick kilns
and metal ovens/furnaces. However there are quite signicant dierences between
the processes of manufacturing these various materials, and thus in the design
and functioning of the kilns. Mention is made of this background because,
unfortunately, there is very restricted evidence of glass kilns/furnaces in ancient
times and much of the discussion concerning them devolves from analogies with
later glass kilns (R.J. Charlesworth, Glass Furnaces through the Ages) or ancient pot-
tery kilns etc (B. Demierre, Les Fours Chaux en Grce).
When speaking of ancient glass furnaces a distinction must be drawn between
furnaces for the production of bulk glass only and those for the production of
nished glass objects. Although the former are probably much more charac-
teristic of later times, it is more convenient to deal with them rst. They are
307, 308 often referred to as Tank Furnaces. The overall question of the division of
the glass industry into primary production, i.e. manufacturing of bulk glass
glass 283
Glass for use as raw material in the secondary industry of manufacturing nished
furnaces glass objects has been considerably taken up in Israel over the past 50 years.
(Y. Gorin-Rosen, The Ancient Glass Industry in Israel). Signicant archaeo-
logical remains of primary production have been unearthed in northern Israel
during this period. The evidence would seem to be late antique in date i.e.
Late Roman, Byzantine, Early Islamic; but it occurs in the region which ancient
sources (e.g. Strabo, Pliny etc) record as a/the prime original centre of the glass
industry, and also bulk glass occurs in the cargos of ship wrecks o the coast
nearbysome of which are apparently older. Thus it is reasonable to present
the clear positive evidence which obviously corresponds to late, large scale pro-
duction while accepting that this is always subject to qualication on chrono-
logical or quantitative considerations.
In eect elimination of provisions for manfuacturing objects made the pri-
mary glass furnace (tank furnace) utterly dierent from the type of general pur-
pose glass kiln. It is large, rectangular and horizontal in development as opposed 305
to other smaller, beehive, vertically developed kilns. A large rectangular melt-
ing chamber (ca 4 m 2 m) is prexed by a (smaller) stokehold more or less
at the same level which is very often twinned in formi.e. it consists of two
compartments set side by side. This device is similar to what is also found in
lime kilns and it enables the ring process to continue uninterruptedly over
long periodswhen one stokehold becomes choked up with ashes etc it can be
cleared out while the other continues in operation to provide the required heat-
ing. A chimney is arranged at the rear of the melting chamber to provide the
necessary through draught to transmit the heat. The structure is vaulted and
built of brick. The raw materials for the melt are disposed inside the ring 306
chamber and the stokeholds fuelled up (with wood) and ignited. At a temper-
ature in the region of 1100C1200C the raw material melts and the melting
chamber acts as a large tank containing the glassy mixture. The process may
take several days. When the material has melted the ring is discontinued and
the uid mixture allowed to cool and solidify. After the contents and the instal-
lation are completely cool the structure of the ring chamber is then disman-
tled to permit free access to the large slab of bulk glass which it contains. The
slab is cracked apart and broken up by pick and sledge hammer to be further
smashed up into chunks of convenient size for transport (i.e. as ingots of pure
glass). In the abstract this may seem a rather astonishing procedure reminis-
cent of The Origin of Roast Pig; but of course much of the brick fabric after
demolition can be reused for the construction of a subsequent furnace. The
complete operation may have required something up to two weeks.
The fact that both the product and the installation are broken up at the
completion of the enterprise means that in general only secondary evidence
284 chapter nine
remains of the work. However, exceptionally, in a grotto at Beth She"arim a Manu-

great slab of bulk glass nearly 4 m 2 m and weighing 9 tons was discovered facture of
intact. The raw materials had been wrongly mixed (there was far too much bulk glass
lime) and the glass was too defective for use (Ancient Glass Industry in Israel and of
p. 55; R.H. Brill, A Great Glass Slab from Ancient Galilee, Archaeology, 20, glass
1967, pp. 8895). objects
The advantages of organising the industry in this tandem fashion are obvi-
ous. Bulk glass can be produced in areas where there is a particularly favor-
able conjunction of excellent raw material and fuel, together with a highly
developed expertise. It is a more straightforward operation to melt glass for the
manufacture of objects than to make glass in a kiln for the manufacture of
objects. Thus the secondary glass works are simplied in scope and can be set
up almost anywhere, since glass ingots are convenient enough to transport. This
organisation, of course, is parallel to that in the metal industries where smelt-
ing is carried out at pit head and the metal distributed as ingots to casting
works established in urban areas elsewhere with trading contacts.
It is now convenient to set against this account of a primary glass furnace
and its operation an indication of the type of general purpose glass kiln which
can be used for all stages in the manufacture of glass objects.
The manufacture of glass objects has certain idiosyncracies and provision for
these are made in the design of the kiln. A high temperature is required and
the material must be kept clean and free from contamination. So much par-
allels potting, but unlike pottery some processes of glass manufacture involve
repeated removal from and replacement of objects in the kiln, i.e. the interior
of the kiln must be immediately accessible during manufacture of the object.
Also on completion of manufacture of the object it is generally necessary to
temper it by reheating it to some degree so that its nal cooling is slow and
regular. Incorporating facilities for these operations meant that a certain ideal
form evolved for a glass kiln/furnace. This form is attested at the end, or shortly
after the end, of the ancient world, i.e. in Islamic or Mediaeval European glass
manufacture; although it is very dicult to adduce well preserved remains of
the form in antiquity, e.g. in Roman glass manufacture. However it is most
convenient to make this ideal form the basis for brief remarks on ancient glass
furnaces since surviving ancient remains are uncertain and incomplete.
The ideal form of a glass kiln or furnace for manufacturing glass objects was
307 a beehive structure on a round plan with three oor levels, not the two levels
of a pottery kiln. In addition to the lower stokehold level and the upper (oven)
chamber of a pottery kiln, a glass kiln contained a third level, a loft so to speak,
where the nished articles could be put back into the kiln so that they were
reheated to a degree sucient to eace inbuilt stresses remaining in the glass
glass 285
Processes from the continued heating and cooling during manufacturei.e. this was the
of manu- annealing compartment. The oors of these two upper chambers are pierced
facture, so that the heat generated in the stokehold ascended to operate on the con-
moulding tents of the kiln. Even more striking was the elaboration in plan of the glass
and kiln. The oven was not a single compartment but was divided up by radial
blowing walls into sectors (like the quarters of an orange) and each sector had a port-
hole (glory hole) in the outer wall through which the skilled glass maker had
access with his tools to the heated interior of the kiln.
The full signicance of this design is now made clear by outlining the pro-
cedure of manufacture.
The raw materials are placed inside the oven sectors of the kiln and the
stokehold stacked with fuel (usually wood). The raw material is either the basic
chemical substances (e.g. silicous sand, soda, lime), or broken up chunks of
glass. This can be either bulk glass manufactured as described above, or else
recycled glass objects (e.g. todays broken beer bottles) which is cullet in the
strict sense. This material was contained in a reproof crucible, doubtless orig-
inally of terra-cotta, but no material remains of such ancient crucibles survive.
The fuel is then ignited and depending on circumstances after, say, 12 hours
the raw material in the crucible is transformed into a more or less viscous uid.
If the raw materials are rst nely ground up and mixed together, this greatly
improves the eciency and economy of the melting process. Such is the nature
of glass that the degree of viscosity can be controlled and varied over wide lim-
its by adjusting the temperature of the furnace (through several hundred degrees).
It is the degree of viscosity which conditions shaping the material into the
required form, and it is the cooling of the material which eects its transfor-
mation into (apparently solid) glass. In essentials the process is parallel to met-
allurgy where the shaping is carried out on heated material and the nal solid
state is achieved by cooling. On the other hand, it is the antithesis to potting
where the shaping is carried out on unheated plastic material and the subse-
quent heating induces the nal solid state.
By the period when glass was introduced for use in building (the beginning
of the Christian era) glass objects were fashioned by two main processes. In
this again there was a parallel, but here with both pottery and metallurgy. Pots
could be moulded (and modelled) or turned on a wheel; metal objects could
be moulded or wrought (hammered) into shape. Similarly glass was shaped by
moulding or by blowing. There is thus a close parallel between throwing pot-
tery and blowing glassand the parallel is real as well as formal. Both throw-
ing and blowing involve the operation of centrifugal force in establishing a
hollow circular section in one plane, while leaving the other section to be
adjusted by the skill of the workman.
286 chapter nine
There is very little direct evidence of the details of moulding glass ware in Moulding
antiquity, it is a good subject for enquiry by way of experimental archaeology and
(F. Schuler, Ancient Glassmaking Techniques. The Moulding Process, Archaeology, blowing
12, 1959, pp. 4752). The moulds used must have been of ceramic material,
since they were required to withstand exposure to very high temperature.
Moulding glass objects is itself divided into alternative techniques. Although not
corresponding exactly to technical distinctions, there are two obviously dierent
processes: either to use molten glass in a uid condition to pour into the (pre-
heated) mould; or to put the (solid) raw materials to make glass into the mould
and heat them up together so that the materials liquify and run to ll the
mould. Whichever process is used it involves manipulating material within the
glass furnace.
The second method of fashioning glass objects is the one which is now
regarded as characteristic. It is glass blowingand it must have been intro-
duced somewhere at or about the end of the 2nd century BC, i.e. about a cen-
tury prior to the introduction of glass as a building material (F. Schuler, Ancient
Glassmaking Techniques. The Blowing Process, Archaeology, 12, 1959, pp.
11622). This method requires great deftness on the part of the blower. The
basic tool is a ca 5' long hollow iron pipe (the blowing iron/blow pipe which
is the analogue of the potters wheel!). This is provided with a mouth piece at
one end and a knob at the other to facilitate the gathering together of a lump
of viscous glass mixture. The blower, in eect, inates the gathered glass lump
(paraison) into a thin walled bubble, promoting the strength and stability of
the wall by centrifugal force occasioned by twisting the pipe. The longitudinal
prole (e.g. cylindrical, piriform etc.) is obtained by preliminary shaping of the
viscous lump on a smooth slab (the marver), together with holding the pipe at
various inclinations during the blowing. An overall conditioning factor in the
process is the viscosity of the mixture. As the glass mixture cools very rapidly
when removed from the furnace with consequent increase in viscosity parts of
the work must be carried out very rapidly and above all the glass must be con-
tinually re-introduced into the furnace to render it more uid. This accounts
for the separate sectors of a glass kiln so that a number of blowers can work
at one kiln, also it occasions the port holes to these compartments so that the
blowers can insert and remove their blowing irons to gather the glass mixture
and reheat it as necessary.
The blowing iron is of necessity long and for general purposes unwieldly
since the blowers, face and person must be kept at some remove from the ery
furnace during operations. Thus when the blown shape has been achieved, the
viscous glass object is transferred to a shorter, lighter and handier rod (the
punty/pontil) by attaching this to the viscous glass object in a polar position
glass 287
Formers, to the blowing iron and cracking o the object from the latter. This permits
intermedi- subsidiary operations on the object to be carried out more conveniently.
ates and In setting out these two basic methods of forming glass objects, it should be
modiers noted that there is also a hybrid process of blowing into a mould. This is
in glass dicult but very eective, particularly when the object is of angular section
making e.g. rectilinear asks.
Supply
Supply of glass is a two fold, indeed three fold, question: supply of the raw
materials to make glass (e.g. special sand etc.); supply of manufactured glass in
bulk as raw material for making glass objects; and the supply of nished glass
objects.
(1) Raw Materials

It is not the chemical composition which denes glass but the physical (acrys-
taline) state of the material. Thus in the abstract the raw materials which can
be used to make glass are various ( J. Henderson, The Raw Materials of Glass
Production). However this understanding is one of modern science. In prac-
tice ancient glass production developed where certain suitable raw materials
were conveniently available.
According to modern chemistry the raw materials for making glass can be
divided functionally into three groups: formers; intermediates; modiers. The
formers, of which silica is the most common, produce the requisite random
(non crystaline) structure which is the denitive feature of glass. The interme-
diates (various other oxides, e.g. phosphorus) are helpers in forming the glassy
state as they t in readily with the non crystalline structure and can be added
in large quantities. Modiers (e.g. soda) are important since, although they do
not assist to form the glassy state, they modify the properties of glass consid-
erably, e.g. the colour, transparency etc. Both intermediates and modiers act
in certain conditions as uxes or stabilisersthe uxes promote the melting of
the glass at reduced temperature, and where this impairs the qualities of the
product, the stabilisers counteract that development. As a basic example in the
common soda, lime, silica glass the silica is the glass former, the soda (and
potash) act as uxes, and the lime (and magnesia) are stabilisers. The presence
of lime is important for bottles as it renders the glass insoluble in water (B.R.
Schlenker, Introduction to Materials Science, pp. 30405).
In the ancient world the coastal sands of Northern Palestine/Phoenecia (i.e.
the region about the mouth of the Belus River, south of Ptolemais/Akko) were
considered the ideal glass formers (Strabo 16.2.25; Pliny NH 360 19094). Thus
288 chapter nine
original glass manufacture was localised at places where the raw materials Regional
believed to be more or less unique occurred. This stage was succeeded by the develop-
export of these raw materials. Then essentially in Imperial Roman times some ment of
analytical understanding was developed of the chemical composition of raw glass
materials suitable for glass production. Thus it was realised that in principle manufac-
these substances occurred widely and that accordingly glass manufacture could ture
308 be set up readily in widespread regionse.g. Italy, Spain The Rhineland, as
both Pliny and Strabo note. However Josephus (Wars 2. 18990) states that
even in his time (later rst century AD) sands from near Akko were taken o
by ship as raw material for use in glass factories elsewhere. Pliny (NH 31. 106,
10910) also notes the preparation of soda in Egypt for use in glass making.
(2) Bulk Glass

The supply of manufactured bulk glass for use as raw material in making glass
objects has been noted previously in connection with evidence from northern
Israel.
It is clear that the manufacture of bulk glass promoted the wide geograph-
ical dispersal of the glass industry (in Roman times)and here a close paral-
lel existed with metallurgy. Ores were smelted at the pit head and the pure
metals obtained exported in the form of ingots (compact and readily trans-
portable). In this way manufacture of metal objects can be established in non-
metalliferous regions.
Of course this development is not limited to long distance international trade.
Both with metals and glass working it promotes a sensible organisation of
industry within the one regioni.e. the primary production (often involving
noisome circumstances) can be carried out in remote areas where the raw mate-
rials occur, while the secondary manufacture of objects can be established in
and about urban areas.
In glass production these circumstances have another manifestation. There is
the rational possibility that operations in the one factory may have been organ-
308 ised so that bulk glass was produced in Tank Kilns and then manufactured
into objects using the normal hive shaped kilns. Some indication of this have
been observed by way of the occurrence at industrial site of both rectangular
and round foundation remains ( J. Henderson, An Islamic Industrial Complex
at Raqqa).
(3) Glass Objects

There is nally the question of the supply of nished glass objects. The cir-
cumstances here parallel those of ne ceramics. There has always been a wide
ranging international trade in glass ware. Glass is a fairly valuable commodity
glass 289
Window and thus often worth the cost of long transport. A signicant factor might
glass appear to be the fragility of glass objects. However this seems to have been no
more a consideration in ancient times than it is in modern times. There are
some surprising witnesses to this fact. Fragile glass objects with a date shortly
after their introduction have been recovered in remote oases in the Sahara
necessitating lengthy transport by pack animals through utter wilderness.
C. The Uses of Glass in Building
In recent times glass has come to be used as a structural load-bearing mater-

ial, however in Antiquity its use as a building material was to provide a trans-
parent/translucent partition, i.e. as a window. It was thus a secondary material.
It was also used to a very minor degree for decorative purposes as constitut-
ing element in mosaics or opus sectile work, but this is outside the main con-
cern of the present study. The use of glass was not the beginning of window
development. Windows could always be closed by wooden shutters in which
case light was shut out and let in with (cold or hot) air; or by lattice work
screens with a similar but modied result. Also partitions which kept out the
intemperate air while admitting light were known previously. These window
panes were of natural substances, various types of translucent/transparent stone
(lapis specularis) such as mica, selenite, etc. (D. Whitehouse, p. 31). Thus the
development of glass window panes provided an articial material in place of
a natural one so as to increase the supply necessary to satisfy an increased
demand.
As previously stated the production of window glass involved nothing novel
in the composition of the material or its manufacture and working, only the
adaptation of existing knowledge and practices with a new emphasis. In gen-
eral glass had been used previously to manufacture curvilinear three dimensional
objects, often decoratively coloured; it was now used for manufacturing at
sheets, translucent and more or less transparent. Translucent/transparent glass
had been developed for elegant containers (glasses, asks etc.); but the require-
ment for producing glass in sizeable at sheets was a novelty. Both methods of
shaping glass, by moulding and by blowing, served this purpose and were called
on (D. Whitehouse, Window Glass between the First and the Eighth Centuries;
D.B. Harden, Domestic Window Glass). The obvious method is by moulding 309
and it was once thought that this was the method generally employed in antiquity
for manufacturing window glass. However more recent investigation has resulted
in the current view that, although initially some window glass may have been
moulded, the majority of ancient window glass was produced by blowing.
290 chapter nine
To produce at sheet glass for window panes by moulding, the obvious Window
process was to pour the molten glass mixture in a highly viscous state onto a panes
rectangular pan mould with a raised rim to give the product a thickness of moulded
something up to half a centimetre, and rake out the mixture (indeed roll it out or blown
something after the style of pastry with a rolling pin) so that it fully occupies as mu
the mould (D. Whitehouse, p. 33). Such moulded glass is fairly thick, ca 5 mm, glass or
and while translucent is not appreciably transparent (D. Baatz, Fensterglastypen crown
Glasfenster). Also it has been found experimentally that this straightforward method glass
in practice does not work well to reproduce Roman glass.
Instead it is now considered that most Roman window glass was manufac-
tured by the blowing process. Two dierent proceedures were possible in this
case. One product is termed cylinder (or mu ) glass and the other crown glass.
309 The former is produced by blowing a paraison into cylindrical form and elon-
gating this, if necessary, by swinging. By various dierent devices this cylinder
can then be prepared by cutting o the closed ends and slicing it open length-
wise so that it can be placed on a at base, reheated to the necessary degree
and then attened out (D. Whitehouse, p. 33; D.B. Harden, p. 43). A variant
of this method is to blow the glass into a suitably dimensioned box mould,
allow the glass to cool and then cut the at faces apart along the arises (D.B.
Harden, pp. 4344). Much of the Roman window glass formerly believed to
have been moulded is now reckoned to be cylinder/mu glass.
The other method of production is a thorough going process of blowing. It
309 is called crown glass and is known to have been employed from mediaeval
times down to the introduction of modern machine produced window glass.
However crown glass is now known to have been manufactured commonly in
the Eastern Roman provinces (e.g. Syria) in later Roman times (D.B. Harden,
p. 40) and more examples are now identied in the Western provinces
(D. Whitehouse, p. 34). Thus it is thought that a considerable amount of Roman
window glass may have been manufactured by the crown glass method. The
proceedure here is to blow the material into a sphere and to compress this into
a highly oblate spheroid (instead of elongating it into a long cylinder). The
attened spheroid can then be transferred to the punty and rotated until it is
transformed into a at circular disc which can, if need be, approach a dia-
menter of ca 25 cms. In cross section such discs are curved with a central boss
and an impression (bullion or bulls eye) where they were attached to the punty.
The discs can be employed as they stand as roundels or their margins can be
trimmed to reduce them to rectangular form. This latter operation was per-
formed in the same fashion of incising and snapping used today, but at that
time, a hard stone or metal tool was employed as todays diamond glass cut-
ter was unknown to the Romans.
glass 291
Window Vitruvius (ca 25 BC) does not mention window glass at all and the rst lit-
glazing erary reference to it is by Seneca (ca 60 AD) who appreciated the virtue of
historical, transparency (epist XC.25). Whatever methods of manufacture were employed
regional, glass windows soon came to gure prominently in building across the whole
social expanse of the Roman Empire, both as regards the actual amount of glass used
and also as to the quite reasonable dimensions of individual panes of glass.
Something like 240 m2 of glazing is stated to have been used in the public
bath of Oxyrynchos in Egypt, ca 326 AD; while at Sardis thousands of panes
of glass were discovered dating from early Byzantine times, ca 400 AD
600 AD (D. Whitehouse, p. 32). Panes of glass with dimensions of up to a
metre are known from the 1st century AD (D. Baatz, p. 7, n. 25). This strik-
ingly rapid increase in the use of glazing has obvious social explanations. The
extensive sources of wealth of the Roman Empire were used to provide for sec-
ularised life in large urban centres with inated population. This meant large
public buildings requiring well lit interiorsplaces of assembly for other than
religious purposes. Obvious examples are thermae and basilicae (D. Baatz,
p. 62). Another consideration here is that the life style of these centres was imi-
tated as far as possible in provincial regionsand this civilised life was extended
to northerly lands where nothing like the brilliant daylight of the Mediterranean
and Middle East obtained. In the latter instance the smallest of apertures was
sucient to let in light enough, and the concern was to escape from bright
lighting (glare) not to let it into interiors. However in northerly regions the sit-
uation was the reverse. Here was so little external light that as much as pos-
sible was desired indoors (D. Baatz, p. 7). Thus here the main function of
window glass was to keep out intemporate weather but to admit light (and radi-
ant heat). The prime quality of glass was to be translucent not transparent.
Basic concern for translucency is also manifest in later developments in win-
dow glass. By late antique times the use of richly coloured window glass was
well established aording striking interior decoration in public buildings (e.g. at
Ravenna). The dierent coloured segments of glass were assembled together in
often gural designs and the irregular shapes of the individual units were held
together by leaden nervature i.e. cames (D.B. Harden, pp. 5152). This
decorative feature, never to die out in the East, reappeared emphatically in the
West as the stained glass of Gothic cathedrals. Colourants for glass are e.g.
cobalt, copper, manganese ( J. Henderson, Raw Materials, pp. 27884).
The constructional detail of ancient windows is not well known. Generally
windows were set higher in the wall than they are today and so material remains
are scantily preserved in situ. At times it is probable that glass panes were set
directly into plaster. A cement was used after the manner of modern putty to
x glass panes into the structure. The very simple arrangement of embedding
292 chapter nine
a heterogenous collection of broken glass fragments into a plaster panel always Modernity
remained acceptable. In this event the glass was often reused scrap, not at all of Roman
necessarily window glass in origin. However all the modern techniques of win- glazing
dow glazing were developed in Roman times with wooden (and metal) frames,
opening casements, double glazing and protective grilles (D. Baatz, pp. 915).
This subject is treated more fully in another volume.
General References
Physical Structure & Composition

R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol. V, Glass, Leiden, 1966.
R.H. Brill, The Scientists Denition of Glass, JGS 1962, pp. 12738.
J. Henderson, The Raw Materials of Glass Production, OJA 4, 1985, pp. 21791.
B.R. Schenker, Introduction to Materials Science, Structure & Composition of Glass, pp. 30408,
Sydney, 1974.
A.G. Gleeson, Building Science II, Glass, pp. 33741.
L. Biek & J. Bayley, Glass and other Vitreous Materials W A II, 1979, pp. 125.
Manufacture and Supply

B.R. Schlenker, Introduction to Materials Science, Glass Forming Processes, pp. 31418, Sydney,
1974.
C.M. Jackson et al., Glass Making at Tell el Amarna, JGS 40, 1998, pp. 1123.
Y. Gorin-Rosen, The Ancient Glass Industry in Israel. M.D. Nenna ed. in La Route du Verre,
Lyon, 2000.
R.H. Brill, A Great Glass Slab from Ancient Galilee Archaeology 20, 1967, pp. 8895.
J. Henderson, An Islamic Industrial Complex at Raqqa, DM 11 1999, pp. 24353.
F. Schuler, Ancient Glassmaking Techniques The Moulding Process Archaeology, 12, pp. 4152.
, Ancient Glassmaking Techniques The Blowing Process Archaeology, 12, 1969, pp. 11622.
D. Strong & D. Brown, ed. Roman Crafts, Glass, pp. 11126. London, 1976.
Window Glass
D. Whitehouse, Window Glass between the First and the Eighth Centuries, Atti Delle Giornate
de Studi Lucca, 1999, pp. 3143.
D.B. Harden, Domestic Window Glass in E.M. Jope ed. Studies in Building History, London,
1961.
D. Baatz, Fensterglastypen, Glasfenster und Architektur, A. Homann et al. ed. Bautechnik
der Antike (DAI Kolloquium) Mainz, 1991, pp. 413.
G. Webster, Roman Windows and Grilles Antiquity, XXXIII 1959, pp. 1014.
D. Charlesworth, Roman Window Glass from Chichester, JGS 19, 1977, p. 182.
CONCLUSIONS
The story of ancient building technology beginning in earnest about 25,000

years ago proceeded with several notable accelerations down to the end of the
ancient world, ca 600 AD650 AD. In that time the capacity of men to con-
struct more or less durable, weatherproof and capacious shelters for themselves
and their possessions advanced from cabins of posts, branches and hides to
building of the order of Wrens St Pauls Cathedral. And it was not until the
full tide of the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century that the technology
of building clearly outstripped that achieved under the Roman Empire.
As a factor in this advance man achieved mastery over his building mater-
ial at a much earlier period than was envisaged not long ago. This mastery
was demonstrated in a wholesale replacement of natural materials by manu-
factured onesthe change from materials which could be used in more or less
the same state that they were picked up or pulled down to materials prepared
by man in some way. Beginning in the Early Neolithic times (ca 8,000 BC)
and continuing through the Chalcolithic Age (5th and 4th millenia BC) processes
were developed whereby natural substances were transformed, sometimes out
of recognition, into articial substances so that man was able to enclose space
to his own liking with materials of his own making. This work of transforma-
tion was prehistoric industrial chemistry and it provided ancient man with con-
cepts leading alike to alchemy and to modern scientic chemistry. It was a very
simplied chemistry since instead of the 100 or so elements known to modern
science, all the transformations operated with but four elements: earth, water,
air, re. The prehistoric chemist took earthy substances (clay, limestone, native
copper etc.). Some were dry (e.g. clay, limestone), these he mixed with water.
Some were wet (native copper and other metals), they were already a combi-
nation of earth and water. He then roasted/burnt them in various ways by re
fanned with blasts of air. Thus he made brick and metal objects of the shape
and form he desired, together with plaster or mortar to protect them and hold
them in place. At the beginning of the Christian era further practical devel-
opments enabled man to manufacture glass and an extended range of metal
objects for building, even though his scientic knowledge of chemistry had in
no wise advanced.
Theoreticians of history have often wished to explain the occurrences in time
and place which aect human beings as determined by some fundamental fac-
tors of a material naturethe doctrine of material determinism. This does not
294 conclusions
necessarily entail the subjection of man to his material environmenta type of

determinism designated fatalism. On the contrary one branch of determinism
focusses on human responsibility (i.e. negates predestinarianism, the determi-
nation of mans history by the will of God). It asserts that the fundamental
material factors which condition history are man made ones. Man makes him-
self. Man makes his fetters. Appropriately in view of the metaphor, technology
has often been taken as the fundamental material factor conditioning human
history. It is basic, material, and objective as opposed to the unaccountable
human vagaries on the surface of things, mens ideas.
The two basic concerns of life are food and shelter. Indeed in social theory
they were once closely associated in supposed origins. The invention of agri-
culture was held to require a sedentary life which in turn necessitated the capac-
ity to build durable houses for themselves in one locality. They then required
agriculture to provide their food supply. The evidence of early prehistoric archae-
ology (ca 20,000 BC8,000 BC) is now said to negate this theory. However in
the present connection it is useful to consider the parallel between building
technology and agricultural technology. According to reason food is the more
primal necessity. Hence it is a familiar assertion that man is what he eats.
Whether or not this is so, man rst cooks what he eats. Equally whether man
builds his history with his buildings, he rst cooks most building materials he
uses to make them serviceable.
Changes in the use of building materials across the ages have been associ-
ated with various other phenomena, but to demonstrate the interconnection of
(building) technology and change in history via changed building material is
not straightforward.
Dynastic Egyptian civilisation endured 3,000 years. Persian rule had little
eect on its basic form, it accomodated itself to three centuries of Greek rule
by way of a cultural dyarchy, but the end of the capacity to erect monumen-
tal buildings using massive stone masonry (ca 150 AD) signied that Egyptian
civilisation was no longer a viable entity. Perhaps even longer lived was the
civilisation of Ancient Mesopotamia, expressed in monumental building of hyper-
solid mud brick. This survived under Seleucid rule but disappeared during
Parthian times, more or less contemporaneously with the end of Pharaonic style
Egyptian building (compare the Palace at Ctesiphon with the Ziggurat at Ur).
Perhaps even more striking since expressed on a much speeded up time scale
is the instance of Rome as a ruling civilisation. In place of three millenia or
more this is a history of about three or four centuries. At about 300 AD any
monumental building was carried out in Roman Concrete. By 400 AD the use
of this material had passed out of consideration. It is very dicult to explain
why, but it clearly shows that with the transfer of the capital to Constantinople
conclusions 295
Roman Concrete was abandoned as a building material and social history

changed from late Roman to Early Byzantine.
If ancient building materials are to be discussed as conditioning factors in
history, then in the ancient world they were long dur factors, according to
popular current terminology. However, use of the term long dur is not nec-
essarily of long dur in historical analysis. From Neolithic times man has made
the bulk of his building materials, and what man makes he changes. Materials
are a basic conditioning factor in building; but it is not always obvious what
conditions mans choice of building materials which from time to time changes.
Materials, markets, mutations.
INDEX
Note: numbers in bold refer to the Illustrations in Part 2.
Abraham, H., 220 wood used for, 24

Abu Matar, Beer Sheba, 81; 138139 Archimedes, 40
Abusir, 94, 126 Archimedes screws, 268
Abydos, Egypt, 97 architectural rock cutting, 7174; 129136
accessory building materials, see auxiliary, accessory architraves, 9; 98, 102
building materials iron reinforcing in, 280, 283
Achaemenid Persia, 25, 59, 74, 120; 176177, 207 arcuated structures
Acropolis, Athens, 55, 122 Roman concrete used in, 185, 202204
Africa, 1e, 45 wood used in, 25
North Africa, 149 see also arches; domes; vaults, vaulting
Africa Hispaniaquae, 90 arena (sand), 190
Agni, 10 Artemis, Temple of, Ephesus, 76
Agora, Athens, 129 articial building materials
agriculture, eect of, 294 glass building materials as, 280
Akhmin, 74 pyrotechnology and, 10
Akko, 287 Roman concrete as, 186
Aksum, 245 and vaiselle blanches, 157158
alabastor, as source of gypsum, 150 ash, 8384
Alexander, 274 ashlar, bastard, see stone masonry
Alexander Sarcophagus, 133 ashlar masonry, Classical Greek, 58, see stone
Alexandria, 245 masonry
Ali Kosh, 86 asphalt, see bitumenous building materials
Alyattes tumulus, 82 Assur, 172, 251252
Amarna, 106107 Assyria, 20, 119120, 165, 228; 1a, 9, 172
Amathus, Cyprus, 211 stone transporting in, 74
Amen, Temple of, Karnak, 120 Aswan, 3639
Amenemhet III, pyramid of, Dahshur, 4950, quarrying of granite woolsacks at, 59
126 Athena Nike, Temple of, Athens, 292
Amenophis III, Temple of, El Kab, 97 Athenians, Temple of, Delos, 290291
anathyrosis, 54 Athens, 55, 104, 122, 195, 292, 302
Anatolia, 74, 86, 160161, 259; 3435 Atlas Mountain region, North Africa, 149
burnt brick construction in, 167 Augustus, 38, 83, 116, 209211
half timbered mixed construction in, 2526 Aurenche, O., 106
tumuli in, 82 Ausonius, 25
Western Anatolia, 3435 auxiliary, accessory building materials
Zoser masonry in, 78 designated, 23, 9
ancient building materials, see specic topics, properties of matter and, 34
materials puddled mud as, 6
animal products, as building materials, 5, 64 purpose of, 23
Antoninus and Faustina, Temple of, Rome, 226 wood used for, 24
anvil, iron, 270 Ay, temple of, 74
Apollo, Temple of Delphi, 108, 116; Bassae, 278 Ayia Sophia, 195, 214
Apollonia, 37; 117, 184 iron reinforcing in, 285287
Appian Way, 240 Ayia Triadha, Crete, 262
aqueducts, 273
Aquilea, 268 Baal Berith, Temple to, Shechem, 144
Arabs, Marsh, 23, 47 Babylon, 115, 119120, 165
arches Ishtar Gate, 174175
earthen building materials in, 133134 Baghdad, 225
primary building materials for, 2 Balawat Gates, 272
of Roman concrete and brick, 248249 balustrades, 38
Roman concrete used in, 185 barrier walls, 2, 5758
298 index
barrows, 53 branchage, 24
basalt branches
beds, 60 in oors, 32
blocks, 61 light shelters of, 44
basilicas in round houses, 46
window glass in, 291 branches, light shelters of, 44, 46
wooden roong of, 5, 25 breakwaters, xxx
Bassae, 252253 brick, 150169
bastard ashlar, see stone masonry glazed brick, 119121, 165
bathrooms, waterproong masonry, bonding patterns in, 156158, 180181
bitumen use in, 253 moulded bitumen bricks, 226
lead use in, 9 moulded gypsum bricks, 156157
baths as primary building material, 2
at Pompeii, 229 properties of, 4
Roman, 273 strength of, 4, 24
shower bath (krene), 42 walls, mortar load-bearing in, 3
suspended ceiling in, 299 see also burnt brick; mud brick
at Trier, 227 Brick Pyramid, Dahshur, 137
wrought iron beams in, 279 British Isles, 1h
beams bronze, 234, 249, 278; 258
earthen building materials not used as, 133134 monumental doors of, 273277
metal, 251253 Bronze Age, 78, 259, 276
primary building materials not used for, 2 columns in, 59
Roman concrete not used in, 185, 188 half timbered mixed construction in, 2526
stone, 252253 lime/gypsum plaster used in, 163
wood used for, 24 moulded mud brick in, 99, 104
wrought iron beams, 279280 round houses in, 25
Beer Sheba, Southern Israel, 81; 138139 stone foundations in, 58
Beit Eliezer, Israel, 305 terra-cotta roong tiles in, 126127; 182
Belus River, 286 wooden roong in, 25
Beni Hassan, Egypt, 21, 62 Bronze Gates of Balawat, 270
Beth She"arim, 284 brushwood, 25
Beyce Sultan, 2526; 3435 building (as noun)
Bible, 252, 265 dened, xxixxxx
Bibracte, France, 26 historical development of, 510
Bin Tepe tumulus eld, 141 light shelters as, 5
bird cage shelter, 44 permanence of, 3
Biskupin, Poland, 28 as product, xxix
bitumenous building materials, 218229; 250253 as shelter, xxix, 293294
dened, 218219, 221 see also specic topics, materials
as manufactured material, 224 building (as verb)
methods, procedures, 224225 dened, xxixxxx
as mortar, 226229 light shelters, 5
nature, qualities of, 218222 megalithic building, 7
over ne stone masonry, 32 metal tools used in, 9
as secondary material, 225 as monumentalizing mans existence, xxxii
supply, sources of, 222223; 250 mud brick and rubble building, 6
uses of, 225229 origins of, xxixxxx
as waterproong, 225229; 250253 as process, xxix
Black Sea, 25 standard measures and, 4
bloomery hearth, 263 see also specic topics
blown glass, see glass building materials building construction, xxxi, xxxiiixxxiv
blue stones, Stonehenge, 57 half timbered mixed construction, 2526
boards, 25 in Neolithic period, 1
Boaz, column, 252 in Paleolithic period, 1
bolts, 267268 see also specic topics
bones, as building material, 1, 5 building materials
booths, 24 auxiliary, accessory, designated, 23
boughs, 24 bitumenous building materials as, 218229
bowers, 5, 24 building technology and, 293294
bowl furnaces, 264 changes in, 294
index 299
comparative weights, strengths of, 1112 lime/gypsum plaster used on, 164167
comparison of, scope of book on, xxxiv as manufactured material, 2
concrete as, 181215 masonry
cookery books on, xxxiii decorated brick, 173177
durability of, 3 load-bearing function of, 167168
earliest understandings of, 9 Mesopotamian cone mosaics, 118; 170
early eect on science, 1 methods, procedures, uses, 108117; 162169
earth materials as, 75139 moulded bricks of, 173177, 179
eciency of, 3 moulded mud brick as, 162
glass as, 279292 in opus incertum, 124
historical development of, 510 in opus reticulatum, 124; 231
historical signicance of, xxxii in opus testaceum, 116117, 124, 138, 193194,
impermeability of, 3 199200; 237, 239241
lime/gypsum as, 8, 143178 plastering of, 166
manuals on, existing, xxxiii in opus vittatum, 124
manufactured building materials, 1 in public buildings, 7
metals as, 231278 pyrotechnology and, 10
modern science and, xxxiii strength of, 67
natural building materials, 1 transporting of, 137
open spaces, spanning, suitability for, 4, 24 versatility of, 67
permanence of, 3 walls of, 166168
preliminary survey, 112 waterproong of, 251252
primary, designated, xxxii, 2 burnt lime/gypsum mortar, plaster, see lime/gypsum
properties of matter and, 34 burnt lime/gypsum plaster, see lime/gypsum
pyrotechnology and, 10 burrows, 80
Roman concrete as, 181215 Bus Mordeh, 86
scope of book, xxxi, xxxiiixxxiv Byblos, 20; 54
serviceability of, 3 Byzantium, 166; 161, 168
stone as, 2974 iron reinforcing in, 284287
strength of, 34 stucco work in, 219221
structural concerns of, 34
synthetic, xxxii cabin shelters, xxxii
wood as, 1327 Caesarea, 198, 205
workability of, 3 Campagna, 9
see also specic materials, topics Capitol, Terracina, 232
building science, ancient, xxx Caracalla, 139
building technology, xxix, xxxixxxiv, 293294 carpentry, 5, 9, 2022, 38
in Roman era, xxx Carrara, 38
see also specic topics carts, 41, 44
building tools, see specic types of tools Caspian region, 25
Bulla Regia, 8182 Catacomb of Domatilla, Rome, 269
burnt brick, 162168 atal Hyk, 161; 203204
in arches, 188 Cato the Elder, 150, 154
arches of, 248249 Catterick, Yorkshire, 279
as ballast, 138139 Cecilia Metella, Mausoleum of, Rome, 111
bitumen covering, 164165 cedars of Lebanon, 19
bitumen mortar for, 175 ceilings, 26, 134, 252253
bitumenous building materials as mortar, 227229 heavy timber, 31
comparative weight, strength of, 1112 plating with metal, 275
decorated brick, 173177 suspended ceilings, 299
in domestic work, 7 wood used for, 38
ring of Cellini, 249
alternate methods, 112113 Celtic oppidum, Bibracte, 26c
development of, 6 Central Asia, 6
eect of, 113114 Central Europe, 1j
kilns for, 110113; 162164 Cerveteri, 143
form moulded, 67 Chalcolithic Age, 9, 152153, 162, 243, 293
glazed brick, 172, 174, 176177 chapel, funerary, Medinet Habu, 127
hand modelled, 67 Chapel of Merneptah, 74
in herringbone pattern, 180 chemical processing, 10, 293
identifying stamping of, 138139 chemistry, xxxiii, 1, 293
300 index
Chephren, 9, 257 copper as, 9
Chieti, 237 Egyptian, 256259
China, 245 Greek, 259263
chineh, see puddled mud in Old Kingdom Egypt, 9
chisels, 9, 22 Roman, 263264
Choga Zambil, Ziggurat of, 171 as scrap metal, 246
Christian basilicas, wooden roong of, 5, 25 used in, 9, 242, 255264
clapboard panelling, 25 in woodworking, 22
Classical Greek ashlar masonry, see stone masonry robbing out of, 103, 109
clay, 2, 5 swallow tail cramps, 259, 261
as building material, 57 Egyptian, 256257
akes (lamellae), 79, 87 wood used for, 24
see also burnt brick wooden, 37
cob, 6, 93 cranes, 41
columbage, 2526 crepis, 58
columns Crete, 78, 6162, 158, 162, 259; 262
burnt brick, 181 crypts, pyramid, 126
plastering of, 208211 Ctesiphon, 294
column-turning lathes, 96 Cyclopean masonry, 55
with cone mosaics, 170 Cyprus, 6, 9, 5859, 74, 94, 98, 152, 176,
doweling in, 294295 245; 1f
earthen building materials as, 133 brick wall at Maroni Vournes, 157
metal, 251252 decorative plastering in, 215
monolithic columns, 39, 42, 66 half timbered mixed construction in, 2526
of Pantheon, 71 plastered columns in, 210211
plastered columns, 207211 stucco work in, 221
primary building materials for, 2 and terre pis, 90
Roman concrete, 247 Cyrenaica, 117
Roman concrete not used, 186
stone, 25, 59 Dahshur, 137; 73, 126
dressing of, 81 dams, 32
Egyptian, 118120 David, King, 265
Greek, 122 decoration
in Hatra, 121 glass building materials as, 280, 282, 289
Roman, 123 lime/gypsum plaster used in, 162, 164, 166,
wooden, 23, 251252 171173; 203224, 206211, 215224
compressed earth, see terre pis metal building materials as ornamentation,
concrete, 181215 273277
ferro-concrete, xxxii stucco used in, 171173; 179
modern concrete, 181185 Deir el Bahari, 258; 77, 84, 127
terre pis as precursor of, 6 Deir el Medinah, 205
see also Roman concrete Delos, 290291
cone mosaics, 118, 212213; 170, 237 Delphi, 108
Constantinople, 69, 116117, 295; 285287 Dendrophoros Roman relief, 8
cookery books, on building materials, xxxiii derricks, 41
copper, 234, 239, 278 Deshashah, 11
cords, 2, 4 determinism, 294
Corinth, 165 Didymaion, 4243; 104
Corning Glass Museum, 281 Diocletians Mausoleum, 169
Corsica, 19; 58 Djedkara, pyramid crypt of, 126
Cotswold, Southern England, 159 docks, xxx, 32
cramps, dowels, 288294, 300302 dolmens, 61, 65; 58
auxiliary, accessory building materials used in, Domatilla, Catacomb of, Rome, 269
23, 255264 domes
in Ayia Sophia, 285 of Ayia Sophia, 195
in columns, 294295 brick, 25
curvilinear dovetail cramps, 37 burnt brick, 169
Greek, 288292 Graeco-Roman ashlar, 128
metal, 242, 246, 255264 Greek domes, 63
auxiliary, accessory building materials used in, hemispherical domes, 8283
23, 255264 of Pantheon, 195
index 301
Roman concrete used in, 25, 185, 188, Egypt, 294; 1b
202204 architectural rock cutting in, 7374
wood used in, 25 at mud terrace roong in, 32
domestic building oors in, 134
burnt brick in, 7 foundations in, 132
see also specic topics lime/gypsum used in, 140, 148, 153; 205206
doors, 23, 2224, 26 metal working in, 249; 258
of bronze, 249 metallurgy in, 258
of metal building materials, 272277 monumental building in, 7, 2627
metal building materials in, 269271 moulded mud brick in, 100, 104, 106;
monumental, 272277 153155
wood used for, 38 mud brick in, 137
Doric entablature, 40 Old Kingdom, 9, 19, 35, 5152; 92, 94
Doric Temple at Apollonia, 117 Ptolemaic Egypt, 41
dowels, see cramps, dowels quarrying in, 3739
drills, 22 shrines, wooden features of, 26
dromos, 72 stone building materials in, xxxiixxxiii, 32; 73,
droves, 22 77
dry-stone walling, 159 stone working in, 4445, 85, 109110
dug out dwellings, 8082 temples, wooden construction and, 5
durability timber importation in, 1920
of building materials, 3 wood cutting in, 56, 11, 15
hardness and, 4 woodworking in, 19, 21, 22; 11, 13, 15, 1821,
of monumental building, 7 20, 21
of stone building materials, 32 El Kab, Egypt, 97
of wood, 14, 1718 Elamite wall plaques, 171
Eleusis, 75, 158
earth building encaustic painting, 18
cob and, 6 England, Southern, 159
excavation as, 56 Ephesus, 38, 76
in megalithic building, 7 Eridu, 156, 226
in Neolithic period, 67 Eshnunna, 163
puddled mud and, 6 Ess, Brittany, 53
terre pis and, 6 Ethiopia, 245
see also stone Etruria, 74
earthen building materials, 75139 Etruscans
as barrier wall, 2 rock-cut tombs, 135136
as counterpart to wood, 5 smelting furnaces, 260
earthworks and, 8086 tumulus tombs, 143
historical development of, 57 Euphrates River, 205, 223, 228
as load-bearing material, 5 Eutresis, 32
as low enclosure walls, 5
methods, procedures, 86132 fabricatio lime burning plant, 201
as natural material, 2, 910 Fachwerke, 2526
nature, qualities of, 7586 fastenings, 9
piled up, 2 fatalism, 294
plasticity of, 5 Faulkener, William, 23
as primary building material, xxxii ferro-concrete, xxxii
pyrotechnology and, 10 ctile revetments, 121124; 178
as structural material, 67 eld stones, 43, 68; 5152
stucco, 168174; 179 availability, portability of, 7
supply, sources of, 132136 construction using, 6465
uses of, 132136 dry stone walls, 54
water and, 78 in herringbone rubble, 54
earthquake areas as mud brick substitute, 7
mud brick and rubble building in, 35 as natural materials, 2
stone working in, 54 rubble masonry, 58
wood building materials as reinforcing in, 26 as source of lime/gypsum, 149150
earthworks, 8086, 144146 see also stone
Eastern Europe, 1j Filitosa, Corsica, 58
Eddystone Lighthouse, 197 Firuzabad, Palace of, 222
302 index
ttings Germany, 201, 227
auxiliary, accessory materials used in, 2 Gezer, 144
metal used in, 9 Gimilsin Temple, 163
Roman concrete not used for, 205 Gizeh, 9, 126
of wood, 38 glass building materials, 279292; 304309
wood used for, 24, 38 as articial material, 280
Flag Fen, East Anglia, 12, 25 as auxiliary, accessory building materials, 23
int, 240; 56A, 56B blown glass, 285287, 289290; 307, 309
oors bulk glass, 288
burnt lime/gypsum plaster used in, 8, 157159 crown glass, 290
earthen building materials as, 134 as decoration, ornamentation, 280, 282, 289
of heavy timber, 31 furnaces for, 305308
huwwar used as, 158 glass objects, nished, 288289; 307
of opus signinum, 158 manufacturing of, 281287, 293; 305309
of tarazza, 158 moulded glass, 286, 289290
wood used for, 26, 38, 266 nature, qualities of, 279281; 304
nails used in, 266 pyrotechnology and, 10
wooden, in tenements, 205 raw materials of, 287288
Florence, 299 sheet glass, blown, 309
Forbes, R. J., 218219 stained glass, 291292
Forum Baths, 190 supply, sources of, 281289
fosse, 51 transporting of, 288289
foundations uses of, 289292
earthen building materials as, 132 window glass, 289292
Greek foundations, 116117 glue, 22
Pharaonic masonry, 114115 God of Fire, 10
raft foundations, 115116 gold, 236, 239, 278
Roman concrete used in, 186187, 205206; Goldberg, South Germany, 26B, 27
244245 Gordion, 82; 31, 140
rubble, 34, 52, 246 Gothic building, 280
stone, 58 Greece, 1d
fountain house (krene), 42 burnt lime/gypsum plastering in, 168174; 210
framed construction, 2430 earthen building materials in, 138
long houses, reconstruction of, 28 framed roofs in, 22
modern concrete used in, 183 moulded mud brick in, 100, 104
poles, boughs, 24 polychrome painting in, 170171
roofed structures, 7 quarrying in, 3738
stone use in, 5960 smithies in, 266
structural steel used in, 9 stone transporting in, 75, 78
timber framed, 26A26C, 27, 2930 stone working in, 45, 47, 49, 5456, 63
wood used for, 5, 24 domes and, 63
funerary chapel, 127 tools for, 49
furnaces stucco use in, 168174
bowl furnaces, 264 temples in
glass manufacturing, 281284, 294; 305308 gabled roofs on, 25, 33
iron smelting furnace, 267 wooden construction and, 5
Jura Type shaft furnace, 265 wooden features in, 2627
furnaces, for glass manufacturing, 282285 wooden precursors of, 3941
furnishings, 2 wooden roong on, 5, 25; 33
furniture terra-cotta in, 115, 121124
carpentry, joinery for, 2022 terra-cotta roong tiles in, 126129; 182184,
Egyptian furniture, 2122 187
timber importation, 20
gabled roofs, 33 wooden pavilions in, 42
gang planks, 24 woodworking in, 2122
gangways, 41 preservatives for, 18
gates Greek masonry, see stone masonry
monumental, 269271 Grimes Graves, S. E. England, 56A, 56B
wood and metal, 272 Gudea, 181
Gaul, 227 Gunnersdorf, Rhineland, 24
Gebel Silsila, Egypt, 65 gypsum, see lime/gypsum
index 303
Hadera, North Israel, 305 as auxiliary, accessory building material, 9
Hadrian, 83 nails in woodworking, 2223
Hadrians Villa, 242, 283 as wrought metal, 249
Hal Saieni, 73 see also metal building materials
Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus, 9 Iron Age, 2526, 60, 82, 243, 276; 27
half timbered mixed construction, 2526 timber framed construction in, 26B
Hall of a Hundred Columns, 59 village, 28
Hallstat Culture, 26B, 27 wattle and daub panelling, 29
hammers, 9, 22 Iron Pillar, 251252
Hannibal, 90 Ishtar
hardwoods, 16 Gate, 115; 174175
Hatra, 121 Kassite Temple of, 173
Hatshepsut, 77, 257258 Israel, 81
hearth, bloomery, 263 North Israel, 305306
Hephaisteion, 224, 302 Southern Israel, 138139
Herculaneum, 30, 38, 208, 211 Istanbul Museum, 133
Herculaneum Gate, Pompeii, 206207 Italy, 287; 1e
Herod, 198, 205, 268 Iversheim, Lower Germany, 201
Heroon of Romulus and Remus, 277
herringbone pattern, 64; 54 Jachin, 252
in burnt brick, 180 Jagshausen, 196
in eld stones in herringbone rubble, 54 Jeremiah, 252
herringbone rubble, 54 Jericho, 65, 91, 97; 51, 150151
in Mesopotamia, 64; 54, 153 Jerusalem, 268
in plano-convex mud brick, 153 joinery, 5, 2022
in Roman pavement, 180 simple joints, 23
in walls, 54 tools for, 13
herringbone rubble, 54 Jura Type shaft furnace, 265
hides, as building materials, 1, 5, 293; 24 Justinian, 39
hinges, metal, 23, 9
Hit, 223 Kln Lindenthal, 27
Holbeanwood, Sussex, 267 kahgell, see puddled mud
hooks, 268 Kalabsha, 37, 257259; 37, 98100, 119,
Horemhab, 74 124125, 300301
House in Ostia, 242 plastering at, 206
House IV, Babylon Merkez, 192 Karanog, 45
House of the Games, Pompeii, 247 Karnak, 106107; 114, 120
House of the Gem, Herculaneum, 211 Kersiphron, 76
House of the Dipinti, Ostia, 246 Khafage, 153
House of the Trifolium, 112 Khazne, Petra, 131
Httenburg, Austria, 264 Khorsabad, 20; 9, 74
huwwar, 8384, 151, 156, 158 Khuzistan, 223
in tells, 144 kilns
hydria, 42 burnt brick, 6, 110114; 162164
hypocausts, 188, 191 glass manufacturing, 282283, 285, 288, 294
hypogeum, 7273 lime, 150, 153156, 177; 199200
Hypostyle Hall, 300301 terra-cotta roong tiles, 130
at Kalabsha, 258, 259; 98100, 119 tile, 154, 165
at Karnak, 114, 120 Kinyras, 127
Kirkuk, 223
Inchtuthill, Scotland, 266; 297298 Kizil Avlu (Red Court/Hall), 167
India, 245 Knidos, 107
ingots, 258, 261263 knives, 22
Innana, Temple of, 170 Knossos, 163164
Ionia, 4243 konia, 169
Ionic entablature, 41 krene (fountain house, shower bath), 42
Iran, 86, 91, 99, 153; 52 Kuntillet el Ajrud, 162
North Iran, 52 Kurdestan, 223
Iraq, 23, 86, 91; 47
South Iraq, 47 ladders, 24
iron, 4, 1112, 234236, 239 Lagash, 181
304 index
lamellae, 79, 87 auxiliary, accessory materials used in, 2
Late Bronze Age, 9, 32, 60, 249; 3435 of burnt brick, 165
ingots, 261 of burnt brick masonry, 167168
Late Iron Age, 199 of earth, 5
Late Paleolithic, 24 of lime/gypsum, 156
Laurion, 244 of mud brick and rubble walls, 6, 2526
lead, 9, 234, 239, 249, 278 of mud brick construction, 161
for water piping, 303 primary building materials, for, 2
Lebanese village housing, 32 of Roman concrete, 185, 189
Lebanon, 19; 32 in round houses, 6
South Lebanon, 133 of stone, 7
legionary fabricatio structural building units and, 4
lime burning plants, 201 of timber construction, 31, 140
nails from, 297 wood used for, 24
Lesbian masonry, 56 locks, 9
Letoon, 105 loess soil, 8081, 138
Levant, 78, 2526, 160, 251 log cabins, 25
levers, 24, 4041 Loki, 10
light shelters, 5 long houses, 5, 2728
bird cage shelter, 44 reconstruction of, 28
lime/gypsum, 2, 8, 143178 timber framed, 27
adhesiveness of, 9 lost shuttering, see shuttering
archaeological evidence of, 8 Lower Nubia, 37
burning of, 201202 Luxor Temple, 115
kilns for, 153156; 199200 Lycia, 74, 105
burnt lime/gypsum mortar, 2, 8, 10, 156, Lydia, 74, 82
174178 Lydian Tumulus, Sardis, 141
uses of, 156, 174177
burnt lime/gypsum plaster, 177178; 203224 Ma"asera, Egypt, 6364
molded, stamped, 214, 223 Macedonia, 19
on Roman concrete, 242243 Madans, 23, 47
as sealant, 224 Mahaballipuram rathas, Tamilnad, 130
tools for, 212 Mainz, 196
see also plaster mallets, 22
chemical composition of, 8 Malta, 1f
crushed, 2, 8 Maltese temples, 47, 52, 65, 73
manufacturing methods, procedures, 143144, mammoth bones, 5
152156; 199202 Mandoulis, Temple of, see Nubian Temple of
modelled plastered ornaments of, 204 Mandoulis at Kalabsha
moulded gypsum bricks, 156157 manuals, existing, xxxiii, 31
as natural rock, 8 manufactured building materials, 1
nature, qualities of, 143148 adhesiveness of, 4
Plaster of Paris, 147148 chemical composition of, 2
pyrotechnology and, 144145 chemical processing of, 10
scientic analysis of, 146148, 177178 grades of, 2
slaked lime, 146, 148 mechanical processing of, 910
supply, sources of, 144, 148152; 198 of mixed natural materials, 910
transporting of, 148149 in Neolithic period, 1
uses of, 156177 plasticity of, 4
and vaiselle blanches, 157158 pyrotechnology and, 10
limestone transformation of primary products into, 2
comparative weight, strength of, 1112 see also specic topics, materials
crushed, 2, 910, 147 maps, 1a1j
as foundation in tell, 8384 Mari, Middle Euphrates, 166
as huwwar, 151 Maroni Vournes, Cyprus, 157
pyrotechnology and, 10 Marseille tiles, 128129
quarrying of, 6264 Marseilles, 4
see also lime/gypsum Marsh Arabs, 23; 47
lintels, 9, 133134, 185 masonry, see brick; mud brick; stone masonry
Lisht, 87, 126, 135 mastaba(s)
load-bearing function of Imhotep, Lisht, 134
index 305
North Mastaba, Lisht, 126 malleability of, 4
mastic, see bitumenous building materials as manufactured material, 2
material determinism, 293294 metal alloys, 10
matting, in round houses, 46 metal tools, 1819, 22
mausoleum(s) metal working, 247250; 256, 258, 266,
of Cecilia Metella, Rome, 111 268271
of Diocletian, Spalato, 169 tools for, 268271
Meander River, 2526; 3435 metal working and, 247250
mechanics, see statics (mechanics) metallurgy, 910, 242244, 288; 258
Medain Saleh, 129130 metallurgy and, 242244
Medinet Habu, 63; 127 methods, procedures, 247250
megalithic building, 7, 6162; 51, 53, 55, 5758 mining of, 238241
architectural rock cutting and, 73 nails, 247, 264267; 296298
methods, procedures, 6566 in woodworking, 2223
quarrying for, 3536 as natural materials, 2
stone framing in, 60 nature, qualities of, 231237
tumuli, and, 8283 as ornamentation, 273276
wooden features of, 26 as primary building materials, 9
megaliths, 5, 3536, 42 properties of, 278
blue stones of Stonehenge, 57 protection of structure, 268
in megalithic building, 53 pyrotechnology and, 10
quarrying of, 58 as reinforcement, 253255; 278287
Megiddo, 100; 155 as roong tiles, 254
Merneptah, Chapel of, 74 scrap metal, 246
Mesolithic (Nautuan) Palestine, 8 screws, 268
Mesolithic period, 6 slag, 244, 246; 259261, 265
Mesopotamia smelting of, 242, 245; 258263, 267
bitumenous building materials used in, 221, 223, smithy scenes, 266, 268271
225, 228229 stone masonry, 246
burnt brick in, 109110, 112113, 115, 227; structural uses, 250254
167, 181 substituting for wood when, 24
cone mosaics in, 118, 212213; 170, 237 supply, sources of, 238247; 254257
earthen building materials in, 136137 tools, used in, 9
foundations in, 132 transporting of, 244246
glazed brick in, 119121, 165 used in objects, 9
herringbone pattern in, 64; 54, 153 uses of, 250278
lime/gypsum plaster used in, 160162, 164 for water supply pipes, 303
lime/gypsum used in, 148, 153, 156157 wrought iron, 263, 266, 278279, 296
monumental building in, 7, 2627, 294 Midas tumulus, 82
moulded mud brick in, 101, 106107 Middle Bronze Age, 34
mud brick in, xxxii, 133; 152, 161 Middle East, 219, 274275, 291; 1a
Northern Mesopotamia, 194 Middle Euphrates, 223
stone masonry in, 67 Middle Helladic House, 32
stucco use in, 172 Midhowe, Orkneys, 159
terra cotta revetting in, 118121 Miletos, 4243
terra-cotta service auxilliaries in, 131132; 192 Miletus Theatre, 103
timber importation in, 20 mining, 9, 3339, 149150
wall plaques in, 118119; 171172 int, 56A, 56B
Metagenes, 76 metal building materials, 238241
metal alloys, 10 placer mining, 255257
metal building materials, 231278 Roman era, 240242
as auxiliary, accessory building materials, 23, 9, tools for, 240
254264 mixed construction, 2526
bolts, 267268 Mnaidra, 73
in ceilings, 299 monolithic building, 194195
in Chalcolithic Age, 9 monoliths, 3536, 40, 42
comparative weight, strength of, 1112 Mons Claudianus, 71
as ttings, xtures, auxiliaries, 250, 254273 Monte Casino, 38
furnaces for, 264265 Montmartre, 147
hooks, 268 monumental building, 294
ingots, 258, 261263 development of, 7
306 index
doors in, 272277 on rubble foundation, 34
in Egypt, xxxii, 7 in shape of eld stones, 6869
nely dressed stone and, 7 transporting of, 138
gabled roofs in, 33 vaults, 62
of Marsh Arabs, 47 versatility of, xxxii
megalithic building as, 7, 6162 walls, 52
in Mesopotamia, 7 waterproong of, 251
mud brick used in, xxxii waterproong of, 251, 253
nails used in, 2223 wood building materials used as reinforcing in, 26
Pharaonic building as, 6263 mud brick and rubble building, 58; 3435, 52
reeds, rushes used in, 23 brick bonding pattern in, 158
Roman concrete used in, 182, 185, 205206, 294 burnt lime/gypsum plaster on, 162
in Roman era, 68, 211 puddled mud used in, 6
stone masonry used in, xxxiixxxiii roong, 61; 32
stone used in, 7 stone used in, 7
tumuli, and, 8283 stucco work on, 222
wood building materials required for, 2324 timber reinforcement in, 35
wooden features in, 2627 mud mortar
monumental gates, 270271 for domestic use, 93
Mormon Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, 23 in eld stone construction, 6465
mortar, 24, 8 and frogging, 150
bitumenous building materials as, 226227 as manufactured material, 2
puddled mud as, 6 methods, procedures, uses, 9596
for Roman concrete, 189190 natural constituents of, 2
see also lime/gypsum; mud mortar mud plaster
mosaics for domestic use, 93
cone mosaics, 118, 212213; 237 earliest use, 87
glass used in, 289 methods, procedures, uses, 9394
opus sectile, 289 see also plaster
Moselle River, 25 Mycenaean wall, at Acropolis, 55
Mt. Vesuvius, 190 Mycerinus, pyramid crypt of, Gizeh, 126
mud
as building material, 57 Nabataean temple, 173
cob as earth building, 6 nails, 23, 172, 247, 264267; 296298
puddled mud as earth building, 6, 9193 in woodworking, 2223
workability of, 5 naphtha, see bitumenous building materials
see also burnt brick; mud brick; mud mortar; mud natural building materials, 12
plaster see also specic materials, topics
mud brick, 150155 nazbalum, 137
ashlar masonry, precursors to, 3941 Nectanbo II, monument to, 257
comparative weight, strength of, 1112 Nemi, 196
domestic buildings of, xxxii Neolithic period
Egyptian secular building of, 59 building construction in, 1
eld stone as substitute for, 7 building technology in, 293
ring of, see burnt brick burnt lime/gypsum plaster, mortar use in, 8;
form moulded, 6, 99108; 153155 203204
see also burnt brick dry-stone walling in, 159
hand modelled, 6, 9698, 156; 150152 earth building in, 67
load bearing construction with, 161 int mining, 56A, 56B
as manufactured material, 2 framed construction in, 26
masonry, 34 in Jericho, 51, 150151
methods, procedures, uses, 96108 lime/gypsum use in, 145146, 149, 151153,
natural constituents of, 2 160163
in Neolithic period, 67 long houses of, 5
palaces, xxxii, 59 manufactured building materials in, 1
plano-convex, 152, 159 megalith quarrying in, 58
public buildings, disappearance of, xxxiixxxiii megalithic building in, 65
reinforcement metallurgy in, 243
in mud brick structures, 36 mining in, 240
of wood, 36 moulded mud brick in, 104
Roman traditional building with, 38 mud brick in, 67
index 307
mud plaster in, 94 sources of, 254, 257
plaster oors of, 157159 ornament
quarrying in, 58, 60 glass as, 280, 282, 289
round houses in, 6, 8, 58, 8081 metal as, 273277
socio-ecomonic development in, 109 orthosate construction, 58
sod use in, 8586 Ostia, 194, 198; 233, 242, 246
standard measures in, 4 Ostia Gate, Rome, 123
stone working in, 47
timber framed construction in, 26A painting
wood building materials in, 2425 encaustic painting as wood preservative, 18
New Delhi, 251252 lime/gypsum plaster used in, 163164, 167,
New Grange, 61 170171; 203, 205208
New Paphos, Cyprus, 132, 210 paint as auxiliary, accessory building material,
Nile River, 77 23
Nile Valley, 38 painted plaster murals, 5556, 174
Nmes, 37 polychrome, 170171
Nin-giz-zida, Temple of, 181 palace(s)
Nizamabad, 223 of Firuzabad, 222
North Africa, 149 mud brick, xxxii, 59
North Attica, 244 Sassanian Palace, Ktesiphon, 161
North Iran, 52 Paleolithic period, 1, 240
North Mastaba, Lisht, 126 Palestine, 8, 91, 100, 151, 153, 198, 287; 1c
North Syria, 262 panelling, 2425
Nubian Temple of Mandoulis at Kalabsha, Pantheon, 39, 188, 195, 249, 253, 267
257259; 37, 98100, 119 arches of Roman concrete and brick, 248
cramps in, 300301 columns of, 71
plastering of, 206 monumental bronze doors of, 275276
stone roong of, 124125 Paphos, 74
wood cramps in, 37 Parthenon, 126
Nuserra, pyramid crypt of, 126 iron reinforcing bars in, 281
Nuzi, Northern Mesopotamia, 194 metal structures in, 281
monumental bronze doors of, 273274
obelisks, 77 pavilions, wooden, 42
Old Kingdom, see Egypt Pax Romana, 38, 240242
Olympia, 164, 289 pelodomois toichois, 90
open spaces, spanning Pentapolis, 37; 184
building materials suitable for, 4, 24 Pergamon, 167, 196
wood used for, 24 Pergamum Mid Gymnasium, 110
opus Africanum, 60; 112113 Persepolis, 59; 67, 207
opus caementicium, see Roman concrete Perseus, 249
opus incertum, 68, 124, 191, 198199, 206, 208209, Persia, Achaemenid, 25, 59, 74, 120, 294;
215; 228230 176177, 207
opus mixtum, 193, 205; 237, 243, 247 monumental masonry, 109
opus quadratum, 191, 205; 226 Persian Gulf, 245
opus quasi reticulatum, 191, 199; 230 petit appareil, 6667, 227
opus reticulatum, 68, 124, 191193, 198199, 201, Petra, 131; 216218
205206, 210213, 215; 213, 231237, 247 Pharaonic masonry, see stone masonry
plastering over, 242243 Phillipeion, Olympia, 289
opus sectile, 289 Phoenicia, 9, 20, 60, 90, 127, 287
opus signinum, 158 Phrygia, 74, 82
opus spicatum, 159, 180 Phrygian tumulus, Gordion, 31
opus tectorium, 169 Phrygian Tumulus, Gordion, 140
opus testaceum, 116117, 124, 138, 166, 193, physical sciences, xxxiii
198199, 201202, 206, 213, 215; 106, 167, physics, 1
238241, 246247 picks, 9
plastering of, 166 piers, 24, 133, 186
opus vittatum, 124; 227 pillars, 24, 133, 185, 251
ores in opus Africanum, 112113
metallurgy and, 243244 pitch, see bitumenous building materials
mining of, 238241 pivots, metal, 23, 9
pyrotechnology and, 10 placer mining, 239; 255257
308 index
planes, 22 crypts, 126
planks, 25; 1012 of Djedkara, pyramid crypt, Saqqara, 126
plaster of Mycerinus, pyramid crypt, Gizeh, 126
adhesiveness of, 4 of Nuserra, pyramid crypt, Abusir, 126
animal products used in, 5 of Senuseret, Queens crypt at, Dahshur, 126
as auxiliary, accessory building materials, 23 of Sheseskaf, pyramid crypt of, Saqqara, 126
decorative styles, 5556, 59 Stepped Pyramid, 18
as manufactured material, 2 Pyramid Age, 66
over ne stone masonry, 32 pyrotechnology, 10
over wicker work, 24 burnt brick and, 108
painted plaster murals, 5556, 174 glass building materials and, 281
plasticity of, 4 lime/gypsum and, 144145
puddled mud as, 6 metallurgy and, 244
terra-cotta roong tiles in, 127
as wattle and daub, 24 Qasr Bint Fir"aun, Petra, 216218
see also lime/gypsum; mud plaster qualities
Plaster of Paris, 2, 147148 bitumenous building materials, 218222
Pliny, 90, 275, 288 earthen building materials, 7586
plumbing glass building materials, 279281
lead used in, 9, 249, 272273 lime/gypsum, 143148
lead water piping, 303 Roman concrete, 181195
terra-cotta service auxilliaries, 131132; 192197 stone building materials, 2932
points, 22 wood building materials, 1417
Poland, 28 quarrying
polychrome painting, 170171 in Assyria, 74
polygonal masonry, 56, see stone masonry basalt, 6061
Pompeii, 5556, 133, 166, 174; 180, 212, 214 in Egypt, 66, 69, 71, 73
baths at, 106, 229 in Graeco-Roman world, 66
decorative styles, 5556, 59; 217 granite woolsacks, 59
House of the Games, 247 limestone, 149; 6264
opus reticulatum in, 234 for megalithic building, 58
Roman concrete in, 225 megaliths, 58
Pont du Gard, 37 methods, 72; 6667, 118
Portland Cement, 178, 184, 189190 in Roman Empire, 6971
Poseidon, temple of, Sounion, 122 sandstone, 65
posts stone, 3339; 5871
brick, stone, 24 Quay of Wine Jars, 4
metal, 251 Qurna, 87
Poznan, Poland, 28
pozzolana, 190, 197198, 205 Ramadi, 223
Preseli Mountains, S. W. Wales, 36; 57 rammed earth, see terre pis
primary building materials, xxxii, 9 ramps, 24
Propylaion, Athens Acropolis, 122 Ramses I, Pylon of, Karnak, 114
Provence, 37 Ramses II, Temple of, Abydos, 97
Ptolemaic Egypt, 41 Ras Ibn Hani, North Syria, 262
Ptolemais, 287 Ras Shamra, 252
public buildings ravalement, 55
burnt brick in, 7 ravaler, 55
burnt lime/gypsum plaster on, 162 Ravenna, 63, 66, 172, 291; 168
mud brick, disappearance of use for, Rawdah, North Yemen, 147148
xxxiixxxiii Red Court/Hall (Kizil Avlu), Pergamum, 167
see also specic topics, buildings reeds, 25, 45, 47
puddled mud, 6; 147148 in oors, 32
methods, procedures, uses, 9193 Madan structures of, 47
pulvis puteolanus, see pozzolana in roong, 32
Pylon of Ramses I, Karnak, 114 in round houses, 25, 46
pyramid(s), 136 in round huts, 45
of Amenemhet III, Dahshur, 4950, 126 reinforcement
Brick Pyramid, 137 in Ayia Sophia, 285287
complex of Zoser, Saqqara, 105 in Byzantium, 284285
index 309
in ferro-concrete, xxxii load-supporting use of, 185
iron used in, 9 methods, procedures, 200204
metal building materials as, 253255; precursors of, 208213
278287 monolithic nature of, 194195
in modern concrete, 183 monumental building with, 294
of modern concrete, 185 mortar for, 189190, 196197
in mud brick and rubble building, 3435 nature, qualities of, 181195
in mud brick structures, 36 in opus Africanum, 112113
in Roman concrete, 283284 opus caementicium designated, 181
timber reinforcement, 3435 in opus incertum, 191, 198199, 205206, 208209,
of wood, 3436 215; 228230
wood building materials used as, 26 in opus mixtum, 193, 205; 237, 243, 247
retaining walls in opus quadratum, 191, 205
of coursed rubble, 109 in opus quasi reticulatum, 191, 199; 230
of polygonal masonry, 107108 in opus reticulatum, 191193, 198199, 201,
revetments 205206, 210213, 215; 213, 231237, 247
cone mosaics as, 212 plastering over, 242243
ctile revetments, 121124; 178 in opus testaceum, 116117, 124, 138, 193194,
marble, 170, 206, 210; 106, 167 198202, 206, 213215; 106, 167, 237,
nails used to attach, 2223 238241, 246247
opus incertum, 68 terra-cotta roong tiles used in, 239
opus reticulatum, 68 in opus vittatum, 227
plaster, 190 placing of, 184, 190191
for Roman concrete facing, 187189, 191195, plastering on, 242
198200, 202203 pozzolana used in, 190, 197198
as scrap metal, 246 revetments on, 6869
stone, 6768 rise, fall of, 207215
terra cotta revetting, 117125; 178 Roman engineering, used in, 204205
wood used for, 24 roong, 185, 188189, 202
Rhaetian Alps, 19 shuttering, 23, 187188, 202203, 209, 212213;
Rhineland, 198, 288; 1g, 24 228, 235, 245
Robertson, D. H., 47 lost shuttering, 187188, 212
rock, see stone opus reticulatum and, 68
rock cutting, architectural, 7174 nails used in, 23
Khazne, Petra, 131 opus reticulatum and, 68
rock, exfoliated, 57 sophistication of, 203
rollers, 24 spanning space, 185
Roman concrete, 181215; 244245 substituting for dressed stone masonry, 185
abandonment of, 294295 supply, sources of, 195200
advantages of, 202 timbering for, nails used in, 266
aggregate in, 189, 191, 200; 225 transporting of, 195
supply, sources of, 196197 uses of, 204215
arches of, 248249 vaults of, 25
arcuated forms and, 185 volcanic earth used in, 9, 190
as articial material, 186 wood used for, 24
burnt brick and, 116117 Roman era
burnt lime/gypsum mortar for, 176177 bitumenous building materials in, 219
chemistry of, 185 brick yards in, 168
columns of, 247 building technology of, xxx, 293
components of, 186 burnt brick in, 114116, 124, 133, 138139,
in Constantinople, 117 165166
core material of, 225, 240241 moulded architectural ornament of, 179
designated opus caementicium, 181 burnt lime/gypsum mortar in, 174177
disappearance, eect on metal use, 242 and burnt lime/gypsum plaster, 9; 208211
domes of, 25 burnt lime/gypsum plaster in, 213215
facing of, 188189, 191195, 198203, 207 carpentry in, 38
foundations of, 244245 gabled roofs in, 33
iron reinforcement in, 283284 glass manufacturing in, 284, 288; 307309
lintels, 185 herringbone pattern in Roman pavement, 180
load-bearing brick used with, 186 lead water piping in, 303
310 index
legionary fabricatio lime burning plants, 201 opus testaceum used on, 194
legionary fortied encampments, 23 Roman concrete used in, 186, 188189, 202204,
lime burning in, 201202 206
kilns for, 200 Ayia Sophia, 214
lime/gypsum plaster used in, 164, 169; 212 separate frame construction support, 5
lime/gypsum use in, 152156 shingled roofs, 2425
metal cramps, dowels in, 263264 shingles used for, 2425
mining in, 240242 of stone, in Pharaonic masonry, 124126
nails used in, 2223, 247, 265 stone use in, 61
opus incertum in, 124 terra-cotta roong tiles, 125131, 138, 199;
opus reticulatum in, 124 182187
opus signinum in, 158 thatched, 2425; 25
opus vittatum in, 124 timber roong, 33
painted murals in, 174 vaulting roong, 206
quarrying in, 3739 wooden, 5, 2425; 3233
Roman concrete used in, 204 ropes, 12
see also Roman concrete round houses, 6, 8, 58, 8081, 98; 2425, 44, 46
smithies in, 268271 contemporary, 46
stone building materials round huts, of plants, 45
transporting in, 76 Royal Necropolis, Ayaa, 133
see also specic topics rubble
stone framing in, 5960 and bastard ashlar, 105
stone revetment in, 68 coursed rubble, 227
stone working in, 45, 47, 49 in opus Africanum, 112113
suspended ceilings in, 134 retaining walls, 109
terra-cotta in, 122; 185, 188191 foundations of, 34, 52, 246
terra-cotta roong tiles in, 126, 128129, 199; herringbone rubble, 54
185 in opus Africanum, 112113
terra-cotta service auxilliaries in, 131132; in opus incertum, 228, 230
196197 in opus quasi reticulatum, 230
thatched, shingled roofs in, 2425 in opus reticulatum, 234
traditional building materials, 38 in opus vittatum, 227
wall tiles, 124125 in Roman concrete, 240
water supply, drainage in, 272273; 196197 walling in bastard ashlar, 110111
wattle and daub panelling, 2930 see also mud brick and rubble building
window glass in, 290292 rubble socle, 2526, 58; 35
wood cutting in, 1617; 78
wood ttings, installations, 38 Saalburg, 22
wooden roong in, 33 Salamis, 174; 142
woodworking in, 2122; 1617, 19, 22 Salamis, Cyprus, 215, 221
Rome, 69, 194, 198, 210; 123, 240, 269 Samos, 96
mud brick construction in, 210 Samosata, 205
see also specic topics San Vitale, Ravenna, 168
Romulus and Remus, Heroon of, 277 Sanaa, Yemen, 162
roofed structures sandstone, quarrying of, 65
framed construction of, 7 Santorini, 190
Greek framed roofs, 22 saplings, 24
wood used in, 25 Saqqara, 18, 63; 18, 105, 126, 135
roong, 3233 sarcophagi, rock-cut, 133
bearer beam system, 33 Sardis, 82
bolts used in, 267268 Sargon II, 9
earthen building materials as, 134135 Sassanian Palace, Ktesiphon, 161
at mud terrace roofs, 25; 32, 160 Satrap Sarcophagus, 133
gabled roofs, 33 sawmill, powered, 25
of heavy timber, 31 saws, 9, 22
load-bearing function, 4 sawyers, 21
load-bearing walls and, 5 scaolding, 24
in megalithic building, 7 scrap metal, 246
metal roong tiles, 254 screens, 38
of mud brick and rubble, 6, 61; 32 screws, 268
nails used in, 265266 Seaton, 197
index 311
Second Heraion, Samos, 96 moulded mud brick, 102104
Segesta, Temple of, 102 mud bricks, 67, 9798
semi-sunken dwellings, 56 nazbalum, 137
Seneca, 291 timber, 20
Senewasoret III, 73 walls, 69
Senuseret, Queens crypt at pyramid of, Dahshur, wood building materials, 20
126 stave churches, 5
Serapis, Temple of, Pergamum, 167 Stepped Pyramid, 18
service auxilliaries, 131132, 135136; 192197 stereotomy, 4647
lead water piping, 303 stirrups, metal, 22
lead water piping, Roman, 303 Stoa of Attalos, 129
terra-cotta service auxilliaries, 131132; 192197 stone architraves, 9
Seti I, Temple of, Abydos, 97 stone building materials, 2974; 48136
shaft furnaces, 265 as archetypal building material, 7
Shakkanuku Palace, Mari, 166 architectural rock cutting and, 7174; 129136
Shalmaneser III, 251 basalt beds, 60
Shechem, Palestine, 144 bastard ashlar, 67, 176; 105
shelter, 293294 classes of, 31
semi-sunken dwellings, 56 comparative weights, strengths of, 1112
see building (noun); light shelters; specic topics doors of, 272277
Sheseskaf, pyramid crypt of, Saqqara, 126 drowned in mud mortar, 7
shingles, 2425 durability of, 32
ship building, eect of, 5 iron reinforcement in, 9
shower bath (krene), 42 lead use in, 9
shuttering lithology, petrology of, 2931; 48
lost shuttering load-bearing function of, 7
opus reticulatum and, 68 masonry see stone masonry
for Roman concrete, 187188, 212 metal tools used in, 9
opus reticulatum and, 68 mining
for Roman concrete, 187188; 235, 245 of int, 56A, 56B
nails used in, 23 see also quarrying
terre pis and, 8889 monumental building, in, xxxiixxxiii
wood used for, 24 monumental doors of, 272277
Sicily, 90 as mortared rubble, 7
Sidon, South Lebanon, 133 as natural materials, 2
sikkatu, 171172 nature, qualities of, 2932
Silchester, 22 plastering over, 32
silver, 244 as primary building material, xxxii, 2
Sinai peninsula, 162 properties of, 4
sinews, as building materials, 1, 5 quarrying of, 7, 3339; 5871
Sisyphus, 65 rock, exfoliated, 57
Sittard, Netherlands, 26A spolia as, 39
slag, 244, 246; 261, 265 strength of, 4, 24, 3132
slaked lime, 146, 148 supply, sources of, 3343
small block masonry, 67 transporting of, 4043; 7279
smelting, 149, 242, 245246, 288; 258263, 267 uses of, 5769
of ore, 149 weights, standard measures of, 4
smithies, 266, 268271 wood building materials used as reinforcing in, 26
sod, 8586 wooden features in, 2627
softwoods, 16 woolsacks, 59
Solomons Temple, 22, 26, 252, 265, 272, 275 working of, 4357
Sounion, 122 stone masonry
South Arabia, 9192 Achaemenid monumental masonry, 109
South Iraq, 47 anathyrosis, 54
Spain, 288 architectural rock cutting and, 7174; 129136
Spalato, 169 ashlar masonry, Archaic Greek, 109, 116117
Speos of Horemhab, 74 ashlar masonry, Classical Greek, 8, 5455, 58,
Spiennes, Belgium, 56B 6668, 242; 7279, 101104
spolia, 39 burnt lime/gypsum plastering of, 168174
stained glass, 291292 cramps for, 246247
standard measures, 4 damp proong in, 302
312 index
Egyptian inuence on, 260 roong in, 124126
hemispherical domes, 8283 sand/earth lling and, 146
iron reinforcement in, 9; 282 stone beams in, 25
levers used in, 101 vaulting, 126127
metal cramps, dowels in, 259263 wooden features in, 26
stucco on, 168174 polygonal masonry, 56
swallow tail cramps in, 261 for retaining walls, 107108
wooden precursors of, 3941 ravaler, ravalement, 55
bastard ashlar, 67, 176; 93, 105 Roman concrete substituting for, 185
opus quadratum and, 226 Roman era, 106107, 110113, 294295
Roman, 110111 rubble masonry, 58
burnt lime/gypsum mortar in, 174177 small block masonry, 67
burnt lime/gypsum plastering of, 167174 stereotomy and, 4647
columns, Egyptian, 118120 stone mason tools, 9091
cramps, dowels for, 23, 9, 242, 255264; column-turning lathes, 96
288294, 300302 Egyptian, 8487, 92, 94
curvilinear dovetail cramps, 37 Graeco-Roman, 89
Egyptian, 256259 Roman, 93, 95
Greek, 259263 traditional, 88
metal cramps, 246, 255264 stucco work on, 218
as scrap metal, 246 Tigris Embankment, waterproong of, 252
robbing out of, 103, 109 tools used in, 4854
Roman, 263264 in tumuli, 82
swallow tail cramps, 259, 261 vaults and, 6, 6263
wooden, 37 Zoser masonry, 78, 67
Cyclopean masonry, 55 Stonehenge, 36, 66; 57
domes and, 63 Strabo, 288
dry stone walls, 54 Strasburg, 196
earthworks for, 85 straw, 910
nely dressed, 7183 strength
burnt lime/gypsum plastering of, 167174 of building materials, 3
in Classical Greek ashlar masonry, 8 comparative strength of building materials,
methods, 8083 1112
methods, procedures, 4457, 6668 earthen building materials, 7980
monumental building, used in, xxxiixxxiii, 7 glass building materials, 281
on outer face only, 6667 stone building materials, 3132
in Pharaonic masonry, 78 stone masonry construction, 32
plastering over, 32 structural building units and, 4
wooden precursors of, 43 wood building materials, 14, 1617
in Zoser masonry, 78 structural materials
iron reinforcement in, 9; 282 primary, xxxii
Lesbian masonry, 56 see also specic topics, materials
metal building materials used in, 254264 structural steel, xxxii, 9, 24
methods, procedures, 4357 stucco, 168174, 187, 207; 179, 216222
in opus quadratum, 226 subterranean dwelling complexes, 138139
orthosate construction, 58 Sulla, 208
petit appareil, 6667 sunken dwellings, 56
Pharaonic masonry, 7, 6667; 4950, 8387, surface mining, 239
92, 94, 97100, 105, 118120 Susa, 120; 176177
beams in, 25 suspended ceilings, 299
burnt lime/gypsum plastering of, 167168; swallow tail cramps, 24, 259, 261
205206 Egyptian, 256257
cramps, dowels in, 300301 synthetic building materials, xxxii
dressed stone in, 7 Syria, 20, 2526, 5960, 151, 161, 252, 259
end of, 294 North Syria, 262
foundations for, 114115
metal cramps, dowels in, 256259 Tamilnad, 130
methods, procedures, 46 tamped earth, see terre pis
monumental building and, 6263 Tanis, 257
oblique rising joints in, 41 tank furnaces, for glass, 305308
repairs to, 4950 Taq-I-Kisra Palace, Ctesiphon, 161
index 313
tar, see bitumenous building materials of mud brick, xxxii
tarazza, 158 Nabataean temple, 173
Tarentum, 90 of Nin-giz-zida, 181
tauf, see puddled mud Nubian Temple of Mandoulis at Kalabsha,
Teatro Maritimo, Tivoli, 283 257259; 37, 98100, 119, 206, 300301
tegulae mammatae, 191 cramps in, 300301
Tell Asmar, 163 plastering of, 206
Tell el Ful, 199 stone roong of, 124125
Tell Halaf, 36 wood cramps in, 37
tells, 8385, 144 of Poseidon, Sounion, 122
temple(s) of Ramses II, Abydos, 97
at Abusir, 94 of Segesta, 102
of Amen, Karnak, 120 of Serapis, Pergamum, 167
of Amenophis III, El Kab, 97, 120 of Seti I, Abydos, 97
of Antoninus and Faustina, Rome, 226 Solomons Temple, 22, 26, 252, 265, 272,
of Apollo, Delphi, 108, 116, Bassae, 252253; 275
278 wooden precursors of, 3941
wrought iron beams in, Bassae, 278 tents, 5
of Artemis, Ephesus, 76 terminology, use of, xxxi
of Athena Nike, Athens, 292 terra-cotta
of Athenians, 290291 in Greece, 115
of Ay, Palestine, 74 kilns, for tiles, 164165
to Baal Berith, Shechem, 144 for opus testaceum, 193
of Deir el Bahari, 77, 84 as revetting, 117125; 178
at Deir el Medinah, 205 in Roman era, 122; 185, 188191
Doric Temple at Apollonia, 117 sikkatu, 171172
Egyptian tegulae mammatae, 191
Temple of Ay, Palestine, 74 terra-cotta roong tiles, 125131, 138, 199, 266
Valley Temple of Chepren, 9 nails used in, 266
wooden construction and, 5 used in opus testaceum, 239
see also specic temples terra-cotta service auxilliaries, 131132; 192197
in Forum of Chieti, 237 terra-cotta trowels, 225
Gimilsin Temple, Tell Asmar, 163 terra-cotta tubuli, 106, 188190
Greek transporting of, 138
gabled roofs on, 25; 33 wall plaques of, 118119; 171172
moulded mud brick in, 100, 104 Terracina, 232
polychrome painting in, 170171 terre pis, 156, 209
quarrying in, 3738 generally, 6
smithies in, 266 methods, procedures, uses, 8690
stone transporting in, 75, 78 traditional modern, 149
stone working in, 45, 47, 49, 5456, 63 wood used with, 24
stucco use in, 168174 Teuchira, 37
terra cotta in, 115, 121124 thatch, 12, 25
terra-cotta roong tiles in, 126129; 182184, Thebes, 145; 13, 15, 115, 155, 205
187 Theodorus, 96
timber importation, 20 Theophrastus, 150, 176
wooden construction and, 5 Thera, 190; 160
wooden features in, 2627 Theraike ge, 190
wooden pavilions and, 42 thermae, 131, 291
wooden precursors of, 3941 Theseion, Athens, 224, 302
wooden roong on, 5, 25; 33 thongs, as building materials, 4, 22
woodworking in, 2122 Thougga, 112
see also specic temples Tiber Valley, 138
historical development of, 5 Tiberius, 139
of Innana, 170 Tigris Embankment, 252
of Ishtar, Kassite Temple of, 173 tiles
of Kalabsha, 37 kilns for, 154, 165
Luxor Temple, 115 Roman era wall tiles, 124125
Maltese temples, 47, 52, 65, 73 terra-cotta roong tiles, 125131, 138, 199;
of Mandoulis, 98, see Nubian Temple of 182187, 239
Mandoulis at Kalabsha see also terra-cotta
314 index
Tilmen Hyk, Southern Turkey, 6061 Trier, 227
timber, 4, 9 Trifolium, House of, Thougga, 112
as natural material, 2 trilithons, 65
as reinforcement, 3435 Troy, 54
in Roman concrete foundations, 244245 tubuli, terra-cotta, 106, 188190
in tumuli, 140 tufa, 190
see also framed construction; wood building tumuli, 8283; 31, 140143
materials Midas tumulus, 82
Timna, Negev, 259 tombs in, 31, 140143
tin, 234, 239, 278 Tunisia, 8182
Tivoli, 283 Turkey, 99
tomb(s) Southern Turkey, 6061
Alcove Tomb, Cerveteri, 136 turves, 85
Catacomb of Domatilla, Rome, 269
chamber tombs, megalithic, 53 Ugarit, 32, 58; 262
circular Roman tombs, 83 Umm Dabaghiyah, 153
in Cyprus, 132, 142 Unas, monument to, 257258
Egyptian underground dwelling complexes, 138139
furniture in, 2022 underground dwellings, 8082
see also specic tombs Uqair, 156
Etruscan Ur, 61, 156, 226, 294; 159, 181
rock-cut tombs, 135136 Uratu, 74
tumulus tombs, 143 Urbain III, Pope, 281
framed construction, Lycian tombs, 43 Uruk, 67, 133, 156, 226; 170, 173
hypogeum tombs, 133 uses
of the Kings, New Paphos, Cyprus, 132 of bitumenous building materials, 225229
Lycian tombs, 5; 43 of burnt lime/gypsum plaster, 159174
megalithic building and, 6162 of earthen building materials, 132136
of Mentuholep, Deir el Bahari, 127 of glass building materials, 289292
in Phrygian tumulus, 31, 140 of metal building materials, 250276
pyramid crypts, 126 of Roman concrete, 204215
of Rekhmere, 145; 20, 85 of wood building materials, 2327
rock-cut, 129130, 132136
Roman circular tombs, 83 vaiselle blanches, 157158
Royal Tombs at Ur, 61 Valley Temple of Chepren, Gizeh, 9
sarcophagi, rock-cut, 133 Varro, 90
stone masonry vaults, vaulting
Lycian tombs of, 43 of brick, 25
in megalithic chamber tombs, 53 in Byzantium, 285
Pharaonic masonry rock-cut tombs, corbel vaulting, 166
134135 dened, 62
of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, 63, 66 Egyptian stone vaults, 126127
of Ti, 87 of exible reeds, 62
Tombs of the Kings, 74 of mud brick, 62
in tumuli, 31, 140143 in Pharaonic construction, 6162
underground tomb, Shakkanuku Palace, Mari, plating with metal, 275
166 of Roman concrete and brick, 248249
vaults, vaulting in Tomb of Theodoric the Roman concrete used in, 25, 185, 188, 202204,
Ostrogoth, 63, 66 206
of Vizier, Saqqara, 127 in Tomb of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, 63, 66
tools wood used in, 25
for blacksmiths, 271 Vesuvius, 38
for burnt lime/gypsum plastering, 212 Vitruvius
metal used in, 9 on bastard ashlar, 67
for metal working, 268271 on brick bonding patterns, 158
for quarrying, 3435 on building construction, 210211
for stone masonry, 4854 on load-bearing wooden construction, 25
for woodworking, 22; 1322 on moulded mud brick, 108, 111
Treasury on mud bricks, 96
at Delphi, 282 no word on burnt brick, 111
at Persepolis, 207 on opus reticulatum, 192, 213
index 315
on Roman Concrete, 67, 211 metal building materials in, 271272
adverse assessment of, 186, 197 plaster as sealant, 224
on Roman concrete construction, 182 in terra-cotta roong tiles, 184185
on suspended ceilings, 299 wattle and daub, 24, 94; 2930
on transporting stone blocks, 76 panelling, 2930
treatise of, 215 weather board panelling, 25
on volcanic earth, 190 wedges, 24
window glass not mentioned, 291 weight
on wood building materials, 26 of building materials, 3
on wood preservatives, 18 comparative weights of building materials,
Vizier, tomb of, Saqqara, 127 1112
volcanic earth, use in Roman concrete, 9, 190 standard measures of, 4
West Kennet, Wiltshire, 53
Wales, 36; 57 Western Anatolia, 3435
wall plaques, 118119; 171172 Western Europe, 1g
walls, 38 wharves, 32; 4
barrier walls, 2, 5758 wicker work, 24; 44
bitumenous building materials in, 251 wigwams, 5
of brick, 156158 window glass, 289292
brick walls, 3 windows
of burnt brick, 166168 glass use in, 289292
of burnt lime/gypsum plaster, 159160, 162; metal building materials in, 271
203204 transparent stone etc in, 289
dry stone walls, 54, 159 wood used for, 24, 26; 38
earthen building materials as, 132133 Wood Age, 27
enclosure walls, 5 wood building materials, 1327
in herringbone rubble, 54 archaeological evidence of, 1314
load-bearing function, 6 as building material, 12, 5
in megalithic building, 7 carpentry and, 5
of mixed construction, 25 cedars of Lebanon, 19
of mud brick, 52, 158, 161 columns, use with stone capitals and bases, 59
Mycenaean wall, at Acropolis, Athens, 55 comparative weight, strength of, 1112
of opus incertum, 228230 decay of, 1314, 18
of opus mixtum, 237, 243 dened, 13
of opus quadratum, 226 doors of, 272
of opus quasi reticulatum, 230 durability of, 1718
of opus reticulatum, 192193; 231237 ttings, installations of, 38
plastering over, 242243 exibility of, 4
of opus testaceum, 116, 193194, 199200; 237, framed construction and, 5; 2430
238241, 246 hardwoods, 16; 3
of opus vittatum, 227 heart wood, 15; 2
plastering of, 203, 213217 historical development of, 5
plating with metal, 275 inamability of, 4
primary building materials for, 2 joinery, 5, 23
of puddled mud, 9193; 147 simple joints, 23
retaining walls tools for, 13
coursed rubble, 109 light shelters made of, 5
polygonal masonry, 107108 metal tools and, 1819
Roman concrete used in, 186188; 225243 in mixed construction, 25
facing of, 187188, 191195 nails used with, 23, 264267
standard measures and, 69 as natural materials, 2
stone, 7, 25; 54 nature, qualities of, 1418; 23
terrace walls, 51 organic substance, eect, 1314
waterproong of, 251 preservatives for, 18
wood, 38 as primary building material, xxxii, 2
water supply, drainage, 272273; 192197, 303 properties of, 4
waterproong, waterproof construction as reinforcement in building, 26; 3436, 285
in ashlar masonry, Classical Greek, 302 sap wood, 15; 3
bitumenous building materials in, 225229; softwoods, 16; 3
250253 in Stepped Pyramid, 18
lead in, 9 stone tools and, 1819
316 index
strength of, 45, 14, 1617, 24 wooden planks, 23
supply, sources of, 1820 wooden tools, 51, 174
timber construction, load bearing, 31, 140 woolsacks, 59
timber importation for, 1920 wrought iron, 278
in tumuli, 82; 31, 140 beams, 278279
uses of, 2327 nails, 296
wood cutting, 58, 67 production of, 263, 266
in Egypt, 11
planks, 1012 Xanthos, Lycia, 105
in Roman era, 7, 1617
tools for, 7, 1416 Yemen, 46, 147148, 162
woodworking, 1923; 1023 Yesemek, 61
joints for, 23 yurts, 5
tools for, 1322
wooden construction zabur, see puddled mud
animal products and, 5 ziggurats, xxxii, 132, 136, 294; 171
ship building and, 5 zinc, 239
see also specic topics Zoser masonry, 78, 67
wooden panelling, 24 Zoser, Pyramid Complex of, Saqqara, 105
VOLUME 2
MATERIALS
PART 2
IN HISTORY
VOLUME 7/2
VOLUME 2
MATERIALS
BY
G.R.H. WRIGHT
PART 2: ILLUSTRATIONS
BRILL
LEIDEN BOSTON
2005
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Wright, G.R.H. (George R.H.), 1924

Ancient building technology / by G.R.H. Wright.
p. cm. (Technology and change in history, ISSN 1385-920X ; v. 4)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. Historical background. v. 2. Materials
ISBN 9004099697 v. 1 ; ISBN 9004140077 v. 2 (alk. paper)
1. BuildingHistory. 2. Architecture, Ancient. 3. Science, Ancient.
4. History, Ancient.
I. Title. II. Series.
TH16.W76 2000/2005
690.093dc21
00-023040
CIP
ISSN 1385-920X
ISBN 90 04 14007 7 (Vol. 2)
ISBN 90 04 14489 7 (Part 2)
Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers,
Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal
use is granted by Brill provided that
the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright
Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910
Danvers MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands

CONTENTS
List of Illustrations ........................................................................................ vii

Abbreviations in Captions ............................................................................ xix
Introduction .................................................................................................. xxiii
Illustrations 1309
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
1. Site Location Maps.

2. Diagram of Sliced Tree Trunk showing Growth Development of Wood.
3. Micro Photographs showing Cellular Structure of Wood.
4. Preservation of Waterlogged Timber in Roman Wharf.
5. Egyptian Axemen felling Tree by Notching.
6. Egyptian Wood-cutters felling Tree and Debarking.
7. Roman Tree Felling using Cross-cut Saw and Wedges.
8. Roman Lumbermen hauling Log with Ropes.
9. Transport by Water of Massive Timbers in Assyrian Times.
10. Conversion of Log into Standard Timbers for Building.
11. Egyptian Carpenters debarking and converting Tree Trunk into Planks with
Lever and Wedges.
12. European Bronze Age Timber-Working with Wooden Tools.
13. Egyptian Bronze Headed Wood-working Tools.
14. Diagram showing Cutting Action of Ancient and Modern Saws.
15. Egyptian Carpenters using Pull Saw horizontally to cut Planks.
16. Roman Sawyers vertically sawing long Lengths of Timber.
17. Roman Sawyers using Box-framed Saw on medium length Timbers.
18. Egyptian Carpenters using Bow Drill.
19. Roman Carpenters Tombstone with Representation of Tools including Bow
Drill.
20. Egyptian Carpenter glueing Wood.
21. Egyptian Carpenters steam-bending Timber.
22. Reconstructed Roman Planes.
23. Simple Joints used in Antiquity for xing together Timber Members.
24. Earliest Timber Framed Construction in Northern EuropeLashed Poles
clad with Hides, ca 2500 BC.
25. Substantial Round Houses from Lashed Poles clad with Thatch. North
West Europe, ca 1500 BC.
26. Enduring Long House Timber Framed Building in Northern Europe, evi-
denced by Post Holes.
A. Neolithic at Sittard (Netherlands). 5th Millenium BC.
B. Iron Age Hallstat Culture at Goldberg, South Germany. 7th6th Cent.
BC.
C. Celtic Oppidum of Bibracte, France. 1st Cent. BC.
viii list of illustrations
27. Plan and Reconstructed Elevation of Typical North European Timber

Framed Long House. Kln Lindenthal. Neolithic, 5th Millenium BC.
28. Fanciful Reconstruction of Fortied Iron Age Village of Integrated Long
Houses. Biskupin, Polandca 500 BC.
29. Enduring Timber Framed, Wattle and Daub. Iron Age and Roman.
30. Roman Age Wattle and Daub Construction. Detail.
31. Load-bearing Timber Construction. Log Cabin style. Gordion Tumulus, ca
700 BC.
32. Traditional Flat Mud Terrace Roof Construction.
33. Classical Timber Roong.
34. Remains of Middle East Mud-brick Building profusely reinforced with
Timber. Beyce Sultan, Western Anatolia, ca 1500 BC.
35. Schematic Restoration of Mud-brick and Timber Wall Construction as in
pl 34. Beyce Sultan, Western Anatolia, ca 1500 BC.
36. Inset Timbering to integrate Stone Orthostates into Mud Brick Wall. Tell
Halaf, North Syria, ca 800 BC.
37. Wooden Dove-tail Cramp in Egyptian Stone Masonry. Kalabsha. 1st
Cent. AD.
38. Wooden Fittings and Installations at Herculaneum.
39. Proposed Wooden Origins of Classical Greek Doric Order.
40. Doric Entablature. Comparitive Sketch of Proposed Wooden Original and
41. Ionic Entablature. Comparitive Sketch of Proposed Wooden Original and
42. Rural Wooden Pavilion in Classical Greece.
43. Lycian Tomb. Comparative Sketch of Proposed Wooden Original and
Actual Masonry Construction.
44. Bird Cage Shelter of Pliable Plant Materials.
45. Round Hut of Pliant Material. Karanog, Romano Nubia.
46. Contemporary Round House from Pliant Material. Red Sea Coast of
Yemen.
47. Contemporary Lashed Reed Building on Monumental Scale. Marshes of
Southern Iraq.
48. Diagram of the Cycle of Rock Formation.
49. Durability of Stone. Repairs to Aspect.
50. Detail of Repairs by Piecing.
51. Earliest Massive Stone Construction. Neolithic Terrace Wall of Large
Boulders. Jericho, ca 8000 BC.
52. Neolithic Field-stone Rubble Foundations for Mud-brick House Walls.
North Iran. 6th Millenium BC.
list of illustrations ix
53. Megalithic Stone Building. Western (Atlantic) Europe. 5th Millenium BC.
54. Dry Stone Walling in Middle East. 4th Millenium BC.
55. Bronze Age Cyclopean Walling of Chinked Boulders. Aegaean, 2nd
Millenium BC.
56. Neolithic Flint Mining. S.E. England and Belgium, ca 4000 BC.
57. Source of Megalithic Blocks. Deeply Fissured Outcrops of Bluestone in
Western Wales.
58. Megalithic Quarry. Filitosa, Corsica, ca 4th Millenium BC.
59. Deeply Weathered Isolated Granite Outcrops, continuously quarried. Aswan,
Upper Egypt.
60. Basalt Outcrop naturally separated into Boulders, quarried in Bronze Age.
Tilmen Hyk, Anatolia.
61. Further Working of naturally separated Basalt Blocks. Hittite Quarries at
Yesemek and Tilmen Hyk. 2nd Millenium BC.
62. Surface Limestone Quarry. Beni Hassan, Egypt.
63. Underground Limestone Quarry. Ma"asera, Egypt.
64. Detail of Underground Quarry at Ma"asera showing method of exploitation.
65. Interior of Underground Sandstone Quarry at Gebel Silsila. Egypt.
66. Egyptian Method of Quarrying Granite using very Hard Stone (Dolerite)
Pounders.
67. Sketch of Method of Separating and Freeing Blocks in Traditional Quarrying.
68. Residual Bed of Quarried out Blocks. Persepolis. ca 500 BC.
69. Map showing Principal Egyptian Quarries supplying Stone to all Parts of
Egypt (Pharaohs Quarries).
70. Map showing Central Quarries under Imperial Roman Administration.
71. Imperial Roman Exploitation of Grano-diorite Quarries at Mons Claudianus.
72. Slipway for Expediting blocks from Mountainside Quarry. Attica, 5th
Cent. BC.
73. Transport of Heavy Stone Blocks by Sledge in Egypt.
74. Transport of Heavy Stone Blocks by Sledge in Assyria.
75. Transport of Heavy Stone Blocks on Wheeled Carriage. Classical Greece.
76. Projects for Transporting Heavy Stone Blocks on Wheels using Blocks as
the axle. Classical Greece.
77. Transport of Massive Stone Block by Nile in Egypt.
78. Transport of Massive Stone Block from Quarry by Water (amphiprymno).
Classical Greece.
79. Human Porterage of Stone Blocks on Building Site.
80. Diagram showing Basic Operation of Fine Stone Dressing.
81. Diagram showing Basic Proceedure for Dressing a Column Drum.
82. Diagram showing Basic Geometry of Hemispherical Dome.
x list of illustrations
83. Setting Out for Cutting Voussoir of an Ashlar Dome.

84. Egyptian Masons Boning Rods.
85. Egyptian Stone Dressing Proceedure.
86. Egyptian Masons Mallet.
87. Egyptian Masons Tools of Stone.
88. Masons Striking Tools. Combined Axe/Adze/Hammers. Traditional
Tools from Cyprus.
89. Roman Masons Striking Tools. Combined Axe/Pick/Adze/Hammer.
90. Struck Tools (Punch, Chisel etc.). Use and Traces.
91. Masons Axe. Use and Limitations.
92. Large Dragsaw Reconstructed. Egypt 4th Dyn.
93. Improved Fine Jointing by Sawing in situ. Roman.
94. Egyptian Stone Drill. Abu Sir, Vth Dynasty.
95. Roman Mason Drilling Stone.
96. Possible Reconstruction of Lathe for Turning Column Drums.
97. Egyptian Large Block (Pharaonic) Masonry. In situ Dressing. New
Kingdom. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
98. Egyptian Large Block (Pharaonic) Masonry. In situ Dressing. Part Elevation
of Wall. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
Huge Cornice Block. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
Huge Architrave Block. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
101. Classical Ashlar Masonry. Sketch Reconstruction of Setting.
102. Classical Ashlar Masonry set with Projecting Fillets at Arrises. Temple
of Segesta, Sicely, ca 430 BC.
103. Hellenistic Ashlar Masonry set with Roll protecting Upper Arris. Miletus
Theatre.
104. Classical Ashlar Masonry with Functional Details of Stone Dressing retained
as Ornament.
105. Bastard Ashlar Masonry. Early Dynastic Egyptian to Hellenistic.
106. Roman Marble Revetting.
107. Polygonal Masonry. Knidos. 5th4th Cent. BC.
108. Polygonal Masonry Construction for Retaining Walls. Delphi, ca 500
BC.
109. Ashlar Facing to Rubble Retaining Wall. Pasargadae Persia, ca 530 BC.
110. Ashlar Facing to Rubble Retaining Wall. Pergamum. Hellenistic-Roman.
111. Ashlar Facing to Rubble (or Concrete) Core. Rome Augustan.
112. Opus Africanum. Rubble stiened with Dressed Stone Piers.
113. Opus Africanum. Detail. Thougga, Tunisia. Roman.
list of illustrations xi
114. Defective Egyptian Stone Foundations.

115. Inferior Egyptian Foundations of Reused Blocks. Luxor. New Kingdom.
116. Finely Dressed Coered Greek Foundations. Delphi, 5th Cent. BC.
117. Greek Masonry founded on Bed Rock. Apollonia, Cyrenaica, ca 300
BC.
118. Egyptian Monolithic Column. Diagram of Combined Extraction and
Dressing.
119. Egyptian Column constructed of Large Blocks. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st
Cent. AD.
120. Egyptian Column Collapsed and Rebuilt in Small Block Masonry. Amun
Temple. Karnak.
121. Provincial Hellenistic Column on Plinth built in Coursed Stone Masonry.
Hatra, North Mesopotamia. 2nd Cent. AD.
122. Classical Greek Column. Drum Construction.
123. Graeco-Roman Columns. In situ Dressing.
124. Egyptian Large Block Masonry. Massive Slab Roong. Kalabsha Temple.
1st Cent. AD.
125. Egyptian Large Block Masonry. Failure in Bending of Massive Roong
Slabs. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD.
126. Egyptian Saddle Roof Construction. Old KingdomMiddle Kingdom.
127. Egyptian Dressed Stone Vaulting. Late Period.
128. Graeco-Roman Ashlar Masonry Dome Construction Side. Southern
Turkey, ca 3rd Cent. AD.
129. Rock Cutting. Unnished Faade showing Progress of Work from above
downwards. Tomb at Medain Saleh, Hejaz. 1st Cent. AD.
130. Unnished Tomb cut in free standing Knoll of Rock with Evidence of
Excavation by Quarrying. Medain Saleh. 1st Cent. AD.
131. Resplendent Rock Cut Faade Monument. The Khazne, Petra. 1st
Cent. BC1st Cent. AD.
132. Architectural Portal to Rock Cut Tomb with Stone Insets and Plastering.
New Paphos, Cyprus. 3rd Cent. BC.
133. Hypogeum Tombs with Access Shafts. Ayaa, near Sidon. 4th Cent. BC.
134. Fine Dressing to Internal Faces of Egyptian Rock-cut Monuments.
135. Early Etruscan Rock-cut Tomb with Architectural Interior. Cerveteri,
5th Cent. BC.
136. Late Etruscan Rock-cut Tomb with Architectural Interior. Cerveteri, 3rd
Cent. BC.
137. Soil Formation and Classication.
138. Subterranean Dwelling Complex. Abu Matar, Southern Israel, ca 3500 BC.
139. Subterranean Dwelling. Detail. Abu Matar, ca 3500 BC.
xii list of illustrations
140. Large Phrygian Tumulus well over 50 m high. Gordion. Early 7th Cent. BC.
141. Large Lydian Tumulus, surviving height ca 55 m. Bin Bir Tepe, North
of Sardis. 6th Cent. BC.
142. Cypriote Tumulus, ca 15 m high, of singular construction. Salamis.
600 BC.
143. Etruscan Cemetery of Tumulus Tombs near Cerveteri. 600 BC and later.
144. Consolidation and Extension of Palestinian Tells by sophisticated Earthworks,
ca 1500 BC.
145. Egyptian Earth Construction Ramp. Thebes. New Kingdom.
146. Diagram showing Egyptian Building Platform of Earth Fill.
147. Traditional Plastic Earth (Puddled Mud) Construction. Modern Survival.
Rawdah, North Yemen.
148. Traditional Houses of Plastic Earth said to have survived for up to 800
years. Rawdah, North Yemen.
149. Traditional Terre Pis Construction. Atlas Mountains, North Africa.
150. Hand Modelled (Cigar Shaped) Mud Bricks. Jericho. Pre-Pottery Neolithic.
151. Hand Modelled (Bun Shaped) Mud Bricks. Jericho. Neolithic, 6th Mille-
nium BC.
152. A Possible Derivation of Plano-Convex Mud Bricks. Mesopotamia.
153. Scenes from Egyptian Tomb Decoration representing Manufacture of Form
Moulded Mud Bricks. Thebes, New Kingdom.
154. Types of Brick Moulds used in Preceeding Scenes.
155. Ancient Wooden Brick Moulds. Egypt and Palestine. 2nd Millenium
BC.
156. Standard Bonding Patterns in Modern Brick Masonry.
157. Bonding of Rectangular Mud Brick Wall at Maroni Vournes, Cyprus, ca
1250 BC.
158. Bonding of Square Mud Brick City Wall at Eleusis, ca 500 BC.
159. Bonding of Mesopotamian Plano-Convex Mud Brick Masonry. 3rd Mille-
nium BC.
160. Mud Terrace Roong Construction. Thera, ca 1500 BC.
161. Grandiose Mud Brick Vaulted Roong. Ctesiphon. 6th Cent. AD.
162. Traditional Modern Manufacture of Burnt Brick. North Yemen. 1938.
163. Ancient Mesopotamian Kiln for ring Terra-cotta Objects. Eshnunna,
ca 2250 BC.
164. Classical Greek Tile Kiln. Olympia. Late 4th Cent. BC.
165. Classical Greek Tile Kiln. Corinth. Late 5th Cent. BC.
166. Mesopotamian Funerary Chamber of Burnt Bricks. Mari. Late 3rd
Millenium BC.
167. Roman Load Bearing Burnt Brick Masonry. Kizil Avlu, Pergamum.
120130 AD.
list of illustrations xiii
168. Byzantine Load Bearing Burnt Brick Masonry. San Vitale, Ravenna.
526547 AD.
169. Late Roman Burnt Brick Dome Construction. Diocletians Mausoleum,
Spalato. 300 AD.
170. Early Mesopotamian Cone Mosaics. Uruk, ca 3000 BC.
171. Mesopotamian Glazed Terra-cotta Wall Plaques (Knauf Plates). Choga
Zamil, Elam, ca 1250 BC.
172. Mesopotamian Glazed Terra-cotta Wall Plaques (Sikkatu). Assur. 9th7th
Cent. BC.
173. Mesopotamian Relief Decoration in Burnt Brick. Uruk, ca 1450 BC.
174. Mesopotamian Relief Decoration in Glazed Burnt Brick. Ishtar Gate,
Babylon. 6th Cent. BC.
175. Mesopotamian Relief Decoration in Burnt Brick. Detail of Preceeding.
Ishtar Gate, Babylon. 6th Cent. BC.
176. Achaemenid Relief Decoration in Polychrome Glazed Brickwork. Susa,
ca 500 BC.
177. Achaemenid Relief Decoration in Polychrome Glazed Brickwork. Detail.
Susa, ca 500 BC.
178. Archaic Greek Painted Fictile Revetment. Metapontum, ca 500 BC.
179. Architectural Ornament in Moulded Brickwork. Roman.
180. Burnt Brick Pavement. Opus spicatum. Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD.
181. Diagram showing Mesopotamian Brick Column Construction.
182. Mycenaean Terra-cotta Roong Tiles.
183. Diagram showing Classical Greek Roof Tiling Systems.
184. Corinthian Terra-cotta Roong Tiles. Details. Apollonia. Cyrenaica,
ca 300 BC.
185. Sicilian Terra-cotta Roong Tiles. Assemblage. Roman.
186. Terra-cotta Roong Tiles. Lighting and Ventilation.
187. Marble Model giving Standard Dimensions for Terra-cotta Roong Tiles.
188. Schematic Section showing Roman Hypocaust Installations.
189. Diagram showing Terra-cotta Flues (Tubuli, Box Tiles) set within Walls.
190. Tubuli set within Walls of Bath. Forum Baths. Ostia. ca 160 AD.
191. Tegulae Mammatae Types and Installation. Roman.
192. Typical Terra-cotta Drainage Installation in the Ancient Middle East.
193. Conspectus of Terra-cotta Segments for lining Sumps in Ancient Middle East.
194. Ancient Middle East Terra-cotta Drain Pipes. Nuzi, North Mesopotamia,
ca 1400 BC.
195. Archaic Greek Terra-cotta Water Pipes. Athens, 6th Cent. BC.
196. Hellenistic and Roman Terra-cotta Water Pipes.
197. Roman Terra-cotta Cylinder Segments for Concealing Drainage. Downpipes
within Walls.
xiv list of illustrations
198. Map indicating regional Distribution of Lime and Gypsum Plaster.

199. Iron Age Lime Kilns north of Jerusalem.
200. Dixs Reconstruction of Roman Lime Kilns.
201. Roman Legionary fabricatio lime burning Plant. Iversheim, Lower Germany.
202. Reconstructed Clamp burning of Lime.
203. Neolithic Painted Wall Plaster. atal Hyk. 7th6th Millenium BC.
204. Neolithic Modelled Wall Plaster. atal Hyk. 7th6th Millenium BC.
205. Plastering of Fine Egyptian Stone Masonry. Deir el Medinah. New
Kingdom.
206. Plastering of Painted Egyptian Stone Masonry. Temple of Kalabsha.
Ptolemaic-Roman.
207. Plastered Column Construction. Achaemenid. Persepolis, ca 500 BC.
208. Plastered Brick Built Columns. Roman.
209. Roman Corinthian Capital. Stucco Detail on Stone Bell. Herculaneum.
Before 79 AD.
210. Roman Ionic and Doric Capitals. Plastered Stone. New Paphos. Cyprus.
211. Roman Plastered Column Shafts and Fluting. Amathus, Cyprus.
212. Roman Wall Plastering. Plasterer and Tools.
213. Roman Wall Plaster in Three Coats. Adams Diagram.
214. Unnished Roman Wall Plastering. Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD.
215. Roman Decorative Plastering. Adams Illustration of Processes.
216. Major Scheme of Stucco Decoration as preserved on Temple Wall.
Qasr Bint Fir"aun. Petra. 1st Cent. BC1st Cent. AD.
217. Reconstruction of above Scheme.
218. Detail of Stucco Decoration on Inner Wall of Qasr Bint Fir"aun. Surviving
Evidence and Reconstruction.
In situ moulding.
Drawing out with Template.
221. Use of Prefabricated Elements in Early Byzantine Stucco. Salamis, Cyprus,
ca 400 AD.
222. Stucco Decoration in the EastArchitectural Feature. Firuzabad, ca
300 AD.
223. Typical Developed Eastern Wall PlasteringAll Over Impressed Pattern.
Nizamabad. 7th9th Cent. AD.
224. Plaster as a Sealant for Joints. Egypt. Middle Kingdom.
225. Deposition of Core Material in Roman Concrete.
226. Roman Concrete faced with opus quadratum. Temple of Antoninus and
Faustina. Rome. 140 AD.
list of illustrations xv
227. Roman Concrete faced with opus vittatum. Baths at Trier, ca 150 AD.
228. Roman Concrete faced with opus incertum.
229. Roman Concrete faced with opus incertum. Cistern in Baths at Pompeii.
Late 2nd Cent. BC.
230. Roman Concrete facing transitional between opus incertum and opus quasi
reticulatum.
232. Roman Concrete faced with opus reticulatum. Capitol at Terracina, ca 40 BC.
233. Preparation of opus reticulatum stone facing units.
234. Ruined opus reticulatum Wall showing Facing and Core. Pompeii. End
of 1st Cent. BC.
235. Opus reticulatum Facing where stone units have disappeared leaving only a
network of plaster about the empty emplacements.
236. Opus reticulatum Facing where stone units have disappeared. Comparitive
examples.
237. Opus reticulatum Facing including some units of burnt bricks.
238. Roman Concrete. opus testaceum Schema.
239. Preparation of opus testaceum. Facing Units.
240. Roman Concrete opus testaceum showing Facing and Core. Rome. Mid
2nd Cent. AD.
241. Roman Concrete opus testaceum showing Core Material including Brick.
Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD.
242. Wall Plaster over Roman Concrete.
243. Wall Plaster over Decorative Facing of Roman Concrete.
Impressions of Timber Uprights.
wooden shuttering.
246. Opus testaceum Concrete Wall on unfaced Concrete Foundations. Ostia.
2nd Cent. AD.
247. Roman Concrete Columns. Pompeii, ca 70 AD.
248. Elevation of Walls and part Dome of Pantheon showing Projection of
Brick Arches set into Concrete Structure. Rome. 112 AD.
249. Choisys Drawing of Roman Concrete Vault Construction.
250. Supplies of Bitumen in the Ancient Middle East.
251. Bitumen Waterproong of Drain. Assur, ca 2000 BC.
252. Refacing of Existing Tigris Embankment. Assur, ca 1300 BC.
253. Neo-Babylonian Bathroom with Bitumen Waterproong.
254. Geological Sections showing Formation of Ore Deposits.
255. Sketch Plan of Occurence of Alluvial (Surface) Gold.
xvi list of illustrations
256. Section showing Origin of Surface Gold.

257. Sections showing Deposition of Surface Gold.
258. Conspectus of Egyptian Metallurgical Practice from Delivery of Raw
Material to Finished Metal Product. Theban Tomb Decoration. 1500
BC.
259. Reconstructed Drawing of Copper Smelting Furnace at Timna. 1300
BC.
260. Etruscan Shaft Furnace for Copper Smelting.
261. Plano Convex Copper Ingot. Late Bronze Age.
262. Chronological Development of Oxhide Ingot Form. 1500 BC1200 BC.
263. Comparitive Sections of Bloomery Hearth for Wrought Iron and of Middle
East Baking Oven.
264. Simple Bowl Furnaces for Smelting Iron.
265. Basic Design of Shaft Furnace for Iron Smelting. 6th Cent. BC and later.
266. Greek Smithy on Black Figure Vase, ca 500 BC.
267. Site Plan of Romano-British Iron Smelting Furnaces. 2nd3rd Cent. AD.
268. Roman Smithy on Funerary Relief. Aquileia.
269. Roman Smithy Scenes. Catacomb of Domatilla. Rome.
270. Large Roman Anvil of Iron.
271. Romano-British Blacksmiths Tongs.
272. Type of Ancient Middle East City gate, shod, xed and fortied with
Metal.
273. The Classical Monumental Door and its Origins.
274. The Moulded Bronze Doors of the Parthenon.
275. The Moulded Bronze Doors of the Pantheon.
276. Pantheon Doors. Details of Hollow Casting and Applied Ornament.
277. Bronze Doors of Heroon of Romulus and Remus with Details of Casting.
Rome.
278. Inset Wrought Iron Beams. Temple of Apollo, Bassae. 450 BC.
279. Wrought Iron Beams from Roman Bath Installations. Catterick, Yorkshire.
2nd Cent. AD.
280. Wrought Iron Reinforcing Bars in Stone Architrave. Propylaion, Athens
Acropolis, ca 430 BC.
281. Renaissance Sketches of Roong Truss in Pantheon.
282. Long Iron Tie Beams in Masonry of Crepis. Theban Treasury at Delphi.
283. Iron Reinforcing Rods in Brick and Concrete Architrave. Hadrians Villa
at Tivoli.
284. Wrought Iron Tie Rods in Mixed Concrete and Stone Construction.
Rome. 1st3rd Cent. AD.
285. Plan of Ayia Sophia showing Position of Iron Ties. 530 AD.
list of illustrations xvii
286. Iron Tie Rods across Arches and Iron Collars around eccentrically Loaded
Columns. Ayia Sophia. Constantinople, 530 AD.
287. Detail Drawing of Iron Tie Rods and Collars. Ayia Sophia, Constantinople.
530 AD.
288. Basic Forms of Graeco-Roman Metal Cramps.
289. p Form Iron Cramp with Medial Lozenge. Phillipeion at Olympia. ca
335 BC.
290. Cramps and Dowels in Anta. Temple of Athenians, Delos. ca 420 BC.
291. Cramps and Dowels in Angle. Temple of Athenians, Delos. ca 420 BC.
292. System of Dowelling between Courses in Classical Greek Ashlar Masonry.
Temple of Athena Nike, Athens. 425 BC.
293. Iron Dowels secured in Emplacements with Molten Lead.
294. Roman Dowelling in Ashlar Masonry.
295. Fixation of Column Drums by Wooden Polos and Empolion (of Hardwood
or Metal).
296. Process of Forging Nails from Wrought Iron Rods.
297. Enormous Stock of Iron Nails from Roman Fortress. Inchtuthil, Perthshire,
Scotland, ca 130 AD.
298. Classication of Inchtuthil Nails.
299. Iron Hooks for Suspended Ceiling.
300. Lead Cramps in Late Egyptian Masonry. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st
Cent. AD.
301. Detail of Lead Cramp. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st Cent. AD.
302. Lead Damp-proong in Masonry Joints. Hephaisteion, Athens. 440 BC.
303. Roman Lead Waterpiping. Synoptic View of Manufacture and Installation.
304. Acrystalline (Liquid) Atomic Structure of Glass.
305. Sketch Reconstruction of Primary Tank Kiln (Furnace) for Producing
Bulk Glass. Northern Israel. Late Antiquity.
306. Reconstructed Sequence showing Use of Primary Glass Kiln (Furnace) in
Northern Israel.
307. Glass Kiln/Furnace for Manufacturing Objects in Roman and Later Times.
308. Plan of Roman Glass Furnaces. Eigelstein, near Cologne.
309. Manufacturing Processes of Blown Sheet Glass, Crown Glass and Cylinder
Glass. Roman and Later.
ABBREVIATIONS IN CAPTIONS
A B C G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in Cyprus, Leiden, 1992.

A B S P G.R.H. Wright, Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine,
Leiden, 1985.
Adam J.-P. Adam, La Construction Romaine, Paris, 1989.
Allison & Palmer I.S. Allison and D.F. Palmer, Geology, New York, 1980.
Apollonia R.G. Goodchild, J.G. Pedley, D. White, Apollonia The Port
of Cyrene (Supplements to Libya AntiquaIV), Tripoli, 1976.
A J A American Journal of Archaeology.
Arnold D. Arnold, Building in Egypt, Oxford, 1991.
Assur W. Andre, Die Festungswerke Assur, Leipzig, 1913.
B d A A. Homan et al. ed. Bautechnik der Antike (D.A.I.
Architekturreferat Kolloquium in Berlin Feb. 1990), Mainz,
1991.
Bessac J.-C. Bessac, Loutillage traditionnel du tailleur de pierrre, Paris,
1987.
Beyce Sultan II Seton Lloyd & J. Mellaart, Beyce Sultan II, London, 1965.
Boethius A. Boethius & J.B. Ward Perkins, Etruscan and Roman
Architecture (Pelikan History of Art), Harmondsworth, 1970.
Callot O. Callot, Presentations des Dcors en Stuc . . .
Salamine in Salamine de Chypre (Colloque CNRS n 578),
Paris, 1980, pp. 34169.
Choisy A. Choisy, LArt de Batir chez Les Romains, Paris, 1873.
Clarke & Engelbach S. Clarke & R. Engelbach, Ancient Egyptian Masonry, Oxford,
1930.
Coghlan H.H. Coghlan, Notes on Prehistoric and Early Iron in the Old
World, Oxford, 1956.
Davies N. Davies, The Tomb of Rekh-mi-re at Thebes, New York,
1943.
Davey N. Davey, A History of Building Materials, London, 1961.
Dayton J. Dayton, Minerals, Metals, Glazing and Man, London, 1978.
Delaine J. Delaine, Structural Experimentation: the . . . tie in
Western Roman Architecture, WA 23, 1990, pp. 40724.
Dinsmoor W.B. Dinsmoor, Structural Iron in Greek Architecture,
A J A XXVI, 1926, pp. 14859.
Dix B. Dix, The Manufacture of Lime and its Uses in the
Western Roman Provinces, O J A 1, 1982, pp. 33045.
xx abbreviations in captions
Durm B d G J. Durm, Die Baukunst der Griechen, Darmstadt, 1892.

Durm B d R J. Durm, Die Baukunst der Etrusker. Die Baukunst der Rmer,
Stuttgart, 1905.
Forbes R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology (3rd Edition), Vols
IIX, Leiden, 1993.
Frankfort H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient (Pelikan
History of Art), Harmondsworth, 1956.
Gibson S. Gibson, Lime kilns in North East Jerusalem, P E Q
July-Dec 1984, pp. 94102.
Gimilsin Temple Frankfort, Jacobsen, Lloyd, The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace
of. . . . Tell Asmar, Chicago, 1940.
Ginouvs R. Ginouvs, Dictionnaire Methodique de lArchitecture Grecque et
Romaine I, II, III, Paris, 198598.
Gleeson A.C. Gleeson, Building Science, London, 1965.
Goodman W.L. Goodman, The History of Woodworking Tools, London,
1964.
Gordion R.S. Young, Gordion I Three Great Early Tumuli, Philadelphia,
1981.
Gorin-Rosen Y. Gorin-Rosen The Ancient Glass Industry in Israel in
M.D. Nenna ed., La Route du Verre, Lyon, 2000.
Healy J.F. Healy, Mining and Metallurgy in the Greek and Roman World,
London, 1978.
Hemker C. Hemker, Alt Orientalische Kanalisation, Munster, 1993.
Hodge A. Trever Hodge, Roman Aqueducts and Water Supply Pipes,
London, 1999.
Homan A. Homan, Konstruiren mit Eisen, B d A, pp. 99106.
J A R C E Journal of the American Research Centre in Egypt.
Jericho III K. Kenyon, Jericho III, London, 1981.
Jordan A. Jordan, Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka 1928/29, U V B
1, 1930, pp. 143.
Kalabsha G.R.H. Wright, Kalabsha, Berlin, 1972.
Kalpaxis Th.E. Kalpaxis, Hemiteles, Mainz, 1986.
Khorsabad G. Loud, Khorsabad I & II, Chicago, 193638. Cf. P.E. Botta
et E. Flandin, Monuments de Ninve, Paris, pp. 1 & 4950.
Killen G. Killen, Ancient Egyptian Furniture, Warminster, 1984.
Koselj T. Koselj, Les Carrires des Epoques Grecque, Romaine
et Byzantine, in J.C. Fant ed., Ancient Marble Quarrying and
Trade (BAR: IS.453), Oxford, 1988.
Koldewy R. Koldewy, The Excavations at Babylon, London, 1914.
Kohl H. Kohl, Kasr Fir"aun in Petra, Leipzig, 1910.
abbreviations in captions xxi
Lamprecht H.O. Lamprecht, Opus Caementitium, Dusseldorf, 1968.

Lanciani B. Lanciani, The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome,
London, 1897.
Lawrence A.W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture (Pelikan History of
Art), Harmondsworth, 1957/73.
Ling R. Ling, Roman Painting, Cambridge, 1991.
Lugli G. Lugli, La Tecnica Edelizia Romana, Rome, 1957.
MDAIK Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archologischen Instituts Abteilung
Kairo.
Mainstone R.J. Mainstone, Hagia Sophia, London, 1988.
Martin R. Martin, Manuel dArchitecture Grecque, Paris, 1965.
McWhirr A.M. McWhirr, Roman Brick and Tile, Oxford, 1979.
Mellaart J. Mellaart, Catal Hyk. A Neolithic Town in Anatolia,
London, 1967.
Middleton J.H. Middleton, The Remains of Ancient Rome, London,
1892.
Newberry P. Newberry, Beni Hasan, London, 1893.
Nicholson & Shaw P.T. Nicholson & I. Shaw, Ancient Egyptian Materials
and Technology, Cambridge, 2000.
Nunn A. Nunn, Die Wandmalerie und der Glasierte Wandschmuck
im alten Orient, Leiden, 1988.
O J A Oxford Journal of Archaeology.
Orlandos A.K. Orlandos, Les Matriaux de Construction et la
Technique Architecturale des Anciens Grecs I & II, Paris,
196668.
Petrie W.M.F. Petrie, Tools and Weapons, London, 1917.
Phelps J.P. Phelps, The Columns of Egypt, Manchester, 2002.
Pierre Eternel M. Walken, ed. Pierre Eternel, Brussels, 1990.
Porta G. Porta, Larchitettura Egizia delle Origini in Legne e
Materiali Leggeri, Milan, 1989.
Robertson D.S. Robertson, Greek and Roman Architecture, Cam-
bridge, 1954.
Sasanidischer Stuckdekor J. Krger, Sasanidischer Stuckdecor, Mainz, 1982.
Sauvage M. Sauvage, La Brique et sa mise en oeuvre en Mesopotamie,
Paris, 1998.
Schlenker B.R. Schlenker, Introduction to Materials Science, Sydney,
1974.
Schumacher G. Schumacher, Tell el Mutesellm I, Leipzig, 1908.
Serlio Serlio (English Ed.) London, 1611. (Third Booke,
Fourth Chapter.)
xxii abbreviations in captions
Singer C. Singer et al. ed., A History of Technology I & II, Oxford,

195456.
Strong & Brown D. Strong and D. Brown ed., Roman Crafts, London, 1976.
Tell Halaf M. von Oppenheim et al., Tell Halaf II, Berlin, 1950.
Tylecote P.F. Tylecote, A History of Metallurgy, London, 1992.
U V B Uruk Vorluger Bericht (Vorluger Bericht ber von der Notgemeinschaft
der Deutsche Wissenschaft in Uruk unternommenen Ausgrabungen).
W A World Archaeology.
Waelkens Bronze Age Quarries . . . in the Eastern Mediterranean and
the Near East in M. Waelkens ed., Ancient Stones, Leuven,
1992.
Wild H. Wild, Le Tombeau de Ti, Cairo, 1966.
W V D O G Wissenschaftliche Verentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft.
INTRODUCTION
The illustrations of ancient building materials assemble here require some

justication. The present volume was originally envisaged to cover analytically
all the aspects of building technology, viz materials, construction, structures;
and illustrating such a volume would have been a more straightforward aair.
Instead the other aspects of building technology were found to require treat-
ment in separate volumes each with its own illustrations. This has raised prob-
lems in choosing the following record. There are two grounds for this: building
material as such is not very graphic; and secondly it is dicult to keep the
subject of the illustrations separate from questions of building construction. The
matter can be stated in a little more detail.
The various building materials have been treated in the text according to a
uniform system: their physical nature and qualities, their provision and manu-
facture, their working, their use in building. Of these aspects the rst two are
indubitably proper to materials as such. However, the nature and qualities of
materials is basically a subject of science (physics and chemistry) and treatment
at this level has been eschewed in the text. Therefore convincing illustration of
the nature and qualities of materials are not easy to nd. It is the second aspect
of the treatment, the provision and manufacture of materials, which is central
to present concerns. Here there is a reasonable choice of material. In the main
this derives from two sourcesarchaeological discovery and ancient represen-
tation. Virtually all this material has been previously published in some con-
nection (albeit ramied and, at times, inaccessible). The manufacture of building
materials gives on to the vital subject of their working: i.e. the techniques of
carpentry, stone dressing, plastering, smithing etc. This again is central to the
subject and the material comes from the same sources of archaeological dis-
covery and ancient representation. Here, also the question of traditional mod-
ern analogy is in issue. It cannot be ignored, but must not be allowed to swamp
the record. The working of building materials, in turn, is involved in their use
in building. The use of materials is without doubt half the scope of this vol-
ume, and there is little diculty in nding illustrations for it: however it is very
dicult to separate it from building construction to be treated in the succeed-
ing volume. Some overlapping in illustration here must be accepted as inevitable.
Given these factors, what of the purpose of this collection of illustrations? In
the rst instance, of course, it is to facilitate the understanding of the text.
However, over and above this a second purpose is to present a pictorial record
xxiv introduction
duly classied and annotated of ancient building materials which might serve
as a ready reference in the eld for those investigating and recording ancient
building remains. The criterion is thus serviceability. The illustrations were cho-
sen for their content not their formi.e. for what they show, not for their
merit as photographs or drawings; and were chosen irrespective of age, famil-
iarity or previous publication.
terminal histories and arthurian solutions 31
ILLUSTRATIONS
60 chapter two
terminal histories and arthurian solutions
1a. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Middle East with inset Assyria.
31
60 chapter two
1b. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Egypt. 1c. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Palestine.
1d. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Greece. 1e. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Italy with Africa.
31
60
chapter two
1f. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Malta and Cyprus. 1g. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Western Europe with inset
Rhineland.
1h. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. British Isles.
1j. Location Map of Sites and Monuments. Central and Eastern Europe.
60 chapter two
2. Diagram of sliced tree trunk sector showing growth development of tree from pith to bark. This indicates
the variation in the nature and quality of wood dependent on its position of origin in the tree.
3. Greatly magnified photograph showing cellular structure of wood, falling into two types: (A) Hardwood;
(B) Softwood. In both types cellulose and lignin are the principal constituents, amounting to ca 80% of the
substance. The true distinction between the two types is a structural one. Wood of type A contains pores (of
large cells constituting vessels). Wood of type B comprises only small cells. The terms hardwood and soft-
wood are too firmly established in general use to be abandoned, however they are not exactly consonant with
the structural distinction. The more exact distinction is pored and non-pored, but this has gained no
general currency. After B.K. Schlenker Introduction to Materials, Science p 13, fig 2.13.
4. Remains of timber wharves at Roman port of Marseilles, Quay of Wine Jars (2nd Cent. AD). NB. The
excellent preservation of the wood because the timbers remained completely saturated over the ages, i.e.
they were water logged.
5. Egyptian wood cutters felling a tree with (copper) axes by notching one side of the trunk and dragging
downwards at the other side. After P. Newberry Beni Hasan I, pl XXIX.
60 chapter two
6. Egyptian wood cutters felling tree by notching and then debarking.
7. Adams illustration of Roman tree felling using cross- 8. Roman lumbermen hauling a log with ropes. The
cut saw and wedges. After Adam, p 93, fig 194. Dendrophoros Roman Relief from Archaeological Museum,
Bordeaux. After Adam, p 95, fig 208.
9. Waterborn transport of massive timbers in Assyrian times. It has been repeatedly argued whether this scene repre-
sents sea or river transport. Part of the timber is shown as deck cargo and part is towed. Relief from Khorsabad. Sargon
II 721705 BC.
10. Conversion of a log. Above, from left to right: Section- 11. Egyptian carpenters converting tree trunk into planks by
ing a log by squaring for a baulk; through and through trimming with axe, then splitting along the grain with wedge
for planks and boards; quartering for planks and and lever instead of sawing. From 6th Dynasty tomb at
boards; Below: Although simple and economic, through Deshashah. After Nicolson and Shaw, p 354, fig 15.18.
and through conversion gives rise to cupping caused
by tangential shrinkage, and requires careful season-
ing. After Adam, p 101, fig 219.
12. Timber working with wooden tools at Flag Fen, East Anglia, 2nd Millenium BC.
60 chapter two
13. Egyptian bronze headed wood working tools from New Kingdom Thebes in the British Museum. Here
are to be seen axe, saws, adzes (all purpose tool and the ancestor of the plane, which had not yet been
invented). Also chisels and borers (augers) of various sorts. Finally as important service auxilliaries (bottom
right), a slate hone and an oil can to go with it in the form of a horn. With this tool kit all joinery operations
were possible. A notable absentee from this collection is any form of hammer.
14. Diagram to show cutting action of saw. The teeth of the ancient saws (below) were all set inclining out-
wards to one side. This gave a relatively narrow kerf or furrow ploughed out in the wood (a). The improved
design of modern saws (above) sets the teeth inclined alternatively to one side and then the other. This gives
a much broader kerf (a), which diminishes the annoyance of the saw blade jamming in the wood.
15. Egyptian sawyers using the pull saw horizontally to cut planks from the long- 16. Roman sawyers sawing up long lengths of timbers with the vertical cut. This
31
est practical timbers. The baulk is tied to a vertical sawing post; and the upper facilitates the cutting up of long planks which is virtually impossible by horizon-
relief shows devices both to stabilise the baulk and to draw the kerf open to tal action of the saw with the timber fixed vertically in the Egyptian manner. A
avoid the saw jamming. From 18th Dyn Theban tombs. After Killen and Killen, further facility is a special saw-pit. Above: Cupids on a painted bowl; below: Rude
p 13, fig 7. stele showing the essential arrangment of vertical sawing with the baulk fixed
horizontally as a horse.
60 chapter two
17. Roman sawyers using a box framed saw to cut up timber

of medium length. The bottom is propped diagonally against
the bench; and the operation can also be carried out solo
(above).
18. Egyptian carpenters using bow drill. The lower

drawing, with added detail below, illustrates how ten-
sion was maintained by hand during operation. Above:
Old Kingdom tomb relief at Saqqara, after Wild Le
Tombeau de Ti pl CLXXIV; below: after Adam, p 103,
fig 227.
20. Egyptian carpenter glueing wood. The stone glue pot

is shown kept heated while the carpenter applies the hot
glue with a brush. The scene probably relates to cabinet
making rather than building but the device was identical
in either connection. After Davies The Tomb of Reck-mi-
re, pl LV.
21. Egyptian carpenters steam bending lengths of timber.

One man holds a piece of wood over a pot of steaming
hot water so that the vapour penetrates and softens the
cellular tissue of the wood. The other bends the length
so treated into a conical profile. The physical basis for
this behaviour in the material is that wood possesses mini-
mal resistance in sheer along the grain. The wood most
19. Roman carpenters tombstone with representation suitable for the purpose available to the Egyptians was elm
of tools including bow drill, and (below) operation of or ash. Such a process is common in making furniture or
drill. carts, but it is also significant in building e.g. as provid-
ing wooden ribs to support light vaulted roofing. Middle
Kingdom tomb painting at Beni Hassan. After Newberry
Beni Hasan II, pl VII.
22. Reconstructed Roman planes. Above: from Silchester

in Britain; below: from Saalburg on German Frontier. Af-
ter Goodman p 48, fig 47.
60 chapter two
23. Simple joints used in Antiquity for fixing together wooden members. As a general rule during most of
antiquity woodwork was not fixed together by using nailing or screws. Unwrought rounded sections were
lashed together and squared up timber was fixed by joints (mortoise and tenons, dowels, pegs etc). Thus in
technical terms the work was joinery not carpentry. Only in Roman times nailing became prevalent with the
great increase in the supply of wrought iron and the endemic demand occasioned by concrete shuttering.
24. Original wooden framed construction. The earliest enclosure of space was by wooden framing using
natural material Late Palaeolithic ca 2500 BC at Gunnersdorf, Rhineland. Poles of saplings and boughs
were cut and trimmed and fixed by lashing to build a frame. The cladding varied according to region from
hides (as here) to mud plastered branchage etc. Drawing by L. Pacher.
25. Substantial round house from unwrought wooden poles and ribbing lashed together. Bronze Age, 2nd
Millenium BC, East Anglia fen country. At the site of Flag Fen near Peterborough UK the all timber
construction has been astonishingly well preserved in the waterlogged ground. The technology of the
timber work has been closely studied, and in some instances re-created exactly. Most determinate stresses
in this construction are probably tensile, for which the slight timber sections are appropriate. The roofing
was thatched. This type of building represents a semi-monumental development of mans primal shelter
of brushwood and reeds.
60 chapter two
26. Enduring timber framed construction of Northern Europe evidenced in plan by post-holes.
A. Neolithic at Sittard, Netherlands. 5th Millenium BC.
B. Iron Age, Hallstat Culture at Goldberg, South Germany. 7th6th Cent. BC.
31
60 chapter two
C. Celtic oppidum of Bibracte, France. 1st Cent BC.
27. Plan and reconstructed elevations of a timber framed long house at Kln Lindenthal. Neolithic,
5th Millenium BC. This is the essential type of building which survived throughout antiquity in the wooded
regions of Northern Europe. After Singer, fig 198.
28. Iron Age Village at Biskupin near Poznan, Poland. ca 700 BC400 BC. Fanciful reconstruction of a site as
fortified settlement in bog or fenland. Subsequent inundation has preserved timbers. Individual dwellings
are shown set end to end to constitute Long Houses. A peripheral arterial road ran around the inside of the
palisage and the long houses were served by lanes. The houses are all of similar construction wooden
framing with horizontal board panelling. After Singer, fig 211.
30. Type of squared timber framing with wattle and

daub panelling achieved in Roman times. a. wrought
timber framing; b. wattling (i.e. interlaced withies);
c. mud plaster daubing. Roman construction of this
nature has been well preserved from e.g. Hercula-
29. Enduring type of timber framed construction neum, and the construction has remained current
with wattle and daub panelling. Above: Iron age; down to modern times (known variously as half tim-
below: Romano-British. bered, Fachwerke etc). After Davy, fig 30.
60 chapter two
32. Traditional flat mud terrace roof construc-

tion. From the introduction of load bearing mud
and rubble walling (later neolithic times) non
monumental roofing has maintained the same
traditional construction of a thick bed of com-
pacted earth set over reeds etc or matting etc
supported on unhewn logs etc. Some variant
details are: 1. Middle Helladic House at Eutresis:
31. Load bearing timber construction. Phrygian tumulus for child (a) logs of unknown specifications; (b) 6-8 cms
burial. Gordion, ca 700 BC. The sizeable tomb chamber (15m2) is, poles; (c) 8 cm clay; (d) reeds; (e) 7 cms clay.
as in other Gordion tumuli, of wood. Here massive square baulks 2. New Kingdom Egyptian: (a) relatively slight
of black pine, some up to 6m in length. To support the but close set logs i.e. at ca 20-30 cm centres;
superincumbent burden of the tumulus the chamber is not a framed (b) long straight sticks very closely set; (c) reeds
construction but is built solid of load bearing timbers laid horizon- or palm branches continuous; (d) 10-25 cms
tally i.e. log cabin style. The ceiling and the floor are also of heavy mud. 3. Modern Lebanese Village Housing: (a)
timber and there is an additional oversailing roof. This is an excel- 10-20 cms timbers set at 20-40 cms intervals;
lent device statically since these upper roof timbers are not sup- (b) reeds or branches; (c) 5 cms thornbush in
ported by the wall and ceiling timber of the chamber but by the moist earth; (d) 20-45 cms dry earth; (e) 4 cms
tumulus fill around it i.e. they form an independent structure, a stone chips; (f) 2 cms lime-chaff screed. After
table over the tumulus chamber. After Gordion I. ABSP, fig 362.
33. Classical timber roofing. The gabled roofs of monumental Greek and Roman
building were formed out of wooden frames composed of heavy square timber baulks.
In pinciple these frames were constructed according to two designs. Historically the
first and the simplest was simply a massive timber beam spanning from wall to wall
which bore short vertical timber props to support the ridge beam and the purlins on
which the common rafters rested. This system is generally called the bearer beam
system (beam and prop) and is only as strong as the resistance in bending of the
bearer beam. It is the system employed in Greece down to ca 400 BC. However an
alternative system is available devolving from an understanding of statics that of the
truss. The triangle is a form which can not distort piecemeal, since one side can not
change in length without the other sides likewise being affected. Thus if the roof
frame is formed of units rigidly connected together in the form of a triangle (or
rather a triangle subdivided into several internal triangles), its strength is much greater
than the strength of any individual member all the members being tied together,
or trussed up. It is now accepted that the principle of the truss was commonly
understood from Hellenistic times onward and perhaps much earlier in Southern
Italy and Sicily.
60 chapter two
34. Middle and Late Bronze Age remains of mud brick on rubble foundation profusely inset with timber
(unwrought logs) at Beyce Sultan on the upper Meander River in Western Anatolia. Whether this timbering
constitutes tensile reinforcement of the mud brick masonry or amounts to a framed structure probably
varies from instance to instance. A = schematic reconstruction of the structure to smaller scale.
35. Reconstructed detail of timber reinforcing 36. Wood reinforcing and consolidation of mud brick struc-
in rubble and mud brick walls. Beyce Sultan, ture. Here as a device for better fixing car ved stone
Western Anatolia. Middle and Late Bronze orthostates constituting a decorative socle. Syro-Hittite build-
Age. The basic wall construction of mud brick ing at Tell Halaf. After Tell Halaf II, fig 40.
on a rubble socle is here profusely inset with
timber posts and stringer beams. This device supplies tensile reinforcing to the structure, i.e. it renders it
elastic and much more resilient to tensile stresses occasioned by, e.g. earthquakes. Whether it amounts to a
fully framed construction is not certain because of the incomplete preservation of the wall. After S. Lloyd
Beyce Sultan II, fig 45.
37. Wood (sycamore) cramp in stone masonry of the Temple of Kalabsha, Lower Nubia. 1st Cent. AD. Dove
tail emplacements for cramps were cut in all the stone blocks, yet almost all these were found empty when
the temple was dismantled in 1961-62. On occasion however (as here) wooden cramps were found properly
lodged in the cuttings. The explanation for this seeming vagary is not evident. In spite of the late date such
cramps as survived in normal wall blocks were wooden and their form (and that of the cramp hole) was true
curvilinear dovetail. After Kalabsha, fig 92.
38. Wood fittings and installations. Herculaneum. 1st Cent AD. Both the carpenty and the use of wood were
identical in Roman times with traditional modern European construction. The particular circumstances of
the destruction at Herculaneum caused by the eruption of Vesuvius were such that much woodwork was
preserved or could be reproduced in facsimile from negative impression. This illustrates the range of use of
wood from structural wall framing, flooring and ceiling to screens, grilles, balustrades, doors, windows, etc.
Photo J-P Adam CNRS.
60 chapter two
39. Durms sketch to illustrate a proposed early stage in the evolution of the ashlar stone Greek Temple from an
original timber and mud-brick construction. Here a mixed construction is shown, viz stone columns and roofing of
terra cotta tiles on a lime bedding. There is little direct evidence for such transitional buildings. After Durm B d G,
fig 87.
40. Durms sketch of Doric Entablature illustrating thesis of evolution of later ashlar stone temple from an original
wood and mud-brick construction. NB. There is no consonance in the stone temple between the triglyphs and any
beams as postulated for the wooden original.
41. Durms sketch of hypothetical wooden construction (right) proposed as the origin of Ionic entablature in
later stone temple (left).
42. Rural wooden pavilion in Classical Greece. The painted decoration of this black figure hydria (510 BC)
shows a simple wooden shelter as a krene (fountain house, shower bath) with the form of a pedimental
facade. Such a construction has nothing to do with the historical evolution of the classical Greek orders at
that time expressed in ashlar masonry.
60 chapter two
44. The primaeval bird cage shelter as built today

by semi-nomadic peasants in Greece. The pliable
light branches afford the beehive form which en-
closes living space with the greatest economy. Where
fastening is required, it is furnished by tieing, but
the form is largely secured by skilful plaiting together
of the members (cf wickerwork). Any determinate
stresses are tensile. After Davy, Pl XIX.
43. Sketches illustrating the origin of Lycian tombs constructed

in fine stone masonry (above) in earlier heavy wooden framed 45. African scene from Romano-Nubian site of
buildings themselves influenced by ship building. After Durm Karanog (2nd Cent AD) showing typical round hut
B d G, fig 86. of plants, e.g. reeds. After Porta, pl XXVIII.
46. Imposing contemporary round house from pliable material (branches, reeds, matting etc) from Red Sea
coast of Yemen.
47. Building with pliable material (reeds). Very substantial structures can be made entirely from reeds. Mod-
ern survivals of this generalised practice are the reed dwellings of the marsh Arabs of South Iraq the
famous Madans which are of a quite monumental scale sometimes as long as a cricket pitch. They are framed
structures the rib arches of bundled reeds standing some 5m high and nearly 1m in diameter at base are set
at intervals of ca 2m. These reed bundles are lashed around with enormous amounts of rope. The horizontal
members are slighter bundles of reeds (ca 25 cms in diameter) set at each of the arch lashings. The cladding
is reed matting which can be turned up at ground level for ventilation. After Davey, fig 33.
60 chapter two
48. Simplified Cycle of Rock Formation and Destruction. 1. Formation of Igneous rocks; 2. Formation of Sedimentary
rocks; 3. Formation of Metamorphic rocks: A. Outcropping (and weathering) of igneous rocks; B. Outcropping (and
weathering) of sedimentary rocks; C. Outcropping (and weathering) of metamorphic rocks. This simple diagram indi-
cates only the distinction between the three types of rock: igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic. It does not explain
differences between rocks of the same group. Igneous rocks are formed when molten matter (magma) arrives in a
position where the temperature and pressure is such that it cools and solidifies. These rocks are in general harder and
denser, thus stronger and more durable, than others. In broad terms the nature of the individual ignous rock depends
on the related questions of the mineral composition of the molten matter and the circumstance of cooling. When this
occurs at great depth (involving high temperature and high pressure) the rock is termed plutonic or abyssal, and the
slow cooling tends to produce rocks with highly developed large crystals in structure. Rocks of this nature commonly
used in ancient building are e.g. Granite, Diorite. In various ways molten material may move upwards into higher
positions within the earth. This often takes place by the material penetrating into rifts and fissures (dykes, where
vertical; sills, where horizontal). They are thus called intrusive rocks or hypabyssal rocks. Here the temperature and
pressure are not as high and thus cooling can take place more rapidly. This produces rocks where the ground mass is of
finer grain (smaller crystals). Rocks of this nature used in ancient building are e.g. Porphyry, Dolerite. Finally molten
material may be blown out or poured out onto the surface of the earth (or the sea bed) by volcanic action, so that the
resultant rocks are called volcanic or extrusive rocks. Here cooling is very rapid so that the rock formed can be acrystalline
and glassy (hyaline) in appearance, sometimes with virtually no recognisable grain at all. Rocks of this type used in
ancient building are e.g. Basalt, Pumice (because of its extreme lightness used in vaulting). Sedimentary rocks are
always formed at surface level and from pre-existing rocks outcropping at surface level. Thus they can be considered as
of secondary formation. Rock outcrops of any type (igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic) are eroded by weather-
ing (both mechanically and chemically) and the resultant detritus (sediment) transported and eventually deposited in
a hollow, low lying area, generally (but not exclusively) below water (sea or lake). Characteristically this action results in
recognisable beds and stratified formation. The nature of individual sedimentary rock is determined by the composi-
tion of the original rock source together with the circumstances of the deposition of the sediments. Thus e.g. lime-
stones are formed from the detritus of rocks rich in calcium and sandstones are formed from the detritus of rocks rich
in silica. Breccias are formed when the detritus is deposited in large angular fragments (and is often deposited on
land). Gypsum is formed where the sediments are deposited in shallow waters exposed to high temperature so that
strong evaporation takes place. Metamorphic rocks are produced when any pre-existing rock is by earth movements
again made subject to conditions of heat and pressure so that its mineralogical composition and structure are altered.
The nature of individual metamorphic rocks thus depend on their original composition together with the circum-
stances (i.e. heat and pressure) which changed them. The salient change in structure is generally crystallisation or
recrystallisation. Examples used in ancient building are e.g. marble, a hard crystallised stone from limestone;quartzite,
a dense hard crystalline stone formed from quartz sandstones; gneiss, a coarsely banded stone derived from granite or
sandstones. The surface outcropping of different rock is the result of earth movements and subsequent erosion and is
shown on a geological plan. The vertical succession of different rocks is the result of repeated cycles of earth move-
ments and subsequent erosion and is shown on a geological section. Behind these statements of individual circum-
stances are more fundamental considerations governing earth movements. This is the subject of earth tectonics, a
development of modern geology (cf continental drift, plate tectonics).
49. Repairs to defects in the aspect of Egyptian fine stone masonry by piecing. Pyramid of Amenemhet III,
Dahshur, Middle Kingdom. Cutting out defects in finely dressed stone masonry to give an orthogonal em-
placement sufficiently large to dress and insert a corresponding piece of stone has always remained the
superior method of repair. An inferior method is to fill in and flush up the blemish with plaster. This likewise
was practised in Egypt and has always remained current. After Arnold, fig 5.36.
50. Details of piecing repairs to Egyptian fine stone masonry. Pyramid of Amenemhet III at Dahshur. Middle
Kingdom. After Arnold, fig 5.33.
60 chapter two
51. Jericho 8th millenium BC Pre-pottery Neolithic. A terrace wall by fosse at base of mound, probably the
earliest massive stone construction known. It is possible that some of these boulders were spoil from the rock
cut fosse.
52. Rubble foundations to mud brick house walls. North Iran. 6th Millenium BC.
53. Megalithic Building. Above: Megaliths as commonly surviving. A chamber tomb at Ess (Brittany). 2nd
Millenium BC. The construction gives a false impression that the masonry was exposed. However all such
features were originally heaped over with earth to constitute a barrow. They were thus, in effect, artificial
caves or grottoes. Below: Reconstructed drawing of a megalithic chambered tomb at West Kennet, Wiltshire,
England. Mid third Millenium BC. This indicates the original disposition of megalithic masonry inside a
covering mound of earth (the barrow). After Stuart Piggot.
60 chapter two
54. Early dry stone walling. Below: Byblos 4th millenium BC; above: Troy early 3rd millenium BC. This herring
bone rubble is approximately the same date as the use of plano-convex bricks in Mesopotamia, and demon-
strates the affinities of modelled mud brick with field stones.
55. Cyclopean Masonry. Large rudely shaped boulders chinked with smaller stones. Mycenaean wall on the
Acropolis at Athens. After Orlandos II, fig 181.
56A. Neolithic flint mining at Grimes Graves (S.E.

England ca 4000 BC). Left: schematic plan of main
shaft and galleries hewn out by antler picks; right: sche-
matic section (to larger scale) of main shaft and open-
ing to gallery. After Forbes VII, figs 5, 6.
56B. Simplified section of open cut flint mining and shafts at Spiennes, Belgium. After Forbes VII, p 118,
fig 3.
57. Rock outcrops at Preseli Mountains, S.W. Wales showing partly exfoliated rock. This is the source of the
Blue stones at Stonehenge and it suggests that megaliths often may have been detached from such rock
formations.
60 chapter two
58. Neolithic quarrying for megaliths.

The tradition of building with large units
of rude stone current in Western Europe
(the Western Mediterranean and the
Atlantic Coast) during the 5th, 4th and
3rd millenia BC comprehended more
variety in material form than the slabs
characteristic of dolmens. However the
profusion of megalithic building is such
that no matter what form the large units
took, they could not all be found lying
detached on the surface. On the other
hand to quarry out such units from bed
rock with stone mauls and pounders has
little verisimilitude. Clearly the material
was obtained where formations of rock
were exposed naturally fissured or weath-
ered so that units could be detached and
levered away. One site where these cir-
cumstances remain apparent is Filitosa
in Corsica, where a large Neolithic settle-
ment has grown up about such rock for-
mations (above). These are so deeply fis-
sured that at times it is difficult to distin-
guish between nature and artifice (left).
59. Deeply weathered granite outcrops at Aswan known as Woolsacks. Much of the granite quarrying both ancient and
modern at Aswan has been carried out on these massive boulders.
60. Basalt beds near Tilmen Hyk in Southern Turkey naturally eroded so as to constitute pre-quarried blocks. Such
formations encouraged Neolithic mans first approaches to quarrying, and were exploited in all subsequent ages. After
M. Waelkens, fig 24.
60 chapter two
61. Further working of basalt blocks obtained from boulders weathered out of beds. Left: hammer dressing of large
boulder in quarries near Yesemek; right: fine dressing of eroded blocks from beds near Tilmen Hyk. After Waelkens,
figs 25, 26.
62. Surface limestone quarries at Beni Hassan in Egypt. After Clarke and Engelbach, fig 8.
63. Underground limestone quarries at Maasera in Egypt. Above: Entrance to underground galleries. NB the
figure standing on the heap of quarry waste in front of middle entrance; below: Quarry face at end of a
gallery. NB. Topmost register cut to waste to enable crouching quarryman to cut separating trench at rear
for extraction of another range of blocks. After Clarke and Engelbach, figs 9 & 11.
60 chapter two
64. The top of a quarry face in underground gallery at Maasera Quarries showing register cut to waste
immediately below ceiling for quarryman to start separating trench at the rear to win a new range of blocks
as indicated in diagram on the right. After Clarke and Engelbach, fig 10, and drawing by D. Arnold.
65. Enormous underground sandstone quarry of Middle Kingdom date at Gebel Silsila in Egypt, cf human
figure standing near left margin.
66. Egyptian method of quarrying large blocks of granite by pounding out separating channels with balls of dolerite (a
harder stone than granite). When the necessary depth was attained the desired block was undercut to the necessary
degree to permit it being split off from its bed by levering it in some way. The triangular marks on the side of the trench
are those made by overseers to check the progress of the work.
67. Sketches showing traditional quarrying processes for detaching blocks from bed rock. Left: Separating block. Sketch
of traditional quarryman in modern Cyprus ca 1900 AD. The quarryman is excavating the separation channel with pick
axe. These channels are cut sufficiently wide to work with one foot (leg) inside the channel and he adjusts the position
of the other leg according to the depth reached by the channel. Right: Freeing blocks. The block to be extracted (1) is
separated from the bed rock about it by cutting separation channels (2) in the rock to the required depth. Two
proceedures for freeing the block from its bed were current in the Graeco-Roman world. The more common was the
use of wedges (3). These could be of iron (for hard stone, e.g. marble) or of hard wood for softer stone (e.g. limestone).
Discrete cuttings were made for the insertion of these wedges (4) in rows along the inner margins of the separating
trenches, preferably at a cleavage plane in the rock. They were then tapped in order and the block split off from its bed
on an even plane. An alternative method practiced in archaic times was to drive a massive chisel or jumping iron (5)
into the rock at the desired bed to induce the fission by a close series of incisions (6) leaving a new surface of bed rock
(7) ready for further extraction of blocks. After Koselj, pl 38.
60 chapter two
68. Residual bed of quarried out blocks. Persepolis, ca 500 BC. At the bottom of two separating channels
appear the cuttings for the insertion of wooden wedges to free the separated blocks. After Waelkens, p 78,
fig 4.
69. Some principal Egyptian quarries supplying

stone to all parts of the land. Quarries such as
these were operated by the central administra-
tion of Egypt (i.e. they were the possession of
the Pharoahs) and the stone was transported to
any part of Egypt where it was required. When
Egypt became an Imperial Province of Rome,
these quarries came into the possession of the
Roman Emperor and were administered by his
agents to supply stone for imperial building
projects to any part of the Roman Empire.
70. Some Imperial Quarries of the Roman Empire. The continued building boom under the Empire both in luxury
domestic building and in public building evoked a inexhaustible demand for first grade quarry stone. Accordingly to
rationalise the supply under Tiberius the major quarries throughout the Empire were sequestered. Thereafter these
quarries were administered by the Emperors agents (generally freedmen) so that great stocks of quarry stone and
draughted out elements were built up ready for transport to the most distant locations (e.g. from Aswan to Rome). It is
very possible that this generalised measure was influenced by the particular experience of administering the former
quarries of the Pharoahs in Egypt.
60 chapter two
71. Imperial Roman exploitation of Egyptian granite/granodiorite quarries at Mons Claudianus in the Eastern Desert.
The Roman government used these quarries to extract giant monolithic column shafts which were transported from
this wild remote region near the Red Sea to many distant parts of the Empire (NB the journey from the quarry to the
Nile was ca 80 miles across rugged terrain). Such shafts are of the order of 4050 (ca 15m). Numbers were finely
dressed at the quarry as is attested by examples abandoned and still remaining in the quarry (left). Well known instances
of the use of such monoliths are the 40 columns of the Pantheon in Rome (right).
72. Orlandos reconstructed drawing illustrating controlled descent on sled 73. Transport of heavy blocks by sled in Ancient Egypt. Below: Transport of
of blocks from mountain quarry (in Attica) via a slip way. The descent of the blocks of limestone on sled drawn by 3 yoke of oxen (Early New Kingdom
31
sled is braked by ropes passed around bollards set into the bed rock beside rock relief from Maasera); middle: Actual wooden sled found at the pyramid
the slip way. The ropes are paid out by hand to effect the trajectory from one complex of Senewasoret III at Dashur, length of sled 4.2m (Middle Kingdom);
pair of bollards to the succeeding pair. above: Reconstructed drawing of draughted out colossus secured for transport
on sled. Length of sled ca 9m. After Arnold, figs 6.25, 35, 38.
60 chapter two
74. Haulage by man power of outsize blocks of stone amounting to e.g. 50100 tons burden under the Late Assyrian
Empire. These reliefs from Khorsabad show the transport overland of winged bulls to flank the entrances of palace
apartments. The stone figures are mounted on very strong wooden sleds which are hauled by long teams of men
tallying on to a number of ropes their traction being approximately 3 men to a ton. This traction is supplemented by
levering from behind with a great timber baulk. The leverage acts as a starter to overcome static friction, and continues
so as to maintain the momentum for as long as possible. The whole process is facilitated by laying a firm level trackway
(with pieces of timber) which is greased or moistened, again to minimise friction.
75. Wheeled transport of long heavy blocks (e.g. columns, architraves) from quarry to building site in Greece.
Orlandos reconstruction of probable wooden carriage for use at Eleusis. This scheme is based on the neces-
sity for avoiding broadside transport of the block which would require the construction of a very broad
carriageway. Accordingly the heavy blocks were extended lengthways (as a chassis) from axle to axle, or
suspended beneath a timber beam so arranged. The problem remains that the axles are heavily loaded, and
there is a limit to the axle loading of any vehicule. After Orlandos II, fig 13.
76. Wheeled transport of heavy blocks from quarry to building site according to Vitruvius (X, 2, 1112) using
the block itself as axle. This avoids the problem of overloading the axles. However it requires the transport of
the block broadside with an attendent wide carriageway. Also there is the question of keeping such a contrap-
tion on the required course. Vitruvius refers to the device as the scheme of Kersiphron and Metagenes for
the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, noting that the distance traversed must be short (because of the broad
carriageway required). He states that the wheels were set at the extremities of the blocks (v below). However
residual traces on blocks suggested that in Sicily and South Italy the wheels were inset from the ends (v above
left). This would lessen the breadth of the carriageway required. After Orlandos II, figs 1012.
60
77. Transport of stone by Nile in Egypt. A giant obelisk of Queen Hatshepsut (shown stippled) is conveyed by barge from the quarry to its destined site for
erection. The obelisk shown is in fact one of a pair loaded on the barge. NB. The drawing suggests that the obelisk was finely dressed at the quarry ready for
erection. From a relief at the Temple of Deir el Bahari. After Clarke and Engelbach, fig 39.
chapter two
78. Transport from Greek quarries of massive stone blocks by water slung between two barges yoked together (termed amphiprymnoi) so that the weight of the
stone is reduced by the pressure of the water. After Orlandos II, fig 14.
80. The process of fine dressing a block of masonry. (1) Roughly squared block, e.g. shaped by hammer; (2)
Face of operation selected and line A-B marked on face of reference demarcating desired plane; (3) Marginal
draught cut on face of operation according to line marked; (4) Marginal draught on face of operation tested
for true plane by application of straight edge; (5) Line marked on opposite face of reference CD parallel to
79. A traditional stone porter in early 20th Cen- marginal draught, effected by sighting two straight edges in parallel; (6) Second marginal draught cut on face
31
tury Palestine carrying strapped on his shoulders of operation; (7) The two marginal draughts tested to be co-planar by sighting two straight edges in parallel; (8)
a block of stone ca 400 kgs in weight. It is interest- The four angles of the block are now co-planar and a line DA marked on the third plane of reference demar-
ing to note that this burden would comprehend cates the third marginal draught on the plane of operation; (9) The third (and fourth) marginal draughts on
the majority of wall blocks in classical ashlar ma- the plane of operation can be cut leaving a central boss which can be dressed away at will. The other faces of the
sonry. block can be marked by applying a masons square to the plane established on the face of operation.
60 chapter two
81. Preliminary dressing of columns (drums, frustra, monoliths)

to incorporate diminution and entasis. Although in modern times,
and also perhaps in much of later antiquity, columns were turned
on a lathe, the method shown here is that in accordance with the
basic principles of stone dressing. Above: Adjacent marginal
draughts are worked along one long axis in two faces of the roughly
squared block (A-B), and the two bed joints are worked square
with these draughts by application of the masons square; middle:
The central axis (C) is established by correctly superposed qua- 82. Geometry of the hemispherical dome. Top:
drantal diameters on upper and lower beds(X-X , Y-Y and X-X, Simple hemispherical dome on continuous pen-
Y-Y); below: The roughly squared block is reduced to cylindrical dentives (saucer dome); bottom: Separate hemi-
form by removing successive tangential chamfers, thus transfer- spherical dome set to rise above pendentives. R =
ring the square section into ever increasing polyhedral forms radius of curvature for pendentives and continu-
i.e. square to octagon and so on. The final vertical profile of the ous dome; r = radius of curvature for separate hemi-
column incorporating entasis is worked by applying a wooden spherical dome above pendentives; P = pendentive;
template with the required curve to the face of each tangential H = additional height with separate dome above
chamfer. pendentives.
83. Detail of an ashlar hemispherical dome. The setting

out required to cut a voussoir (more correctly vousson)
out of an orthogonal stone block. The required vousson is
essentially wedge shaped i.e. a pyramid frustrum. The
bed joints and the rising joints are plane surfaces which
splay apart to the exterior: i.e. the rising joints are not par-
allel to each other and the bed joints are not parallel to
each other, thus the bed joints and the adjacent rising joint
are not set at right angles to one another. The inner and
outer faces of the vousson are not plane surfaces but are
each curved in two planes i.e. they are parts of the sur-
faces of spheres (which are not concentric). The straight 84. Egyptian masons boning rods (more sensibly here bon-
edge and masons square are not adequate controls to dress ing pins). This is a small scale version of the device still in
such blocks. Special templates (in the form of arcs) are use to control the profile of ditches and drains, hence the
necessary for the faces, and trisquares set at angles other term rods. A line of reference is established clear of the
than 90 are necessary to adjust the rising joints and the desired surface by setting up two rods of equal height, one
bed joints (i.e. to give the bevels). Also be it noted, no at either extremity of the run, and stretching a line be-
surface is set either horizontally or vertically. Classical tween them. Then a third rod of the same height is ap-
Greek knowledge of solid geometry was quite adequate to plied to measure downwards from this line. The required
these demands, and from the Christian era onwards this profile is given when the top of the third rod touches the
setting out and fine dressing was common place routine line exactly as the two rods at the extremities. If the top of
work. However to all intents no more complicated the third rod projects above the line, then the surface is
stereotomy was required during antiquity. In effect truly too high and must be further reduced. Above: Diagram of
complicated stereotomy did not enter into the masons boning rods to show principle of operation; middle: Surviv-
craft until Renaissance and Baroque times. Perhaps only ing set of ancient boning rods from temple of Deir el
arch headed windows at the base of a dome (e.g. as at Ayia Bahari; below: Mural scene showing stone mason dressing
Sophia) entailed additional detailing involving the prob- away surface of block according to control by boring. Af-
lems of penetration. ter Arnold, pass.
60 chapter two
86. Egyptian stone masons mallet. The un-

expected form of the wooden mallet to lay
eyes indicates that the function of a masons
mallet is different from that of a carpenters
hammer. It is not the force of the individual
blow which is significant, but rythmical rep-
etition. Sometimes this must be kept up when
the masons attention is directed elsewhere.
It is thus important that the tools can be
struck without danger of damaging the
masons hand or fingers holding them. This
type of mallet often appears in ancient rep-
85. Egyptian stone dressing in practice. Above: Mason resentation of stone dressing. After Arnold,
roughing out stone surface with chisel (and mallet); p 265, fig 6.18.
middle: Mason trueing up face with mallet and chisel,
as controlled by boning; below: Mason finely dressing
face (finishing) by tapping chisel with his fist, controlled
by stretching cord against surface. A second mason be-
gins roughing out another surface. Rearranged scenes
from Tomb of Rekhmere. After Newberr y,
pl XX.
87. Egyptians Masons tools of stone. a. Limestone axeheads from Qurna.18th Dynasty; b. Quartzite axe with
original handle. Late Period. 22nd26th Dynasty; c. Gabbro Hammer head. Lisht. Middle and New King-
dom; d. Sculptor dressing stone with stone hammer. Tomb of Ti. New Kingdom; e. Dolerite Pounders ca 15
30 cms diam, weight 47 kilograms. These are present at most construction sites of Old and Middle King-
dom.
60 chapter two
88. Traditional stone masons tools of the striking percussion type (from Cyprus). These double headed
striking tools are multi-functinal and would constitute virtually all purpose tools for stone dressing. (a)
Adze-pick; (b) Adze-hammer; (c) Adze-axe; (d) Axe-hammer.
89. Graeco-Roman stone masons tools, striking percussion type, as represented on stelai etc. NB. From the
simple line drawings published of often rude reliefs it is sometimes difficult to be certain of the exact nature
of the tool, although the general nature is clear.1. Double hammer; 2. Hammer-axe; 3. Hammer-axe;
4. Hammer-axe; 5. Hammer-pick or hammer-adze; 6. Double (quarrymans) pick; 7. Double adze; 8. Double
axe; 9. Double axe. After Orlandos II, figs 5158. Masons everywhere at all times have used percussion tools
of both the striking and the struck form. One form may be more suited to a certain type of stone than the
other (e.g. struck tools for hard stones and striking tools for softer stones). However it is evident that masons
in certain regions had an overall preference for either the striking or the struck form, e.g. Egyptian and
Greek masons preferred the chisel etc, while Roman and Anatolian masons preferred the axe, adze etc.,
thereby establishing several different schools of masonry. This is a far reaching subject which as yet has
received little detailed study.
90. Struck (percussion) tools showing their use and characteristic tool marks. 1. The
punch (point, broach). The characteristic pock-marked dressing of this tool is

unmistakeable. It constitutes a rough preliminary dressing to be fair faced by some
other tooling (e.g. a chisel); 2. Masons chisel with (below) diagram of its use for facing
blocks. The process consists of first cutting marginal draughts to establish a true plane,
followed by diagonal dressing of residual boss; 3. The toothed or claw chisel. The facing
process is first to cut the marginal draughts with a normal chisel, followed by diagonal
dressing away of the boss with the claw chisel. After A B C II, fig 216.
91. The masons axe. A striking (percussion) tool capable of all purpose
dressing except at margins where the preliminary marginal draught is best worked by a chisel. 1. The axe head; 2. Sketch showing striking angle of axe; 3. Oblique
31
sketch showing swing of axe leaving tooling marks of characteristic arch form; 4. Process of facing blocks with axe showing chiselled marginal draughts (a). Also
chevron like tooling with alternate attack from different positions (m & n); 5. Rationale of chiselled marginal draughts:axing up to undraughted margin (A) results
in spoiling arris by chipping (x). Whereas axing up to chiselled margin leaves arris undamaged (B); 6. Sectional detail of (5). Block A lacking preliminary marginal
draught with consequent chipping at arris (x). Block B with chiselled marginal draughts (a) showing axe approaching margins without danger of chipping. After
A B C, fig 219.
60 chapter two
92. Reconstruction of Large Dragsaw used in Old Kingdom (4th Dynasty) Egypt. This mechanism is based
entirely on the evidence of tooling marks on some blocks. According to scientific analysis, its performance
would have been very efficient. Petrie considered the saw to have been much used in Egyptian stone dress-
ing. However the special application of this device would seem to have been in preparing paving slabs or
roofing slabs. After JARCE 1991, pp 13948.
93. Sawn fine jointing. The masonry shown here is a type of (Roman) bastard ashlar where the jointing is
fine only at the face and splays apart immediately. The close jointing at the face is enhanced by sawing down
the rising joints after setting, to bring the adjacent stone more closely aligned. After Kanellopoulos.
94. Egyptian drill for stone working. Relief from Temple at Abusir, Old Kingdom, Vth Dynasty. This appara-
tus could drill the hardest rock. The drill shaft was fastened to an eccentric rotator, further weighted down by
two hanging weights;the combination promoting the generation of centrifugal force. The workman used
both hands to operate the drill one to turn the handle and the other to set the weights spinning. Much use
was made of drilling to hollow out sunken areas of stone. After Clarke and Engelbach, fig 246.
95. Roman sculptor/mason using drill. Funerary stele. Cemetery of St Helena Rome. The drill became ever
more and more prominent during Roman and Byzantine times for carving architectural ornament in stone.
Details were sharply and deeply undercut to give a chiaroscuro effect. After Adam, fig 74.
60 chapter two
96. Schematic reconstruction of a lathe for turning column drums. No convincing representation of a lathe is known
from Antiquity. However Pliny (NH 36, 90) certainly refers to this device. He states that it was invented (introduced) by
Theodoros the architect for the Second Heraion at Samos (ca 525 BC). This is of interest since the Samian form of the
Ionic base with its horizontal channeling (which occurs in this temple) virtually proclaims that it was turned on a lathe.
A good summary of the evident use of the lathe in Graeco-Roman building is given in J-C Bessac, pp 25961. After
B d A pp 18283, fig 8.
97. Egyptian Pharaonic Masonry in situ dessing. New Kingdom. A. Small Temple of Amenophis III at El
Kab, ca 1400 BC; B. Temple of Ramses II at Abydos, ca 1250 BC; C. Temple of Seti I at Abydos, ca 1300 BC.
These specimen elevations of Pharaonic masonry show stepped (i.e. broken) coursing and joints inclined
out of the horizontal or vertical and not of rectangular disposition. A. is of interest in that the masonry
blocks are not overly large, i.e. the system of in situ dressing is not necessarily confined to very massive
construction. C. is of interest on an ancilliary account, viz the eventual visibility of the system of jointing
which, to us, appears untoward. Here the building is fully finished including the painted relief decoration of
the walls. This decoration was clearly not conditioned by the disposition of the jointing (although it has been
observed that possibly efforts were made to avoid a joint passing across the face of a god). In this connection
supervenes the question of plastering as grounds for the painting. This would avoid all embarassement
arising from exposed jointing and at the same time provide better grounds for the paint. It is difficult to
obtain a clear understanding of the Egyptian practice in general, but it is stated that traces of plastering
survived here.
60 chapter two
98. Egyptian Pharaonic masonry in situ dressing. Roman period. The Temple of Mandoulis at Kalabsha in
Lower Nubia was erected during the first century AD, designed and constructed as a traditional Pharaonic
temple. Perhaps partly due to Greek influence the massive blocks were regularly coursed with continuous
horizontal beds. However the blocks were not regularly orthogonal and many rising joints were oblique both
in plan and elevation. Moreover in critical positions very large blocks were set roughly hewn to be dressed
into their final form in situ. The huge block at architrave level of the hypostyle hall shown stippled was
designed to stabilise the S.E. angle of the structure by virtue of its dead weight. As set it was of the order of 4m
x 1.75m x 1.25m and extended up through 3 courses of normal wall blocks. Its weight as set approximated 20
tons. The block was then cut into to receive the setting of adjacent blocks of three successive courses.
99. The Nubian Temple of Kalabsha in situ dressing. 100. Nubian Temple of Mandoulis Kalabsha in situ
1st Cent. AD. The north angle block of the cornice of dressing. 1st Cent. AD. Sketch detail of huge block
the facade of the Hypostyle Hall was set in place as a set as capping corner stone to stabilise the struc-
very massive block with only the bed joint finally ture at the S.W. angle of the Hypostyle Hall. Appar-
dressed. It was cut back in situ to take the outer row of ent are the in situ dressing to take the normal wall
the wall blocks of the north wall, then further cut back blocks set subsequently, as also the draught form of
to take the roofing slab, and finally cut back again to the torus mouldings, the final dressing of which was
take the cornice blocks of the north wall. never completed.
101. Orlandos reconstruction of classical Greek builder setting wall blocks of ashlar masonry with metal
levers, together with section detail of blocks to larger scale. NB. Anathyrosis of rising joints, pry holes for
levers on trailing margins of blocks, and metal cramps to fix blocks in position.
102. The unfinished Temple of Segesta

in Sicily, ca 430 BC. Part of the entabla-
ture at angle of peristyle showing three
instances of strips of stone apparently
cushioning the arrises of blocks (a, c, n).
These strips would protect the arrises
from damage during handling and set-
ting, but it is not certain that this was
their (sole) function. More probably
they were the draught form of some or-
nament to be worked in situ e.g. ca-
bling at n would be effective aesthetically,
and would disguise the fact that the ar-
chitrave was from 2 blocks, thus monu-
mentalising its aspect.
60 chapter two
103. Hellenistic ashlar masonry set with protective roll at the upper face arris. Miletus Theatre. 280 BC,
rebuilt 150 AD. This device protected the arris from chipping when the super incumbent blocks were set.
The roll was to be later removed by in situ dressing. However this work was never carried out. This practice
demonstrates that only the bottom arris needs to be dressed truly in order to set fine stone masonry. NB.
Many holes for robbing out metal cramps are visible in the lower courses.
104. Details of process of dressing conserved as ornament on finished masonry. Ordonnance of orthostate
and socle showing functional masonry details retained for aesthetic value protective marginal strips on
orthostates (o) and bossed socles (p);also haulage tenons. NB Such details are accurately depicted on Pompeian
wall paintings of the 1st and 2nd styles. Above: Pompeion, Athens; below: The archaic Didymaion. After Kalpaxis,
figs 1.1, 29.3.
105. Small block bastard ashlar masonry. Below: Diagram of Egyptian small block masonry construction at
Pyramid Complex of Zoser, Saqqara (ca 2500 BC). After Clarke and Engelbach, fig 94; above: Bastard ashlar
construction at Xanthos, Lycia. 4th Cent. BC. This type of masonry is a hybrid between finely dressed ma-
sonry and rubble masonry. It was finely dressed in aspect, i.e. on the face (only!) but not closely jointed
internally, i.e. in structure. It was developed very early cf the Pyramid Complex of Zoser in Egypt (3rd
Dynasty). However its convenience was such that it always remained in use on occasion, cf a Hellenistic
example at the Letoon near Xanthos (4th Cent. BC), with, in the background, standard classical ashlar
masonry (left).
60 chapter two
106. Roman marble revetting to opus testaceum wall. Baths, Pompeii.1st Cent. AD. The thin marble plates (1)
are secured to the wall masonry (4) by metal clips (2). Here the plates stand in advance of terra-cotta tubuli,
ducts to conduct the heated air from the hypocaust (3). Photo J-P Adam CNRS.
107. Polygonal Masonry on the outskirts of Knidos (ca 5th-4th Cent. BC). The structure here is a retaining
wall, which, in general, is the raison dtre of this type of masonry, not its date.
108. Polygonal Masonry construction for retaining walls. The Terrace of the Temple of Apollo, Delphi.
ca 500 BC. The functional rationale of polygonal masonry is here emphasised since it is used for the
retaining walls of the terrace (a) whereas the structure built on the terrace is of normal ashlar con-
struction (b). The increased resistance of polygonal masonry to lateral thrust must have justified the
greatly increased labour it demanded.
109. Early Achaemenid monumental

masonry at Pasargadae. ca 530 BC. The
fine ashlar casing of the coursed rubble
retaining walls for the Tall-I-Takht (the
great building platform for the Palace
of Cyrus). This masonry is, in effect,
Archaic Greek Ashlar Masonry, the
work of Lydian/East Greek stonema-
sons. The original presence of metal
cramps is revealed by the cramp rob-
ber holes.
60 chapter two
110. Mixed masonry. Finely dressed blocks as facing to rubble walling. In modern technical terms this is
referred to as bastard ashlar. Pergamum Mid Gymnasium. Hellenistic-Roman.
111. Roman bastard Ashlar construction i.e. ashlar facing to rubble or other masonry. The Mausoleum of
Cecilia Metella Rome. Augustus. The disappearance of the stretcher facing blocks reveals the broken away
headers embedded in the massive rubble. After Adams, fig 253.
112. Opus Africanum masonry. House of the Trifolium, Thougga. Roman. Here coursed squared rubble is
stiffened by pillars of long and short work in large more finely dressed blocks which confer stability on the
construction by their dead weight.
113. Detail of opus Africanum construction showing closely set piers of heavy blocks of dressed masonry
stiffening panels of coursed squared rubble.
60 chapter two
114. Inadequate stone foundations to Egyptian monumental masonry construction. Above: Foun-
dations for massive columns in Hypostyle Hall at Karnak (New Kingdom); below: Foundations of
Pylon of Ramses I at Karnak. After Clarke and Engelbach, figs 65, 67.
115. Raft foundations for Luxor Temple. Thebes. New Kingdom. Although a massive pad was conceived as raft foun-
dations for the temple, the utility of the construction is doubtful. The complete lack of rigidity in the fill of re-used
blocks prevents excessive loads being distributed over a greater area. After Arnold, p 112, fig 4.3.
116. Greek coffered foundations. Temple of Apollo at Delphi. 4th Cent. BC. This ashlar masonry construction with
infill of consolidated earth constitutes raft foundations which are very rigid. After Martin, p 467, fig 203.
60 chapter two
117. Greek foundations carried down to bed rock. Doric Temple at Apollonia, Cyrenaicaca 300 BC. Here below walls
and stylobates the rock surface was cut down to provide impeccably solid footings, while below pavements islands of
surface rock remain untouched since no significant load is transmitted to them. Top: Plan; Bottom: Sections. After
Apollonia, p 47, fig 3.
118. Quarrying of Egyptian Monolithic Column. Diagram of stages in combined extraction and dressing. As
opposed to the general practice in Egypt of in situ dressing of quarry faced blocks, it appears sizeable and
outsize monolithic columns (and obelisks) were dressed in the process of quarrying and were transported to
the building site fully finished. There are several advantages to this proceedure, e.g. no necessity for moving
the large block during dressing;dressing by men experienced in the particular qualities of stone;great reduc-
tion in weight to be transported and handled etc. The main stages of the quarry dressing are: 1. Demarcation
of trace of column on surface to be quarried; 2. Separation according to demarcated trace; 3. Initial dressing
of separated column block by use of (horizontal) templates to give control draughts for cross section.
60 chapter two
118. Quarrying of Egyptian Monolithic Column (cont.): 4. Continued dressing by use of (vertical) tem-
plates; 5. Finished column undercut and ready for freeing; 6. Freeing of columns and direct loading on sled
for transport to distant site. After Isler MDAIK 48 1992, pp 4555.
119. Egyptian column construction. Part of massive column from dismantled Temple of Kalabsha. 1st Cent.
AD. The part erection of a hypostyle hall column for carrying out tests shows how massive Egyptian columns
were constructed as normal masonry with several blocks to a course and finely dressed in situ.
120. Massive Egyptian columns col- 121. Large stone column built in coursed stone masonry. Hatra. 2nd
lapsed and restored in antiquity Cent. AD. The independent Arab principality of Hatra (near Assur)
with small block masonry. Temple was on the border of Parthian territory and fell within the koine of
of Amen. Karnak. After Phelps, fig (non-mediterranean) Hellenistic art. As in Palmyra stone was the
596. favoured monumental building material (cf on the other hand the
burnt brick construction of contemporary Parthian Assur). Perhaps
the coursed fine stone masonry of this column derives from the ex-
ample of burnt brick masonry columns of Parthian building (e.g. at
Assur).
60
chapter two
122. Greek columns built of drums and their fixation. 1. Propylaion, Athens Acropolis general 123. Dressing of classical columns. Rome near Ostia Gate. The capi-
scheme, exploded view of assemblage and section; 2. Propylaion, Athens Acropolis polos and tals and bases of these columns are finely dressed, but the drums
empolion. Elevation of separate elements; 3. Temple of Poseidon at Sounion polos and empolion are quarry faced except for a narrow draught at the margins by the
assembled section. Ht of empolion 4.7 cms. The bed joints of the drums were (exceptionally) bed to provide for setting. This indicates that originally column
dressed to incorporate anathyrosis, here in two successive rings of differing depth. Cuboid re- drums were largely dressed in situ. However it is very likely that no
cesses were sunk at the centre of the beds each to lodge a wooden coffer (the empolion) and further dressing was intended for the columns shown here. Bossed
into the continuous hollow interior of the upper and lower coffer was set a cylindrical dowel quarry faced masonry came to be prized for its aesthetic virtue (a
(the polos) fixing together the two drums. This peg could be either of hard wood or of metal baroque feature). It is represented on many Pompeian wall paint-
(i.e. bronze or iron). ings of the Second Style.
124. Egyptian massive stone roofing slabs. Temple of Kalabsha. 1st Cent. AD. Sanctuary roofing in 1961 after consolida-
tion 50 years previously. Compare the ruination of the roof with the near complete preservation of other elements of
the structure. Only the roofing slabs which are supported on three sides remain intact. The others have broken through
and collapsed leaving occasional vestiges in the seating.
125. Failure in bending of Egyptian stone roofing slabs. Kalabsha Temple. 1st Cent. AD. Broken roofing slab in sanctu-
ary chamber illustrating weakness of stone in tension. The stone slab sags down in the middle of its span so that the
soffite lengthens and is thus being pulled apart. The stone cannot resist this tensile stress and cracks apart.
60 chapter two
126. Egyptian Saddle Roof Construction. Egyptian funerary monuments involved much construction (pas-
sages and chambers) hidden within their core. Here the profile of the roofing was never exposed and only
the soffite was visible from inside the monument, but such entry was sealed off after completion. However
the construction was called on to resist the enormous load of the solid masonry above. In these circum-
stances the builders rightly distrusted the resistance in bending of horizontal slabs and made use from the
Old Kingdom onwards of the Triangular Arch. Perhaps a technological development can be seen from a
simple vertical but joint at the crown in the Old Kingdom, to a keyed indented joint in the Middle Kingdom.
1. Pyramid crypt of Nuserra at Abusir. Old Kingdom; 2. Pyramid crypt of Djedkara at Saqqara. Old Kingdom;
3. Pyramid crypt of Mycerinus at Gizeh. Old Kingdom; 4. Crypt of Sheseskaf at Saqqara. Old Kingdom; 5.
Queens crypt, Pyramid of Senuseret, Dahshur. Middle Kingdom; 6. Vault in Pyramid of Amenemhet III,
Dahshur. Middle Kingdom; 7. Secondary tomb of North Mastaba at Lisht. Middle Kingdom.
127. Egyptian Stone Vaulting. These examples from Old Kingdom times onwards show the Egyptians under-
stood the mechanics of the arch in practice, and conflated it with corbelling and saddle vaulting (dihedral
arch, triangular arch). The Old Kingdom Arch (1) is only as good as the mortar used. If that disintegrates
then the construction collapses. The scale is only approximate, but it can be seen all examples are of or
slightly over 2m span. 1. Rubble relieving arch in tomb of Vizier of 6th Dynasty at Saqqara; 2. Vaulted passage
to tomb of Mentuhotep at Deir el Bahari. Middle Kingdom; 3. Vault in funerary chapel at Medinet Habu.
NB. Corbelled shoulders. 8th Cent. BC or later; 4. Vault in funerary chapel at Medinet Habu. 8th Cent. BC or
later; 5. Vault in funerary chapel at Medinet Habu. 8th Cent. BC or later. Examples from Arnold, pass.
60 chapter two
128. Graeco-Roman Ashlar stone dome on pendentives. 129. Unfinished rock cut tomb at Medain Saleh. lst Cent.
Side, Southern Turkey, ca 3rd Cent. AD. AD. Here is demonstrated the obvious that rock cutting
(in contradiction to building) can only proceed from above
to below. A panel of the rock face of a Nubian sandstone
cliff has been cut back to permit the architectural faade
to be carved out. The upper part of the faade hewn has
been finely dressed but the lower half remains in draught
form pending the hollowing out of the interior chamber,
since evacuation of the spoil might damage the finished
surface. The upper part of the naiskos portal is boasted for
carving, but the confines of the door have been cut out to
enable the work of hollowing out the interior chamber to
proceed. Save for extreme inconvenience, the ceiling of
the chamber cannot be significantly higher than the door
lintel, thus the lofty faade of such a tomb is a false faade
to a relatively lowly chamber. When the interior of the cham-
ber has been hollowed out, the lower part of the faade
can be finely dressed.
130. Unfinished rock cut tomb in free standing knoll of

Nubian Sandstone at Medain Saleh (1st Cent. AD). This
striking monument is of great interest on several counts,
both in the history of art and in the technique of rock cut-
ting. In the first instance these isolated knolls (another can
be seen in the right background) permit the carving of a
completely free standing monument (cf, e.g. The Mahaballipuram rathas in Tamilnad). However although the monu-
ment is unfinished there is no indication that its designer intends to proceed to shaping an entirely free standing
monument. A pity! since this might have settled the interminable discussion of a possible model for these faade tombs
in real building. Even more significant is the presence of quarried and partly quarried blocks in front of the faade;This
establishes the fact that on some occasions rock cut tombs were hollowed out by quarrying, not simply cut to waste.
131. The Khazne at Petra. 1st Cent. BC1st Cent. AD. NB. These drawings are based on those of Newton
made in 1913 when some of the details of the porch were not cleared. This monument is the archtype rock
cut faade and illustrates all the essential characteristics concerned. Elevation of Faade. This is clearly the
pice de resistance of the monument and downstages the interior, significant though it is. NB. The fanlight over
the door, gauche and otiose in the design but essential for the technology of the rock cutting of the interior.
60
chapter two
131. The Khazne at Petra. 1st Cent. BC1st Cent. AD (cont.). Left: Plans. A Ground Plan; B Plan of Aedicule in Relief. Right: Sections. Long Section through the
monument and cross section of principal chamber. NB. The disposition of the square fanlight above the main door to give direct access to ceiling level where the
interior plan was set out and the excavation proceeded from above to below. Also the circular fanlight above the door to the south vestibule chamber which performs
the same function (but is aesthetically justifiable).
132. Architectural Portal to tomb cut into side of disused quarry. Tomb of 133. Complex of hypogeum tombs with deep entrance shafts. Phoenecian
the Kings. New Paphos, Cyprus. Ptolemaic, 3rd Cent. BC. The develop- Royal Necropolis at Ayaa near Sidon, South Lebanon. 4th Cent. BC. NB.
ment of this modest portal evidences the often considerable use of ad- The sarcophagi shown in the drawing are the famous carved sarcophagi
juncts in rock cutting. Both the cornice and the lintel were of inset stone, now in the Istanbul Museum (The Alexander Sarcophagus, The Satrap
31
while the entire door frame was once heavily plastered to preserve it and Sarcophagus, etc, etc). This hypogeum type of rock cut monument is the
enhance its appearance vis--vis the mediocre friable limestone into which antithesis of the rock cut faade; It is intended to remain hidden and thus
it was set. Key: 1. Rock face of quarry; 2. Stucco remains; 3. Lodgement for has no faade whatever. The rock cutting is also uncomplicated since it
inset cornice; 4. Lodgement for inset lintel. proceeds uniformly from above to below and all its development (shafts,
chambers) crypts, is downwards. After ABSP, fig 279.
60 chapter two
134. Fine dressing of internal wall faces of rock cut monuments in Egypt. Left: The mastaba of Imhotep at Lisht.
Right: Late Middle Kingdom Pyramid at Saqqara. When excavating a rock cut chamber Egyptian masons did not
cut the wall face back to its final contour, but as with built masonry, left the surface roughly dressed standing
somewhat in advance of the eventual fair face. Again as with built monuments the wall was faced as a complete unit
after the rock cutting was completed. Unfinished work indicates that the method was to mark the trace on adjacent
walls of a plane slightly in advance of the roughly dressed surface and then bone, from plumb lines held on this
plane, to establish the required wall face by a series of chiselled incisions. It was then a simple matter to dress the
complete face back to the plane of these control marks. Such a proceedure could be applied to built masonry,but
carrying out final dressing irrespective of the jointing of blocks would risk chipping at the joints. After Arnold,
figs 4.66, 4.6.
135. Early Etruscan rock cut tomb with architectural interior. Cerveteri ca 5th Cent. BC. In contrast to rock
cut tombs with developed architectural faades in general Etruscan rock cutting focused on the interior of
the chamber to simulate the interior of buildings. The lintel of doors if necessary could still be brought
close to ceiling level to facilitate the cutting of multi chambered plans. This could be done by arranging
steps up to and down from the sill. It must be remembered that this detailed planning with columns etc.
needs must be set out near ceiling level. The durability of bed rock preserves much information concern-
ing structures long since disappeared which served as models for these tombs. After Boethius, fig 46.
136. Late Etruscan rock cut tomb with architectural interior including ornament and furniture. The Al-
cove Tomb, Cerveteri. 3rd Cent. BC. NB. The lintel kept near ceiling level by steps up to the door sill. After
Boethius, Pl 37.
60 chapter two
137. Soil is formed by the weathering of rocks, a process which may be thought of as requiring, in general,
some thousands of years. The processes of weathering (1) may be mechanical or chemical the latter oper-
ating by altering the chemical nature of the solid substances and/or dissolving material into liquid form (=
leaching out) to be later deposited as solids. In connection with its use in building perhaps the most signifi-
cant characteristic of a soil is the size (and shape) of the weathered particles. For everyday purposes the
categories are usually spoken of (in descending order of size) as sand, silt, clay. Sand grains are largely the
crystals of disintegrated coarse grained rock, silts are broken and abraded crystals of finer type. Clays are
mainly the products of chemical breakdown of unstable minerals. The non-technical English word loam has
been appropriated for a graded mixture of all these types of soil. These descriptive terms for the nature of
soils (sediments) are commonly set out graphically in a triangular diagram (2) with clay at the apex, sand at
the left base angle and silt at the right base angle, which clarifies the finer distinctions of silty sand, sandy clay
etc. Beneath these manifested distinctions the strength (resistance to stresses) of soils depends upon their
cohesion, which is a force operating at atomic level requiring some knowledge of modern physics for its
understanding. Where the soil is (or is virtually) cohesionless, e.g. sands, a property which is significant in
earth works is its angle of repose (3).
138. General Plan of subteranean dwelling complexes hollowed out of loess soil. Abu Matar 139. Detail plan of underground dwelling complex with typical sec-
near Beer Sheba, Southern Israel. ca 3500 BC. Broken line indicates underground feature, tion. Abu Matar, Southern Israel. ca 3500 BC. NB. A standard feature
31
continuous line cuttings at surface level, hatching later construction above ground. There was the flask shaped storage pits normally cut down from surface level
were probably a dozen or so complexes of 5-7 inter communicating chambers grouped about but here from the floor of the underground chambers. After ABSP II,
a central hall which was entered by either a shaft or a sloping gallery all affording relief fig 212.
from the extremes of the desert climate. As the excavated loess gradually collapsed the settle-
ment was transformed by stages into normal mud brick construction. After ABSP II, fig 211.
60 chapter two
140. Large Phrygian Tumulus at Gordion (7th Cent. BC) well over 50m high. The burial chamber is of load
bearing wooden construction, both logs and squared timbers (e.g. log cabin style).
141. Lydian Tumulus (6th Cent. BC). Large tumulus in the Bin Tepe tumulus field north of Sardis. The
surviving height above ground level is ca 55m, but was originally something more, as erosion has flattened
the contours.
142. View and section of tumulus tomb of singular construction. Cypriote Salamis. ca 600 BC. According to
the excavator this tumulus incorporated the structural device of a large mud brick dome to stabilise the
summit. Key: 1. Original ground level; 2. Burial chamber of dressed stone; 3. Dromos walls of dressed stone;
4. Dromos walls of mud brick; 5. Core mound of earth; 6. Mud brick dome; 7. Peripheral earth mound; 8.
Modern robber trench. After ABC, fig 205.
143. Etruscan Tumulus Tombs in cemetery near Cerveteri. 6th Cent. BC and later. The earthern mound is
heaped up over a stone socle hewn out of bed rock accommodating the entrance way and burial chamber.
60 chapter two
144. The continued occupation across the ages of the same defensively walled site, as was standard in the Ancient
Middle East, meant that the level of occupation rose up within a constricted area as one ever mounting platform of its
own ruins and rubbish. This incurred concern for the stability of the earth debris on which all structures were founded
in effect all foundations were on made up ground (very negative circumstances according to modern understand-
ing). As a result a sophisticated technology of earth stabilisation was developed which has been revealed by archaeologi-
cal excavations, although not well appreciated. There are two principal applications: the consolidation of fill and its
effective retention. The technology involved had both mechanical and chemical applications. In the latter connection
ancient builders understood the effect of lime (crushed huwwar) and ash as soil stabilisers by producing a pozzulonic
cement. In the former connection great skill was shown in the construction of scarped revetments formed with consoli-
dated crushed lime well keyed into the earth retained at a much steeper slope than the angle of repose. They also
afforded protection against the gulley erosion of downwash. The combined effect of both these measures was to re-
strain the thrust of unconsolidated sediments against the retaining walls constituted by the peripheral fortifications. A
project (ca 16th Cent. BC) to extend the area of the Ancient Palestinian city of Shechem illustrates something of this
ancient soil science. The measure advanced the limits of the city in the N.W. sector ca 50 m to a new city wall so that a
very large Tower (Migdol) Temple to Baal Berith (III)could be erected. For this purpose an earth platform was raised
up about 7-8 m above existing ground level. The various measures are apparent in the sketch section. First a layered
mound of earth (3) was built up as a core to the fill (4). This fill was extended inwards over the remains of the old city
wall (I) with preceeding habitation layers (2), and outwards to be retained by successive masonry and huwwar scarps (5,
6, 7,) with finally a layered horizontal fill make up (8) out to the new Cyclopean city wall (II). In another application the
skirts of city walls can be seen protected and buttressed by earthwork scarps at Gezer (later 2nd Millenium BC). Scarp
A is built up by successive layers of earth (1) resting against curbs of crushed huwwar (2) which are thus effectively
keyed into the earth, the resultant outer slope being further secured by a flush lime facing (3). Embankment B is built
entirely of crushed limestone fragments compacted on the face and retained by a stone curb (3).
145. Egyptian earth works as adjuncts to monumental building. Massive stone block (roofing slab ?) being
hauled up a construction ramp (brick faced embankment) set up against a building. Perhaps the rendering
of the building (?) is intended to indicate an interior filled to roof height with brick faced earth as a substi-
tute for scaffolding. Scene from New Kingdom Tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes. After Clarke and Engelbach,
fig 86.
146. Total sand / earth filling of area as scaffolding for building construction in Egypt. D. Arnolds sche-
matic illustration of erection and final in situ dressing of masonry by filling area up with sand and then
removing it. In practice the final in situ dressing was often long delayed so that precincts were emptied of
sand to permit of their use and the final dressing was carried out on light scaffolding (if at all!).
147. Traditional modern plastic earth construction. Rawdah. North Yemen. Tauf (kahgel, zabur) is here em-
ployed in rebuilding a collapsed garden wall. The identical process serves to build sky scrapers more than
30m high, in principle without the aid of any tool. Water and suitable earth together with some binder such
as dry leaves are mixed into mud balls or loaves and these are rolled in straw to provide surface tension. They
are then handed or thrown up to the walling mason by his assistant. The walling mason places or drives them
into position using the elements as both brick and (broken up) as mortar to complete a register of ca 40-50
cms in height. This is then left to consolidate before the waller mounts on it to build another register and
so on.
60 chapter two
148. Old houses of tauf as surviving in Rawdah, North Yemen. These houses are devoid of decorative windows and
doors, thus they are probably essentially 300-400 years old. The upper left angle of the tower building has collapsed at
some stage and has been rebuilt in mud brick for convenience. Some houses of this nature surviving in Sanaa are said
to be 800 years old!.
149. Traditional modern terre pis construction in Atlas Mountain region of North Africa showing dry earth being
rammed (piser) between wooden form work. NB. Rammer held by workman and basket of earth on head of assistant.
150. Typical wall of cigar shaped hand modelled mud bricks. Jericho Pre-pottery Neolithic. ca 7th millenium
BC. NB. Inset detail of single brick clearly showing thumb impressions for better adhesion of mortar (frogging).
After Jericho III plates, pass.
151. Wall of bun shaped hand modelled mud bricks with (below) individual bricks of this form. Jericho Pot-
tery Neolithic. 6th Millenium BC. These bun shaped etc mud bricks derive their form from field stones.
Thus the wall shown above appears at first sight to be of rubble. After Jericho III, plates (pass).
60 chapter two
152. Mesopotamian plano-convex mud bricks a possible background influence. While it is obvious to see
field stones of a characteristic form as a precursor of plano-convex bricks in Mesopotamis, another formative
model is possible. A man, using the marru (spade) advancing along a line will turn over a row of clods each
resting inclined against the other. If he then returns in the opposite direction he will throw up a second
course of clods set herring bone fashion on top of the former to give a prototype of plano-convex bonding.
153. Representation of processes of manufacture of form moulded mud bricks. From an Egyptian mural
decoration with original layout adjusted to distinguish operations clearly. Above: Digging and transporting
earth; middle: Mixing mud and striking bricks in a mould; below: Stacking and transporting bricks.
154. Type of Egyptian brick mould used in proceeding scene. NB Both single and double forms shown in
representations.
155. Surviving wooden brickmoulds. Above: Egyptian, from Thebes.18th Dyn. Length of brick ca 18 cms.
After Petrie Tools and Weapons, fig 243 Below: Palestinian from Meggido. This mould filled with brick earth
was discovered in a stratified context. Although apparently deformed when abandoned, the original dimen-
sions of the enclosed brick were ca 30 cms x 15 cms. After Schumacher Tell el Mutesellim I, pl XLI.
60 chapter two
156. Standard bonding patterns in modern brick masonry. Left (A): English Bond; right (B): Flemish Bond;
above (C): Walls of 1 brick thickness; below (D): walls of 1 1/2 brick thickness. The two guiding principles of
modern bonding are to avoid straight (i.e. continuous) jointing, above all in the vertical sense;and at the
same time not to set bricks of slight form at the faces of the masonry where they can be easily disloged or fall
away. This necessitates various devices requiring bricks of special format, cut or broken into shape by the
bricklayer who must be able to work out the necessary disposition to suit eventualities, e.g. of angles, mitres
and stopped ends etc in different bonds and wall thicknesses. It is the work of skilled tradesman and cannot
be carried out by laymen. Bricks which have been cut to half thickness in breadth are called closers; those
which are reduced in length are called bats. Closers cannot be set at the face of walls as stretchers but must
be laid as headers next to the angle bricks. The standard closers are: (1) Queen closer (bricks of uniform half
breadth). (2) King closer (bricks with one angle chamfered to give 1/2 breadth at one end). Standard bats
are: (3) half bat; and (4) three quarter bat. Employing these basic devices skilled brick layers will devise their
own solutions to quite intricate problems.
157. Massive brick wall at Maroni Vournes, Cyprus, showing bonding pattern. ca 1250 BC. These rectangular
bricks are substantial, 66 cms x 50 cms x 16 cms i.e. 2 in length. They are laid in header bond and the wall
is thus 4 broad. The principle is to have the wall thickness of an even number of bricks and lay half bricks
(cut transversally, i.e. half bats 33 cms x 50 cms) at the faces of each alternate course. In the run of the wall
this header bond is sound, the horizontal straight joints across the breadth of the wall not constituting a
weakness as all joints are broken vertically. Bonding at stopped ends demands half bricks cut longitudinally
(i.e. Queen closers 66 cms x 25 cms) set at the angle, thus the bricks must be sizeable (as here). After ABC,
Ill. 275.
158. City Wall at Eleusis showing brick bonding pattern. ca 5th Cent. BC This wall is ca 2.6m broad and of
mud brick construction on a rubble stone socle ca 1m high. The square bricks are 46 cms x 46 cms x 8 cms
and are thus pentadorons (5 palms = ca 45 cms) which was considered proper for Greek public buildings in
contrast to tetradorons (4 palms) cf Vitruvius II 3.3. They are laid in the simple obvious bond for square
bricks using half bricks as specified by Vitruvius II 3.4 When these (half bricks) are used in a wall, a course of
bricks is laid on one face and a course of half bricks on the other .... The walls are bonded by alternate
courses of the two different kinds, and as the bricks are always laid so as to break joint (vertically), this lends
strength and a not unpleasing appearance to both sides of such walls (which however were invariably plas-
tered over). After Ginouves Dictionnaire I, pl 24.1.
159. Plano-convex bricks and dry-stone walling (opus spicatum). It is obvious that the flat stones (or stone
plates) suited to dry-stone masonry and Mesopotamian plano-convex bricks are set together in the same
manner: a diagonal or herring bone bond trued up by intermittent horizontal levelling courses. Although
this bonding system has not survived as a standard practice in modern brick laying, the system has always
remained current in dry stone walling. A. Neolithic dry stone walling in the British Isles, Early 3rd Millenium
BC. Above: Midhowe in the Orkneys; below: Cotswolds, Southern England. B. Archaic / Early Dynastic plano-
convex brick masonry at Ur. Early 3rd Millenium BC. After Sauvage, Pl 22.
60 chapter two
160. Mud Terrace roofing. Thera ca. 1500 BC. The ceiling
beams are substantial unwrought logs bearing pole rafters
which are wrapped and connected with long fronds of sea weed
(kelp) to act as matting. Above this is a thick bed of white
earth (still used in traditional building for roofing). This is
covered with a layer of red earth surfaced by fine compact
white earth. Above this are a succession of double coatings of
red and white earth whether these are part of the original
roofing or are later periodic resurfacings is not evident from
the remains.
161. Late Sassanian Palace at Ktesiphon known as the Taq-I-Kisra. Load bearing mud brick construction. 6th
Cent. AD. Although the walls of this grandiose vaulted structure are necessarily substantial, the effect of the
construction is to approximate an aery pavillion. It thus forms a direct contrast to the very massive mud brick
of ancient Mesopotamia which had lapsed in Parthian times, several centuries previously; and it is not with-
out resemblance to contemporary brick vaulted building in Byzantium. The lower photograph was made
prior to 1888 when the right (north) wing of the faade collapsed after flooding.
162. Traditional Manufacture of burnt bricks in the Yemen, 1938. In this field by Sanaa the brickmaker is
preparing earth for striking the green bricks. An expanse of these bricks already prepared is arranged
behind him (immediately to his right can be seen a double brick mould). Bricks already sun dried are
stacked to the left. In the rear is the brick kiln, where the bricks will be fired when an economic charge for
firing has been prepared. The Yemen at this period was probably the place where the traditional building
crafts of the ancient Middle East survived to the best effect. Thus this photograph affords valuable evidence
concerning two points of ancient technology: (a) the green bricks prepared for burning are more or less
facsimiles of normal mud bricks; (b) the brick kiln is a sizeable structure to take a massive charge of brick,
and it is a single chamber kiln, not a small double compartment like a pottery kiln.
163. Kiln in the Gimilsin Temple, Tell Asmar(Eshnunna). ca 2250 BC. This intricately designed kiln, the
function of which was not specifically identified by the excavators, is cited in connection with burnt brick in
Mesopotamia. However the excavators did not so designate it, and it is clearly not a brick kiln in the sense of
one producing burnt bricks as a standard building material. It is perhaps best considered as a brick kiln for
firing terra-cotta objects. At this relatively early date before burnt bricks became a general purpose building
materials, small quantities of bricks for special purposes may have been fired in the kiln. After The Gimilsin
Temple, pl X.
60
chapter two
164. Tile (and brick ?) kiln. Olympia late 4th Cent. BC. Plan and 165. Tile kiln. Corinth. Late 5th Cent. BC. After Martin, figs 41, 42.
transverse section. After Martin, fig 43.
166. Burnt brick walls and corbel

vaulting of funerary chamber of an
underground tomb in the Shakka-
nuku Palace at Mari, Middle Euprates.
Late 3rd millenium BC. Burnt brick
is clearly a superior material to mud
brick for subterranean construction,
both from the point of view of
strength and durability;and the struc-
tural damage to this chamber was
caused by ancient tomb robbing.
Photo J-C Margueron.
167. Free standing, solid load bearing burnt brick masonry. The Temple of Serapis known as the Kizil Avlu
(Red Court or Hall). Pergamon ca 120-130 AD. The construction of this imposing building has been vari-
ously reported, but apparently is of solid burnt brick concealed behind all over marble revetting. It is thus of
critical importance in the historical development of burnt brick construction, later to become a standard
mode which in Byzantine times replaced Roman Concrete. Although it has previously been assumed that the
use of solid burnt brick developed from opus testaceum facing to Roman Concrete, it is possible that the
ancient Mespotamian (Babylonian) tradition of burnt brick construction survived in some measure in Anatolia
and contributed to the later development.
60 chapter two
168. Free standing, solid load bearing burnt brick construction. San Vitale, Ravenna. 526-47 AD. Large brickyards had
been appropriated by the later emperors in Rome, so that with the decline of imperial power burnt brick gradually went
out of production in the West. However production continued in the Eastern Empire. When several monumental
churches were erected in Ravenna just prior to and at the time of Junstinians reconquest, their solid brick construction
was a measure imported from Byzantium.
169. Brick Dome of Diocletians Mausoleum. Spalato 300 AD. Hebrards restoration. (a) Part (developed)
elevation of Interior Sector 1/12th; (b) Part plan of the Interior Sector 1/6th; (c) Part elevation of
Interior Sector 1/6th; (d) Section C-D of plan (b); (e) Plan and section of a dome brick (33 x 33 x 5 cms).
After Robertson, fig 108.
60 chapter two
170. Cone Mosaics from the Temple of Innana. Uruk ca 3000 BC.
Innumerable terra-cotta cones ca 10 cms long stuck into a thick coat-
ing of mud plaster both protected and decorated mud brick con-
struction. The cones were dipped in various colours and assembled
so that their exposed bases formed lively polychromatic designs after
the manner of woven hangings. This device was especially suited for
application to curved surfaces (e.g. columns or, as here, engaged
semi-columns). After UVB III 1932, VII 1935.
171. Mesopotamian (Elamite) wall plaques (sikkatu) from the Ziggurat of Choga Zambil. ca 1250 BC. The protruding
knob or boss on the face (a simulated nail head) lodges a clay peg for attachment to the wall. Thus this type of sikkatu
are known as Knauf (= knob, pommel) plates.
172. Mesopotamian (Assyrian) glazed terra-cotta wall plaques known as sikkatu (= peg, pin, nail). Assur 9th
7th Cent. BC. Above: 9th Cent. BC, diameter ca 50 cms; below: 7th Cent. BC, diameter ca 25 cms. Generally
these small plaques have a central nail hole so that they can be attached to the wall with a nail. They became
current in the middle of the 2nd millenium BC and remained common down to the end of the Assyrian
Empire. Glazed brick both protected and decorated the mud brick wall after the manner of the old cone
mosaics. In turn sikkatu also may have derived from original stone plaques. The discs with patterned decora-
tion shown here were most common, but other rectangular examples existed bearing naturalistic (figural
and scenic) designs. After A. Nunn, pls 115, 119.
173. Near life size figural decoration

in relief executed in burnt brick ma-
sonry. The Kassite Temple of Ishtar,
Uruk. ca 1450 BC. Although a very
early example of decoration in moul-
ded brick, the technique is developed
and assured. The bricks forming the
figures are all stretchers either whole
(square bricks) or half bricks (rect-
angular bricks), thus avoiding verti-
cal joints in the aspect of the figures.
The large scale of the work and the
simple contours of the relief here
make credible the common account
of the technique i.e. a model of the
entire motif was made (modelled in
clay), from this a negative mould was
taken (in clay) and then this mould
was divided (cut, sliced up into por-
tions to give face moulds for each in-
dividual bricks (after wards to be
fired). Such a process is feasible in
these circumstances but it does not
seem practical for moulding bricks to
incorporate small scale delicate deco-
ration (e.g. a Corinthian capital). Af-
ter Jordan 1930, fig 16.
60 chapter two
174. Neo Babylonian decorated burnt brick. Part of the Ishtar Gate in Babylon as excavated by Koldewy. 6th
Cent. BC. Above: a panel of enamelled bricks; below: a non-enamelled bull in relief on moulded bricks.
175. Neo Babylonian decorated burnt brick. Detail of bull in relief on Ishtar Gate. Babylon 6th Cent. BC.
After Koldewy 1914, fig 27.
176. Achaemenid relief decoration to brick wall in polychrome glazed brick work (height of figure 142 cms).
Susa. ca 500 BC.
177. Achaemenid enamelled burnt brick with

figural decoration in relief. Detail from the
frieze of the archers. Susa. ca 500 BC. The
model of this figure is a version carved in
stone (as at Persepolis) and it is possible that
the negative mould from which the individual
brick moulds were cut up was taken directly
from monumental stone masonry.
60 chapter two
178. Greek painted fictile revetment to wooden architrave. Metapontum ca 500 BC. With Durms recon-
struction of fixation to wood by copper nails. After Durm B d G, fig 98.
179. Roman architectural ornament in moulded burnt brick. When the forms of finely dressed stone ma-
sonry with its decorated mouldings were built up in brick, there were two possibilities of expressing the
detailing: (a) directly in the brickwork; (b) in applied relief stucco work (perhaps to crudely formed grounds).
The latter was the simplest and the most common method in both the Western and Eastern world. However
on occasion architectural ornament was expressed directly in the brick work. How this was effected is not
directly obvious. Burnt brick cannot be carved. These two drawings by Durm purport to show relief orna-
ment crisply executed in coursed bricks, presumably moulded in some way.
180. Roman pavement of brick set on edge in her-

ring bone bond (opus spicatum). Pompeii. 1st Cent. 181. Mesopotamian Brick Columns. To construct columns in brick
AD. Photo J-P Adam CNRS. masonry (from either mud brick or burnt brick) there are only
limited expedients, all of which are obvious and have been em-
ployed in all places at all times. The simplest proceedure is to use
normal bricks with a large complement of mortar to infill the
widely splayed joints and provide the circular periphery. Here it
should be noted that an extremely effective device for giving the
peripheral plaster a good finish both in appearance and construc-
tion is the use of cone mosaics. These were commonly used in
early times with columns or engaged semi-columns then current
(ca 3000 BC). Alternatively specially moulded bricks may be used.
These commonly take 3 forms: (1) circular to provide a core; (2)
Sectors or quadrants to provide a complete course or the inner
part of a course; (3) Annular to comprise the periphery of the
course. Alternation of these forms in successive course gives pos-
sibilities of good bonding. Above: Bonding scheme in the Temple
of Nin-giz-zida. Ur. ca 2800 BC; below: Bonding scheme at Lagash
in the ramparts of Gudea. ca 2100 BC. After Sauvage, figs 57, 59.
182. Mycenaean Greek roofing tiles. Terra-cotta tiling similar in principle to classical tiles was established in Greece
during the later Bronze Age. The roofs were of gentle pitch and were of substantial mud plaster construction into
which the tiles were bedded, so that water penetrating the tile was absorbed by the plaster sub-stratum. Thus the tiling
was simple. The pan tiles were splayed in plan with the noses of the upslope tiles fitting inside the downslope tiles to be
stopped by lateral construction. No special water proofing devices were incorporated. Adjacent rows of pantiles were
bestridden by semi-circular (i.e. Lakonian type) cover tiles. Based on Martin, fig 38.
60 chapter two
183. Classical Greek roof tiling systems. Left: Lakonian; centre: Sicilian; right: Corinthian.
184. Details of assemblage of Corinthian tiles. Doric Temple at Apollonia, Libyan Pentapolis, ca 300 BC.
Reconstruction of assemblage showing excellent water proofing schema. The upslope base tile (A) is stopped
by rebates in the front margins of the underside of tile (a) which engage with the lateral flanges (b) of the
downslope pan tile (B). Between this engagement the downturned toe of the upper slope tile (c) and the
weathering bar across the head of the downslope tile (d) make a double barrier to prevent water driving back
upslope into roof of structure below the tiling. Equally the tiles are propped out of contact so that water
cannot creep upward between them by capilliary action. Water is prevented from penetrating between pant-
iles set side by side by the super incumbent cover tile (C). After Apollonia, p 56, fig 10.
185. Roman Terra-cotta roofing tiles of the Sicilian type. Durms penetrating illustration showing (centre) pantile and
cover tile with details of engagement (above and right) and assemblage (below). The waterproofing details here are on
an interesting variant. There is no downturned toe at the foot of the pantiles so the pantiles rest in direct contact at
the overlap. In this way there is no weathering bar upstand at the head of the pantile, instead there are three trans-
verse (anti-capillary) grooves which prevent water from creeping upslope between the overlap of the pantiles by
capillary action. Such water as accumulates in these grooves is discharged in the very distinct lateral channels at each
side of the pantile. The upper pantile is stopped against the lower by a rebate cut in the underside of the lateral flanges
which engages against the upper termination of the upstanding lateral flanges of the lower pantile. According to the
drawing the cover tiles are stopped by their tapering breadth.
60 chapter two
186. Terra-cotta roof tiles incorporating devices for sky lighting (above) and ventilation (below). Pompeii. 1st
Cent AD. After Durm B d R, figs 363, 364.
187. Plan and Elevation of marble model for terra-cotta roofing tiles, both Lakonian and Corinthian types
providing the standard dimensions. Assos 5th Cent. BC. After Orlandos II, fig 63.
188. Schematic section of Roman hypocaust installation for central heating. Terra-cotta being heat resistant
is an all purpose material in hypocaust heating systems:the pilae, the floor support tiles which cap them and
the box tiles (tubuli, inbuilt wall flues) are all of terra-cotta. After McWhirr, p 286, fig 15.9.
60 chapter two
189. Terra-cotta flues (tubuli) of rectangular section (box tiles) set within walls for heating. NB Central
heating became generalised in colder Roman provinces. After Lugli, fig 115.
190. Tubuli in the Forum Baths, Ostia 160 AD. NB. The thickness of the plaster revetting which serves as a
long term retainor and transmitter of heat. After Adam, fig 633.
191. Tegulae mammatae (alternatives to tubuli). Studded tiles for fixing against wall faces and then plastered
over to create ducts for circulation of heated air from hypocausts. Varied detailing of tiles shown in plan and
section together with sections of wall assembly. After Lugli, fig 123.
192. A typical scheme of household drainage in the Middle East. House IV Babylon Merkez. Terra-cotta
drain pipes conduct waste water to a cylindrical sump shaft (Sickerschacht) lined with terra-cotta segments.
This system was specially prominent during the 3rd and 2nd millenia BC and its use was centred in Southern
Mesopotamia where it was appropriate to the flat terrain. After WVDOG 47, 1926, p 106, fig 72.
60 chapter two
193. Conspectus of terra-cotta segments lining drainage sumps. It is possible to recognise typological devel-
opments both regional and chronological. A plain cylindrical form is the earliest, while flanges and rolls
appear later, as does a curved profile both concave and convex. After Hemker 2, figs 534545.
195. Archaic terra-cotta water pipes. Athens. 6th

Cent. BC. NB. Curved profile proper to wheel made
pottery. Jointing effected by variation in diameter
without requiring rebates at mouth.
194. Late Bronze Age terra-cotta drain pipes. Nuzi,

North Mesopotamia. ca 1400 BC. All devices for con-
necting pipes together are present, i.e. both splayed
diameter and indentations. The mechanics of fixa-
tion is parallel to that of roofing tiles and provided a
model for the latter. On the other hand the curved
profile is otiose, and simply bespeaks the fact that
the pipes were wheel made. After Hemker 2, figs 342
346.
197. Cylindrical units of terra-

cotta drain pipes set within walls
as down pipes. Roman. After
Lugli, fig 115.
196. Terra-cotta water pipes. Hellenistic and Roman. 1. Pergamon (Hellenistic); 2. Nemi (Roman); 3. Mainz
(Roman); 4. Strasburg (Roman); 5. Jagsthausen (Roman). Two well marked systems for fitting pipes to-
gether can be seen here. There are more or less cylindrical pipes with rebates cut into both ends of the pipe,
one on the outer surface and one on the inner surface, so that the increased bore accomodates the dimin-
ished diameter of the succeeding pipe. On the other hand there is a simple detail of a pipe of increasing
diameter or, indeed, with a flaring mouth which accomodates the smaller diameter. After Hodge, pass.
60 chapter two
198. Regional distribution of lime and gypsum plaster. Although past archaeological reporting of
lime and gypsum is virtually worthless, recent enquiries have made it possible to distinguish that
from earliest Neolithic building a use of gypsum prevailed in Mesopotamia, Iran and in Egypt; whereas
lime was preferred in the Levant and Anatolia as throughout Europe. The rationale of this distribu-
tion is not fully evident. The distinction adverted to in the past has been climatic. Wetter regions use
lime because it is less soluble and in dry regions gypsum, which is highly soluble, is appropriate. This
is clearly not categoric, since there are areas in the Middle East where gypsum is in common use
where the rainfall is of the same order as parts of Europe. Another obvious rationale is supply of raw
material. Again this is not a sufficient explanation since there are areas where, e.g. gypsum is in
plentiful supply, yet the preferred material is lime.
199. Plan and Sections of Late Iron Age Lime kiln. Near Tell el Ful, North of Jerusalem. 7th6th Cent. BC. In
general such lime kilns were built up only to shoulder height and after stocking and stoking, the chamber
and its contents were covered over by stone corbelling which was dismantled after burning and cooling was
complete and the lime shovelled out from above. However in this instance the construction was more ad-
vanced. The firing chamber was entirely built up and vaulted over, while a rectangular service chamber
served as a stoke hold and for discharge of the burnt lime so that the kiln could be used repeatedly as it
stood. The charge of lime stone blocks was arranged to leave a hollow space at ground level for the fuel (of
thorn bushes) while a vent was arranged high up in the wall to promote the draught required for combus-
tion. The firing process continued for 36 days depending on the charge and roughly the same period was
required for cooling. After S. Gibson, figs 4, 5.
60 chapter two
200. Dixs reconstruction of Roman lime kilns of the periodic or flare type. The essence of this type of kiln is
that although built as a single upstanding chamber, the charge is so disposed that it is kept separate from the
fuel during firing. The charge was thus calcined by radiant heat as far as possible, whereby the product was
relatively pure clean white lime this considered optimum for modelling and moulding stucco relief decora-
tion. Dixs spirited drawings are based on a very broad frame of reference, but there are questionable points.
The prime crux is how to dispose the charge so that it remains elevated and does not subside into the fuel.
Segmental vaults (as shown here) inevitably necessitated some propping during construction and full scale
timber supports it seems would be burnt up in a short order before the charge fused together. Again some
sort of hood or canopy would augment the ventilation, but a timber structure (as shown here) would gener-
ally ignite. After Dix OJA I 1982, pp 33536; figs 2, 3.
201. Plan of legionary fabricatio lime burning plant. Iversheim, Lower Germany. The internal benching around
the walls of the kiln (shown stippled) provided support for devices to separate the charge above from the
fuel below. Stokeholds and other service apartments were set in front of the kilns. After Dix OJA 1 1982,
p 335, fig 1.
202. Reconstructed clamp burning of lime. Roman traditional modern. It is possible, indeed convenient,
to burn lime without building a durable kiln structure of any sort. The lumps / blocks of limestone and the
fuel were piled up in alternate layers on a circular plan and retained by a periphery of sizeable stones to form
a tapering cylinder which could be either sealed over with stones or left open. Gap(s) in the peripheral
walling near the ground provided for ignition and the necessary draught, while the charge could be topped
up from above where convenient. The outer blocks eventually collapsed unburnt or partly burnt over the
central core of burnt lime and could be used for burning or retaining as the case might be on a subsequent
occasion. This method produced a discoloured mixture of lime and ash, possessed however of some useful
properties. The identical process has also remained in use for burning brick in traditional brickfields. This
emphasises the basic community between lime burning and brick burning. After Dix OJA 1 1982, p 158,
fig 4.
60
chapter two
203. Neolithic painted wall plaster. atal Hyk. 7th6th millenium BC. Wall plastering 204. Neolithic plastic ornament by way of modelled plastering. atal
with its uninterrupted field early attracted to itself painted decoration, often in conjunc- Hyk. 7th6th millenium BC. The core of these modelled figures
tion with relief or incised ornament cf (below) the bulls heads in relief and the incised (bulls heads, women) was clay or on occasion, reed bundles but
bull. After J. Mellaart atal Hyk, pass. the surfacing came to be gypsum plaster often painted.
205. Plastering of Egyptian large-block masonry. The Temple at Deir el Medinah, Thebes. West Bank. New
Kingdom. Here the face of the wall blocks and the mouldings are finely dressed to a smooth surface. It would
be illogical to plaster over this surface as the plaster would lack any keying. On the other hand the crowning
cavetto and the door frame bear carved relief decoration which has been painted. This photograph clearly
shows the remains of a white substance as grounds for the coloured painting, but it is not possible to identify
this conclusively as plaster rather than as a painted undercoat. Here it has not survived to overlie the jointing,
which is the main aim of plastering as grounds for painting on stone masonry.
206. Plastering of painted Egyptian large

block masonry. Temple of Kalabsha.
Ptolemaic-Roman. Many of the deco-
rated blocks from the preceeding Ptole-
maic temple reused in the 1st Cent. AD
Temple of Kalabsha preser ved their
painted decoration in still vivid colours
when this temple was dismantled. It was
thus possible to ascertain whether the
paint was applied directly to the stone
or on stucco plastering to give a continu-
ous field for the painting. Cleaning tests
were made (as shown) and it was re-
ported that some of the blocks had been
plastered as grounds for the painting.
Unfortunately the projected conserva-
tion of the blocks was prevented by po-
litical difficulties, and when the blocks
again became accessible for study all
traces of the painting and plaster had
disappeared. After Kalabsha, pl 95b.
60 chapter two
209. Roman Corinthian capital. Stucco detail on rude stone core

207. Achaemenid Column partly built up in plas- (bell). Herculaneum, before 79 AD.
ter. The Treasury, Persepolis. ca 500 BC. The col-
umn consists of a wooden post as core bound
round with rope to serve as keying for thick plas-
ter to give the diameter required. The plaster was
painted to suggest a spiral rendering. after Frank-
fort, fig 111.
208. Plastered brick columns. Roman. Whatever the details of their construction, the aspect of brick built columns was
afforded by plastering and this on occasion included fluting. Since the application of ornament in stucco to stone
columns became common in later Hellenistic and Roman times, there could have been little visible indication whether
the column was built of brick or stone. After Lugli.
210. Plastering of Limestone capitals. Hellenistic-Roman.

Above: Ionic capital from New Paphos Cyprus; below: Doric
capital from New Paphos Cyprus. As compared with the
plaster work of Corinthian capitals, plastering of Ionic and
Doric capitals is a lesser operation. The ornament of the 211. Plastered Column Shafts and fluting. Above:
Ionic capital is (more or less) carved in the stone and the Stone column drums from Amathus Cyprus. 1st
plastering gives only the fine finish to it (cf here the crude Cent. BC1st Cent. AD; below: Burnt brick column
carving of the spirals). With the Doric capital the form is from Herculaneum, House of the Gem. Before 79
fully achieved and the plastering is only protection and AD. The plaster remains on the column shafts
improvement of the surface appearance of the inferior, fri- neatly illustrate the distinction between plastering
able stone. of surfaces as opposed to feature in relief formed
out of plaster;or in some terminologies, the dis-
tinction between plaster and stucco. The form of
the stone column drums above was fully worked
in the stone, including the fluting and the plas-
ter was applied to protect the friable stone and
improve its appearance. In the column below the
brick masonrycontributes only to the core of the
shaft, whereas its fluting is built up entirely in plas-
ter/stucco.
60 chapter two
212. Roman Plastering. Below: plasterers tools comprising wooden float and assorted trowel blades; above:
plasterer at work on wall face with float (after lost Pompeian wall painting). After Ling, figs 218, 219.
214. Unfinished Roman wall plastering. Pompeii.1st Cent.

AD The work was interrupted before the finishing coat
was applied so that the roughening up of the earlier coat
for keying has remained visible. Photo J-P Adam CNRS.
213. Adams diagram of Roman wall plastering to opus reticulatum wall. Plaster applied in 3 coats: (1) Rendering coat;
(2) Floating coat; (3) Finishing coat. The rendering coat fills out irregularities in the stone work and is roughened to
provide a keying for the floating coat which trues up the surface. The finishing coat provides the required fine texture
both for strength and appearance: and also as grounds for painting.
215. Adams ilustratation of Roman modes of decorative plastering. From left to right: moulding, stamping,
modelling. He does not show fixing of prefabricated plaster elements (e.g. strip mouldings etc) onto the wall
face, as this has been considered not to be an ancient practice. However recently striking examples of this
mode of plaster wall decoration have been revealed from early Byzantine buildings at Salamis, Cyprus. After
Adam, fig 258.
60 chapter two
216. Stucco decoration on the external face of the rear wall of the Qasr Bint Firaun at Petra as preserved in 1912.
The part preservation of the stucco itself together with the cuttings for inset pegs and studs etc to fix the relief
stucco to its grounds made it possible to reconstruct the decorative design on other walls where the stucco had
completely disappeared and only the cuttings in the stone remained. Equally it afforded much information on
the technique of applying the stucco. This was very sophisticated and probably included all relevent devices:e.g.
linear generation with a template, stamping and modelling (as in Adams diagram). After H. Kohl.
217. Reconstruction of the stucco decoration shown in the previous illustration. Qasr Bint Firaun, Petra. 1st
Cent BC1st Cent. AD. This decoration, reminiscent of the First and Second Styles at Pompeii, brought Petra
early into discussion of the history of Hellenistic and Roman Art. After Kohl, p 18, fig 16.
218. Detail of scheme of stucco decoration to ashlar masonry. Qasr Bint Firaun, Petra. 1st Cent. BC1st
Cent. AD. The eastern side wall of the naos showing: left: Surviving evidence of devices for fixing stucco relief
ornament to masonry grounds; right: Reconstruction of design of stucco ornament. The design consisting of
moulded architectural elements designates the temple building as Western inspired (from Alexandria).
After Kohl, fig 18.
219. Callots diagram to show proceedure in Early

Byzantine stucco work. Forming a half colonette by
in situ moulding within wooden form. (1) Prepara-
tion of plaster grounds by keying the surface with a
punch and inserting wooden pegs; (2) Fixing the
wooden form (mould) in place and pouring plaster
into the mould from above; (3) Mould struck while
plaster still workable to permit modelling of detail.
Subsequently the bases and capitals to be affixed pre-
fabricated. After Callot, p 365, fig 15.
60 chapter two
221. Early Byzantine Stucco decoration. Salamis, Cyprus.

ca 400 AD. Among other in situ devices (moulding, mod-
elling in various ways) the technique of this elaborate
scheme of architectural dcor included the mounting of
prefabricated elements, e.g. bases, capitals, cornices as
shown here. Hitherto this measure has been reckoned not
current in antiquity. After Callot, p 366, fig 17.
220. Callots disgram to show proceedure in Early Byzantine stucco work. Forming a moulded cornice by draw-
ing template and then carving out details. (1) Preparation of plaster grounds by keying the surface with a punch
and inserting wooden pegs; (2) Applying the stucco as retained by the template to the roughened plaster surface;
(3) Drawing the template across the stucco face to give the required architectural profile (mouldings); (4) Mod-
elling / carving the details of the modillions. After Callot, p 364, fig 13.
222. Stucco decoration in the Eastern World. Cavetto cornice niche framing. Early Sassanian Palace of
Firuzabad. ca 300 AD? The forms of Archaemenid architecture were taken up by Sassanian builders. How-
ever, whereas these forms had been carried out in finely dressed stone masonry (as at Persepolis), they were
now rendered in stucco on rubble and mud brick grounds. It is a valid generalisation that relief work in
stucco always goes back to fine stone masonry. It is poor mans masonry.
223. Typical Eastern Style wall plaster decoration. Late Sassanian and Early Arab. Nizamabad, near Veramin.
7th8th Cent. AD. The ornamental taste for all over wall decoration resulted in a far more prominent use
of repetitive stamp moulding on wall plaster than in the West. The characteristic was continued without
interruption from Sassanian into Early Islamic ornament. After Sasanidische Stuckdekor, pl 64.1.
60 chapter two
224. Plaster as a sealant. Lime plaster is in some measure

an aquafuge and has always been used for water proofing.
However in this connection bitumen and metal are much
more effective. Here the joints between stones of a Middle
Kingdom drain are sealed by cutting channels in adjacent
rising joints and filling them with plaster. This device re-
mained current in Graeco-Roman building. A similar de-
vice in the masonry of the Theseion (Hephaisteion) at
Athens is shown in fig 302, but executed in lead, a much
more effective and costly material.
225. Disposition of Roman concrete core material. The

essential element of Roman concrete is the core (aggre-
gate and mortar). The overall development of the mate-
rial is reflected primarily in the core (which unfortunately
226. Roman Concrete set against ashlar masonry i.e. faced is seldom illustrated) not in the facing. Overall there was a
with opus quadratum. Temple of Antoninus and Faustina, progressive change from heterogenous material dumped
Rome. 140 AD. This construction parallels much modern in to well sorted small angular fragments carefully spread
ashlar faced concrete, where the masonry in correct trade in alternate layers with the mortar. These illustrations ap-
terms is bastard ashlar. Although in historical surveys of peared originally to show unfaced concrete construction,
Roman Concrete the construction is generally mentioned but they indicate the progress mentioned. The lower ex-
first, basically it is not a chronological determinant. The ample is from Pompeii and shows core material which has
construction proceeds from the desired aspect of ashlar been poured in (inclined bedding) or dumped (random
masonry whatever the date. A tell tale distinction is that adjustment of fragments). The upper which is Hadrianic
such facing is not as a rule plastered. After Lamprecht, shows uniform material carefully bedded in horizontal
Ill 23. layers.
227. Roman Concrete opus vittatum (= banded work). External wall of Baths at Trier. ca 150 AD. The facing
is coursed squared rubble (average length ca 20 cms). This construction was particularly favoured in the
Western Provinces (Gaul, Germany) and is the equivalent of French petit appareil. The facing constitutes or
can constitute a stable element in itself and it is not clear that such construction is always concrete, i.e. it can
be random rubble faced with coursed squared rubble. Reference to opus vittatum is often omitted in outline
historical surveys of Roman Concrete, and it does not fit into a chronological pattern of development. The
remains of repeated plastering demonstrate that it was usual to plaster this type of Roman Concrete walling,
where indeed the aspect is not in itself very ornamental. After Lamprecht, Ill 22.
228. Roman Concrete opus incertum (= facing of random (rubble) work) The first type of facing specifically
designed to act as shuttering to Roman Concrete consisted of small units of random rubble (as indicated by
the name) generally little different from the core material, but chosen for a certain uniformity (left). This
system evolves out of random rubble walling with the distinction that the material was set pari passu with the
core which it delimited and contained while the liquid/plastic mortar was setting i.e. it was shuttering.
With time care was taken to choose (or shape) this material so that it could be set more finely jointed, when
it became, in effect, a miniature polygonal retaining wall thus a very strong construction indeed (right).
After Lamprecht, Ill 15, b and c.
60 chapter two
229. Roman Concrete with excellent opus incertum facing. Cistern in baths at Pompeii. Late 2nd Cent. BC.
Both in function and appearance the facing was never surpassed. NB the levelling courses of tufa. After
Adam, fig 296.
230. Roman Concrete facing trasitional between opus incertum and something approaching quasi reticulatum.
Rubble fragments ca 15 cms. After Adam, fig 302.

Middletons diagram showing reticulatum facing units
indented into brick frame, with square brick through
courses. After Middleton. Remains of Ancient Rome.
232. Roman Concrete opus recticulatum.

Capitol at Terracina. ca 40 BC. opus reticu-
latum facing was routinely effected with stone
units of two contrasting colours light and
dark;and these were routinely arranged in
patterns. Since opus reticulatum like other
concrete shuttering was plastered over if the
wall face was to be visible, this bichrome pat-
terning is difficult to rationalise. After Lugli,
pl CXLVII, 1.
60 chapter two
233. Possible representation of on site preparation of opus

reticulatum facing units. From a tomb relief at Ostia. After Adam,
fig 49.
234. Ruined opus reticulatum wall. Pompeii. End of 1st Cent. BC From the style of the facing and the nature of the
core material this wall would seem early. Much of the reticulatum facing has fallen away to reveal the concrete
core, here of sizeable compact rubble, rather than layered builders waste. There has been no survival of mortar
retaining the net work impression of the lost facing units so characteristic of damaged opus reticulatum walling.
This distinction is a matter of consequence. Photo J-P Adam CNRS.
235. Face of opus reticulatum wall where stone units have not survived having either fallen away or been
robbed out. The regular pattern formed by the impression in the mortar suggest the stone facing units were
inserted into the mortar. However it has always been understood that they were built up to provide the
shuttering, which rose equally with the mortar and rubble core of the wall. After Adam, fig 30.
236. Opus reticulatum facing where stone units have not

survived. The explanation always given is that the soft stone
(tuff) has been selectively weathered out. This does not
seem very realistic. Perhaps it is to be questioned whether
the stone elements were not extracted from this bedding
for re-use, presumably in later opus reticulatum construc-
tion. After Lamprecht, Ill 15e (bottom) and Lugli, pl
CXXXI, I & 2 (above).
60 chapter two
237. Opus reticulatum and the transition from stone to brick

facing in Roman Concrete. Temple in the Forum of Chieti.
Opus reticulatum inevitably suggested the use in a similar
manner of burnt brick (opus testaceum) as a facing; and it
soon established an affinity for a combination with the latter
as opus mixtum. However there is another little known transi-
tional feature. Sometimes the units of opus reticulatum were
themselves fashioned from burnt brick. In this example the
lighter (yellow) coloured tesserae of the patterned poly-
chrome reticulatum were cut from bricks. This offers a fur-
ther parallel between opus reticulatum and the ancient core
mosaics of Mesopotamia, which were originally of stone and
then out of burnt brick. After Lugli, pl CXLVII, 2.
238. Opus testaceum schema. Middletons diagram showing triangular brick facing units set into the core material to-
gether with through courses of square bricks.
239. Opus testaceum facing units for Roman Concrete. Although eventually the triangular facing units for opus testaceum
were specially manufactured, for much of the currency of the material it is reckoned that the units were obtained by
dividing up old roofing tiles or normal square bricks. There are difficulties in this proceedure. The two obvious ways of
shaping the triangular units are by sawing or dressing away. Sawing terra-cotta is very slow and laborious. On the other
hand dressing away, although perhaps quicker is extremely wasteful in material. Nonetheless tiles have been observed
with edges showing the tooling marks of both sawing (left) and dressing away (right). After Lugli, fig 113.
240. Roman Concrete with opus testaceum facing. Tomb on the Appian Way, Rome. Mid 2nd Cent. AD. Here the brick
facing has fallen away in patches to reveal the concrete core, apparently of small rubble and mortar. Photo, J-P Adam
CNRS.
60 chapter two
241. Eroded (stopped end) of opus testa-

ceum wall showing core construction.
Pompeii. 1st Cent. AD. The visible core
material may indicate there was an insen-
sible passage in Roman building from
opus testaceum facing to solid load bear-
ing brick construction via core material
containing much random brick as op-
posed to the coursed brick facing. After
Photo J-P Adam, CNRS.
242. Wall plaster on Roman Concrete. Above: House in Ostia; below: Hadrians
Villa. Plastering over the faces of Roman Concrete Walls, often covers very decorative patterns (of brickwork and/or
opus reticulatum). Both from the point of economy and of taste this can appear irrational. After Lugli, Pl CXXXI,
PL 3 & 4.
243. Wall plaster on Roman Concrete. Plastering over the faces of Roman Concrete walls (often of opus
reticulatum or opus mixtum executed in decorative patterns) prompts the explanation that the plastering was
effected in subsequent renovations. However there are numbers of instances in Pompeii where it can be
shown that the concrete wall was later than the earthquake of 62 AD, thus the plastering which covers the
(decorative) facing was part of the original design cf the example shown here where the plaster is itself
decorated in the Masonry Style. After Lugli, Pl CXLVII, 1.
244. Reconstruction of concrete foundations after negative impression left in concrete by vanished timber
work. This timbering is not shuttering for the concrete as is often stated, but is boarding to retain the
earthern walls of the foundation trench (as correctly perceived and expressed by Lugli in his caption
fondazzione .... entro cava armata). The timber also acts as a barrier to the passage of the liquid mortar into
the adjacent earth. After Lugli, fig 86.
60 chapter two
245. Schematic representation of shuttered Roman Concrete Foundations. If the boarding is to retain the
considerable thrust of the liquid mortar, then the posts must be on the exterior to buttress the boards. When
impressions in the surviving concrete show the posts to have been set against the interior face of the boards,
then the timbering was designed to retain the excavated face of the foundation trench.
246. Opus testaceum concrete wall on rubble foundations. House of the Dipinti, Ostia, 2nd Cent. AD. The
foundations here reveal the impressions of the uprights securing the boarding up of the earth face of the
foundation trench. The foundations may or may not be concrete, they may well be mortared rubble. In
subsequent ages the ground level must have been lowered to reveal what was originally underground con-
struction. After Adam, fig 289.
247. Roman Concrete columns. House of the

Games, Pompeii. ca 70 AD. Roman Concrete is
not a convenient material for columns, however
a few examples are known. Here the facing is
opus mixtum (opus reticulatum and opus testaceum).
After Lugli, Pl CLVII, 2.
248. Elevation of wall and part of dome of Pan-

theon showing projection of brick arches inset
into concrete structure. The function of these
arches has been much disputed. They must have
been built pari-passu with placing the concrete
core and perhaps can be looked on as internal
lost shuttering to facilitate and confine the plac-
ing of the concrete, and to resist the thrusts of
the semi-liquid core material while setting.
Arcuated forms are the strongest in resisting
and distributing these forces cf the circular
section of water tanks and silos. It is not appar-
ent that these brick arches could afford much
re-inforcing to the concrete structure once set.
Concrete like stone is weak in tension and a con-
crete dome would benefit by re-inforcing in the
tension zone (which is provided by inset iron
rods in a modern re-inforced concrete dome).
Certainly these brick arches are not structural
ribbing like the stone arches of Gothic vault-
ing. After Robertson, fig 105.
60 chapter two
249. Choisys analytical diagram of Roman Concrete vault construction showing the rle of inset brick arches.
This drawing indicates the utility of the arches in placing the concrete.
250. Bitumen supplies in the Ancient Middle East. Sketch map showing surface occurences of bitumen and related
substances (rock asphalt, bitumenised crude oil) and modern oil wells, together with the position of some ancient and
modern towns.
251. Bitumen waterproofing of drain under city wall. Assur. ca 2000 BC. Key: 1. Mud brick wall Inner City Wall of
Shalmaneser III; 2. Gypsum blocks forming drainage channel; 3. Burnt brick (33 x 33 x 13 cms) forming waterproof
lining of drain; 4. Bitumen water proofing; 5. Gravel bed of drainage channel. After Forbes, The Story of Bitumen,
fig 20.
60 chapter two
252. Bitumen in the refacing of existing Tigris Embankment. Assur. ca 1300 BC. The old stone embankment
was clad in parts with a flush structure of burnt brick in bitumen mastic mortar on a thick bedding of
bitumen. Key: 1. Roughly hewn stone blocks of old embankment; 2. Burnt brick in bitumenous mastic mor-
tar; 3. Bedding DPC of bitumen, earth, gravel; 4. Burnt brick in bitumenous mastic mortar; 5. Thick bitumen
bed. After Forbes, The Story of Bitumen, fig 23.
253. Neo Babylonian bathroom with bitumen waterproofing. Key: 1. Mud Brick wall; 2. Burnt brick floor; 3.
Waterproofing mantle of bitumenous mastic; 4. Sump drain of pottery rings. After Forbes I, p 19, fig 16.
254. Geological Sections illustrating formation of ore deposits through in- 255. Sketch Plan showing outcrop of auriferous quartz vein with transportation and
trusion of magma. Below: The magma intrusion has invaded the sedimen- deposition downstream of alluvial placer gold. After Healey, fig 6.
tary country rock (shales and limestones) to form the ore deposits and to
alter the contiguous country rock. Above: Idealised diagram showing typical
succession of ore bodies formed by intruding magma (a gossan). Because of weathering valuable materials such as copper are oxidised at the surface levels and the
sulphuric acid so formed attacks the metal (copper) and carries metal elements with it as it percolates downwards. When it reaches the alkaline environment at the
31
water table it precipitates the copper and so enriches the sulfide ore in the region. This gives a typical succession of ores so that oxide ores occur near the surface
and are underlain by sulfide ores at depth. The latter occasion more difficulties in smelting. After Allison & Palmer, figs 21.5 & 21.9.
60 chapter two
256. Diagram Section illustrating origin of surface placer gold. Gold lode in schist country rock outcrops at
surface level. In common with the country rock, the gold is denuded and the fragments transported, notably
by running water (either surface drainage or streams). Since gold is very heavy it is deposited wherever there
is a check to the flow. After Healey, fig 7.
257. Diagram Sections illustrating: above: river terrace or bench placer deposits; below: beach or marine
placer deposits. After Healey, figs 9 & 10.
258. Conspectus of Egyptian Metallurgical Practice. Theban tomb decoration. ca 1500 BC. Narrative style
relief showing main stages of metal work from delivery of raw material to finished metal product. Extreme
right: two workmen arrive carrying ingots of metal:the front man with an oxhide ingot of copper, the rear
man with a basket of bun shaped ingots, presumably of tin so as to obtain a bronze alloy. Above left, the alloy
is being melted in a forced draught bowl furnace operated by four foot bellows. Below left and centre the
molten metal is carried in a crucible held between green withies to a hollow mould into which the metal is
poured through a series of runners. The product thus cast in bronze is revealed to be the leaves of a
monumental door as shown by the drawing at the upper right. After Newberry, pl XVIII.
259. Type Reconstruction of copper smelting furnace. Timna, Negev (Israel). ca 1300 BC. Smelting furnace
and slag pit excavated in earth with a stone curbing at surface level to stabilise sandy soil. Front wall of
furnace built either of brick or of stone. Interior surfaces of furnace plastered over with lime (burnt by use).
Hollow in floor of furnace to form plano-convex ingots. Molten slag tapped off through aperture in front
wall after removal of temporary blocking. Curious slag circle in annular form to produce slag disc with
central hole (presumably for ease of handling). This is an idealised drawing and the graphics of the original
are defective. After Tylecote, fig 16.
260. Etuscan Shaft Furnace for smelting copper. The design of this furnace is that of a pottery kiln as devel-
oped in the Ancient Middle East with a vertical development of two chambers. However the mode of opera-
tion was not necessarily identical. When firing pottery the pots and the fuel are kept separate, the pots being
stacked in the upper chamber (oven) where they receive heat from the fuel in the lower (furnace) chamber
via perforations in the floor. In the Etruscan shaft furnace the fuel and the ore are said to have been placed
together in the upper chamber, while the lower chamber is regarded as an ash pit only in which event the
operation would resemble that of a continuous lime kiln. Natural draught was provided via the lower cham-
ber and the perforated floor. Presumably there was some provision for running off slag at the bottom of the
shaft. At floor level the diameter of the shaft was 1.80 m. After Coghlan, fig 13.
60 chapter two
261. Plano-convex ingot of pure copper. Diam 14,5 cms.

Late Bronze Age. This plano-convex form indicates that 262. Chronological development of Oxhide Ingot
the ingot was shaped directly in the smelting furnace and form. The ingots illustrated are almost pure cop-
has not been remelted for refining or casting into another per. They were found at Ayia Triadha in Crete, but
form. Nevertheless the copper is relatively pure. The den- were most probably imported from Cyprus. The
sity of metallic copper is more than twice that of slag, so it oxhide ingot form was not achieved directly in the
sinks through the slag to the floor of the furnace. When smelting process. The metal was remelted and then
the slag is molten it is drained off from the furnace, and run off while molten. Such a stone mould has been
the ingot removed after it has solidified. After Tylecote, recovered from Ras Ibn Hani, the port of Ugarit in
fig 19. North Syria. After Tylecote, fig 20.
263. Diagram section of primitive bloomery hearth for the production of wrought iron (left) and of the tradi-
tional Middle East baking oven (right) showing the common origin. Both consist of a hearth of stones which can
be made red hot to radiate heat and over which a clay dome is placed. The tabun can be heated by plastering
dung fuel on the exterior surface, The bloomery is charged with alternate layers of charcoal and ore. The high
temperature required is attained from an air vent.
264. Simple bowl furnaces for smelting Iron. Httenberg, Austria. The most basic type of furnace consisting
of a small bowl shaped hollow in the ground lined with clay fired with use to hard terra-cotta. The charge of
fuel and ore was built up in domical form above the ground over the top of the furnace, thus involving much
loss of heat and artificial draught would be necessary from bellows with tuyres passing above the rim of the
bowl into the fuel. In spite of its inefficiency this type of furnace survived from prehistoric times into the
middle ages. At Httenberg the installations were set into a stone paving and occured in pairs. NB. The
dimensions given on the original drawing are suspect. After Coghlan, fig 5.
265. The Jura Type Shaft Furnace. North Europe but widely distributed in the Graeco-Roman world from
6th Cent. BC. This is the basic design of shaft furnace consisting of a chimney flue lined with terra-cotta, at
the bottom of which is the hearth receiving draught via a horizontal wind passage. The construction is set
within a sloping hill side or bank of earth to conserve heat. By suitable disposition with reference to the
prevailing wind the furnace can operate with natural draught. Slag is removed through the wind passage as
also the bloom of iron; while charcoal fuel and ore are charged down the chimney. Since this process could
be carried out while the furnace was fired, something like continuous operation could have been possible.
The height of the chimney is limited by the weight of superincumbent ore the charcoal fuel can bear (not
more than several metres). After Coghlan, fig 8.
60 chapter two
266. Production of wrought iron in Greece. Smithy scene on black figure vase. ca 500 BC. A smith is forging
an iron bloom in front of a shaft furnace with draught provided from bellows behind furnace. The smiths
tools are shown:tongs and hammers of various types.
267. Site Plan of Romano-British Iron Smelting furnace. Holbeanwood, The Weald, Sussex. 2nd and 3rd
Cent. AD. These furnaces are of forced draught type with a cylindrical superstructure. They were worked by
naval units of the Classis Brittanica. After Strong and Brown, fig 228.
268. Roman smithy scene. Relief on the gravestone of a smith, Aquileia. Left: assistant at the side of the
hearth working bellows protected form the heat and glare by a screen through which projects the nozzle of
the bellows. The hearth is covered by a hood, here in pedimental form; centre: the smith seated at the an-
vil working with hammer and tongs. The anvil is a low iron block hollowed out below to give a four footed
base and set above a wooden stand affording a convenient working height; right: the smiths tools of trade
(hammer, tongs, chisel and (below) a specimen of his work (a lock). After Strong and Brown, fig 233.
269. Smithy scene. Catacomb of Domatilla, Rome. Left: an assistant operates the bellows behind the hooded
hearth where he is least exposed to heat; right: the smith stands at his anvil hammering an iron bar which he
holds with his tongs. The anvil is an iron cube resting on a (wooden) stand. After Strong and Brown, figs 234
& 237.
270. Large Iron Anvil of Roman date. 21 cms high, platform 18 cms in diameter; base 8 cms in diameter.
There is an extension at one side of the working platform and nail forging devices at the other side. Heavy
iron anvils are superior to heavy stone anvils for work on a large scale. They are known in Roman times but
are not common. After Coghlan, p 121, fig 30.
60 chapter two
271. Blacksmiths tongs of varied forms. London and other Romano-British sites. Long handles are required
to keep the smiths hands away from the furnace and the hot iron. The various types of jaws were developed
for specialised work, above all to prevent lateral displacement from the jaw when rods etc were being ham-
mered. After Strong and Brown, figs 242246.
272. Scheme of City Gate in Ancient Middle East based on the

Balawat Gates now in British Museum. These massive wooden gates
with heavy metal shod posts which turn in stone pivots sunk be-
low the ground are held above by metal collar rings let into the
wall. The timber leaves are fortified by metal (copper, bronze)
bands affixed by metal studs of decorative aspect and at times
further ornamented by figural decoration.
273. The Monumental Door and its origins. The decoration shows in its detail the Middle East origins in
wooden city gates strengthened with metal (plated) ledges. The copper / bronze studs attaching these metal
fittings provided extra strength and protection;also they were soon appreciated as decoration. Below: Marble
doors from Macedonian tombs ca 300 BC with carved stone ornament reproducing the scheme of the metal
elements applied to wooden gates. Above: Moulded bronze doors of the Parthenon. ca 430 BC. These descen-
dents of the bronze studding are further decorated with lions heads and rosettes.
60
chapter two
274. The moulded bronze doors of the Parthenon in their setting. After Lawrence, 275. The Moulded bronze doors of the Pantheon. After Durm B d R,
fig 93. fig 376.
276. Moulded bronze doors of the Pantheon. Elevation of one leaf and 277. Moulded bronze doors to the Heroon of Romulus and Remus, Rome. Eleva-
sectional details of hollow casting and applied bronze ornament. After Durm tion and details showing hollow cast framing with solid panels. After Durm B d R,
B d R, fig 377. fig 379.
31
60 chapter two
278. Wrought Iron beams set into hollowed out ceiling beams of Temple of Apollo. Bassae. 450 BC. After
Martin, fig 64.
279. Wrought iron beam from Roman baths at Catterick, Yorkshire. ca 2nd Cent. AD. Staging to support
metal (iron) tanks and cisterns necessary for hot water supply in Roman baths were frequently of wrought
iron blooms welded together. Typical dimensions of such beams as surviving are:length ca 1.50 m, section ca
15 cms x 15 cms with a weight of ca 150 kgs. After Tylecote, fig 42.
280. Iron reinforcing bars in Classical Greek stone architrave. The Propylaion, Athens Acropolis. ca 430 BC.
After Martin, fig 63.
281. Sketches by Renaissance architects of the

roofing truss in the portico of the Partheon.
Above: by Dosio; below: by Serlio. These sketches
are surprisingly at variance but they concur in
illustrating two matters of importance. The struc-
ture is, or was, extended to act as as a truss. This
is made obvious by the emphasis put on the ten-
sion joints between the members. Secondly con-
siderable use was made of metal in the construc-
tion. Both sketches show very clearly in section
the purlins, which have been discussed on sev-
eral occasions in connection with the use of metal
(bronze) in ancient building. The sketches ap-
pear to represent the purlins in section as metal
troughs set inverted i.e. open below. Three
main explanations of this have been suggested.
(a) The metal, whatever its precise disposition
was simply decorative bronze plating (it was vis-
ible from below); (b) The metal sections were in
reality reinforcing for structural wooden mem-
bers (in spite of their appearance in the sketches
of being hollow); (c) The metal sections were,
indeed, what appears to be represented in the
sketches: stuctural bronze members. Only the
sketches remain for discussion. The actual items
were melted down by Pope Urbain VIII. The
matter is susceptible to much detailed argument.
After Serlio Third Booke, chap 4, folio 3 (below);
Lanciani, fig 188 (above).
60 chapter two
282. Iron ties in classical Greek stone masonry. Long iron bars extending the entire length of a course set as
stringers into two courses of the creps of the Theban Treasury at Delphi to provide tensile reinforcement.
After Dinsmoor Structural Iron, fig 1.
283. Iron reinforcing in Roman Concrete. Architrave (or flat archivolt) said to be concrete faced with brick
(opus testaceum) supported on 3 iron bars at the soffite set between stone impost blocks. Teatro Maritimo,
Hadrians Villa, Tivoli This construction is not (modern) reinforced concrete faced with lost shuttering.
There are, indeed, four separate elements (stone, brick, concrete, iron) but these are assembled so that each
functions to the joint advantage. The stone impost blocks and brick faced concrete (?) beams together
consitute a flat arch and the iron bars restrain its thrust;or the brick faced concrete (?) member acts as a
beam, in which the iron bars in the soffite resist the bending stresses. The conformation of these reinforcing
bars cranked up and anchored with molten lead into recesses in the upper bed of the impost blocks is
astonishing. It appears to betoken an advanced perception of the stresses induced in a beam fixed at both
ends with its double flexion, point of contraflexion and sheer. NB. The description in WA does not accord
with the illustration, e.g. the architrave unit appears to be entirely of axed brick (a soldier arch) not brick
faced concrete. Also it is stated that the whole construction was faced with stone revetting! Key: A. Stone
Column; B. Stone impost block; C. Brick faced architrave (opus testaceum); D. Wrought iron bars; E. Recesses
for bars; F. Anchorage for bars sealed with molten lead. After Delaine WA 21 1990, p 420, fig 9.
284. Iron tie rods in mixed Roman Concrete and stone construction. Rome. 285. Iron tie rods in vaulted Byzantine masonry. Ayia Sophia (gallery level).
1st3rd Cent. AD. These instances of iron tie rods let into concrete construc- Constantinople. 537 AD. Precautions or remedies were taken against the thrust ex-
tion between stone elements are not concerned with reinforcing concrete, ercised by the vaulting on its masonry abutments. Wrought iron tie rods were run in
but demonstrate that Roman builders considered that concrete vaulting ex- the clear across arches etc at impost level and also on occasion set into masonry
ercised a thrust on its abutments. The use of these metal ties, both con- below gallery floor level. Equally use was made of wood tie beams in the clear across
cealed and displayed, anticipate its later development as standard practice in arches at impost level (sometimes these may have functioned as struts). Iron rods
Byzantine construction. After Delaine WA 21, 1990, p 419, fig 8. were used for the most part in the stone masonry construction of the nave, while
31
timber tie beams were used for the surrounding brick structure of the galleries. In
conjunction with the iron cramps and dowels, this meant that more metal (iron)
was used in the construction of Ayia Sophia than in any building before the Indus-
trial Revolution in Modern Europe. After Mainstone, Ill A3.
60
chapter two
287. Iron ties and collars in vaulted Byzantine masonry. Ayia Sophia (Gallery Level), Constantinople. 537 AD.
The thrust from vaulted construction deformed arches and loaded columns eccentrically inducing tensile
stresses which were counteracted by iron tie rods and collars. Drawing L. Pacher.
286. Iron collars around Byzantine columns. Ayia Sophia, Constantinople. 537 AD. These eccentrically loaded columns at gallery level were thrust out of vertical
so that the load is not transmitted down the central axis of the column, but near the surface on one side. Thus the column tends to buckle out on the other side
which puts the surface there in tension so that stone tends to flake or spall away. This is restrained by binding the column around with iron bands or collars as
shown here. After Mainstone, fig 42.
288. Orlandos Schema of the basic forms of Graeco-Roman metal cramps. There are many variant and hybrid ex-
amples to suit special individual requirements but the following are the principle form: 1. Rectilinear swallow tail (also
with dowel pegs); 2. Double form , both and ; 3. Double form; 4. form. Although this typology is not essen-
tially based on chronology, it incorporates a measure of chronological significance with the rectilinear swallow tail form
deriving directly from the wooden cramps of curvilinear swallow tail form and the (pi) form the general type in later
(Roman) times.
289. form cramp with medial process. Phillipeion, Olympia. ca

335 BC. Cramps of this form occur on occasion and perhaps the
medial lozenge was fancied to possess some virtue in compres-
sion, or was reckoned to enhance resistance to sheer.
290. Cramps of double T form and dowels of T form and form

in section. Temple of Athenians, Delos. ca 420 BC.
60 chapter two
291. Cramps of large double T form and dowels both T form and simple flats in section. Temple of Athen-
ians, Delos. Hellenistic.
292. System of universal dowelling in Classical Greek ashlar walls. Temple of Athena Nike, Athens. ca 425 BC.
As a general rule dowels were sunk into the middle of the bed joints of the lower blocks and recessed into the
rising joints of the upper block for accessibility where they could be sealed by molten lead poured into an ad
hoc terra-cup. However in positions believed subject to exceptional stress (e.g. angle blocks) the dowels were
set within the upper block and sealed by molten lead introduced through pour channels a typical exercise
of Greek rationalism. After Martin, fig 129.
293. Detail of iron dowel set between blocks of

two courses of ashlar masonry. The dowel is in-
serted into its emplacement and a clay cup is
formed around the emplacement. Molten lead is
then ladled into the cup so sealing the dowel in
position.
295. Fixation of column drums by metal empo-

lion set within wooden polos sunk into beds of
drums.
294. Roman dowelling in ashlar masonry. In this connection

Roman practice was more aligned with Egyptian masonry than with Greek i.e. Roman masons did not employ
dowelling as a general feature of ashlar masonry but reserved it for positions of special stress notably securing
together bases and columns (below) and the voussoirs of vaults (above). The dowel was let into the lower bed of the
upper block and sealed there with molten lead, while a channel was cut to the dowel hole in the lower block. In
general such a channel was not a pour channel. The dowel hole in the lower block was filled with molten lead
before the upper block was set, so that the projecting dowel was englobed in molten lead. Such surplus lead as it
expelled was forced out of the dowel hole into the channel which thus served as an escape channel, so that the
bedding of the blocks was not disturbed. After Lugli, figs 59 & 61.
60
chapter two
297. Heaped up mass of nails removed from pit in fabrica of Roman Legionary fortress. Inchtuthill,
Perthshire, Scotland (ca 130 AD). The nails varied in length from ca 5 cms to ca 37 cms. The
total deposit amounted to about 1 million nails, weighing, en masse, not less than 10 tons. After
Brittania Monograph 6, Pl. XX.
296. Forging nails from wrought iron. (1) A cylindrical iron rod is provided of greater diameter than the desired nail; (2) The point of the nail is formed at
one end of the rod; (3) This end of the rod is tooled on the anvil to the diameter and length of the nail; (4) This part is cut off from the rod leaving a surplus
at the blunt end for forging the head of the nail; (5) The head of the nail is forged using the nail hole in the anvil (or a substitute).
298. Typology of the Inchtuthill nails. These are divided into 6 main categories according to the size of the
shaft and its form, together with the shape and thickness of the head. However the one salient distinction
was between Type F (only ca 30 items) and the other types the shanks of which were square in section,
whereas those of Type F were circular. This and its chisel edge point suggested that Type F nails were used to
fasten timber to masonry (perhaps driven into the mortar joints). The length of this type was constant at ca
8 cms, while the other types ranged in length from ca 5 cms to ca 37 cms. After Brittania Monograph 6, fig 86.
60 chapter two
299. Iron hangers for suspended ceiling. Roman Baths. Florence. As specified by Vitruvius (V, 10, 3) a plasterwork vault
on slats, lathes etc was suspended by iron straps from the roofing structure here trusses. Key: 1. Structural walls; 2.
Tubuli for heating; 3. Wooden roofing trusses; 4. Roofing timbers; 5. Boarding; 6. Roofing tiles; 7. Suspended ceiling of
slats and fillers; 8. Iron strap hangers; 9. Final plastering and stuccoing of ceilings and walls. After Hoffman B d A,
p 100, fig 1.
300. Lead cramps in late Egyptian Stone Masonry. The entablature and roofing of the Hall was with very
large blocks, as here ca 2m2 in cross section and weighing ca 20 tons. The junction between the architraves of
the Hypostyle Hall faade and roofing beam was in Y form. The three huge blocks were secured together by
6 lead cramps. As far as could be estimated these cramps may have been cast in situ or, more likely, pre-cast
and hammered into place (in the hot Nubian sun). Again in spite of the late date the form both of the
emplacement and of the metal cramp was curvilinear swallow tail (originally proper to wooden cramps).
Two of the cramps had been robbed out in times past. After Kalabsha, fig 90.
301. Large finely wrought lead cramp in late Egyptian stone masonry. The Temple of Kalabsha, Lower Nubia.
1st Cent. AD. The metal cramp ca 33 cms long set between massive entablature blocks of the Hypostyle Hall
was intended to secure the blocks from displacement by shearing and tensile stresses. However lead is not
the optimum material for this purpose. The contour of the cramp (cf the slight bulging in the space between
the blocks) suggests that the cramp, however fabricated, was hammered into the emplacement to occupy it
completely. NB. The white line indicates the margin of the cramp otherwise obscured in the shadow. After
Kalabsha, fig 91.
60 chapter two
302. Lead damp proofing in classical Greek ashlar masonry. The Theseion / Hephaisteion, Athens. ca 440
BC. The purpose of the damp proofing was to preserve the frescoes on the interior face of the wall from
damage. Vertical channels of triangular section were cut in the rising face of each block 5 cms behind the
face. These cuttings when the blocks were set in place constituted a vertical channel of lozenge shaped
section (A) into which molten lead was poured. This device did not seal out water from penetrating via the
bed joints! After Orlandos I, fig 81.
303. Roman lead waterpiping. Synoptic view of manufacture and installation. 1. Stamped lead bars; 2.
Cast in flat mould; 3. Flat folded and the joint sealed by lead ridge poured between forms and duly
stamped; 4. Municipal supply pipes installed beneath footpath with branch pipe to private establish-
ment. After Hodge, fig 77.
60 chapter two
304. Anomalous structure of glass. Glass is of acrystalline structure, although formed as a compound from crystalline
raw materials. These comprise 5 elements: sodium, carbon, oxygen, calcium, silicon. The carbon and some oxygen is
lost by way of vaporisation and a loose or open arrangement of the remaining elements is formed where silicon and
some oxygen combine together in a regular pattern, but the remaining oxygen and other atoms are not fixed into a
network. Some metal atoms iron, copper, antinomy are intrusive so as to colour the glass or render it more opaque.
After Dayton.
305. Sketch reconstruction of a primary

tank furnace or kiln for producing bulk
glass. Beit Eliezer, by Hadera, North Israel.
Late Antiquity. The structure set up in a ru-
ral area, consists of a brick built chamber
sunk in the earth prefixed by a binary
stokehold and provided with a chimney at
the rear. The raw materials are disposed in-
side the firing chamber and the chamber is
then bricked over. The stokehold is fuelled
with wood and fired. After several days when
the materials have completely fused to fill
the tank with molten glass, the installation
is allowed to cool and the temporary vault-
ing of the chamber demolished, so that the
large slab of glass contained is broken up
and removed. After Y. Gorin-Rosen.
306. Reconstructed sequence showing use of primary glass furnace in Northern Israel during Late Antiquity.
A. Sketch plan and section of semi-permanent installation. The tank filled with raw materials for melting (1);
B. Temporary vaulting (shown schematically) in place. The stokehold filled up (with wood) and fired. The
tank containing molten glass (2); C. Temporary vaulting broken down and the extraction (3) and the break-
ing up (4) of the solidified glass in progress.
60 chapter two
307. Glass furnace/kiln for manufacturing objects in Roman and later times. The relief decoration on the
disc of a tera-cotta lamp to all appearances represents a glass blower seated in front of his furnace. The
representation of the furnace is crude, but it shows in scale a beehive form with two superposed apertures,
the lower to the stokehold and the upper to the aperture to permit the blower to remove and return the
vessel at will during blowing. Unfortunately the top of the kiln is fragmentary, and there is no clear indica-
tion of the annealing chamber. This evidence is supplemented by a Renaissance engraving (right) illustrating
the functional design of traditional glass furnaces. It clearly portrays the beehive structure with three super-
posed levels: the stokehold, the oven and the annealing chamber, all directly accessible by ports. It also
indicates the horizontal division into sectors to enable several glass blowers to work simultaneously at the
same furnace.
308. Plan of Roman Glass Furnaces. Eigelstein, near Cologne. It is interesting to note that both circular and
rectangular plans exist in conjunction. The inference is that the rectangular furnaces are for producing bulk
glass and the cirular furnaces for making glass objects.
309. Manufacturing processes of blown sheet glass. Above: crown glass; below: cylinder (or muff) glass. Both
processes are now considered to have been in common use during Roman times crown glass being the later
development. A variant of cylinder glass in the hybrid method of blowing the cylinder into a suitably dimen-
sioned box mould, and when cooled to cut apart the flat faces. After Gleeson II, figs 122 & 123.
60 chapter two
IN HISTORY
This new series of scholarly surveys is intended to offer an updating of
the discussion of questions regarding the nature of technology and
technological change first broached in the nine-volume survey by R.
Forbes: Studies in Ancient Technology. The series will however take in not
only the original scope of Forbes work namely the Ancient Near East
and the Greco-Roman world, but will extend beyond this to cover the
medieval and early modern periods.
The volumes in the series will be in English, of 300-800 pp., divided
into 10-15 topical chapters and aim to present to scholars, graduate
students and to non-specialist scholars the current state of knowledge
in the various fields in the history of technology.
1. Astill, G. and Langdon, J. (eds.). Medieval Farming and Technology. The

Impact of Agricultural Change in Northwest Europe. 1997.
ISBN 90 04 10582 4
2. Wikander, . (ed.). Handbook of Ancient Water Technology. 2000.
ISBN 90 04 11123 9
3. Squatriti, P. (ed.) Working with Water in Medieval Europe. Technology
and Resource-Use. 2000. ISBN 90 04 10680 4
4. G.R.H. Wright. Ancient Building Technology. Volume 1: Historical Back-
ground. 2000. ISBN 90 04 10680 4
5. Robert I. Curtis. Ancient Food Technology. 2001. ISBN 90 04 09681 7
6. Bryan Lawton. Various and Ingenious Machines. Volume 1: Power Genera-
tion and Transport. Volume 2: Manufacturing and Weapons Technology.
2004. ISBN 90 04 13609 6
7. G.R.H. Wright. Ancient Building Technology. Volume 2: Materials.
2 Vols. Part 1: Text; Part 2: Illustrations. 2005.
ISBN 90 04 14007 7 (Set)
ISSN 1385-920X

Ancient Building Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancient Building Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How to go to your page:

This eBook contains two parts:

2. Part II: Illustrations

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Wright, G.R.H. (George R.H.), 1924

Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands

printed in the netherlands

The Limits of the Ancient World .......................................................... vivii

Introduction ................................................................................................ xxix

Chapter One: General Survey .................................................................. 1

Chapter Two: Wood .................................................................................. 13

Chapter Three: Stone .................................................................................. 29

Chapter Four: Earth/Clay .......................................................................... 75

Chapter Five: Lime and Gypsum .............................................................. 143

Chapter Six: Concrete .................................................................................. 181

thoroughly understood. Evolution towards ever lighter units handled en

Chapter Seven: Bitumen .............................................................................. 218

Chapter Eight: Metals .................................................................................. 231

bond) which consists of a cloud of free electrons aording their

Chapter Nine: Glass ...................................................................................... 279

production of bulk glass only; general purpose kiln designed to provide

Conclusions .................................................................................................... 293

Index .............................................................................................................. 297

1. Site Location Maps.

27. Plan and Reconstructed Elevation of Typical North European Timber

83. Setting Out for Cutting Voussoir of an Ashlar Dome.

114. Defective Egyptian Stone Foundations.

198. Map indicating regional Distribution of Lime and Gypsum Plaster.

256. Section showing Origin of Surface Gold.

AAAO Art and Archaeology of the Ancient Orient

PBA Proceedings of the British Academy

Several introductory remarks are unavoidable in a book with this purported

Bolten, Librarian of NINO Library and to Els Koeneman, Librarian of the

Properties plasticity; cohesion; adhesion; permeability; transparency; inamability; etc. etc.

(1) Puddled Mud or Cob (Plastic Earth)

There is also an important post-script to the development of this strong Metal

Appendix: Comparative Weights and Strengths of Materials

MUD BRICK 1.0 1.0 1.0

BURNT BRICK 1.13 5.0 4.5

LIMESTONE 1.33 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.3 0.75 0.75

GRANITE 1.8 40.0 1.0 1.0 22.2 0.55 0.55

WOOD ~0.5 7.0 10.0 10.0 14.0 20.0 20.0

IRON 2.3 50.0 70.0 90.0 22.0 30.5 39.2

A. Nature and Qualities of Wood

(1) Actual physical remains of wooden building elements.

A. Nature and Qualities of Wood

Wood is an organic substance. It is, therefore, subject to decay, and also to

* The importance in ancient building of an (observational) understanding of the variation

attach revetments to wooden groundsnotably metal plating to monumental Nailing

B.R. Schlenker, Introduction to Materials Science, Chap. 14 Wood, Sydney, 1974.

A. Nature and Qualities of Stone

Stone as a natural material seems the antithesis of wood. It is an inorganic Geological

A. Nature and Qualities of Stone

Quarrying Technological progress in large part occurs in the following manner:

1. To be conversant with a technological device for eecting some particular

The development of quarrying may be viewed in the light of successive shifts

building stone, based on due understanding of geological/physiographic processes Quarrying

Stone What engineered this development? Originally it was a functional concern.

(1) Survival of actual tools

Setting and Fixing

D. The Uses of Stone

Stone masonry, essentially monumental ne stone masonry, has been a matter

J. Allen Howe, The Geology of Building Stones, London, 1910.

Appendix: Architectural Rock Cutting