MUD-BRICK ARCHITECTURE عمارة الطوب اللبن Virginia L. Emery EDITORS WILLEKE WENDRICH Editor-in-Chief Area Editor Material Culture University of California, Los Angeles JACCO DIELEMAN Editor University of California, Los Angeles ELIZABETH FROOD Editor University of Oxford JOHN BAINES Senior Editorial Consultant University of Oxford Short Citation: Emery, 2011, Mud-Brick Architecture. UEE. Full Citation: Emery, Virginia L., 2011, Mud-Brick Architecture. In Willeke Wendrich (ed.), UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology, Los Angeles. http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0026w9hb 1146 Version 1, February 2011 http://digital2.library.ucla.edu/viewItem.do?ark=21198/zz0026w9hb MUD-BRICK ARCHITECTURE عمارة الطوب اللبن Virginia L. Emery Ziegelarchitektur L’architecture en brique crue Mud-brick architecture, though it has received less academic attention than stone architecture, was in fact the more common of the two in ancient Egypt; unfired brick, made from mud, river, or desert clay, was used as the primary building material for houses throughout Egyptian history and was employed alongside stone in tombs and temples of all eras and regions. Construction of walls and vaults in mud-brick was economical and relatively technically uncomplicated, and mud-brick architecture provided a more comfortable and more adaptable living and working environment when compared to stone buildings. على الرغم أن العمارة بالطوب اللبن تلقت إھتماما أقل من العمارة الحجرية من قِبَل المتخصصين، فقد كانت في الواقع تلك العمارة ھي اﻷكثر شيوعا في مصر القديمة، وكان الطوب اللبن (أوالنيء) المصنوع من الطمي أو الطين الصحراوي مستخدما كمادة بناء بدائية للمنازل على مدار التاريخ المصري واستخدمت إلى جانب الحجارة في المقابر والمعابد في جميع المناطق وخﻻل جميع الفترات. كان بناء الجدران واﻷقبية من الطوب اللبن عبارة عن تقنية إقتصادية وغير معقدة، وعمارة الطوب اللبن وفرت ظروف معيشة وعمل أكثر راحة وتﻻئماَ إذا ما قورنت بالمباني الحجرية. he study of ancient Egyptian walls that encircled their final monumental architecture traditionally has stone incarnations. Throughout Egyptian T focused on the monumental history, mud-brick was employed as a building stone constructions and feats of engineering material for domestic, funerary, and religious represented by the pyramids, the temples, and architecture; while the resulting mud-brick the rock-cut tombs of the dynastic era: those structures were used for different activities, monuments for which Egypt is justly famous. the methods of construction were the same, However, this modern bias toward stone adapted to the strengths and limitations of the architecture passes over structures building material rather than the use of the constructed with the more common building structure. medium of mud-brick, thereby failing to When compared to stone as a construction consider the vast majority of ancient Egyptian material, mud-brick presented many architecture. In ancient Egypt, structures of all advantages. Unlike stone, mud-brick was sizes and socio-economic levels were universally available, it being possible to constructed of mud-brick, from the simplest produce brick from Nile alluvium or desert of abodes to the grandest of palaces, from sediments/clays, sand, and water—resources backyard grain storage bins to immense state- accessible to everyone, though in varying administered granaries, from the humble early quantity (Kemp 2000: 83 - 84; McHenry 1996: phases of temples to the massive temenos Mud-Brick Architecture, Emery, UEE 2011 1 1 - 20). Mud-brick was quick to fabricate, illuminate not only the structures and their especially when compared to the quarrying of construction, but also can reveal aspects of stone blocks, and was therefore more the construction planning and the levels of economical, particularly for large construction the organization of work and workers projects such as entire palace complexes or employed to produce the structure (Eyre row upon row of temple storage magazines 1987a, 1987b; Emery and Morgenstein 2007: (Fathy 1989: 4 - 5; Kemp 2000: 83 - 84). 111 - 122; Rosen 1986: 75 - 91). Then, as Likewise, mud-brick was fast and easy to build now, construction presumably would have with, as a modular and regularized begun with a planning phase in which the size construction material that did not require and layout of the structure would have been further trimming and modification once laid, determined and the number of bricks needed which Egyptian stone masonry techniques for the project calculated, though this initial frequently demanded (Arnold 1991: 115 - 124 phase is little attested in either the textual or and references cited there). Early stone the archaeological record (Arnold 1991: 7 - construction actually employed more regularly 10; Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 47 - 68). A sized blocks as a byproduct of its Ramesside scribal training piece included in development out of mud-brick masonry Papyrus Anastasi I includes an example of the techniques, as did the talatat of the Amarna mathematical process of calculating the Period (Arnold 1991: 120 - 122; see also van number of bricks that the building of a Beek and van Beek 2008: 149). Mud-brick construction ramp of a prescribed size would structures offered better interior climate require (P. Anastasi I 13.5 - 16.6 in Gardiner control than equivalent stone structures, 1911: 16 - 19, 31 - 34); while the dimensions providing more comfortable living and of the ramp are outlandish, the inclusion of working spaces (Endruweit 1994; McHenry the problem as an exercise in a scribal training 1996: 30; for an alternate opinion, see Kemp text does suggest that young scribes would be 2000: 88). Mud-brick construction was easily required to make such calculations in real- modified and expanded upon, allowing for the world situations. allocation of space and the adaptation of Once the ground plan of the structure had spatial arrangements in a fashion that stone been decided upon, the outline of the could not accommodate, thereby offering a structure would have been set out on the flexibility not physically or financially feasible ground. For larger structures, it actually would in stone structures (Kemp 2006: 217 - 221; for have been laid out with pegs and string, a similar phenomenon in Mesopotamia, see presumably the stage in the planning depicted Stone 1981: 19 - 33). However, mud-brick in the “Stretching of the Cord” scenes construction was not without its included as a standard element in the temple disadvantages: mud-brick structures required cycle of scenes picturing the foundation continual upkeep and even with constant care ceremony (Budde 2000: 191 - 199). For would have had a limited life span (Arnold structures with simple floor plans, the first 2003: 110), in part explaining the evident course of bricks may have been laid out on dichotomy between the sacred Hwt nt HHw m the ground as the guideline for further rnpwt, “temples of millions of years,” built of construction (Choisy 1904: 15; Kemp 2000: stone (Erman and Grapow WB II: 2) and the 88; Spencer 1979a: 120). Mud-brick walls more practical and frequently more temporal could be constructed directly on an constructions executed in mud-brick. unprepared ground surface, though more commonly were provided with brick Construction with Mud-Brick foundations and wall footings laid in trenches 1. Construction planning and work upon a bed of sand; this style of foundation is organization. The analysis of the methods especially well-recorded for the Late Period employed to build mud-brick houses, funerary temple temenos walls (Choisy 1904: 21 - 41; monuments, and temples can serve to Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 209 - 211; Goyon Mud-Brick Architecture, Emery, UEE 2011 2 et al. 2004: 110 - 123; Spencer 1979a: 114 - note also the ambiguity this use of stone can 116). Occasionally, particularly along high- raise when interpreting architecture, Assmann traffic routes, the base of the wall at ground 1972) and the palace of Apries at Memphis level was protected by a footing of stone, in (Petrie 1909: 1 - 5), from funerary settings, an effort to minimize the undercutting of the such as the pyramids of the Middle Kingdom wall due to water or wind damage and traffic; (Goyon et al. 2004: 113 - 114), as well as from stone elements also could be included in the sacerdotal settings, such as the Ptolemaic wall proper, being most common at the pylon of the small temple at Medinet Habu quoining of building corners (Husselman (Hölscher 1939: 29 - 30). In thick walls, such 1979: 33 - 35; Spencer 1979a: 120). as town walls or temple enclosure walls, wooden beams could be used to aid the 2. Wall construction. The construction of bonding and cohesion of the mass of bricks walls followed upon the laying of the (Goyon et al. 2004: 115 - 123; Spencer 1979a: foundation or preparation of the area and the 132), even as metal ties are used to reinforce production of sufficient quantities of mud- bonding today (Kreh 1998: 14 - 15, 52 - 53; brick. In addition to the brick itself, wall Nolan 1998: 156 - 157). Serving a like purpose construction required mortar and frequently in massive mud-brick walls, layers of loose included wooden elements and mats or reeds or reed matting could be employed, bundles of reeds. Mortar was occurring regularly every set number of sedimentalogically similar in composition to courses (Clarke and Engelbach 1930: 210; mud-bricks, though rarely had straw temper Spencer 1979a: 134 - 135). Wooden beams (Kemp 2000: 92; Lucas 1962: 74 - 76; Spencer and reed mats, together with narrow air 1979a: 133 - 134; van Beek and