Construction technology across four periods of ancient civilizations

History of Construction Technology of 4 periods in Ancient Civilization

Construction in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt

Mesopotamia did not have much timber but the area could boast of palm leaves and reed instead. However, before the consumption of fired pottery, and since the period of earliest Neolith, the villagers residing in the east of Tigris used to construct their homes out of dried clay while the area of Jericho depicts instances of construction that was done by mud bricks, one of which would be altered to accept timber cross-beams (Sttraub, 1952; Derry and Williams, 1961).

One of the uses of buildings and structures constructed in this way was the fact that they had a longer life in a drier climate. Mesopotamia, which was characterized by flat alluvial plains, recorded instances of construction that was done by clay over a period that spanned more than 6000 years. In comparison, the Nile valley used stone for construction when it came to the state while clay was still used largely by the masses. The construction of buildings from clay was also found in the area of Asia Minor and the Crete islands, despite it being hugely forested. Even Asia Minor had alternative materials in the form of wood and stones. Therefore, smashed clay also known as pise, sun dried brick and kiln fired brick were important elements in the history of the initial empires (Sttraub, 1952; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The preparation of the clay was done by including water in the treaded and chopped straw or even dung to avoid deformation and later the bricks would be given a shape, mostly in twos. The shape would usually be a rectangle without a top or bottom which would then be allowed to dry after being occasionally flipped from side to side. If water was added in a large quantity to the mixture, the clay would become suitable for the purpose of plastering (Sttraub, 1952).

For building, kiln was mostly used for special reasons such as in the construction of pavements and footpaths and when a need was felt to keep the brick watertight. However, it was not until the classical times that it began to be used in Egypt. The process of brick-laying and the shapes of the bricks in Mesopotamia were quite unlike the ones that became commonly used after a period. The upper portion of the brick was kept curved like the upper part of a loaf of bread and they were spread out at a little angle. Every other course slanted in contrasting directions thereby rendering a herring-bone effect to the brick which may be observed in the west of England in modern times (Hibbert, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The building of bricks attained its peak in worship and prayer areas, known by the name of ziggurats during 2000 B.C. In the area of Mesopotamia. In the place of Ur, where the worship area "ziggurat" (Fig.1) measured up to 75 yards long and 60 yards wide, having a height of 30 yards and being 8 feet thick, the bricks were kiln-baked. Records in Strabo depict that at Hit, rivers contained an ample supply of bitumen used to facilitate the setting of kiln-baked bricks. Developments in Mesopotamia were later furthered by the introduction of stone usage by the Assyrians who lived in the North.

(Fig 1: Derry and Williams, pg: 159).

During the third millennium B.C. Egypt showed great instances of buildings which depicted the art of quarryman and the stonemason that were quite developed. Step-pyramid of Zoser is one example. To reach to the huge blocks of stone, a tunnel was constructed from the face of a cliff that spanned over many hundreds of yards to facilitate the transfer. Leaning in a deep alcove constructed right under the roof of the layer to be worked, the worker outlined blocks in the base of the alcove, cut and split them by putting in wedges made of wood, which were wet to facilitate expansion (Hibbert, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The alcove would be slowly furthered while the rock would be cut in steps. This process was seemingly carried out with a mason's pick and what is even more surprising is that the blocks of stones that weighed around thousands of tons were carried from the mines to the working site without any modern vehicles. Only basic materials such as levers, rollers, ropes, sledges and a remarkable amount of individual strength was used to take the blocks to and from the destination (Beck, 2009).

During the time of King Zoser, smaller blocks were used while later the use of larger stone masonry was observed. The blocks would be squared and shaped by hand with a chisel, mallet, boning rod to strengthen and the mason's square. The amount of labor needed to construct the great Pyramid which was constructed about over a 100 years after Zoser's amounted to over 8 working days on each cubic foot of masonry according to Herodotus and when the transport time is taken into consideration, it does not seem as unbelievable (Toy, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The pyramid is 150 feet higher than the Saint Paul's Cathedral and even though it spans a height of 13 acres, it misses being a perfect square only by 6/10-inch in length and 12 seconds of angle. The process of construction by alternative deposits each with its own limestone casting makes the end product even more breathtaking and awe-inspiring (Toy, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

Egyptian temples, on the other hand, since they did not have the arch, were restricted to a space of 9-10 ft amid columns as it was the maximum length, which a limestone block could measure up to safely. However, when the Silsila sandstone was discovered the distance was trebled. One other thing that the Egyptians accomplished was of converging three architraves so that all of them rested on a single column's head (Toy, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

In the instance of the temple of Karnak, the columns were frequently constructed from a series of drums which often consumed several blocks to construct a single capital as the scale was so huge. However, as with many other Egyptian constructions the base was kept weak and little attention was paid to it as became known in 1899 a.D. when eleven of the Egyptian columns came down. Regardless of weak foundations, Egyptian structures has never failed to fascinate the people worldwide in their immaculate constructions -- their walls, ceilings, obelisks and the unbelievable accuracy of the pyramids that were constructed without any apparent knowledge of mathematics (Fig. 2) (Beck, 2009).

(Fig 2: Derry and Williams, pg: 159).

During the initial period of the first millennium B.C, gypsum and limestone were both being included in the brick building practice in the plains of Mesopotamia. The stone canal of Sennacherib which carried water to Nineveh from a distance of 50 miles with a fall of 1 in 80 is an instance of construction that is quite remarkable. Not only a great distance was covered by the limestone construction but the structure was graded evenly throughout. Bitumen was also used to make the construction waterproof (Toy, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Assyrian kings customarily decorated the entrance of their palaces with about 20 ton bull colossi at which the carving was only carried out after the structure was sleighed into the site. However, they were initially brought from the Tigris on water. Most of the constructions were still done in brick form and the arching was used to make the vaults (Stocks, 2003).

(Fig 3: Derry and Williams, pg: 161).

It was in Babylon that the glazed brick were seen to be used at a high rate where the structures on the Ishtar gate (Fig. 3) have been put forth in a clay panel which was later separated into glazed and fired bricks. What is noticeable in the construction is the fact that they are repeated on the gate and the underground street walls so that only the modern archaeologist will be able to capture them -- an instance which becomes even more remarkable as the foundations in Mesopotamia like with Egypt were the weakest as compared to the rest of the structure (Toy, 1955; Derry and Williams, 1961).

Construction in Ancient Greece and Roman Empire

The Roman and Greek architecture possesses the same artistic touch that can be seen in their literature. Their town planning are systematic and are along the lines of a gridiron, which originated with the Hippodamus of Miletus, who also reshaped the Piraeus and it developed further in the Alexandrian Egypt where the Greeks pursued the tradition of their ancient empires. At present the archeologists, however, are more interested in the Roman architecture than the Greeks. They do, however, give a great deal of attention to Herodotus. The Greek architecture has been generally neglected because the great writers from Greece paid either little or no attention to the intricacies and grandeur of the Greek architecture. One exception to this is Pausanias, a Greek writer. He recorded the quarrying done in Greece but he lived in the second century a.D. For other details, the information related to their architecture is limited to the writings of Vitruvius, an architect in Rome, also a military engineer and a writer who lived during the rule of Augustus (Masrgary, 1957; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Greek construction inherits its glory from the timber-framed European houses that revolved around three chambers and hearths and not from the buildings in the Near East or even the Mycenean tombs. The temples that appeared earlier in Greece were built of mud bricks with a timber roof that was thatched to facilitate a wider construction, the transverse beams were held by a row of posts that were kept in the middle and the posts were also kept in the mud brick walls for the same use. That's how the architecture began to originate in the age of Pericles (Masrgary, 1957; Derry and Williams, 1961).

In the Mycenean era, the hard limestone of Argos was used while in the west and north of Peloponnese the classical architects used another type of materials that a more appropriate surface that facilities the plastering with fine stucco (of burnt limestone) which was later colour-washed. However, the great public buildings at Athens where marble was used, the material was brought from the quarries on Mount Pentelicon. The blocks were shaped into rectangles by using chisels and then wedges were used on the shapes. The Pentelic marble was characterized by fine grain and milky whiteness and the iron traces added a considerable brown finish to the shape. As the finishing was smoother with iron traces, it was considered better than the burnt limestone (Masrgary, 1957; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Greeks did not really prefer the brightly coloured marble quite unlike the Roman. The Parian marble that was mostly used for sculpture was not coloured and the Naxian was grey. The Hymettos marble was considered inferior and the quarries of large Syracuse limestone did not become fully popularized in the usage until the beginning of third century B.C (Masrgary, 1957; Derry and Williams, 1961).

As the blocks of limestone and marble could be made up to 15 feet long, a possibility of trabeated architecture began to see the light of the day. The drums were used to construct the columns as the Egyptians did.

When stones that were not very hard were used, the drums would sometimes alter to become a lathe. When the blocks of stone were grinded together, the people were able to attain a very fine jointing. However, the clamps were made of different metals, such as iron and what was even more remarkable was the use of wrought-iron beams. An example of such a case was at the Parthenon where the wrought iron beams aided as cantilevers to hold up the statues and sculptures with the most weight. The timber framework was used for the low pitched roofs of these buildings (Ashby, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

Broadly, the Roman contribution to the architectural history is threefold. They derived their methods from the Greeks after modifying and adjusting it according to their needs and demands thereby decorating their cities, empires, temples and other important places. Moreover, the Romans further found uses of the arch which were earlier used by the Etruscans, almost a millennium before Romans came to build huge bridges in blocks shaped like wedges. Lastly, the Romans they took advantage of four centuries of their empire in the west for more public works which paved way for modern practices of civil and military engineering (Ashby, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

Marble was not used to build Augustan Rome. It was only used for decorating and finishing of the work so that the end product held important value as an Italian product. The Carrara marbles that are pure white in colour are known throughout the world for their beauty. Of the marbles imported, the imperial porphyry from Egypt held great attraction for the people. It was also kept as imperial property as it was characterized by a true imperial purple colour (Ashby, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Romans used two other stones in their construction: Travertine and a hard basaltic rock. The travertine was used to build the ancient walls of the catacombs and most of the Colosseum while the basaltic rock was used in the paving of the roads that led to the city. The Romans used the stone in almost every sphere of their empire. The Baalbek in Syria and the gritstone of Hadrian's Wall were both used in the Roman architecture. It is also claimed that there is barely any English building stone left that the Romans did not use in their construction as they also used Bath stone and Colchester in their buildings (Ashby, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Romans also made used of wedges in quarrying. The wedges were put into the furrows and then filled with water to create pressure through swelling. They were skilled establishing their stone in the quarry. In many examples, such as the famous multi-angular York tower the stones used by Romans have outperformed the quality of the stones laid over a thousand years later. Copper fed saws were used to cut even though most of the shaping of the blocks were carried out from pounding done by stone balls. Later, saws driven from water were used by Moselle as documented in Ausonius Mosella (Robins, 1946; Derry and Williams, 1961).

However, during the rule of Augustus, it must be noted that Romans used a wider variety of materials and not just stones. The kiln burned bricks, used by the Egyptians were also used. The largest of the variety available was around 23 inches square and had a thickness of about one and a half inch. The bricks would be mostly covered with plaster but were used mainly to surface walls (Robins, 1946; Derry and Williams, 1961).

Regardless of the materials commonly used, most of the Rome was itself constructed from concrete (Kosmatka et al., 2002). The Romans were endowed with a volcanic earth called pozzolana in their land which actually formed cement after having being mixed with line. The cement could resist both fire and water. When mixed with other materials such as bricks or stones, the concrete adopted the hardness of the brick or the stone itself, depending on the material it was mixed with (Li et al., 2003). The concrete was so useful that it was not only used for foundations and walls but also in the construction of vaults and domes that required a harder material for the construction. When concrete was used in the construction it also helped to reduce the overall weight of the vaulted structure (Robins, 1946; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The wedge shaped stones that would combine to form an arch could also be used to construct a vault just by adding more materials and timber structures that provided support at the time of construction. However, the consequence of using the wedge shaped stones for the arch was both dark and dangerous because there was an outward thrust upon the walls on which the vault was laying its weight. The Romans then decided to construct cross vaults to support the structure thereby facilitating longer constructions as in the example of the 100 feet of Diocletian's palace (Robins, 1946; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The outward thrust that rendered the walls and foundation weak was a problem that was faced by their successors as well and the fact that the Romans were able to resolve their problems was an example of a great architectural achievement. The constructions were designed mainly for buildings in the garden or for the hot rooms present in baths. One of the famous examples is of the Bath of Caracalla where the diameter of the dome was 116 feet (Briggs, 1945; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The largest Roman dome was on the Pantheon temple. The diameter of the dome was of about 142 feet. The accuracy of the composition and method of construction are so remarkable that it remains a mystery to date. The rest of the supporting structure was built from concrete which was furthered held by brick arches (Lancaster, 2005). The doors in this remarkable construction were of bronze while the roof was made of gilt bronze tiles. To date the building is considered a royal mausoleum (Briggs, 1945).

Terracotta tiles were considered significant because of their use as a material that would help in the construction of the roofs and more importantly in the construction of hypocausts. These were the rooms that were tiled for about 23-inch squares. One of the hypocaust was characterized by small tiles that were used for the columns which allowed a way out for the heat (Briggs, 1945). These tiles were used by Romans as well as the Greeks quite extensively (Kirby, 1956).

In the fields of communication, hydraulic engineering and fortification achievements of Roman are greatly stressed. However, Romans did not only outperform other civilizations in the harbor construction. Thereby, the earlier Egyptian canal that leads to the Red Sea (and was renovated by Ptolemy Philadelphus in 285 B.C.) even though used by Roman emperors does not generate as much notice as other great architectural works of the Roman, such as the Roman road networks (Briggs, 1945; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Greeks cannot actually boast of remarkable developments in the road networks as they did not have any well constructed roads until the time of the Roman emperors (Kirby, 1956). Wheel rut (Fig. 4) is the only contribution they have to their name in the realm and even that is not very original as some instances of the invention are found in the areas of Malta.

(Fig 4: Derry and Williams, pg: 167).

The wheel ruts have average and regular measurements and have to pass through cuttings that are not very deep. They are observed at their best on the way to pilgrimage and on the road to Delphi. They were also used to alleviate the path of wheeled traffic that comes up occasionally later (Lloyd, 1935; Kirby, 1956; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Roman constructions related to the road network were comparatively a much harder task and an original one at that. Statius, a contemporary poet, describes the making of the new road of Emperor Domitian that linked Campania with Rome. The poet says "The first task is to begin the furrows and to open out the track, and then with deep digging to hollow out the soil. Next, they fill in the hollow trench with other materials, and prepare a lap on which the road-surface may be laid, lest the ground should give way or the spiteful earth provides an unreliable bed for the rammed blocks. Then, with close-set curb-stones, on both sides, and with many cramps, they bind the road together (Lloyd, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961)."

The hollow trench in the poet's lines refers to the roads in Italy that were not quite straight when they were spread over the newly acquired land and were paved with stones for longer distances. However, the gravel roads that measured up to 6 metres wide were characterized by sufficient drainage and ample thickness (Lloyd, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

The Romans had equipments that could survey for calculating angles and for gauging out distances but it is still not clear as to how they managed to attain a close to perfect alignment of the Stane Street on its final destination at Chichester from the point that it leaves the east of London Bridge (Lloyd, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

Same was the case with streets. The Greek were again left behind in the developments of the street and were unable to match the quality of the streets with their Knossos in this regard. Knossos was a place of assembly that would be set in stones deep in the earth as Homer describes it. The streets that led up to this place, however, would not be either wide or clean. The streets would be bumpy and unpaved. The Romans meanwhile, possessed pavements that were constructed from basalt slabs that helped in alleviating the water from the streets by sewers. The Romans derived this system from Etruscan practice. Under the Roman empire, the cities were laid out in squares while the buildings would not exceed a height of five storeys. Howver, even then the streets were not wide but that was to avoid wind which was considered problematic like the rain (Lloyd, 1935; Derry and Williams, 1961).

One of the significant engineering features of the Roman road networks was the bridges that were important in a system of fast communication all over Europe. The earliest bridges were made of wood and timber structures were essentially used by military engineers and an example could be seen of Trajan's bridge near the Iron Gates (Fig. 5). The London Bridge is actually said to have a strong resemblance to this structure. The defining feature of the construction, however, was the semicircular arch that ranged from about 16 to 65 feet (Knoop, 1933).