Re: How to discuss a civilization based on a journalist's report
- Dear Francesco,
From what you described below and from a bit of my own reading, i am now convinced
that what Lawler wrote in his Science article is perfectly fine. Here's the point.
According to what you wrote, foundation of a typical ANE wall is burnt brick while the rest
are mud bricks. Also non-"elite" people didn't use burnt bricks; even "elites" only used it
for some part. Now let us see what David Oates, who oversaw many excavations in the
middle east, writes:
"Mud-brick was by far the most common building material employed in the ancient Near
East" [Oates, World Archaeology,1990].
But in Mohenjo-Daro, Possehl writes in his book: "baked bricks where
used for most of the buildings"
There lies the point.
To summarize, at Mohenjo-Daro "most of the buildings" were made of baked
bricks while in the ANE cities only *some* of the buildings were having burnt bricks (that
too partially) and mud brick was the "most *common* building material".
If you combine what Oates and Possehl wrote, you will find that Lawler is perfectly fine. To
quote Lawler again:
"And at Mohenjo Daro, they used expensive baked brick rather
than the cheaper mud brick favored in the Middle East, thus leaving
behind the only Bronze Age city on Earth where it is still possible to
stroll down ancient alleys shaded by intact walls."[Lawler, Science, 2008].
So, Francesco, what exactly is your problem with Lawler's statement ?
--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...> wrote:
> Now, coming to your (Michel's) request:
> > The point -- if we really wish to decide whether Lawler was
> > correct or hyperbolic -- is whether some of the earlier or
> > contemporary Mesopotamian cities were mostly built with baked
> > bricks, as at Mohenjo-daro. I am not familiar enough with
> > Mesopotamian sites to decide. Let us know if you have positive
> > evidence to that effect.
> In the
> 3rd millennium, mud bricks were generally used for city defensive
> walls, but always on a baked brick (or stone) foundation to preserve
> the brick from dampness..............
> The floors of the large residences of the elites (but,
> characteristically, not the walls as at Mohenjo-daro and in other
> Indus cities) were also made of layers of baked bricks.
- Dear Francesco,
My objection was to the trivialization of the discussion, not against anyone's scholarship. While it went its logical course, it did generate interesting discussion TILL... Look, where we do we stand today, shifting discussion from the crux to tandoori roti making techniques, etc.
Can we please move on?
Thanks.On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 1:21 AM, Francesco Brighenti <frabrig@...> wrote:
--- In IndiaArchaeology@yahoogroups.com, "Naren Phanse"
> Dear FB,Please read again the message by "Shivraj Singh" that originated
> Have you seen roti being cooked in a tandoor? If you have,
> you would not say that technique of baking a roti in a tandoor and
> bricks in a kiln are the same.
this exchange, and see who said what:
> And you [i.e. Francesco] keep saying that you have been to India
> so you may have eaten tandoori roti. Perhaps you should discover
> where earliest tandoors were discovered and if people could make a
> tandoori roti in 3500 B.C. would making a brick be harder or
> easier compared to a roti!