Studies in Oriental Archaeology: I. Plano-Convex Bricks

Abstract

DELOuGAZ has recently summarized our knowledge about pla-noconvex bricks and has advanced an hypothesis concerning their origin.' If I understand him correctly, he even offers two hypotheses which, however, are mutually exclusive. He says, p. 25: Their peculiar form did not come about through any architectural or technical need, but merely as a result of rather primitive craftsmanship ; and, p. 37: peculiar form resulted from the brickmaking technique. He has, indeed, shown beyond doubt that the rectangular lower part got its shape from the wooden frame into which the lump of clay was laid and that the upper bulge is the surplus of the rolled lump not taken off. But why was this surplus taken off in the preceding period and left in the planoconvex' period? The answer is obvious: the brickmaker wanted to retain this shape. Not the technique or craftsmanship is responsible for it, but the peculiar ideas of the architect who made some special use of the shape. I therefore think that Mr. Delougaz' second hypothesis is preferable, namely, that the plano-convex form imitates stone flakes for which such a shape is natural. This is the opinion also of other archaeologists, especially of Dr. Speiser.2 Dr. Speiser argues clearly and irrefutably as follows: Since planoconvex bricks replaced the much more practical former type of wholly rectangular bricks, and since the queer plano-convex shape