Bentresh t1_iywohy8 wrote
Reply to comment by Trackmaster15 in Why Roman Egypt was such a strange province by oni64
Absolutely. Egypt was only one of several powerful kingdoms of its time. We have many texts from the Hittite empire, Assyria, Mycenaean Greece, etc. referring to splendid furniture, jewelry, palaces, and so on, but they have survived only in rare instances (e.g. jewelry from the royal tombs of Ur and Nimrud and the furniture from the Midas mound at Gordion).
As Edward Chiera noted in They Wrote on Clay,
>In Egypt stone is plentiful, and the great pharaohs utilized it for temples and pyramid, imperishable testimonies to their names. Even had Egypt's history not been practically continuous, still no one could have failed to notice these reminders of the existence of a great civilization. In Mesopotamia, on the other hand, stone hardly exists. Some sort of gypsum is found in the north, and this exclusively was used by the Assyrian kings in the decoration of their palaces. But this stone is of such poor quality as to be virtually soluble in water; any inscription or statue left exposed to the elements will promptly disintegrate. In the southern part of the land even gypsum is lacking, and for this reason the ancient Babylonians treasured what pieces of stones they could import from distant lands and used those pieces exclusively for the images of their gods and their most important records. For building materials they had to make the most of what was at hand, river clay...
>The walls exposed to the elements were protected by plaster of mud and straw, or sometimes with baked bricks set in bitumen. Courtyards were also paved with baked bricks, but the interior of the walls was a solid mass of sun-dried bricks. Building costs were thus cut considerably, and the construction remained solid so long as the roof stood and the facing continued in good condition. But, let the edifice be neglected for a number of years, and it would crumble into dust. When the central government became too weak or too poor to take proper care of the network of canals that irrigated the land, large tracts of fertile territory were converted into a desert almost overnight, and whole cities had to be abandoned. The roofs of the buildings caved in, and the core of the huge walls, no longer protected, was exposed to the rain. Water slowly worked in; the bricks began to swell up, and the walls to crack and fall. After a few rainy seasons, the upper part of the walls completely disintegrated and left merely a little mound of dirt to mark the site of a once splendid palace. All furniture and perishable objects that had not been taken away when the buildings were abandoned remained buried in the wet debris; with the passing of years they too disappeared and are now gone forever. We should have no idea of the magnificence of the ancient furnishings but for the fact that occasionally we find thrones, chairs, and tables sculptured on the reliefs which adorned the palaces…
wbruce098 t1_iyxsh6l wrote
Thanks, this was fascinating to read! I had always wondered why these cities disappeared and how it is we keep seeing that new cities were often literally built on top of older ones. This seems to explain that quite well.
Ax_deimos t1_iyxtnkf wrote
I want to read that book now.
Bentresh t1_iyxvkpe wrote
It's available online for free courtesy of the OI at the University of Chicago. It's outdated in places but still worth a read.
Pyranze t1_iyzem8x wrote
That's interesting, I would have thought it would be the reverse, since stone is so much harder to work (especially before they even had reliable iron working), the Egyptians only used it because clay was not as readily available. Obviously this has the same end result either way.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments