Talk:Mudbrick

student project
1/23/2006 In Winnetka, CA, USA, I am going to have my students build miniature mud bricks and then build models of ancient homes from when people first started living in cities, such as in Sumer. Wish me luck!
 * How did it go? Best wishes,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Adobe
If, as the article says,
 * Adobe is a common substitute for the word mudbrick

then shouldn't they be merged? Note that this article suggests mudbricks are not durable, yet the adobe article suggests that adobe is very durable. This needs to be cleared up. (Not my area of expertise, but I'll keep an eye on it.) --Singkong2005 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article and the adobe one need to be looked at together and probably merged or somehow brought into a single structure (so to speak). I'm not an expert either, but having lived in Djenné, read on the subject, and spoken with some experts (some time ago), it doesn't make sense to have these separate. In fact, the topic requires us to think outside of the, uh, mold. The "bricks" used in Djenné are a historically recent introduction; the mosque there and the old buildings you'll see were built with a kind of hand formed brick that if memory serves is called "pere" - which has some structural advantages over the rectangular bricks. A common approach to the topic would allow such diverse aspects to be treated together. --A12n 18:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently the article says:
 * Adobe is a type of mudbrick also used today to save energy and is an environmentally safe way to insulate a house.
 * ...but this seems like a very narrow interpretation based on contemporary concerns. It is not as broad as the definition given in the adobe article as follows:
 * Adobe is a natural building material composed of sand, sandy clay and straw or other organic materials, which is shaped into bricks using wooden frames and dried in the sun.
 * ...which sounds a lot like mudbricks. --A12n 03:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi I fixed the swedish version today. We had exactly the same problem, no one kept an eagle eye on the creation of articles (probably before categories were widely used). Wikipedia is littered with this problem, categories that are made parallell to each other covering almost the same things etc. So what I did was moving the content from the swedish adobe article to the swedish mudbrick article. I suggest you do the same. Use your native english term for the article and redirect 'adobe' here. I glanced at the english language adobe article and it looks like it can be moved here come that you place it after the mudbrick text. Then it comes in natural to state that "adobe is the ancient word for mudbrick" etc.83.226.237.132 (talk) 06:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Foloowing up on this sometime later, as noted at Talk:Adobe where the most recent merge discussion took place, adobe and mudbrick are not synonymous. Adobe is a earth-based construction material that can be used to make mudbricks, but also can be used in other form factors. As such, the merge tags were removed. oknazevad (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * still, if there is a section for Banco, there should be one for Adobe, which I have included just now. In any case, please note that adobes are originally mudbricks only, and if the mud is made into another form factor it is given a different name, such as tapia in Spanish (rammed earth) etc. It is true that the US expression adobe style has generated some confusion as it focuses on the mud factor and on the finishes, rather than the construction method.  Megustalastrufas (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

spelling error
the world construction is spelled wrong in that right hand box. It's spelled as contruction. I don't know how to fix it, so i was hopeing someone else could. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.211.64.163 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 April 2006.
 * Thanks - now fixed. The image tag markup block at the top of the page might look a little confusing, but the caption after the last | character, is just normal wiki-markup and can be edited as usual. If you are worried about messing things up, just use the preview button to check any changes before saving. But don't worry too much, any mistakes are easy for someone else to change back. -- Solipsist 20:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Technical aspects such as soil composition
One of the problems I see with this article and the adobe one is the need for more attention to some very basic technical issues. I think that the more one gets into that, the rationale for separate articles becomes more tenuous.

For instance, this article discusses mudbricks as made from clay. THis is not entirely accurate. The soil used to make mud for adobe or mudbricks has - as any soil - three or four main components. THe three are clay, silt and sand (see Soil texture for instance). Clay is a key to good material for construction, but I'm not sure what the ideal mixes are.

The statement in the article that mudbricks (AKA adobe) last only 30 years is incomplete. It depends on the quality of the material - IOW, the percentages of clay, sand and silt, and perhaps the fourth element, organic matter. To my way of thinking - as a non-expert in this form of construction, but one who has seen and lived in a lot of adobe/mudbrick construction in the Sahel (including Djenné, where structures have endured centuries) - I would think that this is fundamental to any discussion. Including discussion on the merging of articles (or not). --A12n 03:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

M. Karr
Who is M.Karr and are there any references to his/her "extensive research" especially considering mudbrick structures have survived centuries of weathering (albeit in generally arid conditions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.95 (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mudbrick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150912063954/http://one.revver.com/find/video/stepping+gently to http://one.revver.com/find/video/stepping+gently

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"Chirpici" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Chirpici. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. oknazevad (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mudbrick originated from Indus civilization?
It strikes me as very unlikely that the invention of such a simple technology as mudbrick had to be imported from the Indus Valley civilization to Mesopotamia. If no one has any sources for this assertion (which has been questioned for a while, someone just didn't know how to tag questionable statements properly), I will remove it.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * There are earlier, dated, examples from the Levant; have just struck the first, published, contradictory source a google Reveals in, and removed the questionable statement.
 * A.j.roberts (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for taking are of this, I've been so busy it completely slipped my mind!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Standardized to BCE
BCE was the first two uses in the lead, and in another section, but there was more mixture of BC than I first noticed. Now standardized to BCE, but if there's reason to suppose that BC was first established as preferred usage on this page, by all means revert the other way. &mdash; MaxEnt 07:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Fired?
Best wishes,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Brick says that only bricks which are not fired are called Mudbricks. Who is right?
 * 2) "Clay brick" lacks a definition. Can somebody add it here or in another article please?


 * This article does not really say that mudbricks are fired, it refers to fired bricks as a different thing happening after a certain moment. I understand your confusion, and agree that the text could be improved to avoid it. Still, note that when it says: "though since 4000 BCE, bricks have also been fired" the implication is that fired bricks exist since 4000 BC, coexisting with mudbricks (still air-dried as per the definition in the article). Megustalastrufas (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Vergänglichkeit but I do not agree with your recent edit. Mudbricks are not made with air-dried mud, they are made with mud which is not dry. So they are air-dried bricks just as in the previous version. Then, the initial mix always includes water, not just sometimes. Do you mind if I have a go at editing this? Let me know what you think on this talk page pls. Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you in your first point that my version can be misunderstood, you can definitely edit that. Regarding your second point: "the initial mix always includes water", yes, but mud per definition already contains water. Best wishes,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Given we are covering much of the world, and a period of over 10K years, we should not be too restrictive in defining terms. One size won't fit all. We say "Since around 5000–4000 BCE, mudbricks evolved into fired bricks (also called fired clay bricks or FCB)" linking to brick. But early, and no doubt some contemporary, FCB is very different from modern building brick. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * True. I delete "(also called fired clay bricks or FCB)" which I think is the restrictive bit. Megustalastrufas (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)