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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I added now a note, that the site hs to be merged with Adobe. If someone has time and knows how to do it, I am glad if he/her can merge it. AChatNoir (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
A.j.roberts, Thanks for taking are of this, I've been so busy it completely slipped my mind!--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. — MaxEnt 07:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fired?

  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?

Best wishes,--Vergänglichkeit (talk) 10:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ancient World - Jericho

The reference does not support the claim of 9,000 BCE for bricks in Jericho. It says that people visited Jericho at this date. Brick walls were much later. Chemical Engineer (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging Adobe into Mudbrick. The two cover the same ground, and Mudbrick is the global term in English. A merge would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. See earlier discussions on both pages. Please comment below. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was User:AChatNoir. Johnbod (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're posting a merge discussion on behalf of someone else who isn't sure how to format it or where to place it—which is the sort of help that is laudable—you should mention them from the start so it's clear that it's not your idea, you're just helping. Prevents confusion. oknazevad (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Adobe is the particular material substance, with a distinct composition. Mudbricks are one possible form into which is can be made, but not all adobe is fashioned into bricks (direct molded adobe walls are a thing), and not all mudbricks are made from adobe (other recipes are used in other parts of the world). The two are not synonymous. oknazevad (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adobe does not support that it is "the particular material substance, with a distinct composition", making it clear that the materials and forms covered by both terms are variable according to local conditions and traditions. The statement that "not all mudbricks are made from adobe (other recipes are used in other parts of the world)" is essentially a linguistic one. Johnbod (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – After reading the discussion so far (including my own earlier comments), it has become clearer to me that the article on adobe needs restructuring. It should be reframed as a cultural concept rather than limited to the technical definition of mudbrick. While adobe may literally mean “mud brick” in Spanish, in English—especially American English—the term carries a broader cultural and architectural meaning. The lead section reflects this reasonably well, but the definition that follows narrows the topic too specifically to mudbrick, and should be revised in scope. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be time to remove the merge tag? Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a half merge. Keep adobe as a separate article covering the american branch, removing e.g. Iran or Mali, and refer to mudbrick for the more general subject. Then, in mudbrick have a section on adobe referring to the main article there. Adobe is a bit more complex than mudbrick, as it has become a style in the US, and there is confusion or overlap with rammed earth, whether we like it or not (I hate it). Part of the complexity is that when you say Mudbrick is the global term in English, I immediately assume you are British. Indeed, in America they call it adobe, and there is a lot of it that side of the altantic. My spellcheck keeps underscoring mudbrick in red, but not adobe. Megustalastrufas (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a possibility, but you will find American archaeologists etc all use "mudbrick" when talking about outside the Americas, and would agree that "Mudbrick is the global term in English". Having a global article at "adobe" is not tenable, I think. There's an awful lot more of it in South Asia and Africa! A separate article on mobern adobe-styled architecture in Nth America could/should probably be split off - I'm fine with that. I assume in much of it adobe is just a decorative facing. Johnbod (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, also on the decorative facing bit. I would be happy to work on the adobe article on the american side of things, if that's the agreement. I do not know how much of the current contents of adobe is needed in mudbrick, e.g. Mali and Iran. Megustalastrufas (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is still that the we have multiple articles reapeating basically the same.
Since mudbricks is still widely used in english, I would still merge it into mudbricks and write there "Mudbricks (also known as Adobe)" since its coming from the arabic for mudbricks but is also widely used.
from my work experience in these countries, there is still not enough difference in construction to justify its own article. its just another term or the spanish term, that many use. at the end it confuses english speaking people and I see that a lot.
so still: I think its best to merge adobe into mudbricks AChatNoir (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Mostly on the grounds that adobe is formed as a homogenous moulded wall, not as bricks. Also (and just as importantly) adobe, mud brick and cob all have historically and geographically distinct origins. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The adobe article absolutely does not support "adobe is formed as a homogenous moulded wall, not as bricks"! I didn't know you had much of it in Wales these days. Most major types of construction materials "have historically and geographically distinct origins", but that does not prevent us having global overview articles such as brick, concrete and so on, and which both of the articles aspire to be. Cob (material) (which I don't think either of these articles link to) is merely an English term (only from 1600 apparently) for mudbrick or adobe. The article begins its history section "...an ancient building material that has been used for building since prehistoric times. The use of this material in Iran is more than 4000 years old". It would surely be called "mudbrick" in such contexts. I've no objection to more specific localized articles, as I've said above re adobe, but we need one (but not two) global overview article; that is the encyclopaedic way. Johnbod (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copy paste my proposal on adobe Here is an alternative proposal, following the ongoing discussion regarding the potential merge at the Mudbrick talk page. Based on that conversation, I’d like to outline a restructuring of the Adobe article so that it more accurately reflects the term’s broader cultural and architectural meaning in English, rather than treating it primarily as a synonym for mudbrick.

Proposed outline for rework:
  1. Lead (largely retained)
    • Continue to present adobe as both a construction material and a cultural/architectural tradition, emphasizing its broader meaning in contemporary American English usage.
  2. History and Cultural Context
    • A new section placed immediately after the lead.
    • Subsections could include:
      • Pre-Columbian earth construction – Indigenous traditions of earthen architecture in the Americas, showing that adobe’s cultural meaning is wider than mudbrick alone.
      • Spanish adobe (mudbrick) – Introduction of Iberian mudbrick techniques and terminology; explanation of the linguistic origins of the word adobe (it does mean literally mud brick). Mention also Tapia (rammed earth)
      • Post-colonial and regional developments – How adobe construction evolved in the American Southwest and elsewhere, where it became a distinctive cultural and architectural style.
  3. Material and Techniques
    • A technical section placed after the cultural/historical overview.
    • This section would briefly summarise the building methods associated with adobe construction, with links to the main articles on each method (e.g., Mudbrick, Rammed earth, Cob, Wattle and daub, etc.).
    • This helps keep Adobe focused on the broader concept while directing detailed technical information to the dedicated pages.
  4. Modern Use and Preservation
    • Coverage of contemporary adobe architecture, environmental performance, sustainability, building codes, seismic considerations, and conservation of historic structures.
  5. Global Comparisons
    • A short section situating adobe within the wider family of earthen-building traditions worldwide, without diluting the article’s focus on American-English-language usage.
Rationale:
This restructuring would resolve much of the ambiguity highlighted in the Mudbrick merge discussion. It distinguishes adobe as a cultural/architectural tradition from adobe as a specific type of mudbrick, while acknowledging the historical and linguistic links between them. The revised structure provides a logical flow from cultural context → historical development → construction techniques, and ensures detailed technical content is handled through links to the appropriate main articles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Megustalastrufas (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose - A merge may seem appropriate, but the adobe section would be so huge that a fork/split would be appropriate, and we will be right back where we are now. Would prefer a tidying/cleansing to more clearly differentiate the two. (Note: fixed the merge template on Mudbrick)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content Disclaimer

Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.

  1. The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
  2. There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
  3. It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
  4. Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
  5. Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.