Wattle and daub was Cob greetings

[Patrick Newberry]

I think the problem in some wattle and daub was how the wattle as 
conected to the grown. (ego foundation) 
some applications (temporary type structures) the poles were just 
placed directly into the ground. These points would rot sooner. 

Also I understood wattle and daub to be generally thinner than cob.
If if the walls a the same thickness, then I don't see where you 
would gain much by adding the wattle(branches etc) to the daub (cob).

Pat
Mauk, Georgia
http://www.gnat.net/~goshawk





> I am interested in wattle and daub too, but I know nothing about it
> except that my mother grew up in a wattle and daub house in England that
> is supposedly almost 400 years old.  It is still in great shape.  It
> appears to me to be identical to a true Cob house but my granny says
> that it is in fact wattle and daub.  Of course you can't see the
> "wattle" once it's built.
> 
> I've been there twice in my life, years ago when I had no interest in
> such things, but I do recall the thick walls and the cozy feeling
> inside.
> 
> I imagine the two methods must be similar in terms of energy efficiency,
> etc.  I doubt if the "wattle" provides much insulating advantage.
> 
> Despite my lack of any real technical knowledge about this stuff, I for
> one am fully persuaded that this will work.  If a house made out of dirt
> can last for 400 years and costs very little to build, I think I'll try
> it.
> 
> If you find any info on the wattle and daub method please post it to the
> list or send it to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> pv
> 
> 
>