Historical Insincerity - Ignorance or Arrogance

The study of our architectural heritage and social history is one wrought with conflicting motives and self gains. On one hand we have the premise that all of what we know at any particular time about a certain element of our past whether it is a material object or an ideology is accepted as is, as proof of our forebearers efforts. The other side is to question and to feel compelled to somehow do better, because we know better now. Case in point might be the esoteric questions that are debated among period furniture makers about the merits of certain joinery or adhesives. To create an exact reproduction piece would be to follow the exact methodology as the original. But the argument comes up that given what we have available today is superior and would be used by craftsmen of the period if it were available. As both a practising joiner and an architectural and cultural historian, I must be guided by the first premise. Sure I could improve on many things that are of an older period, but that would not be giving the proper reverence to that particular object or thought.
All of this has been brought to the forefront of my thinking by a rather bizarre hearing I attended last week in Woodstock, Vermont at the Probate Court. An individual, Michael Guite, who is CEO of Vermont Telephone Company, has put under contract the purchase of a 127 acre period farmstead in Hartland, Vermont. He has a contingency in the contract that he be able to move an 1843 cemetery so that he can build his house there. Unfortunately that indifference to what exists is rather prevalent these days in Vermont. During this hearing, Guite's attorney, George Lamb, extolled the fact that his client has a very deep respect for history. He engaged an architectural historian to spend three days walking the property and to help Guite " best recreate the Colonial look of the 1700's." The first act of course is to raze the existing farmhouse. And with the aid of this "historical architect" he wants to build his new house on the knoll where the cemetery has peacefully been for the last 165 years. I know this property well and can attest to the fact that yes the site of the cemetery is very nice and commanding. And it is exactly where the Aldrichs in 1843 thought it best to place it. It is not only a very honorable location to bury ones family members but it allows for a quiet tranquil settings when visiting their resting place. The Aldrichs were of an old school who fully also realized that the exposed site of the cemetery was most unsuitable for a dwelling as it would take the brunt of the winds and snows from the North. They chose instead to build in the lee of the knoll, the logical most practical location. It too has excellent views and a commanding view of the farmland below. But Mr Guite in his infinite wisdom and total arrogance has decided that he knows best what needs to occur to recreate the Colonial look of the 1700's. That is to undo the most historically significant element of the entire property. More often than not, it is ignorance that befalls our heritage and that can in some ways be understood. But when arrogance destroys it, it is a most profound act.

Dendrochronology - Its use in dating structures

Inevitably one of the first questions that owners of period structures want to know is, "How old is it?". And as a professional restorationist/historian, that is one of the first questions you'd like to answer. However, it is rarely that simple. By being well versed in regional styles and patterns of development, the professional can usually come up with a broad timeframe of say 30-50 years that it might have been built in. This can be based on a thorough survey of the structure and its construction techniques and materials. Certainly, short of a conclusive time of construction through documentation this is probably the most accurate method that has been used for many, many years. Many buildings have been so well documented from their earliest days, that coming up with accurate dates is easy. However, for structures older that 1800, it can be very difficult. Research in town records is the logical place to start, but mention of structures in early deeds is quite rare pre 1800.
If structures have been added onto or altered, as most have, there is the further confusion of what came first. Close examination of structures can give clues but is rarely conclusive. It was therefore with great excitement that starting in the 1970's a new scientific method of dating buildings was developed - dendrochronology. Dendrochronology has been used since that time to date period structures throughout England. It is just in the last 10 or so years that it is gaining in popularity here is the US. Dendrochronology is a method by which test bores are taken from structural members of a structure and matched against a data base of known samples taken from existing trees and well documented timber samples. By matching up growth ring patterns, it is possible to pin point to within a single year and even the season of that year that the the timber was cut. As most early structures were constructed using green timbers, we can establish a very highly probable date of construction.
I will not try to go into the full details of the process, but will rather refer you to go to the web site of Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory, www.dendrochronology.com, in England and read Basic Dendrochronology. Oxford has been instrumental in getting the use of dendrochronology established over here. Anne Grady from Boston and Bill Flynt of Deerfield, MA have been working to establish data bases of samples for the various regions of New England.
This is highly interesting stuff and to be able to positively assign dates to a structure and its various additions only broadens our understanding of early building.