NBA Launches Virtual Barn Preservation Lecture Series
Join us for a series of virtual presentations led by experienced practitioners across the country in support of barn-preservation education
All lectures will be hosted via Zoom and are free to attend – open to anyone with an interest in learning more about historic barns!
The first presentation in our series – to be held Wednesday, August 12th at 6 pm EST – is entitled, “How to Speak Barn: the Language and Nuances of Barn Anatomy and the Language We Use to Describe Them.” See the description below for details.
To register for this event, send an email to RSVP with your name and location (city/county, state) to info@barnalliance.org by Sunday, August 9th. We will send an email with the details to call or login to all registrants on August 11th.
August 12th: “How to Speak Barn: the Language and Nuances of Barn Anatomy and the Language We Use to Describe Them”
Presenters: Jeffrey L. Marshall and Michael Cuba
Keywords: Barn Terminology, Barn Types, Outbuilding Identification, Timber-Framing/Historic Construction Methods and Techniques, NRHP-Evaluation, Criterion C
Working in preservation in an agricultural context requires uncommon expertise. Barns and other farm buildings require a specialized vocabulary and a working knowledge of the historical evolution of design and use. Learn the lingo, how to recognize change, and how to evaluate and describe elements necessary for National Register designation.
The language used to characterize our barns has varied from person to person and publication to publication over the centuries. Efforts to develop a coherent and unified way of describing these buildings have come far over the past few decades.
This lecture will explore appropriate terminology and the precedents that support this language. The more familiar we become with common nomenclature, the more effectively we are able to share our observations with one another and the easier it is to evaluate particular barns in context with similar barns.
Although this lecture is geared towards architects, engineers, preservation contractors, cultural resource professionals who may not be familiar with barns and general barn enthusiasts, everyone can learn from this exploration of historic farm buildings!
Jeffrey L. Marshall serves as President of the Heritage Conservancy based in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, leading its efforts to conserve and preserve more than 15,000 acres of open space, farmland, wildlife habitat, and important watershed areas, along with many cultural historic assets in Bucks and Montgomery counties. Jeff has over 40 years of combined experience in land protection and historic preservation, and has authored several books on the architecture of southeastern Pennsylvania.
He has been a leader on the National Barn Alliance board of directors for over 10 years, serving as Vice President, President, and currently as Past President. He also serves on the boards of the Historic Barn & Farm Foundation of Pennsylvania and Preservation Pennsylvania.
Michael Cuba is a co-founder of Knobb Hill Joinery, a historic preservation company in northern Vermont focused on traditional restorative joinery techniques. He also operates Transom HPC, a small consulting firm offering dendrochronology coring services, research, and documentation for historic timbered structures.
Michael is an active member of the Traditional Timber Framer’s Research and Advisory Group. He has served in various leadership capacities with the Timber Framers Guild and currently serves as editor, along with Adam Miller, of the Guild’s quarterly journal, TIMBER FRAMING.
In 2019 Michael was elected to serve as the secretary of the National Barn Alliance’s board of directors.
Dating Barns in Holland Township, New Jersey with Dendrochronology (Part 3)
By Carla Cielo, Architectural Historian, Historic Preservation Consultant, Designer, and longtime NBA member. Two articles on this dendrochronology project have been previously published in the Barn Journal. Check out both stories: Part 1 & Part 2!
(The Historic Preservation Commission of Holland Township, New Jersey, hired ‘Oxford Tree Ring Dating’ to date nine barns with dendrochrolology. This study has been funded, in part, with grants provided by the New Jersey Historical Commission. It was hoped that a study of this kind would answer questions related to ethnic settlement patterns.)
The first barn dated with dendrochronology in Holland Township was the Hammerstone Barn – a ground-level, three bay, heavy-timbered, swing beam barn that is located in the hilly section of the township about 8 miles inland from the Delaware River. This preliminary dendrochronology study was completed in 2007 by a colleague who provides dendrochronological services as a side venture. Only 3 samples were taken from the floor structure in a crawlspace: one from a girder that supports the joists at midspan in the crawl space of the west bay and 2 from floor joists. No samples were taken from the main barn frame. Samples were sent to a lab for analysis. The dates were non-conclusive: sample #1 dated 1787, sample #2 gave no date, and sample #3 dated 1785. The possibility of a 1787 construction date was assumed.
After dating six other ground-level, swing beam barns that ranged in date from 1794 to 1812, the 1787 date was questioned. The character of the framing of the Hammerstone Barn looks far more advanced (younger) in its construction methodology than barns that dated to the 1790s. For example, the interior bents of the 1794 James Salter Barn are framed with just two unconnected cambered tie-beams. Whereas in the Hammerstone Barn, struts and passing braces are incorporated into the swing beam bent to join the upper and lower tie beams. This is characteristic of the ground barns that dated after 1803 in Holland Township. It was, therefore, decided to date the barn again using a professional dendrochronologist who operates his own in-house lab. The findings were interesting, to say the least.
This time 7 samples were taken in the barn: 3 from the upper barn frame and 4 from the floor joists (including one joist that had been sampled previously). Two samples revealed that the trees from which the timbers were cut were felled during the winter of 1803/04 suggesting that the barn was built in the spring of 1804. The five remaining samples, unfortunately, could not be dated. The 1804 date, however, is “right on” when compared to the construction details of several other dated barns.
To add further interest, the data was run again on the three samples that were taken in 2007. One of them did indeed date to 1787. Another matched the chronology of the sample that dated 1787 up to 1758 with a “t-value” of over 11. The “t-value” provides an indication of the quality of the match against a reference chronology. A t-value greater then 5 indicates a regional match; above 10 suggests that the samples came from the same tree. In this case, the t-value over 11 indicates that two joists were cut from the same tree and that the sapwood was probably lost from the latter sample. Does this indicate that at least some of the joists were reused from a 1787 structure? Or does it indicate that the sapwood was lost from both samples and that both would date to 1804 if the sapwood remained? Since the core drills appear to have been lost, we likely will never know. It is surely tempting to fantasize a former 1787 log structure being reused as floor joists! But if this was the case, wouldn’t a 1787 date have been re-identified by the second dendrological study?
In conclusion, dendrochronology is a highly valuable tool, but it must be part of a comprehensive study which takes into account a variety of methods to date a building (saw cut, nails, framing methodology etc.). Propagation of a false date can be detrimental to future barn historians.
Artist Documents Diversity in Barns of Indiana
Excerpts of this story come to us from our partners in barn preservation at the Indiana Barn Foundation and details the work of a long-time NBA member and barn advocate, painter Gwen Gutwein. Over the years, Gwen has graciously allowed the NBA to add interest to a number of articles and social media posts with beautiful paintings. Therefore it gives us great pleasure to share her story and talent with barn lovers the world over! **Copyright Gwen Gutwein and HERITAGE BARNS. Any reproduction of these images without written permission of the content creator is prohibited.**
Parke County: THOMPSON-HELEN JO WHITED ROUND BARN (Built between 1888-1891, brick foundation and horizontal siding)
In December 2015, Gwen Gutwein made her final trek–searching out distinctive and historic Indiana barns.
Exhibits of Gwen Gutwein’s barn paintings and histories have been touring the state of Indiana since 2009, but her barn-painting project trademarked HERITAGE BARNS started more than eleven years ago in the fall of 2004. And it all began with a lofty and time-consuming goal: to research, study, and paint two historic barns from each of Indiana’s 92 counties.
Orange County-BOWEN FAMILY BARN (One of the oldest and most unique in the state, possibly a hay press barn)
When asked about the project’s purpose and her own motivations, answers come easily.
“Over the years I have seen so many barns disappear. With each barn we have lost so much. The old barns are very beautiful, literally and figuratively speaking. Literally, 100 or 150 years ago the materials used to build a barn are almost non-existent today. The size and length of some of the timbers is extraordinary. Many old barns were built with our native timber! The skills used back then are unique, ingenious and quite astounding.
The time and skill used to decorate barns must have given such great satisfaction to the barn owner. Over the years, their barns have graced our countryside with their unique beauty. And then there is the beauty expressed through time that becomes an integral part of the structure itself, such as the family history, the cultural history, the farmers’ integrity and the farming ingenuity.
Certainly too, I was able to practice my art of painting. Each painting is a portrait, a barn portrait. So, like capturing people on the canvas, capturing the essence of each barn’s character was of the utmost importance.”
Sullivan County-DRAKE FAMILY BARN (Built in 1936 with oak and walnut harvested on the farm)
To say that this project was a labor of love undercuts just how much work it included.
“Gutwein has a distinct process for completing this extensive project. She begins with detailed research on each county, through which she selects specific historical barns. After making contact with each barn owner, she obtains consent to begin the painting process at their location. Gutwein paints en plein air (or outdoors) for several days to capture the correct lighting, color, mood, and character of each barn. Measurements, statistics, and stories are also gathered while on site. From there, Gutwein utilizes photography to record every detail of the barn, from which she can paint in her studio. Until Gutwein feels the project is complete, none of the barn paintings will be for sale. She finds the whole project is greater than its parts” (Fort Wayne Museum of Art).
Her HERITAGE BARNS series of paintings, all 185 (one extra) have been endorsed by the Indiana Bicentennial Commission. Beyond exhibits, Gwen has promoted barns and preservation through interviews, newspaper articles, “barn talks” and more. Currently, the Columbus Indiana Visitors Center is hosting an exhibit, installed through the end of 2016.
To learn more about the HERITAGE BARNS project, see the barns she has painted from each of Indiana’s 92 counties, and discover some of the barn stories she has collected, just visit Gwen’s website and watch the video below to check out her studio!
Read More
The Heart of the Barn
This guest post comes to us from Daniel Dibner, one of the masterminds (or shoudl we say angels?!?) behind “Hay Trolley Heaven.” To learn more, visit www.haytrolleyheaven.com!
“The Heart of the Barn” is what hay unloaders or hay trolleys have come to be called for well over a 100 years. I am sure that the readers of the Barn Alliance are quite familiar with these iron wonders, as many still are found directly overhead in the older barns. These remarkable pieces of early barn equipment greatly influenced the majority of the barn designs that we see from the 1870’s to around 1930. If one was a practitioner of “modern” farm techniques, one built their barn from plans provided by one of the many manufacturers of trolleys. Prominent manufacturers included the likes of F. E. Myers, J. E. Porter, Louden, Ney and Hunt, Helm & Ferris, all providing (in many cases free of charge) the architectural plans needed to build the period’s most efficient means of moving hay and other crops around, namely the hay trolley. Farmers either built for timber or steel track systems or were left to lift tons of material into the mow by hand. This was all loose hay technology and it all essentially ends with roll-up baling.
Fewer people are aware that even before barns were built to store the mow, hay trolleys were hard at work in the fields. Systems of cables were strung up and America’s countryside was the home to massive hay stacks that were unmatched in size. Trolleys finally were brought into use in barns as modifications were made to move huge amounts of hay within the structures. How the hay wagons approached the barn, at the end or center, made a great deal of difference in the overall design of these iron wonders.
We here at HAYTROLLEYHEAVEN.COM are dedicated to the preservation, cataloging, collection and display of all things related to hay trolleys. When Danae Peckler of the Barn Alliance stumbled on to our website, she reached out to me to ask if our site could be mentioned in your newsletter. The answer was, of course, absolutely! You love barns, we love barns. Our world is an astonishing mix of what is unquestionably the start of something remarkable.
The amount of patents, from trolleys, to forks, to hay slings, to door rollers and much more, all comes from the ever present advancements made during the late 1880’s. All of this was to allow the American farmer to make the great leap forward through technology and efficiencies found in engineering and industry. We believe that these devices represent some of the earliest programmable machines on the farm. Special trips and stops directed these devices to hold or release on the track, drop their center drop pulley or retain them. There were round barn systems, track switch arrangements and a whole host of lifting techniques that changed life on the farm forever.
During the metal drives of World War I and II, much of the old metal was removed from the farm. But, as there were few patriots that would risk life and limb to climb up some 40 feet to bring down a 50 pound trolley all while balancing on then wooden ladders, they are there to be found. We at haytrolleyheaven.com discover new wonders almost every week.
When you come to visit haytrolleyheaven.com you will see the largest cataloging of hay trolleys ever assembled online. The vast majority of Manufacturers, models, advertisements, patents, collection, etc. are presented for the members. There is an active forum that members participate in that gets questions answered, shares pictures of trolleys, restoration tips and a whole lot more. Start with the tabs on the homepage and work your way through the whole website. It is broad and deep and rich with information and data for the beginner to the expert. We have past editions of our own newsletter available online for downloading as well.
We hope that you will take the time to determine if your barn restoration should include the “Heart of the Barn” if there is an indication that one existed there. With literally 100’s upon 100’s of models being attended to by our membership, we stand ready to assist as required. Contact us at “admin_1@haytrolleyheaven.com” (must have the “underline” between admin and 1) if you have problems creating log in credentials or have general questions.
Dating Barns in Holland Township, NJ with Dendrochronology, Part 2
Dating Barns in Holland Township, New Jersey with Dendrochronology Part 2 – The Results
by Carla Cielo, Architectural Historian, Historic Preservation Consultant, Designer
This is the second article that Ms. Cielo has written on the subject of dendrochronology in Holland Township, NJ. Read the first one by clicking here!
Image Courtesy of Mr. and Mrs. Wydner
The Historic Preservation Commission of Holland Township, New Jersey, hired Oxford Tree-Ring Laboratory to date nine barns with dendrochrolology. This study has been funded in part with grants provided by the New Jersey Historical Commission. It was hoped that a study of this kind would answer questions related to ethnic settlement patterns.
Holland Township borders the Delaware River and Upper Bucks County Pennsylvania to the west and south, the Musconetcong River and Warren County to the north and Alexandria Township and Milford in Hunterdon to the south and east. This location facilitated easterly migration from Bucks County, Pennsylvania. The barns chosen for the study were considered to be among the oldest remaining barns of their type in the township. An approximate construction date for each barn (based on the style of framing, presence of hewn and/or sawn timbers, the types of nails used in original materials and various other construction details) was determined prior to the study.
Two major barn types remain in the township:
- The ground-level, swing beam barn is a single-level, side entry barn with three or four bays which typically includes a central threshing floor, haymow(s) and a bay to stable livestock with a hay loft above the stables. The smallest ground level three bay barn is 20’ wide x 31’ long, but 24’ to 26’ wide x 36’ to 38’ long is more common. The ground level four bay barns are about 26’ wide x 48’ long.
- The Standard Pennsylvania Forebay bank barn is a larger, two-level barn built into a bank for convenient access to the haymows in the upper level. The stables are in the lower level. The dated forebay barns measure 35’ wide x 55’ long; 32’ wide x 50’ long; and 30’ wide x 50’ long.
The results of the dendrochrolology study are both exciting and disappointing at the same time; some questions were answered but others remain undetermined. Six ground-level, (three and four bay) swing beam, frame barns revealed the following construction dates: 1794, 1794, 1803, 1806, 1809 and 1812. Note: a 7th ground level barn dated 1787 was eliminated from the conclusion because the date was derived solely from three samples taken from floor joists. The upper framing was not sampled and suggests a later date when compared to the other dated barns. Additional samples may be taken at a later date.
Conclusion – ground barns: The 1790s were the wild west of Holland Township. This was when the tenant farms, which had been leased by an absentee British landowner, were opened for private sale. The results of the dendro study indicate that all of the dated barns, were built after the associated farm had been sold and suggest that these barns were built as an improvement (or as an addition) to the earlier tenant barns. Note: The barn that was eliminated from the conclusion is located on a farm which did not sell until 1813, but since it post dates the Revolutionary War was likely built by the tenant (not the landowner) as an improvement to an earlier barn.
We know that the tenant barns were frame (not log or stone) and that they were built by the British landowners for the tenants from an “account of the expenses of building a barn on the place leased to John Thomson” which includes the purchase of “2000 feet of weatherboards,” “15 days work …. cutting and hauling timbers,” “55 days board,” “32 meals at raising,” “3 gallons rum,” “blacksmith work for hinges and nails,” “work of carpenters £12.0.0,” “masons work,” “2000 Shingles,” etc. The question remains, what did the circa 1750 to 1776 tenant barn look like? Nothing has been identified from this period as of yet.
The dendro study revealed that the earliest remaining barns were built entirely of hewn timbers and the rafter plates have double notched rafter seats. The earliest barn to be framed with single notched rafter seats dates to 1794 but there is an overlap; the other 1794 barn has double notched rafter seats. This indicates that framing details had begun to be simplified by 1794. The use of sawn braces and studs occurred by 1803 and the use of sawn rafters occurred by 1812.
Three Pennsylvania Forebay bank barns revealed the following dates: 1806 (stone), 1821 (frame) and 1825 (frame).
Conclusion – Pennsylvania Forebay barns: According to a late 19th century account, in 1806, Phillip Burgestresser (1778-1841) who was of German ancestory, moved to Holland Township from Tinicum Township in Bucks County, Pennsylvania and built a “nice brick house and good barn far superior to that of his neighbors.” This quote suggests that the “far superior” barn was a Pennsylvania Forebay bank barn and that this barn type first appeared in Holland Township in or slightly after 1806. The date of 1806 for the earliest remaining stone Pennsylvania forebay barn supports this conclusion. (Note: Barn historians formerly assigned a circa 1820 to 1825 date for the migration of the Pennsylvania Forebay barn form into Northwest Central New Jersey). The Pennsylvania Forebay barn type migrated into this area of New Jersey from upper Bucks County, Pennsylvania. That study also shows that a much lighter style of timber framing migrated along with the forebay barn form.
Settlement from Upper Bucks County into Holland Township began by about 1750 or earlier. Early communication between Upper Bucks County and Holland Township was facilitated by the presence of a ferry by 1741 and the transportation of iron related resources to and from Durham Furnace which began production in 1727. The fact that the Pennsylvania forebay barn type did not appear in Holland Township until the first decade of the 19th century suggests that the barn type did not reach upper Bucks County until the first decade of the 19th century. However, the Federal Direct Tax of 1792, lists a “35’ x 60’ stone barn” in Durham Township, and a “30’ x 50’ stone barn” in the neighboring Township of Nockamixon which suggests the presence of the larger forebay barn type in Upper Bucks County by the end of the 18th century (further research in Bucks County is required). If this was the case, what delayed the form from crossing the river when communication and transportation was so prevalent?
What’s next?
The dendro study shows that both the smaller ground barn and the much larger Pennsylvania Forebay bank barns were built concurrently for awhile. It would be nice to accurately date a few of the younger ground barns to see how long the smaller barn type persisted.
Reused components remain in several reconstructed barns and are sometimes in an addition to a ground barn. These include rafter plates with double notched rafter seats, posts with a flair at one end reused as a plate, as well as whole sections of reused framing. These fragments may be dendro dated in the future with the hopes of finding some evidence of the type of barn construction during the 1750 to 1776 tenant period.
Read MoreJoin Us!
About The Barn Journal
NBA’s blog, The Barn Journal, is named in honor of the work of Past President, Charles Leik, and the website he started in 1996. Charles communicated with a number of barn owners around the country and compiled their stories for all to enjoy. The site continues to feature a number of topics related to saving old barns and is known to many in the preservation community as a valuable resource.