George Douglass House Restoration Project-Work Accomplished and In-Progress, 4th Quarter 2020
Fourth quarter work in 2020 included interior and exterior woodwork, and interior painting of replicated elements fitted into place, providing “stops” for finish plastering to begin in January. The interior carpentry and joinery was concentrated in the first floor parlors at the northern gable-end and the original Amity Store space in the southwest room of the 1765 house-structure. Work in progress included:
1. The Federal-period corner cupboard fitted in its original location in the 1760s store room was painted in the medium blue and red-ochre colors determined by Matthew Mosca to be authentic matches to the original hues [Image #1, Photo 1, 12/31/20]. The sample paint scrapings were taken directly from the cupboard-board surfaces forming the substrates for the original paint underneath the most recent pale yellow color and intermediate coatings.
2. Doorway casings [“architraves”] were painted with the microscopically-matched original light blue color, between the 1760s store and:
A. The center passage [“hallway”], Image #2, Photo 2, 12/31/20];
B. The 2-story Federal-era store addition sharing the south gable wall of the1765 house [Image #3, Photo 4, 21/31/20].
3. The corner cupboard, chair rail, baseboard, and door frame in the original Amity store, painted in original colors and fitted in their original arrangement, and providing the fixed “stops” for base and finish plasterwork to resume this month [Image #4, Photo 8, 12/31/20].
4. Discolored plaster wall and ceiling in back parlor will be re-secured to the lath and stone sub-strates where necessary, cleaned, and lime-washed; fireplace surround, baseboards, cornice transitions, and window frame, are now aligned in their original sites, also providing margins for plasterwork [Image # 5, Photo 14, 12/31/20].
5. The fireplace over-mantle and cornices in the front/best parlor have been finish-painted in scientifically determined historic colors, Prussian blue and pale gray; the blind partition separating the two parlors is fully lathed, prepared for plaster coatings [Image #6, Photo 36, 12/31/21].
6. Wainscot paneling [named for similarity to the board-lining of English farm wagons (“wains”)] painted in original colors in the best parlor on exterior stone wall and on the plank partition along the hallway; chair rail will be installed as a meeting (“stop”) for plaster [Image #7, Photo 34, 12/31/20].
7. Tom and Chris Lainhoff began re-fabrication of the pent roof across the 1765 façade by individually joining cantilevered (“outlooker”) extensions to the truncated 2d floor joists along the rubble stone range covered by the original pent hood [Image #8, Photo 3, 10/23/20]. The white oak extensions that will support the fascia framing and rafters of the hood, are tenoned into mortises drilled into the end-grain of the cut-down joists [Image #9, Photo 3, 1/6/21].
Larry Ward
Work Progress in George Douglass House, April 1-June 30, 2020
During this 2d quarter period, interior plastering and woodwork joinery continued intermittently as weather, planning details, coordination between crafts, and Pandemic restrictions permitted. Our carpenters Tom & Chris Lainhoff continued the fabrication of parlor elements, built-in corner cabinetry, and molded millwork such as chair rail, cornices, perimeter-architraves, and baseboards, designed and detailed based on surviving fragmentary “templates” as noted in the previous report.
Carpentry and plasterwork progressed through the quarter under revised pandemic restrictions, requiring that only one craftsman work in the house on any day and mandating face-covering and required sanitary measures in work-spaces. The Lainhoffs
Parlor plasterwork continued the effort to preserve original 1765 plaster parlor walling in its un-coated state; severely degraded early plaster was re-laminated to original, repaired, and replaced lath, recoated with a scratch coat and a finish coat formulated from 18th century plaster mixtures; stable and substantially intact plaster with stubborn particulate or other residue, such as soot or wallpaper adhesives will be cleaned as thoroughly as possible and eventually lime-washed with several coatings, and restoration or replacement of missing or unstable lath sub-strate.
The only significant change in the project scope is the deferral of plaster-surface preparation and lime washing. This work will be scheduled for the future and funded independently of the grant contributed by the PHMC and associated matching funds. The budget segment assigned to lime-washing walls and ceilings has been re-allocated and expended for the extra labor and materials required to stabilize and preserve original 18th century plaster in its un-coated state. Stable and in-plane original wall plaster will remain un-coated.
Third quarter work will complete the current-project phases of joinery and plastering in the parlors, and the re-creation of the pent roof on the 1765 façade.
The attached photos illustrate the work accomplished in the 2d quarter and work-in-progress:
4/17/20, # 53: chipped “keys” in plaster undercoat to provide anchorage for finish plaster application, and replaced lath on adjacent wall;
4/27/20, #3: re-purposed hand-split lath on reconstructed “blind” partition between best and back parlors;
4/27/20, #19: Partially restored, leveled, and washer-anchored ceiling plaster in back parlor;
5/22/20, #37: “Scratch” coat scribed to ceiling cornice on parlor partition;
5/28/20, #15: re-fabricated corner cupboard fitted to surviving original elements in back parlor;
5/28/20, #3: New and preserved plaster on back parlor ceiling, anchored and re-lathed where necessary;
5/28/20, #1: sample plaster patches applied to parlor walls to select best color & texture matching to original finish-coating;
5/22/20, #12: re-fabricated back-parlor corner cupboard with remnants of original plastered interior and red- ochre paint.
Larry Ward
George Douglass House Restoration Project-Work Accomplished and In-Progress-2d Quarter 2021
Second quarter work in 2021 focused on plastering deteriorated areas, wall segments with partial or total de-lamination of original 1765 and/ or later applications, and patching voids. In the process of removing deteriorated or de-laminated plaster remnants in the original Amity Store space, it became apparent that the sub-strate stone walling was in many places poorly laid-up or otherwise unstable. Problem areas had suffered dislocations of some stone units and/or significant voids between stones. Based on these conditions, the preparation for base and finish plaster coatings required extensive and un-anticipated masonry stabilization, infilling with additional well-fitting stones, re-mortaring deficient areas, including “deep pointing” to fill-in beds and joints, and “flush” pointing set back just enough to create slightly recessed “keys” to help anchor the plaster base coat to the masonry. Similar stabilization, restoration, and finish plastering will take place in the parlors and kitchen. Second quarter work-in-progress and completed elements: Interior: Original Amity Store room:
1. The left stone jamb of the doorway from the original store room in the 1765 house-block to the c. 1798 store addition, showing dislocated stones and voids between stones, an extremely unstable structural condition. Simply “plugging” these gaps with mortar is not an effective solution and would not conform to current preservation standards [Photo 13, 6/4/21]. The jamb to the right [west] of the doorway was similarly at risk of failure [Photo 10, 6/4/21].
2. Restored left doorway jamb after insertion and “mudding-in” of selected stones set and secured with bed and joint mortar applied in incremental “lifts” and continually moistened to meter the curing process, creating a durable monolithic wall structure and a sound backing for the restored plasterwork [Photo 11, 7/7/21].
3. Masonry headwork above store doorway, stabilized and flush-pointed to establish a reasonably regular plane to anchor the lime-plaster base-coat [Photo 1, 7/2/21]; Photo #10, 7/7/21 shows the same area after application of the base coat; margins of original undisturbed plaster delineate the repaired area and the finish-surface to be met, lift-by-lift.
4. Back parlor: (a) Base coat plaster infill above baseboard adjacent to fireplace [Photo 27, 6/4/21]; (b) chopped “keys” in surface of base plaster in wainscot panel below chair rail, awaiting finish coats of plaster [Photo 22, 6/4/21]; (c) base-coated fireplace masonry [Photo 4, 6/12/21].
A. Exterior:
5. Pent-roof framing with white oak at its original elevation across the 1765 façade, supported on joist extension “outlookers” (“cantilevers”, in mechanical terms) with varying-separations, after setting rafters and pedimented hood trusses,the rafters to be lathed and covered with western red cedar shingles, and ceiled with boards [Photo 1, 6/16/21]. Rafters bear on a rafter plate leveled across the outlookers [Photo 31, 6/4/21].
Larry Ward
Work Progress in George Douglass House, January 1-March 30, 2020
During this quarterly period, interior plastering and woodwork joinery continued at an efficient and coordinated pace as weather, planning details, and Pandemic restrictions permitted. Project carpenters Tom & Chris Lainhoff fabricated major paneled elements, built-in corner cabinetry, and molded millwork such as chair rail, cornices, perimeter-architraves, and baseboards in their home-shop. These components were designed and detailed based on surviving fragmentary “templates” found in the house and authenticated during the course of the project. Importantly to all other restoration aspects in each parlor, great care was taken to stabilize and level floor joists to receive original and re-purposed species-matched floor boards in their historic positions in both parlors.
Carpentry and plasterwork progress required sequencing and integration with lath application, repair or replacement where necessary, and lime-plastering, by installing the permanent and temporary wooden “stops” at the meetings of plaster and woodwork. This alignment on both horizontal and vertical axes requires exacting precision in both crafts, so that the finished work meets 18th century artisan quality standards and original-design objectives. This task is made exponentially more challenging in a grand “relic” of a manor house whose structural elements are no longer plumb, level, or square.
A new “blind” board partition, without door passage or other opening, was constructed between the front “best” and back “family” or dining parlors. This re-established the historic public and mercantile-office privacy in the front parlor and a less formal family preserve in the back.
Continuing the restoration precepts and priorities established in 2d floor chambers in 2019, the first preference is to preserve original and un-compromised 1765 plaster parlor walling in its un-coated state. Severely degraded early plaster will be re-laminated to original, repaired, and replaced lath, recoated with a scratch coat and a finish coat formulated from 18th century recipes. Soot and other particulates and adhesions on early plaster will be cleaned as thoroughly as possible and the cleaned surface lime-washed.
Larry Ward
George Douglass House Restoration Project-Work Accomplished and In-Progress-1st Quarter 2021
First quarter work in 2021 included interior woodwork installation, and painting of original and replicated elements fitted into place, providing marginal-limits [“stops”] for finish plastering. The interior carpentry and restoration joinery continued in the first floor parlors at the northern gable-end of the 1765 house-block and in the original Amity Store space in the southwest quadrant. Plastering was deferred by Covid restrictions, which required scheduling work on alternate days or weeks if more than one craftsman was involved in the work-phase, and by health issues causing interruptions of the project.
First quarter work-in-progress and completed elements:
1. Paneled window surround, baseboard, wainscot panel, and window seat in front/best parlor, painted in microscopically determined original colors [Photo 16].
2. Wainscot paneling in best parlor, temporary chair-rail “stop” as plaster margin; window-surround panel fields will be marbleized in darker blue, as found on original rail-panel surfaces [Photo 12].
3. Wainscot paneling in best parlor, painted in original Prussian blue and pale blue-gray colors and fitted in their original sites, providing fixed “stops” for base and finish plasterwork [Photo 11].
4. Best parlor cornice, lathed partition wall, corner paneling above fireplace, and ceiling plaster “keyed” for finish coat [Photo 8];
5. Corner fireplace, painted, chair rail, cornice, and baseboard in back parlor, all painted in original deep-red color and fitted as meetings for base and finish plaster [Photo 7].
6. Doorway from back parlor to center-passage [“hall”], with its architrave [“casing”] painted in the same red-ochre tone as the stair railing and balusters [Photo 5].
7. Back parlor door frame, chair rail & apron-boards, window frame and wainscot panel painted in historically original colors and fitted in original locations, providing stops for plaster; original stable plaster, with 19th century shelving “ghosts”, will be preserved as original fabric, cleaned, patched where necessary, and lime-washed [Photo 4].
8. Restored finish plaster on kitchen partition in store showing meetings with chair rail, baseboard, corner cupboard and corner fireplace [Photo 19].
9. Restored and re-painted wainscot panel [“spandrel”] between two western windows in original store room (restored to domestic use when store addition constructed, c. 1798-1810) [Photo 14].
10. Painted wainscot panel below window shelf in original “Amity Store” (name documented in surviving ledgers) [photo 13].
Larry Ward
The Historic Preservation Trust of Berks County, PA George Douglass House Restoration: PHMC Project ME Number 16709
Work Progress, July 1-September 30, 2020
During this 3d quarter period, concentration was focused on parlor woodwork joinery and installation, as sequence details and Pandemic restrictions permitted. Our carpenters Tom & Chris Lainhoff continued the fabrication of parlor elements, built-in corner cabinetry, and molded millwork such as chair rail, cornices, perimeter-architraves, and baseboards, all designed and detailed based on surviving fragmentary “templates” as noted in previous reports. Carpentry work progressed through the quarter under revised pandemic restrictions, requiring that only one craftsman work in the house on any work day, and mandating face-covering and effective sanitary measures in work-spaces. The Lainhoffs completed construction and installation of the following re-fabricated structural and joined elements in the family [back] parlor and other first floor locations during this period. The woodwork components meeting wall and ceiling plaster were fitted in final positions, now in place to serve as fixed “stop” abutments for final plaster coatings:
1. Re-fabricated corner cupboard in final alignment as documented by plaster margins and other evidence, fitted in the family [“back”] parlor to adjacent chair rail and paneled wainscot spandrel [“apron”] below back window (photos #17 and 14, 9/29/20);
2. Doorway frame and architrave between the original mercantile store room in SW quadrant of the 1765 house-block and the Federal-era Amity Store addition; (Photo # 19, 8/14/20);
3. Window sill/seat in original store room with extended (“ended-out”) side-boards of window box, butted to adjoining re-fabricated chair rail; (Photo #16, 8/14/20);
4. Re-fabricated wainscot paneling and over-mantle in front (“best”) parlor, painted with original colors authenticated and formulated by historic paint consultant Matthew Mosca; photos #37 and 36, 9/4/20;
5. Re-installation of original Federal-era vernacular corner-cupboard in the original store-room (as documented by surviving store-account ledgers from the 1760s), reverting in the 1790-1810 era to resume its role as part of the domestic space of the 1765 Douglass family home, now re-fitted between new chair rail molded in the precise form and traditional molding detail of original railing found elsewhere in the house; (Photo # 1, 9/29/20);
6. “Sistering” or lap-joining joist-extensions where necessary, and stabilizing parlor and store-room floor joists in foundation-masonry sockets, in preparation for re-installation and leveling of original floor boards and setting re-cycled floor boards in replacement of deteriorated originals (Photo # 2, 9/23/20).
4th quarter 2020 and winter work, as weather and health and safety requirements permit, will:
A. complete current-project phases of carpentry, joinery and plastering in the parlors and store-room; B. re-create the pent roof on the 1765 façade across the rubble stone band between ashlar 1st and 2d story façade masonry; photo #8, 10/2/20; and
C. complete Installation and leveling of original and replacement floor boards.
Larry Ward
THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TRUST OF BERKS COUNTY, PA.
Final Report On George Douglass House Restoration Project:
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Agreement ME#16709;
Project Beginning Date December 1, 2017; Ending Date September 30, 2021.
Grantee: The Historic Preservation Trust of Berks County, PA., PO Box 245, Douglassville, Pa, 19518.
Contact Person: Larry Ward, larryward59@comcast.net; phone 610 223 0123.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Scope of Work-Original:
(a) Repair, reinforcement, and restoration of deteriorated first story floor system and joist framing, consolidating sound floor boards in the two northern parlors; (b) restoration of “best” first floor parlor, including paneled fireplace surround and chimney-piece with original and recreated paneling; re-create plank, wainscot and plaster partition between parlors and between store room and kitchen; (c) Stabilize and restore original exterior plastered cove cornice and lath remaining in the original radial white oak framework; re-align and repair cornice bed and crown mouldings; (d) re-point rubble masonry behind the pent roof wall range; re-create shingled and ceiled pent roof across the southwest eaves wall façade of the original 1765 house, supported on cantilevered extensions of original 2d floor joists, covered with cedar shingles matching the house roof and ceiled with random width, beaded tongue-and-groove pine boards, and install cornice moulding and fascia; (e) Restore defective or missing plasterwork in best parlor, back parlor, store room, and kitchen.
Scope of Work Accomplished [Extra work and modifications are in Italics]:
(a) Repaired, stabilized, replaced, and/or restored first story floor boards and joist framing, including:
Extending, reinforcing, repairing, and re-leveling floor joists where necessary; modifying, shimming, supplementing, replacing, and fitting boards as necessary to achieve a reasonably regular (though not perfectly level) and secure completed floor system in the two parlors; due to the degraded and unevenly worn condition of boards surviving in the back parlor, re-purposed boards from an early house, of the same white oak species and range of widths as the originals, were used to compose the restored floor.
(b) (1) Install original and replicated woodwork in best parlor, including:
fitting original and re-fabricated joined and moulded wooden elements in both parlors including windows, box-frame, casings, architraves, and door framing, corner cupboards, fireplace surrounds, wainscot paneling, cornices, within wall intersections that are not level, true, plumb or square; painting woodwork in both parlors with scientifically determined original colors; paint touch-up will continue;
(2) re-create panel and plaster partition between parlors, including:
fabrication of an alternating-plank core wall to which the replicated hewn, or 19th sawn, wooden lath is attached;
(c) Restore original deteriorated plastered cove cornice, including:
modification of some of the original curved brackets to re-establish the common radial cove profile to receive replacement lath and plaster;
(d) (1) re-point rubble masonry range behind the (restored) pent roof, including:
re-masoning displaced stonework and re-aligning deflected flashing stone units to re-establish a reasonably true [but not perfectly level] recessed shelter for wall joint with upper shingles; re-mortaring gaps between cantilevered outlookers and masonry back-wall;
(2) re-create shingled and ceiled pent roof across the principal façade, including:
fabrication of a gabled hood over the doorway, similar to that on nearby and contemporary White Horse Tavern, also owned during the period by George Douglass;
(e) Restore defective or missing plasterwork in first floor best parlor, dining parlor, store room, and kitchen, including:
Extensive repair and structural consolidation of segments of the wood and masonry substrates for re-plastering; extensive additional masonry work included re-setting, infilling replacement stones into voids, and re-laying and re-pointing displaced and missing stones around window and doorway openings, and along wall meetings, and deteriorated segments along chair rails and baseboards; de-laminated and poorly anchored areas requiring re-plastering in the parlors were approximately twice the preliminary estimates of affected wall area; such re-plastering required a few to several coatings to bring the finish plaster to the appropriate surface plane, allowing time for each coating to cure; extra work to repair or replace and re-attach wooden lath included applying re-cycled hewn lath where original pieces were missing or unsalvageable, and using 19th century sawn lath for new plaster on the partitions, and re-nailing or screwing deflected or delaminated lath to floor joists or other attachment members. Far more plaster was defective and required replacement than was apparent from surface inspection. Whitewashing, not part of project scope but partially applied within project timetable to stable re-plastered and earlier surfaces, will progress on other wall segments after documentation of building history on remaining plaster surfaces [e.g., shelving “ghosts” on plaster in 18th century Amity store-room], and deferred for some surfaces [discolored areas in photos] to allow adequate curing time for patches and infilled areas. 2d floor plaster was repaired and cracks and voids consolidated with replacement plaster where defective; sub-strate and plaster integrity were restored on all walls and ceilings as on first floor walls and ceilings. .
PROJECT BUDGET
Estimated Budget and Final Budget as expended, including Changes and Extras:
General Conditions, Equipment Rental, set up: Estimated… $3,658. Final… $3,658.
Professional Services, Estimated $3500. Final expenditures $5000.
Wood Carpentry, Joinery, Flooring: Estimated… $62,770.
Paint Finishes, plaster repair and replacement: Estimated… $29,680. Final plastering expenditures $115,808. NOTE: Final expenditures included work not within the original scope of project, including 2d floor plastering and sub-strate restoration on both floors.
Total Original Budget Estimated… $97,950.
Total Final Budget Expended… $209,153
NOTE: Extra plastering and off-scope structural and fabric stabilization and other work not included in the original specifications were funded with-non grant and non-match sources.
PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHED
Views of principal façade before and after restoration of pent roof and plastered cove cornice.
View of 1760s Amity Store room after restoration of corner cupboard with original colors, structural stabilization of sub-strates, re-plastering, and re-fabrication of kitchen partition [right of cupboard].
Views of parlors before and after restoration of plaster and milled and joined woodwork, and re-fabrication of partition re-separating back parlor.
Views of kitchen before and after wall and ceiling plaster restoration and floor stabilization.
Larry Ward
George Douglass House, c. 2003, photos of the 3 original Federal-era dormers,
and of the roof as dormers were gradually removed. The additional photos show
the house in various periods with one or more dormers surviving on the roof, and
detail photos of the surviving frontispiece, which show one of the elaborately
pieced vernacular Federal design frames. It will be retained in the recently
dedicated Shelley-Pendleton Education and Exhibit Center in the Douglass
House, as a permanent exhibit artifact.
Larry Ward, updated, Oct, 2022
Image #1 [photo #5579, 11/11/13] and the attached drawing dated 2/18/15, revised 3/12/15 [folder dated 4/14/15] show the two adjacent arch-form masonry vaults in the cellar of the 1765 George Douglass House against the below-grade foundation of the southern gable wall of the kitchen. Photo # 5773, 11/18/13 depicts the shared pier and triangular impost from which both vaults spring.
This illustrated record will discuss the historical origins, structural function, and laterally stabilizing relationship between this pair of classically conceived and mechanically integrated vaults.
Beams and Arches: The iconic Greek lintel, composed of stratified bearing and decorative elements forming a segmented entablature, is functionally a beam. A beam is supported only at its terminals, usually columns or wall sockets, often with no intermediate posts or other bearing points. The tensile stresses on a beam under load are well known, quite predictable, and critical in limiting the spans beams can reliably bridge. These essential mechanical principles accurately define the load-limits any beam can effectively and safely support.
An undersized or structurally deficient beam deflects, deforms, and ultimately fails under strains exceeding its tensile capacity. Beam integrity is determined primarily by the strength of the material of which it is composed and its vertical dimension, which is squared in determining its strength. Stone and similar earthen materials perform far better in compression than in tension. The axioms and calculations predicting timber-beam performance that early carpenters and joiners understood from practical experience, European “guild” training, and durable results are analogous to the stone mason’s instinctive “pocket guide” to arch and vault design and the acquired methodology expressed in their vernacular stonework.
However, the construction methods and risks related to designing and constructing masonry arches and vaults over long spans are exponentially more complex than those applicable to a level horizontal beam. Colonial and Federal vernacular masoning skills were implemented with minimal understanding of the mathematical formulas or mechanical principles governing arch and vault design adequate to resolve a wide variety of structural objectives. Despite these theoretical and technical deficiencies, continental and colonial masons achieved an admirable degree of competence in producing the complex and enduring curvilinear stonework erected in accordance with the ancient techniques and constructive sequences prescribed by the “art and mystery” of their trade. Once they learned which combinations of radial geometry values achieved durable results, masons in the back-country who “paid their dues” in the vernacular guild culture could confidently create the degree of stable consolidation of stone and mortar to produce functionally monolithic arches and vaults.
By contrast with a horizontal beam, structural arches are able to span wider dimensions because, properly formed, loaded, and buttressed, they counteract and “neutralize” all compressive, oblique, and tangential forces and stresses imposed on the voussoirs forming the arch-ring. This more complex set of force vectors in arched or vaulted systems creates significant horizontal and oblique thrusts acting on the piers, wall abutments, or other fixed mass supporting and laterally stabilizing the arch or vault. An arch more reliably supports loads to a greater degree than a lintel primarily because the arch converts a significant portion of the forces imposed upon it to a compressive [gravitational] vector supported by the earthen or paved stratum bearing its foundations. The gravitational (“compressive”), lateral, and oblique forces consolidated on the impost and its support structure are “taken to ground” or other “footing” base on which the entire mass is ultimately borne. Lateral stability depends on the abutments. The abutments constraining the fireplace support-vault include the smaller arch integrated to it and itself securely abutted by the eastern foundation wall.
The Drawing entitled “Arch Forces” shows with arrows a simplified analysis of the forces imposed on and supported by a masonry arch. The arrow labeled “R” [for “Resultant”] is a consolidated indication of the aggregate of forces generated by the arch and its loads as focused on the “Springers”; the two force “vectors” summarizing the compressive and lateral components of the resultant force are indicated by the arrows “VC” and “VL” respectively.
Arch Origins- The Roman Antecedents:Corbeled “tunnel” vaults with roughly converging apexes appeared in stone walls and passage structures in the middle-east nearly 2000 years ago. More mathematically complex and mechanically effective than the column-and-lintel systems prevalent in monumental Greek structures, masonry arches and “barrel” vaults, most composed of large bricks and mortar, flourished in classical Roman architecture and appeared in stone in cultures east of the Mediterranean Sea during the 500 years BCE. Some vaults intersected, forming groined (and later ribbed), quadripartite vault bays spanning the spacious naves of 10th century Romanesque churches, ceiling a magnificent multitude of even more voluminous Gothic Cathedrals displaying “pointed” arches during the medieval period, and roofing Romanesque and Renaissance cathedrals [cite JSAH].
The Renaissance and its Influence:The Italian Renaissance of the 15th through 17th centuries and its widespread architectural influence produced an abundance of semi-circular and segmental structural arches, little changed from the classical Roman and intervening Romanesque prototypes. The cult of the arch spread rapidly north of the Mediterranean. Large-scale radial arches provided structural integrity in hundreds of major building campaigns throughout the Germanic Principalities during the “Northern Renaissance.” The mechanical success of the Roman Empire’s enduring architectural and engineering achievements for nearly a millennium assured the primacy of the “round-form”{a} arch in structures erected within its vast area of political dominance and architectural influence. Arches and vaults{b} proved to be exponentially more effective than the column and beam [“trabeated”{c}] Greek forms in critical bearing functions in the classical world and all subsequent architecture influenced by it. The semi-circular, elliptical, and multi-radial arch forms spawned by Rome evolved little over the ages because of the structural success and stunning beauty of their prodigious lineage. The lithic DNA of the arch required few mutations to perpetuate its survival into its third millennium and for the foreseeable future.
{a} Generically of two types: (1) semi-circular arches with intrados and extrados tracing arcs with constant radii terminating at the horizontal chord connecting the imposts on the abutting piers; and (2) segmental or elliptical arches with radii converging at a center (or multiple centers) below the impost cord, tracing less than a half-circle or an eccentric arc from impost-to-impost. The various profiles and radial patterns in masonry arches are diagrammed in the “Masonry Arches“ drawing in this record, from the 3d edition of Architectural Graphic Standards by Ramsey and Sleeper (1941 and 1949).
{b} The traditional definition of a round-form vault is: a masonry arched structure with a length longer than its span between imposts. A functional definition, less focused on the dimensional proportions, would refer to the distinction between the typical passageway or arcade openings created by an arch compared to the essential bearing, ceiling, and enclosing purposes of a vault. The Douglass cellar vaults fall into the latter category, relegating the dimensional formula to a lesser significance.
{c} as distinguished from arch-form or “arcuated” systems, with voussoirs [the individual canted stone units forming the arch-ring] of appropriate geometry and sizing to provide reciprocal and monolithic stability crucial to supporting the incumbent load.
The English architectural renaissance:17th century British masons and architects produced and adapted to English design preferences an abundance of buildings derived from Roman [more proximately, northern Romanesque and Italian Renaissance] prototypes, adapting masonry passageways and bearing-arch forms to a variety of functions in vernacular and academic buildings. The architectural results included an impressive array of grand houses in Great Britain and robust symmetrical domestic buildings in the new villages and farmsteads structures in the New World. These American evolutes were often assimilated and adapted by collaboration and parallel development contemporaneously with continental influences and practices. The colonial vernacular expressions in masoned stone became more ingenuously refined and articulated.
The peripheral support elements abutting an arch or vault must be sufficient in mass and lateral integrity to neutralize the outward stresses generated by the arch or vault and the superincumbent loads borne by them. Not all of the gravitational load supported by arches and “barrel” vaults are “converted” to compressive gravitational loads and fully borne by the imposts [“I” on Drawing GDH vaults color] through the springers [“S” on Drawing GDH vaults color] and borne by the piers or wall ranges abutting the arched span. Arches and radial vaults depend on stable abutments as well as compressive gravitational bearing piers to fully restrain and counter all force vectors, particularly lateral forces, and superincumbent loads imposed and “acting”{d} on the arch. The ultimate durability of the finished structure is dependent on the quality of the wall-builder’s “laying-up” technique, most importantly the transverse bonding patterns conceived and implemented to compress and thus secure joints between stone units. The impressive result of the form and laying-up techniques producing these arches is masonry cohesion achieving a functionally monolithic stability.
{d} A misnomer, since the ambient loads and force vectors borne by an arch or vault are static [“dead”, not “live”], when in equilibrium. Properly designed arch-form bearing structures resist and neutralize live or “dynamic” loads and “charges”, as well as static burdens. However, this discussion will consider only the static aspects of arch-theory, since most Pennsylvania structural arches were built to such a redundant mass and scale that they easily absorb and dissipate the live loads periodically occuring.
Master masons designing and supervising stone building projects on the Continent and in the British Isles assiduously trained their corps of journeymen{e} and apprentices in the “art and mystery” of their trade. In the following centuries, including the 17th and 18th century era when William Penn was “planting” his vast American colony with immigrants and their craft-cultures, stone buildings (and many of brick in urban centers such as Philadelphia) began to appear throughout the settlement areas of Pennsylvania. Many masons, journeymen and “masters” working within a hierarchy of artisanship commensurate with their levels of spatial perception, acquired skill-set, and applied workmanship, emigrated to the American colonies, transplanting with them those prescribed and creative means and methods engrained in their individual and collective craft-memories and imprinted on the fabric of completed structures in which they were engaged. The Germanic form of the Romanesque arch crossed the Atlantic in the custody of a large corps of stone masons skilled in its use and capable of transmitting its traditions to fellow Germanic and non-Germanic artisans in the Atlantic colonies.
{e} The status of "journeymen" in the various construction trades in the English craft tradition designated someone who had completed his apprenticeship and was deemed qualified to "journey out" to construction sites to work within his craft for wages. In the continental Germanic Trade-Guild tradition, this was called “Wanderschaft Peregrination”, a one or two year journey to “ausland” regions and cultures designed to afford knowledge and experience in trade practices and techniques outside the apprentice’s home region, and to broaden the experience and skill-set of the “Handwerks-Bursch” [Traveling Journeyman] beyond the local methods and specialized techniques learned in his youth; cfr. Rush’s Account of the Germans in Pennsylvania, as published in the Proceedings of the Pennsylvania German Society, Vol. XIX, at page 50, especially Rupp’s footnote 23, ibid.
???????????Thousands of records of Indentures binding a large percentage of immigrants to work in Pennsylvania from 1771 to 1773 recite that the “Apprentice” or “Servant” was to be taught the “art, trade and mystery” of the designated occupational category; see records published on pages 1 to 325 of Pa German Society Proceedings, Vol. XVI (1907), in the essay entitled Record of Indentures of Individuals Bound Out as Apprentices, Servants, Etc. and of German and Other Redemptioners…October 3, 1771 to October 5, 1773.
Most of the Germanic immigrants settled and began working in Pennsylvania. The English artisans, trained during the 17th century “post-fire” building boom, also understood and utilized the structural arch, and possessed the requisite skills to produce enduring stone structures in the Atlantic seaboard “plantations” emerging in the colonial period. In southeastern Pennsylvania, masonry techniques and constructive protocols, informed by Continental and English practices and training requirements, found expression in a variety of structural applications in vernacular buildings crafted in the piedmont and burgeoning farmland settlements radiating out from Penn’s “Green Country Town”.
It is reasonably well documented that Germanic masons worked on Anglo-Pennsylvania [“Georgian”] houses in Germantown [1740s] and at Pottsgrove [c. 1752], and a few miles east in the George Douglass mansion [1765]. Farmstead buildings, Taverns, crossroads log and stone houses and their dependencies displayed arch-form doorway “heads”, segmental [“elliptical”] “relieving” arches spanning door and window openings, and durable vaults in cellars and ground-level stables designed and sized to support fireplaces and chimney stacks, wagon ramps, and to “ceil” “tunnel”- [barrel-] vaulted root cellars [also called “ground”{f} or “cave” cellars]. The work product derived from this craft history and tradition was durable and highly functional, and remains so where preserved.
{f} see Williams, David G., The Lower Jordan Valley Pennsylvania German Settlement, August, 1950, pp. 151-2 and following plates, observing that “Almost every farm of any size included one of the ground cellars among its buildings”, with arches “which vary from quite flat…to almost [semi-] circular…”
Vernacular Masonry: Early “back-country” masons possessed little or no knowledge of classical or Newtonian mechanical principles or the mathematical calculations{g} necessary to precisely calibrate the forces acting within an arch-form masonry structure. They lacked the formulas developed by solid geometry and force-vector analysis to design for massive (for many vernacular craftsmen, incalculable) loads, thrusts, and strains which burdened and imperiled the structural integrity of masonry buildings of the period. Instead, they marshalled their shared experience and honed their practical problem-solving insights and methods to rectify the inevitable failures as buildings in the region became larger and structurally more complex. Under the guidance and discipline of the most skilled among them, they managed to work-out and fabricate arches and vaults of sufficient mass and mechanically effectual form to support immense loads [measured in tons]. The transplanted “art & mystery” of the mason’s craft produced an impressive array of arched passage, bearing, and buttressing elements in a wide range of masonry applications.
{g} French mathematicians were working out the formulas and calculations governing arch performance, form, and size from the late 16th through succeeding centuries. It is doubtful that early European-American craftsman had access to or comprehension of the complexities and implications of these theories and the empirical refinements initiated and shaped by them. The architectonic results were formulaic guidelines determining voussoir shapes, weights and cant-angles, abutment pier dimensions, joint friction, impost design and placement, the orders of magnitude of compressive loads and lateral thrusts, and similar details and consequences produced by the finished structure.
Alternative bearing systems for fireplaces included coursed corbeled stonework, with each cantilevered layer of stones projecting out incrementally from the lower ranges embedded in the abutting walls, counteracting the compressive loads, lateral and oblique thrusts, and stresses from the fireplace hearth, jambs, and chimney stack borne by the inversely stepped support [Hunter-Shelley photo #4428, 4/13/15]. These support variants were less expensive and obtrusive, but could not bear the immense loads carried by well-constructed arch-form vaults.The ancient technique of laying arch-ring [“voussoir”] stones on temporary timber supports [called “centering” or “false work”] until the compressive and radial bonds between stone and mortar is sufficiently cured [“set up”] continues to the present day as the preferred method for constructing Roman-form arches and “barrel” vaults. This wooden form-work method was essentially the same in the mid-20th century as in arch structures produced in ancient and classical-revival periods, a span of more than two thousand years [see Shelley barn-arch photo, #1, 3/7/15].
The George Douglass House Cellar Vaults
The proposed replacement of the 1765 Douglass house kitchen door and frame in the gable recess next to the large cooking fireplace required the Trust to investigate and determine a plausible function for the narrow barrel vaulted structure [photo #5775, 11/18/13] in the southeast corner of the cellar under the doorway passage east of the fireplace jamb. Located adjacent to the fireplace support vault [photo #2613, 12/31/14] and directly below the gable-wall doorway passage adjacent to the kitchen fireplace, the corner vault might intuitively be expected to have been constructed as a bearing structure for a compressive load, possibly a bake oven. Inspection of the residual material and framing configuration under the floorboards should reveal whether any bed mortar or leveling course remains on the vault extrados as a bearing plane for a masonry structure which George Douglass hypothetically intended to install in the corner recess.
No significant masonry mass or other gravitational load is borne by the narrower vault, except for a minimal component of the eastern jamb of the fireplace above [ see GDH vaults Drawing dated 2/18/15 and revised 3/12/15], and there is no evidence that it ever did so. The space above the corner vault has been a joisted-floor passage to the gable doorway from an early period, and is probably an original plan detail. The framing, though since altered, is similar to the centered principal doorway framing in the western facade. Whether George Douglass realized the importance and benefit from this convenient passage belatedly, and consequently discarded the bake-oven element is an un-documented subject of conjecture.
It seems implausible that the gable-corner doorway was an afterthought brought to mind only after the masons had spent considerable time and material constructing two classic arch-form vaults and carefully designing the common pier supporting the shared triangular impost{h} and “springers” of both arches. Rather than speculating as to what purpose was intended for the corner vault, it seems more useful to recognize the structural function that is demonstrably served by it. As currently configured, the small vault is an ideal buttress for the large vault supporting the kitchen fireplace. The two vaults share the narrow pier as a common “jamb” and provide perfect lateral support for each other. The convergence of opposing force vectors from each vault, reciprocally neutralizing each set of stresses, creates stable equilibrium in both.
{h} The triangular stone centered on the pier between the vaults and bearing the springers of both vaults. As a consequence of the symmetrical and opposing force vectors focused on the angled faces of the impost through the springers of the two vaults, the mechanical effect is to stabilize the two-vault system at their joinder on the impost. There is no compelling evidence or constructive analysis that the smaller vault served, or was required to serve, any other structural purpose.
The following discussion will address only that function which the vault actually performs, not what its speculative purpose or other hypothetical intention, later presumably abandoned, might have been.
The gravitational loads and lateral thrusts imposed on arches are resolved and stabilized by the compressive strength of the arches and the redundant buttressing effects of the flanking structures (walls, piers, and adjacent integrated structures, such as the pier-wall from which the western end of the Douglass fireplace support vault springs, and corner vault formerly the support base for a corner fireplace, now removed) which abuts it. The combined mechanical effects achieve a coordinated condition of static equilibrium in the masonry masses borne and laterally stabilized by the well-crafted and buttressed vault system. The arch-ring and the pier-and-abutment elements that “clamp” it in place are equally indispensable in the creation of an enduring arched or vaulted work-product. The integrated pair of arched vaults bearing and stabilizing the Douglass kitchen fireplace has successfully manifested all essential functional criteria for two and a half centuries. It is not necessary to speculate about what Douglass might have had in mind about a bearing function for the small vault. It has served as the perfect buttress for the fireplace vault for nearly ten generations. In the absence of documentation or other compelling evidence in the architectural fabric, it cannot be asserted with certainty what the original purpose of the small vault might have been. We can, however, recognize the structural function it does unequivocally perform, namely to counter and neutralize the lateral and oblique thrusts imposed by the fireplace vault and the “superincumbent” loads it supports. Under this premise, the small vault is a mechanical buttress rather than a gravitational support in simple “compression” and bearing an intuitively imagined kitchen fixture.
The wider vault, nearly 12 feet in total length, shares an abutment pier with the smaller-vault, which also serves as a shared “jamb” [see photo Image #5773, 11/18/13 and the stone marked “P” in drawing dated 4/14/15]. The larger vault is a prime and enduring example of a masonry structure in stable equilibrium under the massive compressive load of the fireplace and three-story chimney stack borne by it. The smaller vault is (apart from any conjectural bearing role) an ingenious alternative to a massively redundant abutment pier which would have otherwise been necessary to provide the equivalent counter force against lateral thrust from the fireplace foundation vault [see drawing #GDHA3]. Together, the two-vault system produces a mechanically integrated and stable support system for the set of forces imposed upon and borne and neutralized by them. The drawing indicates that the shared vault pier performs its compressive function by supporting the fireplace jamb and chimney wall directly above it. It also supports the triangular impost stone which is the bed for the arch springers [“S” on GDH vaults Drawing dated 2/18/15 and revised 3/12/15] ranging through the full depth of each vault. Mechanically, this convergence of forces produces the equilibrium necessary for the long term durability of the incumbent loads bearing on the two vaults.
The Douglass house masons and the master housewright in charge of coordinating construction knew from their training, experience, and tradition that embanked foundations provide ideal buttressing for vaulted enclosures [Douglass, Keim, and DeTurk root cellars, e.g., see records KHPH…., GDHPH….,and DTHPH….]. Rather than filling the entire space between the jamb of the larger vault and the eastern foundation walling with “rubble” masonry infill, or thickening the vault pier to an excessively massive scale, the builders chose to mechanically join the vault bearing the fireplace and chimney loads to the easterly foundation, using the small arched vault as a structural brace. This thrust-transfer device, visually and functionally a “flying-arch”, effectively and economically utilizes the foundation masonry mass and exterior earthen “bank” as the lateral constraint resolving and offsetting all force vectors capable of straining the stonework to the point of failure. This vernacular solution operates on the same fundamental principles as those governing a “flying buttress” counteracting the thrusts generated by the high vaults in a mediaeval cathedral. The Douglass dual-arch system has reliably borne the massive fireplace and chimney stack loads and counteracted the lateral thrusts they produce for two and a half centuries.
Summary: There seems to be no evidence or trace of an access-aperture for a bake oven or other cooking structure in the eastern jamb of the Douglass kitchen fireplace. The location of the trammel “squinch” is also an indication that no bake oven abutted the kitchen fireplace. In the absence of such evidence, the small vault terminating at its eastern springing in the foundation wall , might be viewed as a cost-effective means of providing a mechanically sound buttress against the lateral thrust of the larger arch supporting the kitchen fireplace. The arched abutment, constructed with traditional “centering”, has performed this function for 250 years, providing a margin of structural redundancy significantly more efficient and less costly than a massively thick pier installed for this purpose {i}. The vault requires little or no additional materials than a massive pier. In modern terms, this diminutive arch is the “elegant” vernacular solution to the classic problem of arch stability against oblique and lateral thrusts imposed by the massive loads imposed by and through the fireplace vault.
{i} The support vault under the entry to the Shelley barn from the wagon ramp has a nearly four-foot wide abutment pier [photo 1498, 10/21/14].
The proposed replacement of the kitchen door and frame in the gable recess next to the large cooking fireplace required the Trust to investigate the vaulted support structure [photo #5775, 11/18/13] in the corner of the cellar. Located adjacent to the fireplace support vault and directly below the short doorway passage adjacent to the kitchen fireplace, this narrow vault would intuitively be expected to have been constructed as a bearing structure for a load-mass, such as a bake-oven, imposed on it from above. Inspection of the material and form under the floorboards might disclose whether any bed mortar or leveling course remains as a bearing plane for a masonry feature in the kitchen above.
The wide-span vault, which shares an abutment pier with the corner-vault, is a prime and enduring example of a masonry structure in stable equilibrium under the massive compressive load of the fireplace and chimney stack imposed on it. No scale-equivalent load is borne by the smaller vault and there is no evidence that it ever did so. The space above it has been a passage to the gable doorway from an early period, and perhaps is an original detail recognizing the utility of a direct route through the gable to an out-kitchen, store-yard, or other work space associated with the store and food processing enterprise engaged in by the Douglasses by the 1760s. It has been comjectured that the smaller vault was constructed before Georg Douglass decided to devote the corner recess to a doorway passage. It is hard to believe that the doorway was an afterthought brought to mind only after the masons had spent considerable time and material constructing a classic arch-form vault. Rather than speculating what purpose was intended for this vault, it seems more appropriate to recognize what function is actually served by it. As currently configured, the small vault is an ideal buttress for the large vault supporting the kitchen fireplace. The two vaults share the narrow pier as a common "jamb" and provide perfect lateral support for each other.
There seems to be no evidence in the eastern jamb of the fireplace that an access-aperture to a bake oven or other kitchen cooking structure. The location of the trammel "squinch" is also an indication that no bake oven abutted the kitchen fireplace. In the absence of such evidence, the small vault terminating at its eastern springing in the foundation wall , which is redundantly buttressed by the earthen subsoil against the foundation wall, might be viewed as an cost-effective means of providing a mechanically perfect buttress against the lateral thrust of the larger arch supporting the kitchen fireplace. The arched abutment serving this function provides a margin of structural redundancy and is significantly more efficient than a massively thick pier installed for this purpose{1}, and requires little or no additional materials. In modern terms, this diminutive arch is the "elegant" vernacular solution to the classic problem of arch stability.
There are several other support vaults in the Douglass cellar.
{1} The support vault under the entry to the Shelley barn from the wagon ramp has a_____ foot wide abutment pier.
Series of two images showing the title page and inscription pages from a law book titled ”The Charters and Acts of Assembly of the Province of Pennsylvania....” printed by Peter Miller and Company, Philadelphia, 1762.
Title page indicates that this book is Volume I of a two-volume set. However, the book’s owner indicates that this particular book has Volumes I and II bound together.
Image #2 is a composite image of two separate pages. The inscriptions indicate that both George Douglass, Sr. (1783) and George Douglass, Jr. (1822) claimed ownership of the book. Both George Douglasses undoubtedly consulted the law book for guidance and the pursuit of remedies arising from their diverse and complex transactions involving real estate, owning a wayside tavern, trading in iron, operating a country store business, money lending activities, funeral services, and in their judicial roles as Justices of the Peace.
Larry Ward
All of these drawings were executed prior to the 2017-2021 restoration campaign [see GDHRPT records in these archives for description, scope, details, and photos of the restoration project].
Larry Ward
Series of 33 digital images depicting the masonry restoration work at the George Douglass House.
The Trust’s Board of Directors resolved at its May, 2011 meeting to restore the three components of the George Douglass mansion and store structures to their historical and architectural ”period of significance” [”period”]. The consensus of historians and consultants seems to converge on the time-span from 1765, the date of construction of the original house{n}, to the mid-19th century (probably prior to the Civil War) as the appropriate time-frame. It was during this period that George Douglass, his son George II, and their successors built the three structures and developed the diversified mercantile activities within this complex, which included butchering, trading in iron and other commodities, and a retail ”country store” operation. This diversified enterprise evolved and flourished from prior to the Revolutionary War into the first half of the 20th century. Based on this history and extensive research into public documents and Douglass store records, the period of significance was tentatively determined to be 1765 to c.1840.
The earliest building, George Douglass’s impressive ”double-pile” five-bay Georgian house, was built in 1765 according to the date-niche in the north gable. The three-bay store addition, literally an extension of the early house in a more vernacular interpretation of the Georgian vocabulary, is not perfectly aligned structurally or conformed in detail to the 1765 house. Although a federal-period structure probably built between the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, the extension is not ”federal” in architectural composition, structural technique, or iconic classical-revival design details.
The second addition is a one and a half story structure of random rubble masonry, apparently used for the butchering operation, probably for storage and sale of goods, and for curing meats in the "smoke-chamber" above the barrel-vaulted vegetable [root] storage cellar. It was probably constructed prior to the Civil War, and perhaps as early as 1830, and has been serially altered in fenestration and roof framing during the past century. A "smoke house" (probably not the extant smoke chamber) functioned within the Douglass-Jenkins store enterprise as of 1803 or earlier, according to an entry[n] on the pastedown sheet inside of the front board of the store day-book covering that period.
[n] Tallying chronologically the varying quantities of pork in the smoke house.
Sometime in the 20th century the owners enclosed the “store-yard”{x} area between the three period buildings with a frame wall sheathed with an inexpensive composition material, roofed the entire rectangular space defined by gable walls of the 1765 house and the second addition--and the eaves wall of the “federal” addition--and floored the resulting “porch” with a thick slab of modern concrete. All of these “improvements” facilitated human passage and movement of merchandise in and out of the five doorways protected by the enclosure. However, they also intruded modern materials into and abutting the historic structures and their “curtilage”, and obscured the architectural and functional demarcations between the three interdependent buildings.
{x} See record GDR11FN1--1006.01.022 for photos and discussion of the restoration of this yard area, undoubtedly a busy zone at the height of activity in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and the contiguous domestic and mercantile structures and architectural elements preserved or re-created in their form in the period of significance.
The preliminary phase of the restoration campaign required removal of the "porch" roofing, the frame-wall connecting the northeast corner of the second addition and the southeast corner of the 1763 house, and the concrete slabs{1} along the foundation walls, including the south gable wall of the small addition to the south. Once these barriers and impediments were removed, the first phases of the stabilization and restoration work on the rear [east] elevations included:
A. Excavation and stabilization of sub-grade foundation masonry. Much of the foundation mortar had been transformed into a plastic and disintegrated residue of clay, sand, and lime chunks. The majority of foundation ranges along all east elevations required re-setting displaced stone "units"; deep-pointing the beds and joints; filling voids with stone "pins" and mortar; and underpinning overhanging ["cantilevered"] stones with base-blocks masoned to the optimum shape. The joint and bed mortar was recessed ["held-back"] pending the pointing campaign for the entire building;
B. Re-structuring the disintegrated stone steps and stoop at the raised entry to the smoke-chamber between the store addition and the one-story second addition to its south; this stair-block had become detached from the masonry supporting the entry sill of the smoke-chamber, and was noticeably out-of-plumb, leaning toward the east. It was restored to a plumb and stable condition, including the core and base of the raised stoop; see photos #4013 [dismantled core] and # 4022 [reconstructed stair-block].;
C. Consolidating and deep-pointing the east bay of the south gable wall of the 1765 house up to the cove cornice [also "cove soffit"], and including: 1) filling in the open joint at the interior corner between the 1763 house and the federal-period extension with small stone "flags", "pins", and mortar; 2) stabilizing the rotated and laterally displaced stones of the "quoin" corner pier and inserting stone flags in larger voids; 3) filling in the gaps and voids above the gable doorway near the southeast corner and on either side of the frame.
D. Raising the top step of the stairs to the vegetable cellar to meet the required brick paving elevations; re-grading the store-yard for positive drainage across the restored brick paving, and pitching it away from all building walls and doorways toward a central swale and to the unpaved area east of the paving;
E. Resetting the stone sill under the center doorway in the 1763 Georgian mansion, and stabilizing the foundation supporting the doorway masonry and framing;
F. Resetting a large dislodged sub-grade stone in the southeast corner of the later ancillary addition, and consolidating the corner pier it supports; this "quoin" corner pier was reconstructed and re-aligned vertically in conjunction with dismantling and re-erecting a majority of the south gable wall [see archive record GDR11PH1--1006.01.021, Image #3493].
DETAILED CAPTIONS
3268, 4/21/11: Two large stones on the lintel of the door frame in the east eaves wall of the 1763 George Douglass house. Rural builders of the period experimented with numerous devices to relieve timber framing at window and doorway openings of some of the wall and roof loads imposed upon them. The stones shown here are not embedded into the abutting masonry far enough to serve as true cantilevers, and might therefore be called "pseudo-cantilevers," which will serve only marginally as load-relieving elements. Nor do they function as a "flat" or "jack" arch, since there is no central "keystone" wedge, properly angled at the joint with the horizontal components of the "arch," to discharge a significant portion of the incumbent load laterally to the masonry piers or wall ranges flanking the wooden jambs of the frame. A single stone lintel, embedded the critical distance into the abutments and adequately sized, would have been a simpler and mechanically more effective load-reliever than this pair of stones. The deployment of the pair of stones shown here basically transmitted the wall load above the doorway directly onto the wood lintel, not the desired structural outcome. Fortunately, such redundant techniques were not essential because of the bearing capacity of the robust wooden frame and the timber lintel supporting the interior half of the wall.
3267, 4/21/11: Fractured (and rotated inward) stone sill [frequently “cill’ in documents and literature of the 18th and early 19th centuries] at east doorway of 1765 house
3432, 5/9/11: Broken sill and deteriorated foundation; raking out the clay-gravel ”mortar” from the joints and beds revealed the lack of any sound [deletion] bearing mortar
3493, 5/11/11: Laterally displaced and rotated corner block [”quoin” stone, from the French term for “corner’; also “coin” in early Anglo-American vernacular terminology] below grade at the southeast corner pier of the ancillary (c.1830-40) addition. Although “quoins” have occasionally been referred to as “decorative”[a], or as a means of squaring corners of random or coursed rubble structures, it seems clear that another important function is to “tie’ the intersecting walls together with the compressive force of the heavier and longer “quoin” blocks bearing on the mortar joints between the smaller stones bearing the quoins in the perpendicular wall ranges abutting the corners. Surviving American buildings employing quoins typically lay them horizontally in alternating header and stretcher alignment. Primitive corners laid with stones larger than the those in the random walling appear in very early European masonry practice since the early mediaeval period, sometimes stacked vertically, sometimes alternating horizontally and vertically, and occasionally in hybrid and random forms of more massive blocks which were not “decorative” but have stabilized the corners of buildings which have survived for a millennium or more.
[a] more appropriate in “dressed”[b] ashlar walls, which in early expressions featured quoins which projected beyond the common plane [“naked”] of the wall, creating a shadow effect in appropriate light. The relief between the tooled planes of the quoins and the ranges of random rubble walling does present an elegant refinement at their meetings.
[b] also, in early masonry craft usage, “planed smooth”, “tooled”, “chiseled”, or “boasted”.
3486, 5/11/11: Rolling 1763 door sill-stone onto restructured and leveled foundation
3495, 5/11/11: Larger sill-stone in place; smaller piece of fractured sill to be inserted
3496, 5/11/11: Chiseling ["pitching-off"] excess stone from smaller stone segment of door-sill. The same technique was used to taper the stone step inserted under the top step of the stairs to the root cellar when the top riser was raised three inches
3513, 5/11/11: Both sill pieces in place, anchored in the abutting "pockets" in the masonry jambs; the foundation below the sill has been stabilized and packed with mortar
3514, 5/11/11: Perspective view of wider range of foundation below doorway and abutting walling
3510, 5/11/11: Iron-bar grille [uncovered when foundation was excavated for inspection] in cellar vent to south of centered doorway in east wall of 1765 house. This type of grille set in the opening for cellar lighting and ventilating was typical in the period in this region; see records DTR09FN12--1001.01.248 and BKR10FN4--1005.01.067
3539, 5/12/11: Using a high bearing-capacity jack as a shoring device during re-setting of sub-grade stone in southeast corner of the ancillary addition; this "lift" enabled the mason to remove small stones from above the displaced "quoin," supporting the load it bore, allowing it to be re-aligned while keeping the corner pier "in compression" during the repair
3590, 5/16/11: Pulling paving stone from foundation, revealing dislodged foundation stones at grade
3591 & 3592: Detail views of unstable foundation segments
3598, 5/18/11: Collapsed foundation segment after removal of soils [mostly clay] providing lateral support
3690, 5/24/11: Deeply and fully mortared joints in repaired sub-grade foundation ranges. In below-grade applications, and thus absent any aesthetic considerations, the joints are filled-out "flush" to the plane of the wall
3617, 5/23/11: Open foundation joints, lacking mortar where persistent saturation from moisture retained in clay-laden bearing soils has dissolved much of the lime, leaving a low-viscosity muddy residue providing minimal bonding quality in the wall
3631, 5/23/11: Doorways to second addition [left, through vertical-board wall] and to smoke chamber [right, up stone steps] before removal of 20th-century frame wall [left] and board ceiling
3633, 5/23/11: Stone stoop on masonry stair-block at entry to smoke chamber; the entire structure has become detached from the foundation below the doorway
3639, 5/23/11: Doorways to store addition [left] and into east bay, near the southeast corner of the south gable wall of the 1765 house; concrete slab is a 20th-century paving over earlier [probably 19th-century] brick paving
3647, 5/23/11: The three period Douglass buildings, with [red] frame wall concealing most of east eaves wall of federal-period addition and all five doorways opening on the store-yard framed by the three buildings composing the house-store complex during their first century of development
3645, 5/23/11: Detail view of the 20th-century frame ["stud"] wall
3743, 5/27/11: Board ceiling over "porch" enclosure has been removed, except the portion under the roof extension which will remain as hood over three of the doorways opening on the enclosed yard
4009, 6/17/11: Brick paving found near eaves wall of federal-period central section, under 20th-century concrete slab
3871, 6/7/11: The exterior space common to all three buildings forming the Douglass house and store buildings; the roof over the "porch" has been removed, leaving a roof-extension "hood" over the three doorways relating to the small addition, used for food storage, preparation, and cooking [in a large fireplace, since removed] to the south of the federal-period store extension of the 1765 house
3976, 6/14,11: Deep-pointing the east bay of the south gable wall of the original house up to the cove cornice ["soffit"]; mortar in the joints was "held back" for future re-pointing
4006, 6/15/11: Displaced stones at corner of early house; rotated stone above fractured sill
4008, 6/15/11: Stonework above doorway will be consolidated with deeply packed bed mortar
4013, 6/17/11: Cavity under stoop at entry to smoke chamber, after removal of disintegrated stonework
4018, 6/18/11: Top step of stair to vegetable cellar, before insertion of new step underneath the top landing and prior to re-grading of yard with 19th century bricks found within Morlatton Village
4022, 6/18/11: Stoop-support restored
FOOTNOTE
{n} The mortar-pargeted date-niche in the northeast gable, although quite eroded, appears to read “1765” [photos #3112 and 3113]. The numerals “1” and “7” are just above the base of the niche; the “6” and the “5” flank the “D” below the vernacular sunburst motif under the apex. An essay entitled Down The Schuylkill Valley, published in The Pennsylvania German Vol. III, No. 1, issued January, 1902, recites that “There is another old building nearby [to the Mouns Jones House], erected in 1765, which was for many years the mansion of George Douglass….” Although the date-niche is not mentioned, it might reasonably be assumed that the author and other “pilgrims” accompanying him noticed the “datestone” (when, 111 years ago, it was certainly less eroded) as their reference for the 1765 construction date quoted.
{1} Six tons of concrete were removed, uncovering early brick paving in the yard area defined by the three walls of the period structures. The sound brickwork will be restored and preserved, and unpaved areas and areas where the modern concrete destroyed or severely damaged the bricks will be paved with similar bricks found at the Douglass buildings or at other sites within Morlatton Village [more correctly, according to research by Philip Pendleton, "Molatton" or "Molatten"]. These pavers range between 8 and 9 inches long and average 3.5 to 4 inches wide, and 2 to 2.5 inches thick.
Larry Ward, 2016
Architectural floor-plan drawings of the first and second floors in the George Douglass House. these drawings were included as part of the group of documents sent to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places as the application for National register Status for the Douglass House.
Numbers and arrows on drawings correspond to photographs (and captions) included with the registrations forms. Photos are catalogued as GDHPH6--1006.01.012 in this archive.
See GDHTX2--1006.01.015 for the full text of the original registration forms.
See GDHDWG4--1006.01.014 for a site map included with the registration forms.
Site map drawing of the plot on which the George Douglass House sits. This drawing was included as part of the group of documents sent to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places as the application for National Register Status for the Douglass House.
Numbers and arrows on drawings correspond to photographs (and captions) included with the registrations forms. Photos are catalogued as GDHPH6--1006.01.012 in this archive.
See GDHTX3--1006.01.019 for the full text of the original registration forms.
See GDHDWG3--1006.01.013 for floor plans included with the registration forms.
Series of 35 pages that describes the location, ownership, history, architecture, etc. of the George Douglass House. This is the main application sent to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places as the application for National Register Status for the Douglass House.
Photos included with this application are catalogued as GDHPH6--1006.01.012 in this archive.
See GDHDWG4--1006.01.014 for a site plan drawing of the plot on which the Douglass House is situated.
See GDHDWG3--1006.01.013 for floor plans included with the registration forms.
Series of 43 digital photographs (15 exterior and 28 interior) of the George Douglass House. Photos were included with the offical registration forms submitted to the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places.
See GDHTX2--1006.01.015 for the full text of the original registration forms.
See GDHDWG3--1006.01.013 for floor plans included with the registration forms.
See GDHDWG4--1006.01.014 for a site map included with the registration forms.
In a Sept 15, 1997 manuscript note to Dr. Donald A. Shelley, then a Trust Board member, Theresa Beard--a Trust founder, former President, and long-time Board member--reported that she “spoke to a man who said he did not think there was a butcher shop in the Douglass Mansion but when he was very young…about 10 years old…he remembered the Slaughter House and said sometime they bought meat there....”
An image of the note is not available because the remainder discusses personal issues.
Receipt / Payment received from Mr Martin[????] for Jacob Biglitti
Dated 1827 August 28, of a list of materials; which was received by George Douglass on 9 Janurary 1828 "infull"; signed off by Jacob Becket?
Mr. Ma[????] (missing text) D for Jacob Biglitti
1827
Aug 28 for Boarding Inn Jacob Biglitte 24 at 25 C[redit] Day D* 6-
for D Jms Fisher D 3.50
for D Jms Livingston 3.50
for D Geo Butler 1.75
for D Benjammin Boyer? 7D 1.75
for 1135 Hearth Latten foundries 50 5.66
for 350 Bricks 80 2.80
for 30 U Nails 8 2.40
for Hauling of Lime and Sand 1.75
for D Latten 1.00
for D Boards .50
for D 2 Loads of Slyate (Slate)? .50
for D Bricks from Oley 1.00
for 3 Days Work 1.50
for Do Do .50
for Pay of Gauby for Reforming Bricks? .50
for 8 Gal Whiskey 40 3.20
$37.81
Received 9th January 1828
George Douglass the House
infull
Jacob Bechtal
Receipt indicated a payment was received in full
Inscriped is:
Mr. George Douglass (Jr) Bot (Bought) of John Bunn
458 feet pine boards cut at fifteen dollars
per thousand for Mr. Sheepshank 6 -- 89 (=$6.89)
Received the Above in full
John Bunn
Black & white photographic print of early addition at George Douglass House from a southwest perspective view. Note on reverse of photo says "copyright [symbol] Steve Myers Studios 1990."
Photo #21 shows a stone arch in the cellar aligned diagonally to support the corner fireplace in the room above that served as the original "Amity Store" starting in the late 1760s [photo #15, 2/23/22, shows the fireplace arch as recently restored by setting replacement "voussoirs" (arch-stones) at the proper radius on a "centering frame", in place until the arch-mortar "sets up"; similar voussoir alignment is seen in photo 736, which is the arched vault in the cellar supporting the restored store-room fireplace shown in photo 15.
Drawing GDH FP Vaults is a schematic drawing of the large arched vault supporting the kitchen fireplace, and the smaller vault to the left that serves as a structural abutment to the vault that supports massive loads from the fireplace and chimney masonry above. The smaller vault restrains the lateral thrusts imposed by the large vault [see Arch Forces drawing, 4/13/15, attached showing force vectors acting laterally as well as vertically downward, in "compression"]. See also photo 5573, 11/11/13, showing these two vaults mechanically integrated by bearing on a shared triangular "impost" stone atop the pier between them. The force vector bearing on the impost from the fireplace vault is stabilized [vernacular: "neutralized"] by the smaller abutting arched vault compressed only by the smaller load consisting of the masonry and flooring bearing on it from the doorway passage above. No evidence has been found to indicate that any oven, cauldron or other structural mass within the doorway passage to the left of the kitchen fireplace that would have been borne by the smaller vault. The date of the doorway is not known by architectural evidence
Larry Ward, March, 2022, June 2023
Architectural Drawing of basement floor plan with inset elevations "A" and "B" marked on general basement plan. Drawing depicts proposed measures for stabilizing the George Douglass House.
Photocopies of sixteen handwritten pages outlining:
1) the genealogy of Douglass family--starting with George Douglass Senior's father, Andrew, and the 4 generations after George Sr.
2) properties owned by George Sr.
3) a 1799 inventory inventory of the George Sr. estate
4) a partial transcription of George Junior's 1832 will
5) and a chain of tittle for several current Trust properties from the estate of George Buckley Warder to Schurrs and eventually the Trust.
All information was researched by Theresa Beard, former president of the Trust.
Please note earlier versions of pages #3 & 4 (Douglass genealogy) are recorded in this archive as GDTX2--1006.01.010.
See additional images for full text.
