Booklet, "A Day in the Oley Valley" 1967, 12 pages.
Sponsored by the Woman's Club of Oley. The De Turk House is featured in this annual tour of historic sites.
The cover further pronounces "Commemorating the 200th anniversary of the DeTurk House" and "Benefit of the DeTurk Restoration
Fund, Historic Preservation Trust of Berks county."
A drive-around tour is mapped, with 31 possible historic site stops: De Turk House is the first, described on page 2.
Only the cover and page 2 are presented as images here. A single image of cover and page 2 combined, suitable for printing on 8.5x11
landscape is available under MULTIMEDIA LINKS.
Article on DeTurk House on the front page of "Oley Valley Sentinel: A quarterly publication serving the entire Oley Valley School District," Volume 7, Issue 4, July 2009.
Article appearing on page 7 was writeen by Spencer Shaak, Sentinel Intern and contains three photographs. Piece briefly discusses resoration project, its budget, archaeological study, and DeTurk family history. Trust Board members Scott Stepp, Property Committee Chair, and John Bieber are quoted.
See DTHPH51--1001.01.177 for front page photograph of DeTurk house referring to this article. Front page image also appears in MULTIMEDIA LINKS and additional images.
Eleven-page booklet (6" w x 9" h) outlining a driving tour of the Oley Valley arranged by The Woman's Club of Oley.
Features include: map, one-page introduction, brief histories for 31 sites, and acknowledgements of property owners, tour guides, and tour committee members.
DeTurk sites included are the [John] DeTurk "Homestead" [House] (page2) and the Abraham DeTurk Homestead (page 3).
image pictured is of cover only. Full text of bookelt can be found under MULTIMEDIA LINKS or additional images.
The inscription in image #2 is a vernacular Germanic version of the names of Johan and Debora DeTurk, as it is carved into the lintel spanning the attic doorway into the granary space, with the presumed construction date of 1767.
See other DeTurk Collection records in this archive for descriptions, details, and images of the history, structure and restoration of this multi-purpose structure (“Grossmutter” dwelling, cellar kitchen and root-cellar, and attic storage space [“granary”]), and record DTR09PH139 citing the 2013 Preservation Pennsylvania award conferred on this iconic “ancillary” farmstead building.
Larry Ward
Digital image of a black & white photographic print showing detail of northeast perspective view of the c.1783 Fulp ["Bridge Keeper's"] House, and two additional colored photos.
Circle in red marker draws attention to the exposed end-grain of the pre-1967 eastern eaves-wall rafter [sometimes "wall"] plate at its junction with the rake board on the north gable wall. The present [replacement] wall rafter plate{1} is marginally secured into the south gable wall by a short white oak plate-tie at each interior corner of the building [see images 2 & 3 (#208 & #211, 9/23/10), showing these ties in the southeast & southwest corners of the south gable]. Similar ties are embedded in each corner of the north gable and are lap-joined to the c.1971 replacement rafter plates.
It seems safe to assume that similar plate-ties were part of the original structure; the builders could not have installed a continuous tie-beam across the full gable-span because of the impediments presented by the sloping chimney in the south gable and the attic window in the north.
This structural technique appears in numerous random rubble masonry buildings in this period in the region [see DeTurk House photos through search term "Plate Tie"]. They were marginal substitutes for full-span tie beams which are mechanically connected to each wall plate by mortise-and-tenon or dovetail joinery, providing a reciprocal set of restraints, in "tensile equilibrium," against lateral thrust imposed by roof loads on rafter plates. These shorter ties rely mechanically on friction in the mortar joints and the relatively modest amount of compressive load from the incumbent gable masonry borne by them.
Although deficient as structural stabilizers, these short timbers do have the beneficial effects of: (a) interrupting ["breaking"] the vertical mortar joints, thus inhibiting fractures migrating through contiguous joints [see DeTurk photo DTR09PH100] and
(b) providing a true bearing plane for the triangular outer range of the interior wythe of the gable masonry at the eaves level [the ties in the DeTurk House are in the exterior wythes].
A preferable and structurally superior alternative to the "plate tie"for resisting outward thrust of the roof loads, is the mechanical joinder of the rafters to the upper-floor joists, which are then equivalent to tie beams.
This eaves wall collapsed in 1967 [see MFHPH24--1005.01.025] after several years of inundation of the interior framing timber through a large breach in the west range of the roof [see photo MFHPH16--1005.01.017].
Since the early rafter plates were replaced in the 1970-71 restoration campaign, the original joinery between the wall plates and their ties cannot be determined.
See photo records MFHPH22--1005.01.023 and MFHPH40--1005.01.041 for discussion of the stove chimney appearing [but since collapsed and removed] in this photo on the north [right] gable peak.
Details include: parged random rubble masonry; stove chimney [upper-right]; gable-end chimney [left]; rake board; attic window in gable wall; plate tie; wall plate.
Note in pencil on verso reads: "Toll House" (sic{2}) [unreadable direction] Wall -- showing cornice 6 x 8 plate on north [inserted with caret] wall-- beaded boarded [sic] on gable and wall 5" or 6."
FOOTNOTES
{1} The rafter plates on both eaves walls consist of two stacked timbers ["scantlings", or timber cut to prescribed dimensions, in this case approximately the size of floor joists], laid flat. The plate-tie laps over the top plank. The joinery between the two components of the composite plate and between the tie and the composite plate has not yet been determined
{2} See MFHPH16--1005.01.017, pointing out that the "Toll [collector's, the Kulp family] House" was across the river from the Morlatton site, on the west side of the river in Union Township in 1876, as indicated on the Amity Township map on page 27 of the 1876 "Atlas of Berks County."
The first bridge at this site, a substantial double-passage, two-span "Burr-arch truss" structure(a), was built c.1832-1833 by a private stock company nearly 25 years after the death of the first occupant of the "Bridge Keeper's" house, Michael Fulp. His modest dwelling was constructed by 1783, when a "stone house" on this lot (less than an acre) was first taxed to Fulp. Whether the site subsequently housed a "bridge keeper" remains undocumented. However, tradition says that one or more of its 19th-century occupants added snow to the bridge floor for sleigh traffic and hung lanterns at the portals. If true, this might be indicative of delegation of a broader set of responsibilities to a "keeper" or "tender." See also footnote {1} to record MFHPH16--1005.01.017.
(a) See photos and history of this bridge, including discussion of the "keeper" issue, in archive record MVPH1--1003.01.002.
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].
Four panel promotional brochure printed by the Trust for solicitation of members, donors, etc. Brochure discusses Trust history, properties, and activities as well as a space to write contact information when forwarding membership dues.
See MJHPH86--1000.01.092 for a enlarged view of the Mouns Jones House as pictured in this brochure.
See additional image for full text.
Excerpt from the "Transactions of the Historical Society of Berks County Volume III: Embracing Papers Contributed to the Society 1910-1916" published by the Historical Society of Berks County in 1923 in Reading, PA.
Eleven-page excerpt begins on page 244 and is titled "Baptisms of Indians in Oley Prior to 1732: A Paper Read before the Historical Society Sept. 9, 1913 by Rev. John Baer Stoudt." Rev. Stoudt's Paper focuses on a prominent ministers and religious leaders active in the Oley Valley during the early 18th century and their interactions with the Valley's Native American Indian inhabitants.
Of particular note is text on page 249 under the heading "baptized in Barn." which gives a brief account of a Moravian led baptism of three Native American Indians in Isaac DeTurk's barn (not the 1767 structure near the creek as elsewhere and erroneously stated).
See MULTIMEDIA LINKS or additional images for full text.
Mrs. Kenneth (Shirley) Kane, former resident on the DeTurk farmstead, replies to a Feb. 16, 1967, inquiry by Mrs. E. Robert Hottenstein of HPTBC on property details she may recall.
In addition to this one-page letter of March 15, 1967, Mrs. Kane's second sheet is a copy of the original question list submitted by Mrs. Hottenstein.
The third page contains Mrs. Kane's replies to the questions.
"Letter No. 4" is printed in pencil in the upper right corner. This apparently refers to a series (numbered 1 to 6) of inquiries to various sources about the De Turk property made by Mrs. Hottenstein.
Mrs. Hottenstein's original covering letter of February 16, 1967, has not been found.
See RELATED for photos from Mrs. Kane
Keim ancillary workshop structure, halftone image from photo, with descriptive caption, published in the "Dutchman," Winter, 1954, page 18.
Brick arches shown are "relieving" elements when properly constructed to transfer structural loads to the masonry abutments flanking the door and windows. Stonework is laid in random-rubble masonry method.
Details include short timber corner ties joined to wall plates on top of eaves walls. These ties also serve as the eaves-level "quoins" which, with the alternating longer masoned stones stacked at each corner, bind the vertical mortar joints of the corner piers. Similar (though twice as long) embedded timber "plates" appear in both gable walls of the Johan DeTurk house [see DTR09PH100--1001.01.192, and DTR09PH93--1001.01.185].
Later research indicates a construction date of 1753, contemporary with the Keim farmhouse a few yards away and not an early "settler's cabin" as peviously thought (Pendleton, Philip, Oley Valley Heritage, The Colonial Years: 1700-1775, p. 91, caption and accompanying text, pp. 90-92).
Laurence Ward, updated February, 2021
Letter in reply to HPTBC's Mrs. E. Robert Hottenstein from Laurence A. De Turk of Kutztown. No copy of the letter from Mrs. Hottenstein has been found.
"Letter No. 1" is printed in pencil in the upper right corner. This apparently refers to a series (numbered 1 to 6) of inquiries to various sources about the De Turk property made by Mrs. Hottenstein.
The letter covers many aspects of DeTurk genealogy and local history in the area, topgether with details on the properties and buildings involved.
Mouns Jones Root Cellar
A 1962 photograph [photo #19, 11/21/17] by Harry Stauffer, the Farmersville, PA "printer, tinker, and furniture maker", and, most significantly for the PA preservation and rural history community, a prolific and perceptive avocational photographer, was the first-noticed piece of evidence that a root cellar existed to the northwest and within the curtilage of Mouns Jones 1716 stone house. The blue-toned "cyanotype" print of the photo is in the collection of the Historical Society of the Cocalico Valley, and is used here with its generous permission. The stone-arch visible in Stauffer's photograph delineates the entry-wall of the cellar, which lacks its barrel-vaulted ceiling which was demolished between 1962 and 1972. However, the angled "springer" stones forming the transitional bearing elements between the "impost" stones and the arched vault remain in place on the northern foundation [photo #1, 9/26/17].
The approximate interior dimensions of Mouns Jones Root Cellar are ft. wide at floor level inside the entry gable-end, ft. long, and 80 inches in height at the apex of the assumed intrados of the vault. The "herringbone" pattern brick floor is approx.. …ft. below the early exterior grade, from which the cellar was accessed by two stone steps [photo #7, 9/26/17] descending to the brick floor. The arched entry in the Stauffer photo suggests that the rubble-stone exterior ["extrados"] of the barrel vault projected about 3-4 ft. above modern grade (but probably 5 to 6 feet above the early grade at the entrance). The interior ceiling ["intrados"] would have followed the arch profile established by the temporary "centering" supports left in place until the arch stones ["voussoirs"] "set up" sufficiently to be structurally self-supporting. Amos Long, op. cited below, pp. 160-162, surmised from oral tradition and personal observations that average dimensions for root cellars in SE Pennsylvania were 9-12 feet wide, 12-18 feet in length, 6-7 feet high from floor to apex of ceiling ["intrados"],
The Mouns Jones structure appears to exhibit stone foundation walls separated from and parallel to the longitudinal walls abutting the root cellar and serving structurally as its foundation. These perimeter walls on the long axis of the structure provided both compressive (gravitational) bearing support for the vault and adequate countervailing force to neutralize lateral and radial shear from the oblique thrust transmitted through the arched voussoir stones and angled springers. Apart from serving as lateral (and probably redundant) abutments for the vault, these long walls quite probably served as the foundation for a small gabled building similar to the presumed bake-house [photoKH4, Oct, 2010, c. 1897] a few feet east of the Federal-era addition to the 1753 Keim house.
In this Keim and Mouns Jones root cellar type the springers terminating the arched barrel vault are integrated directly into the long foundation wall supporting the vault, with insulating in-fill of earthen materials packed into the tapering space between the vault extrados and the interior face of the foundation walls of the superstructure.
Another example of the Jones-Keim type is the root cellar beneath the outbuilding north of the early mansion house at Pine Forge [photo #212], a few miles north of the Mouns Jones house and constructed with similar "New Red" sandstone as that used for the 1716 jones house.
In another structural variation, the springers terminate and bear directly on imposts embedded in foundation walls or internal piers or partitions in the building forming the superstructure. Examples of this class of root cellars are:
(1) The southern half of the cellar under the extant 1767 DeTurk "Grossmutter's House" in Oley Township, which also incorporates an attic granary and a large farmstead fireplace in the space adjacent to the embanked root cellar [photo 906, 1/1/80]. One run of springers in this embanked cellar bonds into the southern (road-side) gable-end foundation of the host building; the parallel set of springers beds in the stone partition wall that divides the root cellar from the farmstead kitchen and, formerly, the farmstead "wash house" (as it was called in an early 19th century DeTurk Will) in the northerly portion of the cellar spaces. The sole access to the cellar kitchen is the hooded doorway from the lower grade south of Little Manatawny Creek;
(2) In the plastered root cellar under the smoke chamber between the Federal-era Amity Store attached to 1765 George Douglass House in Morlatton and the one-story ancillary building into which the smoke-chamber/root cellar structure inserts at its northwestern corner [photos #2221, 4/22/13 and 2126, 4/18/13]. One set of springers in this vault beds in the southern foundation wall of the Amity Store addition to the George Douglass House and the other in the northern basement walling of the adjoining one-story ancillary building. Photo 16 shows the typical warm-air vent under the intrados high in the end-wall. Also visible in this photo to the right in the end wall is the arched passage through which air convects into the cellar after being cooled by the endothermic process of evaporation of the condensation formed on the exterior brick wall of the well seen through the passage{n1}.
{n1} Long notes at p. 60 of his Family Farm book that wells were sometimes constructed "in common" with a root cellar or with an opening built into the cellar wall "so that the cool air from the well could flow freely into the cellar area", which consequently "provided a cool storage space during the summer."
The root cellar under the Hans Herr house in Lancaster County [photo #1306, 1/1/80 ], also displaying a vent window ( called by Amos Long a "ventilation duct" when the walling below the opening is tapered to funnel-out the rising warmer air), The Pennsylvania German Family Farm, caption to photo on p. 101, which also shows a "cooling closet", ceiling meat hooks, and plastered and whitewashed walls.
Chapter 21 of The Pennsylvania Society for Archaeology has been methodically excavating the remaining walls and "herringbone" pattern brick floor of the masonry food storage space, called by various names including "cave" and "ground" cellars; see Long, Amos, Pennsylvania Cave and Ground Cellars, in Pennsylvania Folklife Vol. 11, No. 2, (1960), p. 36 et seq., and his farm-structures "bible", The Pennsylvania German Family Farm..[p. 156, et seq.]. Long also called this type of storage structure an "arch cellar" [ibid. p. 101], in which was stored cider, vinegar, many vegetables and fruits [p. 100].
The primary, but not exclusive, uses of early root cellars{n2} was as an embanked stone vault "where we [in Pennsylvania] keep our apples [photo #, a c. 1940 photo, above 6/18/14, showing the traditional function of sorting apples in a Pennsylvania root cellar in c. 1940 Adams county]…turnips, cabbages, potatoes, and pumpkins" and "cider, milk, butter, meat, and various necessities…" in cellars under houses. Both types of cellars were designed for "preservation of…roots and vegetables in the winter, turnips, pumpkins, cabbages, potatoes, [quoted in Gage, James, E., Root Cellars in America, 2010, 2d ed., p. 6 et seq., citing de Crevecoeur's 1782 "Letters".
{n2} ('commonly called a Dutch cellar' according to de Crevecoeur, J. Hector St. John, in his "Letters from an American Farmer and Sketches of 18th century America", 1981 Penguin trade paperback edition, at p. 315),
Long also notes the storage of meats, milk, butter, beer, wine, root vegetable (parsnips, salsify, horse radish, beets, turnips, and presumable others).
Similar subterranean ["banked"] wooden storage cellars existed in America in the 17th and early 18th centuries [Long].
Laurence Ward Feburary, 2018
Replaced oak sill inside DeTurk House kitchen window in east eaves wall, installed in April and May, 2010 in conjunction with repointing of surrounding stonework with mortar consisting of the traditional mixture of lime, local sand, and a small percentage of cement [an increased percentage of “Portland” cement is introduced below the high water table level]. DTR09PH109--1001.01.205, taken March 18, 2010, shows this window area after stabilization of the masonry under the window, prior to replacing the sill and repointing the masonry surround. The original sill, in a deformed condition from the stresses and movement in the east eaves wall, and a pre-restoration view of this segment of the foundation wall, are shown in photo in record DTR09PH11--1001.01.092.
The white pointing mortar just under the sill and in the north [left] masonry jamb will be finished [“washed down”] with a dilute solution of muriatic [hydrochloric] acid to “patinate” the mortar joints by partially dissolving the thin film of lime and cement on the exposed surfaces of the joints. This process will reveal the speckled appearance of the sand/lime mortar compound, compatible in color and texture with the surviving early pointing in the walls. [SEE the series of photos in DTR09PH120 depicting the successful results of this process on re-pointed segments of the east and west eaves walls, and the mortar joints surrounding the restored west outlooker projecting from the south gable wall]. The new pointing will eventually “weather” to more closely resemble the remaining early mortar, much of which is mottled with moss accumulations, patched joint runs, and carelessly selected mortar formulations [and colors] during various masonry “restoration” and alteration campaigns throughout the 250+ years history of the building. Every attempt has been made in the current restoration project to mix traditional lime-sand mortar proportions, use sand harvested from the bed of the nearby Little Manatawany Creek, and tool the joints to the double-struck “crown” profile of the earliest pointing remaining in the masonry joints.
Laurence Ward, 2009
Full-page article with seven photos from the front page of the Reading Eagle's Spectrum section (page 9).
Article, titled "Little House in the Oley Valley," written by Ray Koehler (photos by Bill Ader & Dennis R. Bender) was published Thursday July 18, 1991.
Article mainly focuses on replacment of clay ridge tiles, which were handmade by Lester Breininger, a descendant of John DeTurk.
Also includes brief info on DeTurk family history and the Historic Preservation Trust of Berks County.
Article on Keim Farmstead on page 14 of "Oley Valley Sentinel: A quarterly publication serving the entire Oley Valley School District," Volume 7, Issue 4, July 2009.
Article appearing on page 14 was writen by Lynn A. Gladieux, Sentinel Writer and briefly discusses a fundraiser held at the farmstead on may 23, 2009, Keim family history, property history, and restoration work needed.
See DTHPH51--1001.01.177 fand DTHTX21-1001.01.178 for articles on and photos of DeTurk house contained in the same issue.
Series of 9 digital photographs showing the diverse array of mortar types in the joints and beds of the exterior walls of the DeTurk "ancillary" house. The dates of the extant pointing range from the original construction in 1767 through the most recent restoration work in 2009 and 2010.
These photos illustrate the variations in color, texture, and surface effects ("patina") which result from natural climatic and environmental erosion, abrasion, particulate deposition, and from efforts to "match" periodic re-pointing to existing mortar which is assumed to be the earliest or most authentic in appearance.
A threshold issue in every re-pointing campaign involves selection of the materials most closely approximating the original lime "binder" and local sand ["aggregate"], mixed in the proper proportions to produce the appearance of the earliest discernible color and texture, or to effect a naturally "patinated" version of the original finish. Modern masonry preservation and restoration campaigns sometimes introduce Portland cement into the traditional lime-sand mixture. For historic preservation purposes, Portland type additives should be avoided except in the most extreme circumstances where a “hydraulic” mortar formulation is needed below water-table levels.
Mortar mixes relatively high in Portland{1} cement are harder than early lime mortar and tend to block evaporation of moisture trapped within the wall. Some of the repairs to the DeTurk masonry included a relatively high percentage of Portland cement, as indicated by the color and hardness of some of the accessible mortar. Excessive "Portland" subjects masonry structures to the degrading effects of mechanical stresses imposed on or within the wall, particularly if the resulting mortar ["mud"] is less resilient ["ductile"] than the stones bedded and bonded by it.
Hard mortar is less effective as a "shock-absorber" when the building is subjected to wind-loads and other dynamic ["live"] stresses and strains. This often leads to destabilizing fractures caused by the hydraulic and dynamic forces acting within the wall, sometimes leading to catastrophic failure in the structure. The DeTurk building suffered a series, contemporaneous or sequential, of these tectonic events, as evidenced by stress-fractures in the cellar kitchen door sill, the southern jamb of the kitchen fireplace, and a jagged vertical crack extending from grade to the raking roof level of the of the north gable wall near the northeast corner pier of the building.
The earliest mortar in this wall is lighter in color than most of the other surviving pointing, indicating a relatively high lime content, low color intensity in the local sand, and the absence of gray Portland cement{a}. Its speckled appearance results from the varying granular size and color spectrum of the aggregate, which was probably taken from the bed of the Little Manatawny Creek a few steps away. The patinated appearance of early mortar derives from the natural weathering process on the traditional ingredients. A carefully prescribed mixture of local sand, lime, and less than 10% white Portland cement, resulted in the final color and speckling of the 2009-2010 pointing.
{a} Modern gray Portland cement is a dominant coloring agent in mortar and requires alterations in the proportions of sand and lime in the mix in order to produce a traditional and naturally evolved color. This problem was not encountered when preparing traditional lime mortar, which is colored naturally by the tones and shades of the sand “aggregate” and by the natural effects of weather and deposits of air-and moisture-borne substances.
The lighter pointing finish in images 5 and 7 results from the lime particles accumulating on the surface as the mortar sets-up ["cures"]. The surface of the pointing was later "washed-down" with a dilute solution of muriatic [not generally recommended] acid to remove some of the powdery lime/Portland cement residue ["haze" or "milk", in modern terminology]. This conservative treatment, not without controversy because of its corrosive and catalytic effects, reveals the speckled color and granulation of the sand in the body of the mortar more rapidly than natural aging and weathering.
Synthetic coloring agents introduced into mortar compounds accelerate and distort the natural process, requiring disclosure and explanation in exhibiting and interpreting the re-pointed walling. It should be made clear that the induced color is not the result of the normal mortar-aging process. Similar reference should be made to the use of Portland cement and acid "washing" as modifiers of an otherwise traditional set of ingredients and application techniques.
Another distinctive ingredient is visible in weathered early mortar as granular white "lime chunks", which are bits of calcium hydroxide formed in the limestone burning and "slaking"{b} process, and not fully blended into the mortar "paste" before it is re-hydrated and tooled into the joints of the wall.
{b} the contraction "slak'd" appears in early usage, meaning to soak (and thus suddenly cool) the partially burned limestone (or oyster shells) during the lime-production process.
The older joint mortar in the 1767 DeTurk building also shows transverse cracks from stresses transmitted through the wall system, including destabilizing shifts in the stone "units" of the walling. The early bed mortar has functioned reasonably well in preserving the structural stability of most of the wall ranges of the embanked building, despite the disruptions noted.
Portions of the older pointing are mottled with a green-gray moss, shown in some of the photos. Matching new pointing to the earliest surviving mortar requires careful formulation and control of material composition, color, aggregate granulation, texture, and surface patina{2}. The application method and profile of the pointing are also crucial from both the functional standpoint--shedding water--and the aspect of authenticity--using traditional tooling and "finish" techniques developed from the "art and mystery" of the medieval practice of stone masonry, as developed and evolved in the post-mediaeval Pennsylvania-German craft tradition.
The pointing in the lower-central segment of the west eaves wall, slightly different in color and texture from the rest of the wall, results from the 1970s restoration which closed-up the passage doorway between the original first floor living space and the 19th-century addition appearing in DTHPH1--1001.01.021; see views of the doorway, after removal of the addition, in DTHPH5--1001.01.027, DTHPH19--1001.01.046, and DTHPH42--1001.01.070.
More formal "ribbon"{3} pointing was utilized on the south gable wall, the expressively mannered gabled principal façade, rather than tooling the "crown" profile appearing in the mortar in the three "random rubble" walls. Both forms project "proud" of the ambient wall plane, providing a flat or "pointed" convex shield configured to deflect precipitation{o}.
{o} This and similar methods tooled ["struck"] to deflect water are sometimes classed as "weather" pointing.
A more pronounced form of "ribbon" pointing was considered to be more sophisticated in masonry design in the 19th century, particularly in the "Victorian" period as interpreted and applied in vernacular structures with aspirations to architectural refinement as social expression. A robust sampler of the Victorian variations of "ribbon pointed" mortar joints in a domestic masonry wall appears in the additions to the earlier [c.1742] DeTurk farmhouse just southward across the lane from the DeTurk ancillary building.
The early DeTurk "ribbon" profile joints on the south/front wall is a form of weather pointing employed in both Germanic and Anglo-Pennsylvania "Georgian" structures throughout the 18th century [Pottsgrove Manor, c.1752, and George Douglass House, c.1763 in the English colonial tradition, the latter a vernacular example influenced in some details by the more academic Pottsgrove].
Image #1 (#782, 7/21/09) is a detail view of a few of the variations produced by a diversity of mortar mixes and different tooling techniques in the same wall range.
Images #1 and #2 are views of the west eaves wall of the DeTurk "ancillary" [multi-function or supplemental] structure which displays a wide variety of pointing, including mortar with a relatively high percentage of modern "Portland" cement in and near the northwest [left] corner pier. This 20th-century pointing material is noticeably grayer and coarser than the early mortar.
FOOTNOTES
{1} See discussion of the 19th-century history of Portland cement in England and America in DTR09PH66.
{2} In this context, the surface appearance produced by the effects of abrasive or erosive factors, weather, and environmental accretions including moss, fungus, and other air- or moisture-borne organisms and particulates.
{3} More precisely, a hybrid type of pointing presenting the appearance of ribbon-pointing, with a linear profile set "proud" of the roughly dressed and squared vertical plane of the wall, but expressing the secondary purpose of creating the effect of "ashlar"(a) range work in the principal elevation of the building. Image #8 (#914, 8/9/09) shows the southwest segment of the gable-front, displaying the "ribbon" tooling and the mortar in-fill applied to enhance the impression of "coursed and dressed" stonework. Early ashlar walls in the Anglo-American tradition feature thin joints with little exposed mortar. The treatment here is a vernacular departure from the carefully squared and tooled ["dressed"] blocks seen in more formal work influenced by 18th century "pattern" books. The Trust's George Douglass House and White Horse Inn, discussed in other records in this archive, are examples of this vernacular-Georgian type of stonework, with slightly thicker joints than English antecedents.
(a) more precisely squared and dressed, and usually reserved for more formal, more horizontally rectilinear, and symmetrically "Georgian" facades with "bays" delineated by harmonically spaced wall penetrations. In the highly articulated and somewhat mannered (within the pragmatic Germanic idiom of the region) facade of the DeTurk south "front", the varying heights of the "courses" are determined by the vertical dimensions of the alternating bond-stones ["quoins"] of the corner piers.
Larry Ward, 2009, updated Oct 2021
Report of the Historical Research Committee of the Deturk House Council: the Chairperson was Mrs. E. Robert Hottenstein.
The report is a comprehensive 20-page summary of the committee's investigations between Oct 1966 and Feb 13, 1970. The report itself is not dated, obviously post -2/13/1970.
Subject matter includes details of property history, building construction, chronological list of owners, photos from various time periods, and the question of the building in which the 1742 Moravian Synod was held.
Prior to the period of this committee's work, guidelines were established. They are represented in archives record DTTX7--1001.01.014.
The entire report is available as additional images or as a PDF multimedia link.
Digital image of a tinted postcard print created from photograph by H. Winslow Fegley, showing a perspective view of the east [right] and south [left] elevations of house.
Details shown include: pent roofs, gable hood, gable-end chimney, 19th-century slate roof, doors with later glazed sash, window sash, paneled shutters, stone stoop.
Full text on front of card reads as follows: "DE TURCK ANCESTRAL HOME, OLEY VALLEY, PENNSYLVANIA. Erected in 1767. Isaac De Turck settled here{1} in 1712. Kiob or Tschoop, the last of the Mohicans was baptized here{2} in 1742 by Moravian Missionaries."
In his pioneering essay "Colonial Architecture of the Pennsylvania Germans," published by the Pennsylvania German Society in 1931, Edwin G. Brumbaugh wrote, referring to the 1767 DeTurk building seen in this postcard: "…aside from its architecture, the building is of first rank historically" because of the "unification" conference initiated by Count Zinzendorf, which was "held within the narrow limits of its walls"{3} in February, 1742. The caption to plate 32 of Brumbaugh's book, a halftone image from a photograph of this DeTurk House, recites: "The John DeTurk House, Oley Valley. In this house the famous ‘Oley Conference’ is said to have been held." For further details on this “anachronism”, see record # DTHPH32 in these archives.
Brumbaugh acknowledges the chronological problem presented by the 1767 dated lintel, but suggests that the apparent anachronism is explained by the possibility that the 1767 date refers to an alteration of the building, not the original construction date. He recognizes that the DeTurk "barn, no longer standing, or an earlier house, may have been the actual meeting place," but relies on the 1742 pamphlet published by Benjamin Franklin as establishing that the "synod" occurred "at John DeTurk’s house."
Apparently Brumbaugh presumed that the 1767 building, embanked along the Little Manatawny ["Kauffman’s"] Creek, was the only DeTurk house extant on this farmstead site in February, 1742. Brumbaugh was obvously not aware of, or didn’t recognize, the c.1740 DeTurk house, located within fifty yards to the south of the 1767 "house"{4}, actually a multi-function building depicted and discussed by Philip E. Pendleton on page 113 of "Oley Valley Heritage, The Colonial Years: 1700-1775" [Pennsylvania German Society, 1994]. The Pendleton caption to the photograph of the c.1740 house and its extensions calls the southern bays of the enlarged dwelling the "Scene of Zinzendorf’s Third Synod, 1742."
The southern section of the extended farmhouse was the locus of the earliest stone house. In the 1950s, a large 18th century fireplace and chimney breast were removed from the kitchen space at the southern gable end of the composite structure still standing. Unused verso of postcard bears imprint of H. Winslow Fegley, photographer, Reading, Berks Co., PA
No framing or masonry evidence appears between north window sill and woodpile to suggest existence of pent hood over doorway. However, the anchor-beam ["header"] between joists above the eastern doorway of the lower level, in the cellar-kitchen wall confirms that the outlookers were original 1767 construction and provided the vertical projection supporting the clay-tiled hood. The rafter geometry, pitch, and exposure dimension of the tiles were worked out from the dimensions and spacing of original framing remnants.
FOOTNOTES:
{1} i.e., on this tract, probably in a log dwelling.
{2} Because the building depicted on the postcard did not exist in 1742, "here", in this context and for the reasons summarized above and in Archive record #DTHPH32, should be interpreted to mean: "on the DeTurk farmstead site [tract 3 on the plat-map on p. 198 of Pendleton, op. cited above], but in an earlier building".
{3} Brumbaugh mused: "How they all crowded into the little house is a puzzle." On page 41 of his essay, Brumbaugh speculates that the "large" room [about 15 feet by about 20 feet of interior space] on the first floor had been altered "to enable the house to be used as a meeting place and center of Moravian activities."
It is extremely doubtful that the 1767 multi-function structure had ever accommodated a congregation of any meaningful number. There is no evidence within the structure, foundation walling, or "fabric" of the building that it had been enlarged or otherwise significantly modified. The single room on the upper level [above the embanked kitchen and root cellar ] was carefully laid out as a residence for the aging DeTurk couple, with a small heating fireplace, shelving and a cupboard flanking the fireplace, and a longitudinal "summer" beam carrying the short transverse floor joists. All of these elements survive and function in their original intact forms, unaltered in any manner reflecting an enlargement of the space for religious or social gatherings.
{4} on page 42 Brumbaugh labels the 1767 structure as "really a stone cabin." Compelling documentary and architectural evidence demonstrate that the 1767 building was deliberately and efficiently designed to serve several "ancillary" functions: a classic Germanic "Grossmutter’s" retirement dwelling; a lower level [“downbank”] cooking kitchen with a large fireplace to serve other residents and workers on the farmstead as well as the grandparents living space one story above [“upbank”]; a barrel-vaulted food storage ["root"] cellar; an attic storage "granary" with an exterior access-door in the south gable wall; and a "wash-house" [as it was called in a DeTurk Will] for the occupants and their family members residing in the expanded 1740s farmhouse across the lane to the south.
L. Ward, updated October 2021
Background text accompanying Historical American Buildings Survey photographs and drawings. Six pages of text contains "Location," Historical Info," "Architectural Info," etc. on the DeTurk House.
For full text see additional images or refer to MULTIMEDIA LINKS. Full contents of HABS file may also be found in MULTIMEDIA LINKS.
Booklet "The De Turk House of Oley," by Phoebe Bertolet Hopkins; reprinted from the Historical Review of Berks County, Spring 1966.
Printed cover plus 5 printed pages, with 3 photo illustrations.
Describing it as the ancestral home of the DeTurk family in America, the author notes its crumbling condition, and the efforts underway to preserve and restore it. The DeTurk House Council was created to bridge the gap between private and institutional control of the historic property.
DeTurk genealogy and the history of the buildings composing the DeTurk family farmstead occupy the bulk of the rest of the booklet's textual matter.
Full text found under MULTIMEDIA LINKS or additional images.
Foundation of pier north of east cellar doorway after partial excavation prior to restoration.
The displaced stones above and below modern grade [stones darkened by wet soil were below modern grade prior to excavation] are shown after removal of rotted later-period jambs. The early setting and pointing mortar, a typical lime-sand mix, applied between the soiled [darker] stones has substantially degraded to sandy mud from saturation caused by the high water table [see discussion in DTR09PH74--1001.01.163] and runoff incursion. The standing water and saturated soil soak the foundation and door jambs for days after moderate-to-heavy rainfall, as shown in numerous photos taken during the months of July-December, 2009. This persistent saturation of the mortar joints requires the application of "hydraulic" mortar designed to inhibit dissolution of the lime or other binding-agent by the addition of a relatively insoluble hardening agent, in these circumstances a higher proportion {1} of "Portland" cement in the traditional mix with sand, water, and mason's lime {2}.
Additional protection of walls in wet areas will include: "parging" {3}; sub-grade membrane flashing; conduction of runoff and flood water away from walls and entries by sloped grading and swales; and retention of the banked terrace along the creek as a "barrier" against periodic flooding.
FOOTNOTES
{1} nearly doubling the modern standard.
{2} The early Egyptians discovered the benefits of burnt limestone ["lime"] as a hardening agent in mortar used in masonry construction. In ancient Rome and territories under its influence, terra cotta granules ["pozzolan," also "pozzolana," or "pozzuolana"], which were compounded from granular volcanic residue combined with other natural compounds and then hydrated, were added to ancient mortar formulations to produce a setting material with low solubility. "Portland" cement is a modern equivalent of this; except in rare circumstances such as these, Portland cement is not an acceptable additive to lime mortar in restoration of historic structures. Its degrading qualities include blocking the beneficial migration of moisture through the masonry, trapping it and dissolving lime. Improved versions of this compound, originating in the eighteenth century and patented in England in the 1820s, have been developed and used in the U.S. since then, including the important contributions of David O. Saylor of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, shortly after the Civil War. Saylor's part in the improvement and marketing of hydraulic mortar is treated extensively in the essay "The Contribution of David O. Saylor to Early History of the Portland Cement Industry in America", published in Volume XXXIX of the Proceedings and Addresses of the Pennsylvania German Society (1930).
{3} also in modern terminology, "pargeing"; classically "pargeting". Such terms used in this context designate a coating with hydraulic mortar or other water-repelling viscous material. The term is also used to describe the interior coating of a chimney and the rendering of plaster-work. One 19th century recipe for such applications calls for "lime and cow's dung."
L. Ward, 2009, updated Oct 2021
