The historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures at the Wynnewood State Historic Site, Castalian Springs, Tennessee, USA

Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Dendrochronologia journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dendro

Original article

The historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures at the Wynnewood State Historic Site, Castalian Springs, Tennessee, USA Elizabeth A. Schneider 1 , Lauren A. Stachowiak, Henri D. Grissino-Mayer ∗ Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science, Department of Geography, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0925, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 November 2014 Accepted 19 November 2014 Keywords: Tree rings Dendrochronology Construction history Wynnewood Tennessee Southeastern U.S.

a b s t r a c t Tree rings of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) were examined from cores extracted from two log cabins located at the Wynnewood State Historic Site in Castalian Springs, Sumner County, Tennessee. One cabin was reportedly built by the first explorer in the area, Isaac Bledsoe, sometime between 1772 and his death in 1793. The second cabin was known as Spencer’s Cabin after the first settler of the region, Thomas Sharp Spencer, who lived in the immediate vicinity from 1776 to 1779. The goal of this research was to determine the probable construction year(s) for both cabins and determine whether Bledsoe and Spencer did indeed build these structures. Forty-one cores were extracted from Bledsoe’s Cabin, and 30 were used for crossdating and building a floating chronology using COFECHA. The Bledsoe’s Cabin chronology was then statistically and graphically crossdated using the eastern red cedar reference tree-ring chronology (ITRDB #TN031) from Norris Dam, Tennessee. We found a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.42, t = 4.18, n = 85, p < 0.0001) between the Bledsoe’s Cabin chronology and the reference chronology, anchoring the chronology between 1720 and 1804, with nearly all cores indicating tree harvesting between February and April 1805. Twenty-two cores were extracted from Spencer’s Cabin, and 17 were used to build a floating chronology for the cabin. Again, we found a statistically significant correlation (r = 0.44, t = 4.85, n = 100, p < 0.00001) with the reference chronology, which anchored the Spencer’s Cabin chronology between 1726 and 1825. All trees appear to have been harvested between February and August in 1826. Therefore, neither structure was built by its historical namesake. No known historical documents suggest who the potential builders were, although the property was owned between ca. 1797 and 1829 by General James Winchester. He and his family, however, never resided on the Wynnewood property because Winchester had built a large multi-room structure in nearby Gallatin, Tennessee, by 1802. © 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Introduction Dendrochronological research as a method of dating historic structures has expanded in recent decades in the southeastern U.S., having overcome two primary obstacles (Grissino-Mayer, 2009). First, successfully dating historic sites and structures in most areas of the southeastern U.S. is more likely because existing and recently developed tree-ring chronologies have been developed that extend far enough back. Currently, historic structures can be dated at sites extending from northern Alabama and Georgia into central and

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 6029. E-mail address: [email protected] (H.D. Grissino-Mayer). 1 Present address: Department of Geography, Environment and Society, The University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2014.11.003 1125-7865/© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

eastern Tennessee, western and central North Carolina, and nearly all locations in Virginia (DeWeese Wight and Grissino-Mayer, 2004; Grissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007; Henderson et al., 2009; Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013). Additional locations with sufficient spatial coverage of tree-ring chronologies include Arkansas (Stahle, 1979; Therrell and Stahle, 2012) and northeastern Florida (Grissino-Mayer et al., 2010; Garland et al., 2012). Second, misconceptions about the (in)ability of dating tree rings found in beams and logs of structures in the southeastern U.S. are being overcome, albeit slowly, by engaging more closely with field archaeologists, academic researchers, and historical architects, especially in the early stages of research or restoration projects. Dendrochronologists often are consulted first about the best technique to extract and/or preserve samples for immediate or future analysis. For example, we have recently advised agencies about how best to preserve wood sections taken from prehistoric log dugout canoes, old timbers from creek-side dilapidated iron forges, and

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

waterlogged/submerged wood from archaeological sites near coastal areas. Historical agencies, societies, and commissions are charged with the task of managing, preserving, and restoring historical sites, and they often wish to authenticate the dates of construction of historically significant structures on their sites. Tree-ring dating provides valuable information for unknown or poorly documented settlements (DeWeese Wight and Grissino-Mayer, 2004; Lewis et al., 2009; Slayton et al., 2009; DeWeese et al., 2012). Occasionally, the reported dates of construction are suspect or exaggerated, and analyses often show that actual construction is one to two generations younger than what is reported (Mann et al., 2009; Grissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007; Henderson et al., 2009; Stachowiak et al., 2014). Supplying this level of accuracy in construction and additional building sequences in subsequent years (e.g., the Ximenez-Fatio House in St. Augustine, Florida; GrissinoMayer et al., 2010) benefits restoration by providing the temporal framework by which historical architects can restore a structure to its original condition. Once all tree rings are absolutely dated, we then closely evaluate the terminal tree ring present on the sample because the clustering of the outermost tree-ring dates to one or a few years is a good indicator of the likely year or years of tree harvest and construction. The outermost rings are then classified as a cutting date, a nearcutting date, or a non-cutting date based on the condition of the log and preservation and clarity of the terminal tree ring. Even then, dates for these outermost tree rings must be carefully interpreted. Timbers (i.e., squared beams) and logs can be reused, resulting in an outermost date that is considerably older than the majority or all of the other samples. Alternatively, timbers or logs can be replaced, resulting in an outermost date that is younger than the majority or all of the other samples. Furthermore, the squaring of timbers often removes the bark and vital outermost rings that can preclude determining the cutting date for a beam or even all beams in a structure. Nonetheless, such timbers can provide a terminus post quem, or the earliest year in which the structure could have been built, by noting the very youngest tree-ring date for an outermost tree ring. The Wynnewood State Historic Site is located approximately 50 km northeast of Nashville, Tennessee, in the community of Castalian Springs. The site is home to Wynnewood (called “Castalian Springs” between ca. 1834 and the 1940s), a complex of multi-use buildings that features one of the largest log structures in the United States at 34 m in length and 10 m in width, consisting of 14 rooms (Fig. 1; Harper, 1971). The complex sits adjacent to Bledsoe’s Lick, a natural salt lick and sulphur spring that once attracted big game that subsequently attracted Native American hunters and later European-American settlers and long hunters (i.e., small parties of early explorers who hunted for month-long periods). The site was bought in July 1829 by Colonel Alfred R. Wynne, Humphrey Bate, and Stephen Roberts from James Winchester (whose family owned the property from 1797 to 1829) but, a few years later, Winchester realized that the three had signed notes but never paid for the property. Winchester in turn gave the property to his daughter Almira as part of her father’s inheritance. Almira also happened to be the wife of Alfred Wynne. Wynne originally envisioned the site as being an inn and health resort because mineral springs were popular tourist destinations in the early to mid-1800s. The venture was only partially successful in later decades because most commercial traffic to and from Nashville was eventually diverted to the south of the complex (Eason, 1936; Durham, 1974). The complex remained with the Wynne family until 1971 when George Winchester Wynne, grandson of the original builder, sold the property to the State of Tennessee for preservation as a historic site.

35

Fig. 1. Wynnewood is the main structure at the historic site and is one of the largest log structures in the United States, consisting of three two-story attached pens and measuring 34 m in length and 10 m in width.

The focus of our study was two log structures on either side of the complex that some believe actually pre-date the main structure. The first structure is known as Bledsoe’s Cabin (Fig. 2), which is connected to the main Wynnewood structure via the “south ell” (Durham, 1974). Local folklore associates the two-story cabin with Isaac Bledsoe, the first explorer in the area having arrived in 1772, with a construction date sometime prior to his death at the hand of Native Americans in 1793. An earlier analysis on several structures at the Wynnewood site performed by Bowers and Grashot (1975) found one log in Bledsoe’s cabin with a terminal ring date of 1790, which would support its attribution to Isaac Bledsoe. The second log cabin is known as Spencer’s Cabin (Fig. 3) with a construction date suspected to be in the 1770s or 1780s. Thomas Sharp Spencer was the first settler of the region, having arrived near Bledsoe’s Lick in 1776 and began to “fell logs for building cabins” ca. 1778 (Durham, 1972, 1974). Folklore associates the cabin with Thomas Spencer. It is important to note that some historians and archaeologists do not associate these cabins with Bledsoe and Spencer. The goal of our project was to date the years of construction for both

Fig. 2. East wall of Bledsoe’s Cabin at the south ell, connected to the main, larger structure of Wynnewood to the right (not pictured) via an adjoining smaller room.

36

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

Fig. 3. North wall of Spencer’s Cabin that is today encased in aluminum siding that hides the original logs. The chimney marks the western extent of the original cabin. The structure now serves as the office for the Wynnewood State Historic Site operated by Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association.

historic cabins and determine who the potential builder was for each based on the cutting dates of the logs. Methods

pencil (Stokes and Smiley, 1996). All tree-ring widths were measured to 0.001 mm accuracy using a Velmex measuring system coupled with the MEASURE J2X software. We used COFECHA, a quality control computer program that uses segmented time series correlation analysis, to statistically confirm the temporal placement of tree rings from one series against all other series to create an initial undated (floating) chronology (Holmes, 1983; Grissino-Mayer, 2001). COFECHA uses splinefitting and autoregressive modeling algorithms to remove lowfrequency trends that arise due to climate and other disturbance factors that would otherwise mask the overarching year-to-year (high frequency) climate signal required for successful crossdating. Correlation testing used 40-year segments with 10-year overlaps compared against a temporary master chronology that excluded the series being checked. Crossdating was verified when the correlation coefficients for all segments exceeded the critical threshold of 0.37 (p < 0.01), although most correlations for all tested segments were above 0.40. Any series flagged by COFECHA as being possibly misdated were carefully re-inspected to ensure correct temporal placement. We used the average mean sensitivity (Fritts, 1976) and the average interseries correlation (Holmes, 1983; Grissino-Mayer, 2001) of all cores to assess the strength of the overall climate signal and the overall quality of the final dataset. Mean sensitivity values as low as 0.20 are common for the southeastern U.S. (DeWitt and Ames, 1978) but indicate an appropriate level of sensitivity to climate that imparts common ring patterns necessary for successful crossdating. Interseries correlations for individual series >0.40 are desirable and suggest a sample that has been dated with high precision (Grissino-Mayer, 2001).

Field methods In both structures, all logs were carefully inspected for presence of a continuous curved surface that would indicate a high probability of obtaining the terminal ring formed and therefore a true cutting date (Grissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007). Cores were taken from the lower curved surface of each chosen log where the holes left would be inconspicuous and to facilitate rapid evacuation of sawdust during the coring process. We extracted at least one sound core from each selected log from either an interior and exterior location using a specialized 25-cm-long hollow drill bit attached to a variable-speed hand drill. Logs were drilled to a depth of ca. 5 mm, then the bit was removed and a conspicuous black dot was placed on the outer surface of the wood to verify that the outermost rings were retained after coring and mounting. The bit was then reinserted and the log was drilled to a depth estimated to reach the center (pith) of the log. Once extracted, the core was immediately glued to wooden core mounts with the cells vertically aligned. Cores were identified by the cabin name (Bledsoe = BC and Spencer = SC), facing cardinal direction of the wall containing the log, and a three-digit core number (e.g., “BCN003”). In some instances, two or more cores were taken from the same log until a sound core was obtained and the cores were labeled A, B, and so forth. Sketches were made of each wall for each cabin, both interior and exterior, on which all logs were appropriately labeled as were the locations where the cores were extracted. Internal crossdating and statistical significance In the laboratory, all cores were sanded using progressively finer sandpaper beginning with ANSI 80-grit (177–210 ␮m) and ending with ANSI 400-grit (20.6–23.6 ␮m), so that all tree rings could be clearly identified under 10× magnification (Orvis and Grissino-Mayer, 2002). Internal crossdating began with assigning the innermost incomplete ring on each sample with year “0” and marking every subsequent 10th ring with a dot using a mechanical

External crossdating Absolute (external) crossdating was achieved using COFECHA by comparing the undated floating series with a reference chronology created from eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) previously developed by Cook et al. (2014) and archived as TN031 in the ITRDB (Grissino-Mayer and Fritts, 1997). This is the only eastern red cedar chronology developed for Tennessee and the region, and was developed from trees growing or that once grew in the Norris River Basin (36.1734◦ N, 84.1003◦ W) and located approximately 155 km directly east of Wynnewood. Once crossdating was confirmed, calendar years were assigned to each individual undated series using the EDRM (Edit Ring Measurement) program (Holmes, 1992). Graphical comparisons were made using the master dating chronologies (i.e., residual chronologies) created using COFECHA. The final placement of the undated series suggested by COFECHA had to be convincing both graphically and statistically (p < 0.001) (Grissino-Mayer, 2001). To further ensure that crossdating was accomplished, we graphically and statistically compared the residual chronologies for both Spencer’s and Bledsoe’s Cabins against the eastern red cedar chronology developed for Alfred’s Cabin located at The Hermitage approximately 55 km to the southwest (Lewis et al., 2009). Establishing cutting dates Once all tree rings were crossdated and assigned exact calendar years, the outermost ring for each core was inspected under a high magnification to determine if the terminal ring represented a cutting date, a near-cutting date, or a non-cutting date. Symbols were assigned for each series to evaluate the cutting date (Bannister et al., 1966; Nash, 1999): B: Bark is present, indicating the outer ring is fully intact (a certain cutting date);

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

r: The outermost ring is continuous and intact around a smooth surface, but no bark is present, outer rings are intact (considered a cutting date); v: The date is within a few years of the cutting date, based on the presence of sapwood (considered a near-cutting date); vv: Cutting date is not possible because we could not determine how far we are from the outermost ring. The season the tree was likely cut was also evaluated. If the terminal ring appeared to be complete, then the tree was likely cut in the dormant season (fall of one year to winter of the next year). If earlywood was present after the last full ring but no latewood, the tree was likely harvested sometime in spring. If latewood was present but the ring appears incomplete, then the tree was likely cut in early to late summer, depending on the amount of latewood.

37

determined to be near-cutting dates only based on the presence of sapwood. Earlywood growth was present on the logs with 1805 terminal rings, usually as a thin amount of earlywood cells, meaning that tree harvesting occurred soon after the dormant period had ended and spring growth had initiated. Therefore, these trees were likely cut in March or April of 1805. BCN003 was the only log that had bark present and an outermost terminal ring of 1805 (Fig. 5). The six logs that had terminal rings that dated to 1804 appeared to have complete outermost rings suggesting that tree harvesting occurred during the dormant season or anytime from fall 1804 to winter 1805, just prior to the 1805 growing period. Tree harvest likely did not occur during the coldest part of winter because the central Tennessee region sits on a plateau and can experience harsh and snowy winters.

Results

Spencer’s Cabin

Species used

Twenty-two cores were extracted from 17 logs in Spencer’s Cabin. The outside of the structure was covered with weatherboard siding (Fig. 3) such that logs were only accessible from the inside, except for the south wall, which was exposed in an outer walkway. Two of the 22 cores were too broken and unusable, while another three cores came from tulip poplar logs and had too few rings to be dated. The final dataset consisted of 17 cores from 13 logs with an average interseries correlation of 0.55 and an average mean sensitivity of 0.30 (Table 1). Both values again are considered very high for tree-ring datasets from the southeastern U.S. Ten 40year segments were flagged by COFECHA out of 64 segments (15%) tested (Table 4). These were carefully re-inspected and found to be in their correct temporal position. Some segments at the beginning and at the end of each series were flagged (e.g., SCE001B and SCS004), which is common because of a low climate signal in juvenile growth and later as the tree senesces (Grissino-Mayer, 2001) (Table 4). The Spencer’s Cabin chronology was highly correlated with the eastern red cedar reference chronology (r = 0.44, t = 4.85, n = 100, p < 0.00001) and showed that the chronology spanned the years 1726 to 1825. A graphical comparison showed a strong and convincing match (Fig. 4). This chronology also correlated highly against the Alfred’s Cabin chronology (r = 0.68, n = 78 years overlap, t = 8.09, p < 0.0001). Graphical correspondence between the Spencer’s Cabin and Bledsoe’s Cabin chronologies (Fig. 4) and a statistically significant correlation between the two (r = 0.68, n = 79 years overlap, t = 8.14, p < 0.0001) further confirmed our crossdating. Eight of the 13 logs had terminal rings that clustered in the year 1826, while three logs had a terminal ring date of 1825 (Table 5). The remaining two logs had outermost ring dates of 1805 and 1824, but these were not considered to be cutting dates. Similar to logs from Bledsoe’s Cabin, these trees were also likely cut in late winter or early spring, based on the terminal ring dates of the other logs and the need to harvest trees once temperatures began to rise after the hard winter. Eight logs had already broken dormancy when harvested and formed earlywood cells, with five logs indicating harvest during early spring while three other logs had more substantial amounts of earlywood, indicating harvest in mid- to late summer of 1826. We suggest that harvesting of the eastern red cedars to build Spencer’s Cabin had occurred between February and August of 1826.

The Bledsoe and Spencer Cabins were built with eastern red cedar logs, an uncommon tree species used as log cabin building material in Tennessee and the southeastern U.S. in general (Rehder, 2012). Most log structures in the Southeast are made from either oak (Quercus spp.) or tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) because these are among the more durable and widely distributed hardwood species in the region (Morgan, 1990; Rehder, 2012). The use of eastern red cedar is likely related to the abundance of “cedar glades” that are common in central Tennessee (Hawley, 1937; Baskin and Baskin, 2004), and because Juniperus species are known to be more resistant to decay compared to other conifers (Hoadley, 1990). Today, the Wynnewood complex is surrounded by many eastern red cedars that represent the remnants of a larger forest that once stood on the complex prior to a devastating tornado on 5 February 2008 that wiped out many of the trees (Carey, 2008). One other log structure known to be built entirely from eastern red cedar logs and dated via dendrochronology is Alfred’s Cabin, located at The Hermitage, Home of President Andrew Jackson (Lewis et al., 2009). Bledsoe’s Cabin Forty-one cores were extracted from Bledsoe’s Cabin from the interior and the exterior of the first floor and from the interior of the second floor. Six cores were too damaged for analysis while five cores came from tulip poplar logs and were not analyzed because they did not contain enough rings. The final dataset consisted of 30 cores from 23 logs with tree rings that were successfully crossdated. The average interseries correlation for all samples from Bledsoe’s Cabin was 0.67 while the average mean sensitivity was 0.30 (Table 1). Both values are considered exceptional for tree-ring data from the southeastern U.S. COFECHA indicated no segments as being potentially misdated out of 81 segments tested (Table 2). External crossdating statistically verified that the Bledsoe’s Cabin chronology begins in year 1720 and ends in 1804. The chronology was statistically correlated against the eastern red cedar reference chronology with an r-value of 0.42 (t = 4.18, n = 85, p < 0.0001) and a graphical comparison shows a convincing match (Fig. 4). This chronology also correlated highly against the Alfred’s Cabin chronology (r = 0.67, n = 56 years overlap, t = 6.63, p < 0.0001). The terminal ring of eight logs in Bledsoe’s Cabin clustered in the year 1805, while six logs had terminal rings that clustered in 1804 (Table 3). These were all considered cutting dates. The remainder of the logs had terminal rings dating from 1796 to 1803, but were

Discussion We conclude that all trees used to build Bledsoe’s Cabin were harvested in the dormant season (February and March) of 1805 and into early to mid-spring (April and May) of 1805. The

38

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for tree-ring data from the two dated structures. Structure

Period

Bledsoe’s Cabin Spencer’s Cabin

1720–1804 1726–1825

Mean correlation within trees

Mean sensitivity within trees

Correlation with master

Total logs

0.67 0.55

0.30 0.30

0.42 0.44

23 13

Total cores 30 17

Table 2 Internal correlation testing of tree-ring measurements for 30 cores from Bledsoe’s Cabin. 40-Year segment lagged 10 years 1720–1759

BCE001B BCE002B BCE003A BCE003B BCE004 BCE006 BCE007 BCE008 BCE010A BCE010B BCN002 BCN003 BCS001A BCS001B BCS002 BCS003A BCS003B BCS004A BCS006 BCS007 BCS008 BCW001A BCW001B BCW002 BCW003 BCW004 BCW006A BCW006B BCW007B BCW007C Average segment correlation

Begin year

End year

1729 1760 1729 1724 1731 1736 1744 1762 1749 1736 1739 1732 1735 1728 1741 1725 1733 1720 1735 1732 1732 1752 1736 1760 1723 1733 1749 1756 1743 1733

1804 1800 1799 1804 1795 1804 1804 1804 1802 1800 1801 1804 1803 1803 1802 1804 1804 1803 1803 1803 1803 1801 1802 1800 1802 1804 1802 1802 1803 1803

1730–1769

1740–1779

1750–1789

1760–1799

1770–1809

Correlation coefficients 0.60

0.59

0.68

0.76

0.56 0.77

0.56 0.79 0.76 0.52

0.64 0.81 0.77 0.50 0.55

0.75 0.82 0.76 0.64 0.57

0.73 0.70 0.67 0.68 0.53 0.74

0.77 0.84 0.78 0.49 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.76 0.72 0.64 0.73 0.61 0.81

0.67

0.72

0.77 0.84 0.83 0.53 0.73 0.75 0.82 0.80 0.76 0.63 0.88 0.78 0.83 0.82 0.75

0.61 0.47

0.72 0.49 0.82

0.60 0.60 0.71

0.47

0.61

0.84 0.80 0.56 0.70 0.59

0.50 0.65

0.77 0.59 0.69

0.80 0.58 0.81 0.75 0.80 0.60 0.75

0.73 0.77 0.69 0.78 0.73 0.58 0.80 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.81 0.55 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.74 0.77 0.57 0.80 0.80 0.81 0.74 0.62 0.57 0.64 0.65 0.79 0.74 0.79 0.74 0.72

0.59 0.80 0.81 0.68 0.79 0.77 0.71 0.73 0.82 0.59 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.73 0.74 0.50 0.78 0.75 0.80 0.62 0.63 0.58 0.66 0.64 0.79 0.77 0.77 0.71 0.72

Fig. 4. Graphical correspondence illustrated between (A) Alfred’s Cabin (55 km to the southwest of Wynnewood), (B) Spencer’s Cabin, (C) Bledsoe’s Cabin eastern red cedar chronologies and (D) the eastern red cedar reference chronology TN031 created by Cook et al. (2014). All chronologies represent residual chronologies with mean = 0.0.

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

39

Table 3 Outermost ring dates and types for 23 logs sampled from Bledsoe’s Cabin. Log ID BCE001 BCE002 BCE003 BCE004 BCE006 BCE007 BCE008 BCE010 BCN002 BCN003 BCS001 BCS002 BCS003 BCS004 BCS006 BCS007 BCS008 BCW001 BCW002 BCW003 BCW004 BCW006 BCW007

Inner ring

Outermost date

Ring type 1

1728 1744 1723 1730 1735 1743 1761 1735 1738 1731 1727 1740 1724 1719 1734 1731 1731 1728 1754 1721 1731 1748 1732

1805 1801 1805 1796 1805 1805 1805 1803 1802 1805 1804 1803 1805 1804 1804 1804 1804 1803 1801 1803 1805 1803 1804

r v r v r r r v v B r v r r r r r v v v v v r

Terminal ring information Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805 Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805 Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805 Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805

1 Ring type: B = Bark is present indicating the outer ring is fully intact and certainly the cutting date. r = Outermost ring is continuous and intact, but no bark is present, considered the cutting date. v = The date is within a few years of the cutting date, based on the presence of sapwood.

Fig. 5. Core from log BCN003 (Bledsoe’s Cabin) showing intact shreddy bark (far left) collected from the third log from the bottom on the north wall. A small amount of earlywood had already formed in 1805 when this tree was cut, indicating harvesting in early spring of 1805.

harvesting period would be considered very rapid for so many trees, but eastern red cedar is a softwood species and can be cut, de-limbed, hewn, and notched more quickly than can hardwood species. Furthermore, the diamond notching used to build the cabin (Fig. 6) is considered a simple notch type that can be hewn quickly

and does not require the expertise as does more complex notch types, such as the half dovetail notch, the most common in Tennessee (Morgan, 1990; Rehder, 2012). The diamond notch type is also rare (Cotton, 1990). Rehder (2012) noted that only six structures in Tennessee out of nearly 3000 have this notch type. The

Table 4 Internal correlation testing of tree-ring measurements for 17 cores from Spencer’s Cabin. 40-Year segment lagged 10 years 1720–1759

SCE001A SCE001B SCE002 SCE003A SCE003B SCE004 SCN001 SCN002 SCS001 SCS002A SCS002B SCS003 SCS004 SCS005 SCW002 SCW004A SCW004B Average segment correlation a

Begin year

End year

1751 1749 1762 1726 1759 1737 1744 1761 1751 1746 1743 1745 1729 1757 1788 1761 1746

1825 1825 1825 1825 1825 1823 1825 1825 1804 1825 1824 1825 1824 1824 1825 1825 1820

1730–1769

1740–1779

1750–1789

1760–1799

1770–1809

1780–1819

1790–1829

0.47 0.56 0.64 0.86 0.76 0.72 0.53 0.68 0.69 0.59 0.47 0.73 0.56 0.74

0.23a 0.33a 0.34a 0.79 0.72 0.55 0.40 0.60

0.15a 0.31a 0.42 0.75 0.65 0.53 0.26a 0.46 0.47 0.44 0.51 0.30* 0.62

0.79 0.68 0.65

0.61 0.51 0.61 0.30* 0.65 0.49 0.50 0.59 0.51

Correlation coefficients

0.49

0.37a 0.41 0.85 0.65

0.65 0.48 0.50 0.84 0.69 0.71

0.53 0.60 0.67 0.85 0.69 0.84 0.51 0.70 0.63 0.61 0.49 0.85 0.62 0.72

0.68

0.71 0.65

0.75 0.67

0.77 0.73 0.68

0.52 0.41

0.28a

0.35

0.68

0.87

0.88

0.88 0.62

0.61 0.53 0.89 0.67 0.89 0.56

Indicates a 40-year segment flagged by COFECHA due to low correlations. Re-inspection found these segments to be dated correctly.

0.44 0.58 0.46

40

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

Table 5 Outermost ring dates and types for 13 logs sampled from Spencer’s Cabin. Log ID SCE001 SCE002 SCE003 SCE004 SCN001 SCN002 SCS001 SCS002 SCS003 SCS004 SCS005 SCW002 SCW004

Inner ring

Outermost date

Ring typea

1748 1761 1725 1736 1743 1760 1750 1742 1744 1728 1756 1787 1745

1826 1826 1826 1824b 1826 1826 1805 1826 1825 1825 1825 1826 1826

r r r r r r v r r r r r r

Terminal ring information Ring appears incomplete, cut mid- to late summer 1826 Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826 Ring appears incomplete, cut mid- to late summer 1826 Ring appears complete (see note below) Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826 Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826 Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting date Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826 Ring appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1825–1826 Ring appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1825–1826 Ring appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1825–1826 Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826 Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826

a Ring type: B = Bark is present indicating the outer ring is fully intact and certainly the cutting date. r = Outermost ring is continuous and intact, but no bark is present, considered the cutting date. v = The date is within a few years of the cutting date, based on the presence of sapwood. b We noted a continuous intact surface on this log originally, but we likely cored through a slightly eroded surface, thus giving a terminal ring date that is one to two years older than all others.

Fig. 6. Example of the rare diamond notch used in Bledsoe’s Cabin.

Bledsoe Cabin curiously was not inventoried by Rehder (2012) and therefore represents the seventh such structure in Tennessee with diamond notching. Our analyses do not support the conclusions reached by Bowers and Grashot (1975) who had previously conducted a dendrochronological analysis on three logs from Bledsoe’s Cabin. They found outermost dates of 1941 and 1952 for two of the logs, which they then concluded must be replacement logs. However, replacement logs of such relatively recent origin would have been quite noticeable because of the better conditions of the logs compared to the older original logs, and likely would not have been sampled. We saw no replacement logs in Bledsoe’s Cabin, nor did any terminal ring dates return years that post-date most of the other dates, thus signifying a replacement log (see Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013). They then found a cutting date of 1790 for the third log (which had bark), which returned a t-value of 3.53 against a regional pine chronology, but this t-value would be considered marginal for the southeastern U.S. by today’s dendrochronological standards. Because no information is given on the number of rings in this one sample, we cannot verify the statistical significance of p < 0.001 reported by Bowers and Grashot (1975). Our tree-ring analysis of logs from Bledsoe’s Cabin strongly suggests that Isaac Bledsoe did not build the structure. Bledsoe was

killed by Native Americans in 1793 and James Winchester purchased the property four years later (Durham, 1974). Based on the terminal dates of the logs that cluster in the year 1805, the family of James Winchester was the builder of the cabin that is today connected to the main Wynnewood log structure. The speculation that the second cabin on the Wynnewood property was built by Thomas Spencer perhaps arose because of the close proximity of the cabin (about 125 m to the south–southwest) to the supposed location of an immense sycamore tree (Platanus occidentalis L.) that local folklore says was approximately nine to 12 feet (274 to 366 cm) in diameter (Harper, 1971; Durham, 1972, 1974; Smith, 1975). It was within a large cavity of this sycamore tree that Spencer over-wintered in 1778–1779. Spencer already had spent the year 1778 clearing ground and building a cabin under the mistaken notion that he would gain title to as much land as he would want. Smith (1975) observed, however, that the low mound that once stood at this specific location and assumed to be caused by the stump of the tree was in fact caused by a rock pile (perhaps a chimney fall from a previous structure) of mid-19th century origin based on recovered artifacts. James Winchester owned the property on which Wynnewood currently sits until his death on 26 July 1826, after which the property was put up for auction in 1829 and subsequently purchased by Alfred Wynne, Humphrey Bate, and Stephen Roberts. Curiously, James Winchester and his family never resided on the Wynnewood property because Winchester had by the year 1802 completed an impressive two-story, multi-room structure known as Cragfont in nearby Gallatin, Tennessee, which is today also owned by the Tennessee Historical Commission. An advertisement in the National Banner and Nashville Whig newspaper from 11 April 1829, auctioning off several tracts of land, confirms that two structures already existed by the time Alfred Wynne purchased the property. Among the tracts that were sold was one described as: “300 acres at Bledsoe’s Lick, including the principal Springs of Mineral Water, so highly recommended for their medicinal qualities. This land is generally of good quality and remarkably well timbered throughout; improved with a comfortable cabin and work shop.” This description of the area that would later become Wynnewood mentions two structures already having been built, which could have been Bledsoe’s Cabin (constructed in 1805) and Spencer’s Cabin (constructed in 1826) based on our tree-ring analyses. However, the “workshop” could also describe a cabin nearer

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

to Bledsoe’s Cabin that no longer stands today. Curiously, Wynne family tradition sets the initial year of construction of the main Wynnewood structure at 1828 and likely completion by 1829 (Durham, 1974), but this clearly could not have been the sequence because the land was put up for auction in April 1829, with the actual auction taking place in July of 1829. We suggest that a companion tree-ring study be performed in the future on logs from the main structure at Wynnewood, concentrating on the three connected pens across two floors, to determine the years and seasons of construction for the various portions of this immense log structure. “Bledsoe’s Cabin” has been renamed the “Winchester Cabin.” The tree-ring dates confirm that the cabin was built while the property was owned by James Winchester and his family. Further confirmation comes from a newspaper article that was recently discovered and dated 1817 that has an advertisement posted by James Winchester and Henry Belote (a fellow resident of Sumner County) wanting to hire a person who was an expert in extracting salt from the springs. In all likelihood, the “comfortable cabin” referred to in the 1829 announcement refers to the 1806 cabin built by James Winchester and was used by the person hired for this job. Finally, Spencer’s Cabin is now simply called the “work shop” (Rick Hendrix, personal communication, 9 July 2014, on file). Our study further demonstrates the value of tree-ring research by helping enlighten and improve our regional and national histories, highlighting the potential adverse impacts of local folklore and inaccurate oral history. Acknowledgements We thank Alex Collier, Savannah Collins, Brandon Corrier, Alex Dye, and Daniel Brock for assisting us in the field, and thank Dr. Sally Horn for critically reading and commenting on earlier drafts of this paper. We thank Mark McKee, Pam Ilott, Steve Rogers, Patrick McIntyre, Martha Akins, Sam Smith, Benjamin Nance, Kevin Smith, and Rick Hendrix for assisting greatly in the various aspects of this research. We thank the Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association for providing the funding and logistical support for this extensive project, and the Tennessee Historical Commission for their continued support of dendrochronological research on historic structures throughout the State of Tennessee. References Bannister, B., Gell, E.A., Hannah, J.W., 1966. Tree-Ring Dates from Arizona N–Q: Verde-Show Low-St. Johns Area. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Baskin, J.M., Baskin, C.C., 2004. History of the use of “cedar glades” and other descriptive terms for vegetation on rocky limestone soils in the Central Basin of Tennessee. Bot. Rev. 70, 403–424. Bowers, L.J., Grashot, D.L., 1975. Tree-ring research at Castalian Springs National Historic Landmark. In: Smith, S.D. (Ed.), Archaeological Explorations at the Castalian Springs, Tennessee, Historic Site. Tennessee Historical Commission, Nashville. Carey, C., 2008. Storm’s Wrath Uncovers Gem: Historic Log Cabin Rests in Sumner Home’s Walls. TheTennessean.com www.tennessean.com/article/ 20080718/COUNTY08/101140004/-1/news15 Cook, E.R., Buckley, B.M., Krusic, P.J., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Pederson, N., 2014. Basin. http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:1:::::P1 Norris STUDY ID:12716 Cotton, J.R., 1990. Log houses in America. Old House J. 18, 37–44. DeWeese, G.G., Bishop, J.W., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Parrish, B.K., Edwards, M.S., 2012. Dendrochronological dating of the Chief John Ross house, Rossville, Georgia. Southeast. Archaeol. 31, 221–230.

41

DeWeese Wight, G., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., 2004. Dendrochronological dating of an Antebellum Period House, Forsyth County, Georgia, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 60, 91–99. DeWitt, E., Ames, M., 1978. Tree-Ring Chronologies of Eastern North America. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona. Durham, W.T., 1972. Thomas Sharp Spencer, man or legend. Tenn. Hist. Q. 21, 240–255. Durham, W.T., 1974. Wynnewood. Tenn. Hist. Q. 33, 127–156. Eason, W.J., 1936. Historic American Buildings Survey, HABS-TENN-81, Castalian Springs. Manuscript on File. Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association and Tennessee Historical Commission. Fritts, H.C., 1976. Tree Rings and Climate. Academic Press, New York, pp. 567. Garland, N.A., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Deagan, K., Harley, G.L., Waters, G., 2012. Dendrochronological dating of wood from the Fountain of Youth Park Archaeological Site (8SJ31), St. Augustine, Florida, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 68, 69–78. Grissino-Mayer, H.D., 2001. Evaluating crossdating accuracy: a manual and tutorial for the computer program COFECHA. Tree-Ring Res. 57, 205–221. Grissino-Mayer, H.D., 2009. An introduction to dendroarchaeology in the southeastern United States. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 4–10. Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Fritts, H.C., 1997. The International Tree-Ring Data Bank: an enhanced global database serving the global scientific community. Holocene 7, 235–238. Grissino-Mayer, H.D., van de Gevel, S.L., 2007. Tell-tale trees: the historical dendroarchaeology of log structures at Rocky Mount, Piney Flats, Tennessee. Hist. Archaeol. 41, 32–49. Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Kobziar, L.N., Harley, G.L., Russell, K.P., LaForest, L.B., Oppermann, J.K., 2010. The historical dendroarchaeology of the Ximénez-Fatio House, St. Augustine, Florida, USA. Tree-Ring Res. 66, 61–73. Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Maxwell, J.T., Harley, G.L., Garland, N.A., Holt, D.H., Absher, C., Beale, B.J., Boehm, M.S., de Graauw, K.A., Rautio, A.-M., Dye, A.W., 2013. Dendrochronology reveals the construction history of an early 19th century farm settlement, southwestern Virginia, USA. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 481–489. Harper, H.L., 1971. Castalian Springs/Bledsoe’s Lick, Inventory and Nomination Form, National Register of Historic Places. Manuscript on file. Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association and Tennessee Historical Commission. Hawley, F.M., 1937. Relationship of southern cedar growth to precipitation and run off. Ecology 18, 398–405. Henderson, J.P., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., van de Gevel, S.L., Hart, J.L., 2009. The historical dendroarchaeology of the Hoskins House, Tannenbaum Historic Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 37–45. Hoadley, R.B., 1990. Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut, pp. 223. Holmes, R.L., 1983. Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree-Ring Bull. 43, 69–78. Holmes, R.L., 1992. User’s Manual for Program EDRM. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson. Lewis, D.B., Nelson, W.L., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Cook, E.R., Jones, R.D., 2009. Dendrochronological dating of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) logs from Alfred’s Cabin, The Hermitage, Home of President Andrew Jackson. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 47–55. Mann, D.F., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Faulkner, C.H., Rehder, J.B., 2009. From blockhouse to hog house: the historical dendroarcheology of the Swaggerty Blockhouse, Cocke County, Tennesse, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 57–67. Morgan, J., 1990. The Log House in East Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 192. Nash, S.E., 1999. Time, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-Ring Dating and the Development of North American Archaeology 1914-1950. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 294. Orvis, K.H., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., 2002. Standardizing the reporting of abrasive papers used to surface tree-ring samples. Tree-Ring Res. 58, 47–50. Rehder, J.B., 2012. Tennessee Log Buildings: A Folk Tradition. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, pp. 190. Slayton, J.D., Stevens, M.R., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Faulkner, C.H., 2009. The historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures at the Marble Springs Historic Site, Knox County, Tennessee, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 23–36. Smith, S.D., 1975. Archaeological Explorations at the Castalian Springs, Tennessee, Historic Site. Manuscript on file. Tennessee Historical Commission, Nashville, Tennessee. Stachowiak, L.A., Schneider, E.A., Rochner, M.L., Collins, S.A., Swiney, C.P., GrissinoMayer, H.D., McKenzie, T.G., 2014. Dendrochronological dating of the historic McKenzie Home, Meigs County, Tennessee, USA. Tree-Ring Res. 70, 31–39. Stahle, D.W., 1979. Tree-ring dating of historic buildings in Arkansas. Tree-Ring Bull. 39, 1–28. Stokes, M.A., Smiley, T.L., 1996. An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 73. Therrell, M.D., Stahle, D.W., 2012. Tree-ring dating of an Arkansas Antebellum plantation house. Tree-Ring Res. 68, 59–67.