Dendrochronological Investigation of British Stringed of Violin

Journal of Archaeological Science (1998) 25, 1149–1157Article No. as980303

A Dendrochronological Investigation of British StringedInstruments of the Violin Family

John Topham

114 Mid Street, South Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 4JH, U.K.

Derek McCormick

25 Greystown Park, Upper Malone, Belfast, BT9 6UP, U.K.

(Received 15 September 1997, revised manuscript accepted 4 March 1998)

Dendrochronological analysis has been undertaken on 47 stringed instruments of the violin family. The majority ofthese are attributed to British makers of the 17th to 19th centuries, whilst a small number from modern makers wereincluded for comparative purposes. Tree-ring dates have been produced for 38% of the measured sequences bycomparison with spruce and larch reference chronologies from the Alpine region. The results from this pilot study havedemonstrated the viability of the project and have produced additional dating evidence for many of the instruments. Inaddition, information concerning past working practices and the geographical source of wood used by British makershas also been provided. ? 1998 Academic Press

Keywords: DENDROCHRONOLOGY, MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS, VIOLIN, VIOLA, VIOLONCELLO,PICEA ABIES, LARIX DECIDUA.

Introduction

D endrochronological analysis is a well estab-lished scientific dating technique which hasproved invaluable in various areas of research

(Baillie, 1982), but it is the basic provision of dates thatis of prime importance to this paper. Timbers fromarchaeological excavations and standing buildings areroutinely analysed as are art-historical objects suchas panel paintings (e.g. Lambert & Lavier, 1996).Dendrochronology has also been used to provideadditional dating evidence for instruments andespecially stringed instruments of the violin family(Klein 1987).

Most modern members of the violin family areconstructed with back, sides and neck of maple (Acerplatanoides L.) or sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.)whilst the front of the instrument is generally Norwayspruce (Picea Abies (L.) Karsten). It is the spruce frontof the instrument which is used for dendrochronologi-cal investigation as neither sycamore nor maple issuitable for dating purposes. The most desirable tonalcharacteristics have traditionally been associated withspruce of the Alpine region. For modern instrumentmaking, the trunk of the tree is quarter-sawn, i.e.radially sawn or split to produce wedges of woodwith the oldest growth at the thin end of the wedge(Figure 1). These wedges are rarely wide enough to

11490305–4403/98/111149+09 $30.00/0

make an instrument front and so each wedge is sawnagain with a radial cut, opened like a book and aftersome planing is joined so that the youngest growthrings come together in a joint which will eventuallyform the centre line of the front of the instrument.

The first recorded application of dendrochronologyin the investigation of the violin family was that ofLottermoser & Meyer (1958) who measured the growthrings on the fronts of two instruments by AntonioStradivarius and by Giuseppe Guarnerius. This inves-tigation did not succeed in dating the wood, althoughthey did find a relative correlation between some of theinstruments. A number of later investigators havehowever been successful in dating wood from instru-ments of the violin family. Corona (1980) measuredring widths of the spruce fronts of two violins from theCherubini Museum in Florence which are attributed tothe Florentine violin-maker G.B. Gabrielli. Coronacompared the ring widths with a Tyrolean (Otztal)reference chronology for spruce and was able to datethe youngest rings on the front of the two instrumentsto 1726 and 1717, respectively, which is consistent withthe dates of Gabrielli who worked between 1739 and1770. In other studies Corona dated a violin from theDestro collection (Corona, 1988) and in a larger seriesincluding 10 violins, a viola, two violoncelli and adouble bass (all from the Collezione dell Ospedalettodell Pieta, Venice) he was successful in obtaining the

? 1998 Academic Press

1150 J. Topham and D. McCormick

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 1. Diagrammatic representation of the construction of a two-piece front for a violin from a quarter-sawn log.

terminus post quem or the date after which the fronts ofmost of these instruments were made (Corona, 1990).Dating of timbers in general has been greatly facili-tated by the development of a network of referencechronologies, and especially the International Tree-Ring Database (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ftp-treering.htm) which was founded in 1974 to provide apermanent location for the storage of well-dated, high-quality dendrochronological data from around theworld. However, most of the spruce chronologies inthis data base do not extend to a sufficiently early dateto be useful in the dating of 17th and 18th centuryinstruments.

Following the University of Hamburg’s initiation ofa comprehensive investigation of the wood of stringedinstruments, a series of papers has been published byKlein and his colleagues in which a number of sprucechronologies have been established and a wide range ofstringed instruments examined (Klein, Mehringer &Bauch, 1984; Klein, 1985; Klein, Mehringer & Bauch,1986; Klein 1987). Reference chronologies for sprucewere established in Bavarian Alpine and Erz Gebirgeregions in Germany noted for their history of violin-making. They were constructed from spruce trees ofknown felling date and local older cross-dated timbersincluding spruce from instruments. By 1986, 134stringed instruments from the 16th to the 20th centuryhad been examined (Klein, Mehringer & Bauch, 1986).It was possible to date the fronts of 75 of the instru-ments (56%) with documented or undocumented attri-bution and in 65 of these the date of the most recentgrowth ring was earlier than (and therefore consistentwith) the date of music-historical attribution. In theremaining 10 instruments the dendrochronologicaldating was later then the attributed date, thus requir-ing a reappraisal of the time of manufacture of theinstrument.

In the report of the investigation which successfullydated a number of German instruments (Klein,Mehringer & Bauch, 1986) the authors concluded that‘‘. . . it is necessary to analyse other schools of instru-ment making in Italy, France and Great Britain’’.There has been a flourishing ‘‘School’’ of Britishmakers since the mid-17th century (Harvey, 1996) andmany of the instruments of this period are still beingplayed at the present day. Some of these are of highquality, although none of the British makers achievedthe international reputation of their European counter-parts such as Stradivari, the Amatis and the Guarnerisin Italy, or Stainer in Germany. There has been nopublished report of a systematic dendrochronologicalanalysis of British instruments and this project wasestablished to measure tree ring widths on the fronts ofinstruments from a wide range of British makers. Theaims of the project are;

(1) to determine if it is possible to establish dates forthe wood of British stringed instruments usingAlpine master chronologies. If this were possibleit would provide an objective tool to assist inauthentication of these instruments. In Britishinstruments the original labels and dates haverarely survived, and at present authentication isprimarily dependent on stylistic attributes.

(2) to establish if the dendrochronological data couldprovide evidence of relationships between makersand of their different working practices. Thissurvey provided the opportunity to examine anunselected representative cross-section of Britishmakers, rather than selecting instruments of aspecific maker. The possibility therefore arisesthat comparison of tree-ring patterns may allowconclusions to be drawn about shared woodsources between different groups of makers.

Dendrochronological Analysis of the Violin Family 1151

(3) to attempt to determine the practice followed byBritish makers in making the fronts of instru-ments. The modern method of construction, usingtwo matched pieces of spruce has been describedearlier (Figure 1). Klein, Mehringer & Bauch(1984) provide evidence that on many oldGerman instruments a similar procedure was fol-lowed although there were a number of instancesin which unmatched pieces were used. Nothing isknown about procedures in Britain and compari-son of tree-ring patterns on the two sides of thefront may indicate whether matching pieces ofwood were used.

Materials and MethodsThe instruments used in this investigation comprise 17violins, 2 violas and 21 violoncelli, all of which areattributed to British makers dating from the late 17thto early 19th century. An additional 5 violins, 1 violaand 1 tenor viol by contemporary makers wereincluded in the study. The instruments are listed inTable 1 together with their attribution, label date (ifpresent), place of manufacture and maker’s dates.Biographical information concerning most of themakers was obtained from a standard reference work(Henley, 1973). Many of the instruments were suppliedby violin experts and dealers, and others were obtainedfrom private owners. In all cases the instruments weremeasured with the permission of their owners.

All measurements were made at the widest part ofthe lower section of the spruce front in order tomaximise the number of rings available. This entailedmeasurement of the grain in the radial plane ratherthan the more usual method of measuring the rings incross-section. Klein (1987) has shown this to be a validmethod when he took radial measurements eitherdirectly from the instrument or from X-ray images ifthe varnish was too opaque. In the current project,measurements were taken directly from instruments. Ininstruments with two or more piece fronts, all pieceswere measured and in two piece fronts, the left andright sides (as viewed from the front) are referred to asthe bass and treble sides, respectively. Ring widthmeasurements were made at magnifications of up to#32 using a Zenith stereo microscope with a measur-ing graticule in one eyepiece which allowed measure-ment to an accuracy of 25 ìm when the varnish wassufficiently transparent. When the varnish was moreopaque, an accuracy of 50 ìm was possible. Themicroscope was mounted on a horizontal, handadjusted travelling carriage under which the instrumentwas fixed. Measurements were recorded manually asthe microscope was moved across the front of theinstrument. Ring width sequences were cross-matchedwith each other using both visual comparison andstatistical methods (Baillie & Pilcher, 1973) andsequences that cross-matched with a t-value greater

than 6·0 were considered to be significant (Pilcheret al., 1995). Sequences of 60 rings or less wereexcluded from the survey as they were considered tooshort to provide statistically reliable results (Munro,1984). Table 1 lists all the instrument sequencesmeasured, together with the number of tree-rings ineach sequence.

The size of instruments of the violin family dictatesthat the spruce used in the construction of the frontswould have been taken from trees which were at least100 years old at the time of felling, probably consider-ably older. It is clear therefore that in attempting todate instruments of the 17th and 18th centuries, refer-ence chronologies are required which extend back toapproximately AD 1400. Living spruce chronologiesexist for many sites in the Alpine area, but the earliestof these date only from the second half of the 17thcentury. However a number of longer chronologies doexist and two of them have been used in this study; (1)an Alpine chronology for spruce was used, whichcovers the period 1276–1974 (Siebenlist-Kerner, 1984),(2) since spruce often cross-dates with larch, an Alpinelarch reference chronology from the Italian Dolomiteswas also used, which covers the period 1433–1991(Husken, 1994).

Results

A total of 89 sequences were studied, ranging in lengthfrom 62 rings (ichr0039) to 308 rings (ichr0062(Ce032)). The average number of rings for each type ofinstrument is given in Table 1.

All 89 sequences were compared visually andstatistically and 36 of them cross-matched with t-valuesgreater than 6·0 (Table 2). The relative positions of the36 sequences are presented in Figure 2. An instrumentmaster chronology (IMC36) was prepared using thesesequences and cross-dated against the spruce referencechronology (1425-1785, t=10·4) and the larch referencechronology (1425–1785, t=7·8). This allowed cross-dating of the individual sequences contributing toIMC36 and the results are presented in Table 3.

In instruments with two-piece fronts, a comparisonwas made between the two sides and the results areshown in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 represents the resultsfor 14 sequences from 7 instruments by contemporarymakers with cross-matching values between sides ofindividual instruments ranging from 11·0 to 15·3 (mean12·0). Table 5 shows the results of cross-matching ofsides from 37 non-contemporary instruments andFigure 3 illustrates the comparison of the two sides ofa cello front by John Betts (Ce046).

A mean chronology was calculated for each instru-ment in which the sides cross-matched with a t-value>6·0. These individual instrument mean sequences,together with single piece front sequences werecross-matched (Table 6).


Table 1. List of all British instruments studied with details of attribution, maker’s dates and label date it presents. The number of rings measuredand the identification number of the sequences is also given. S=sequence from a single-piece front; B=sequence from bass side of front; T=sequencefrom treble side of front

Instrumentnumber Maker

Labeldate

Maker’sdates

Sequencenumber Side

No. ofrings

VIOLINS Vn007 att. Richard Tobin — fl. 1798–1841 ichr0010 S 119Vn015 att. Benjamin Banks — 1727–1795 ichr0029 B 68

ichr0030 T 92Vn022 by John Johnston 1757 fl. 1750–1762 ichr0042 B 152

ichr0043 T 178Vn026 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0050 B 97

ichr0051 T 94Vn027 by Barak Norman — 1688–1740 ichr0052 B 97

ichr0053 T 100Vn028 att. Daniel Parker — 1705–1761 ichr0054 B 74

ichr0055 T 89Vn029 att. Richard Tobin — fl. 1798–1841 ichr0056 B 53

ichr0057 T 86Vn031 att. Jacob Fendt — 1802–1849 ichr0060 B 77

ichr0061 T 70Vn033 att. George Craske — 1795–1888 ichr0064 B 105

ichr0065 T 95Vn034 by Richard Tobin 1829 1798–1841 ichr0066 S 101Vn035 att. Lockey Hill — 1756–1810 ichr0067 B 79

ichr0068 T 82Vn036 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0069 B 70

ichr0070 T 77Vn039 att. Edward Pamphilon — fl. 1670–1690 ichr0075 B 116

ichr0076 T 95Vn043 att. Peter Walmsely — 1717–1751 ichr0083 B 102

ichr0084 T 97Vn044 att. John Lott — 1805–1871 ichr0085 S 145Vn056 by Martin Bouette 1980 born 1951 ichr0106 B 73

ichr0107 T 74Vn059 by Peter Walmsely — 1717–1751 ichr0112 B 97

ichr0113 T 111Vn061 by Marc Soubeyran 1995 born 1958 ichr0116 B 76

ichr0117 T 77Vn068 by Richard Duke 1756 fl. 1750–1780 ichr0129 B 81

ichr0130 T 91Vn072 by John Topham 1994 born 1951 ichr0137 B 95

ichr0138 T 93Vnd01 by Derek McCormick 1995 born 1942 vchr0004 B 95

vchr0005 T 94Vnd02 by Derek McCormick 1995 born 1942 vchr0006 B 98

vchr0007 T 97

VIOLAS Va004 att. Thomas Smith — 1740–1790 ichr0006 S 223Va020 att. William Forster II — 1739–1808 ichr0038 B 67

ichr0039 T 62Va069 by Martin Bouette 1988 born 1951 ichr0131 B 84

ichr0132 T 83

CELLOS Ce009 att. William Forster I — 1714–1801 ichr0013 B 107ichr0015 T 110

Ce013 by Henry Lockey Hill 1820 1774–1835 ichr0025 B 174ichr0026 T 165

Ce014 English — Late 18th C. ichr0027 B 115ichr0028 T 113

Ce030 att. Thomas Kennedy — 1784–1870 ichr0058 B 148ichr0059 T 130

Ce032 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0062 B 308ichr0063 T 163

Ce037 by Henry Lockey Hill 1810 1773–1835 ichr0071 B 165ichr0072 T 197

Ce041 by Thomas Dodd — fl. 1786–1809 ichr0079 B 145ichr0080 T 128

Ce042 by Thomas Dodd 1802 fl. 1786–1809 ichr0081 B 136ichr0082 T 126

Ce045 att. Thomas Powell — fl. 1770–1800 ichr0086 B 85ichr0087 T 120

Ce046 att. John Betts — 1755–1823 ichr0088 B 202ichr0089 T 169


Table 1. Continued

Instrumentnumber Maker

Labeldate

Maker’sdates

Sequencenumber Side

No. ofrings

Ce047 by William Forster III 1792 1739–1808 ichr0090 B 179ichr0091 T 188

Ce051 by William Forster II — 1739–1808 ichr0096 B 127ichr0097 T 143

Ce052 by William Forster III 1814 1764–1824 ichr0098 B 119ichr0099 T 149

Ce053 by Samuel Gilkes 1822 1787–1827 ichr0100 B 136ichr0101 T 149

Ce054 by Benjamin Banks — 1727–1795 ichr0102 B 144ichr0103 T 147

Ce055 att. Richard Tobin — 1705–1761 ichr0104 B 140ichr0105 T 137

Ce057 att. Bernard Simon Fendt — 1800–1852 ichr0108 B 107ichr0109 T 101

Ce058 att. Peter Walmsely — 1717–1751 ichr0110 B 173ichr0111 T 155

Ce060 by John William Owen 1928 1852–1933 ichr0114 B 136ichr0115 T 130

Ce064 att. Bernard Simon Fendt — 1800–1852 ichr0122 B 161ichr0123 T 198

Ce067 att. William Forster II — 1739–1808 ichr0127 B 122ichr0128 T 225

VIOL VI048 by John Topham 1971 born 1951 ichr0092 B 105ichr0093 T 99

Discussion

In this study it has been demonstrated that it is possibleto date the wood of British stringed instrumentsusing currently available spruce and larch referencechronologies. Whilst it is tempting to interpret theseresults as being indicative of an Alpine origin for thewood of British instruments, this analysis cannotbe accepted without reservation. Other referencechronologies are needed to establish the provenance ofthe wood with greater certainty.

Comparison of dates determined for the wood withthe dates of the attributed makers (Table 3) has alsodemonstrated that in all cases the terminus post quem ofthe instruments was earlier than the likely date ofmanufacture. This contrasts with the finding by Klein,Mehringer & Bauch (1986) that 15% of instruments(mainly of early German origin) had dendrochrono-logically determined dates which were later than theattributed date of manufacture. Two German instru-ments attributed to the eminent 17th century violin-maker Jacob Stainer were found to have fronts withyoungest tree-rings dated to the late 19th century(Klein, 1987). The absence of dating inconsistencies inthe present series of British instruments may reflecttheir lower commercial value which would make thema less attractive target for forgers.

Klein, Mehringer & Bauch (1986) have emphasizedthe obvious fact that while it may be possible todetermine a terminus post quem for the making of aninstrument, it is not possible to precisely date the yearof manufacture. The procedure used in the productionof the fronts of stringed instruments dictates that a

variable number of the youngest tree-rings are removedduring dressing and planing of the wood prior tojointing. Damage can occur to the outside of the treewhen the bark is removed and when the trunk ishandled as it is being either split or sawn into thedesired planks. These areas are removed to ensure afinal clean surface. Another factor is the variableperiod of storage of the wood before use. It has beensuggested that a freshly cut piece of spruce needs tobe seasoned for 5–6 years (Harvey, 1995), althoughexperience suggests a period of 2–3 years is usuallyadequate, providing it is already cut roughly to theinstrument’s size. In addition, makers often buy largequantities of wood at one time, which would result insome pieces being left for many years after the season-ing period before use. A relatively small number ofdated labels inserted by the maker survive in oldBritish instruments (Table 1). Only seven of thedendrochronologically dated instruments are dated inthis way. This sample is clearly too small for firmconclusions, but it is clear, nevertheless, that there weremarked differences in practice. The shortest intervalbetween the youngest growth ring and date ofmanufacture is 11 years (Vn068) and the longestinterval is 143 years (Ce013).

In addition to a simple dating of instrument wood,the results presented here may allow some inferences tobe made about the working practices of early Britishviolin-makers. A high degree of cross-matching hasbeen shown between the sides of two piece frontsin contemporary instruments (Table 4) in which bothpieces of wood are known to have come from adjacentsections of the same tree. All of the makers of

Tab

le2.

Cro

ss-m

atch

ing

ofri

ngw

idth

sequ

ence

s.S

eque

nces

incl

uded

are

thos

eth

atcr

oss-

mat

chw

ith

atle

ast

one

othe

rse

quen

cew

ith

at-

valu

e>

6·0

ich0010

ichr0025

ichr0026

ichr0030

ichr0042

ichr0043

ichr0050

ichr0051

ichr0062

ichr0063

ichr0067

ichr0079

ichr0080

ichr0081

ichr0083

ichr0084

ichr0087

ichr0088

ichr0089

ichr0090

ichr0091

ichr0096

ichr0097

ichr0098

ichr0102

ichr0103

ichr0105

ichr0109

ichr0110

ichr0111

ichr0112

ichr0113

ichr0128

ichr0129

ichr0130

ichr

0006

5·8

7·7

10·8

4·7

11·6

12·3

5·5

6·2

10·3

8·4

—6·

09·

24·

88·

611

·35·

65·

75·

310

·411

·45·

66·

56·

69·

912

·9—

—13

·813

·710

·78·

310

·26·

66·

5ic

hr00

104·

14·

16·

3—

4·3

5·6

—5·

95·

5—

4·4

5·2

5·0

6·7

—6·

44·

04·

06·

66·

3—

4·4

5·1

—4·

4—

—5·

86·

06·

14·

26·

2—

—ic

hr00

259·

0–

8·7

6·5

——

5·4

5·8

——

6·9

—5·

48·

14·

04·

74·

49·

16·

94·

65·

0—

5·7

7·8

5·9

—8·

57·

04·

95·

26·

2—

—ic

hr00

26—

9·6

6·9

4·1

6·6

9·7

7·2

——

6·3

4·4

7·9

9·2

4·1

4·0

—10

·18·

94·

65·

1—

9·0

9·6

——

11·5

9·5

9·3

6·5

7·3

—4·

6ic

hr00

30—

—5·

04·

9—

4·0

—5·

14·

25·

34·

1—

6·9

——

5·8

5·3

——

4·6

4·5

5·8

——

4·2

5·4

5·5

6·1

4·7

——

ichr

0042

16·4

4·6

4·1

10·6

7·3

—4·

56·

84·

46·

98·

44·

44·

64·

19·

28·

94·

25·

7—

7·5

10·0

——

9·7

8·4

8·3

6·1

6·2

—5·

1ic

hr00

435·

4—

9·4

8·2

4·7

—8·

05·

35·

86·

35·

56·

35·

78·

59·

0—

4·2

5·5

8·3

10·2

4·7

—9·

78·

67·

77·

37·

66·

46·

7ic

hr00

506·

46·

26·

86·

76·

17·

24·

75·

7—

4·8

5·4

4·4

5·5

5·4

—4·

96·

05·

15·

8—

4·1

6·2

5·6

7·9

6·5

8·2

6·3

5·6

ichr

0051

—6·

3—

5·1

5·9

4·5

5·1

4·5

5·3

5·4

6·0

4·3

——

4·2

5·6

5·5

5·7

——

5·6

6·5

8·8

6·0

7·0

——

ichr

0062

8·5

5·3

4·3

8·3

4·6

5·1

6·0

4·7

——

7·5

9·7

—4·

44·

98·

910

·34·

25·

49·

87·

47·

96·

16·

15·

56·

7ic

hr00

636·

16·

09·

44·

17·

36·

16·

36·

25·

38·

37·

6—

6·6

6·2

7·9

9·4

4·2

4·6

8·3

7·8

9·1

6·9

10·0

6·5

5·5

ichr

0067

—5·

4—

——

5·5

4·1

—4·

34·

8—

—4·

74·

65·

1—

4·1

4·1

—4·

86·

94·

64·

86·

7ic

hr00

794·

84·

36·

44·

64·

5—

—6·

25·

04·

44·

35·

35·

36·

14·

5—

4·8

5·4

6·3

4·6

6·5

5·5

—ic

hr00

805·

65·

5—

8·5

5·8

4·5

10·4

10·8

—7·

28·

210

·010

·65·

76·

112

·112

·510

·77·

79·

39·

17·

4ic

hr00

81—

—6·

97·

86·

54·

85·

6—

—4·

5—

6·1

4·7

—4·

54·

56·

4—

4·4

4·8

—ic

hr00

836·

84·

95·

55·

78·

37·

2—

4·7

6·0

6·6

7·2

——

8·1

8·7

8·6

7·8

8·6

6·1

—ic

hr00

84—

——

7·7

9·5

6·2

5·9

—7·

86·

0—

4·0

8·6

7·5

5·7

—5·

6—

4·0

ichr

0087

7·4

5·7

5·6

6·3

—4·

38·

27·

06·

44·

15·

55·

86·

57·

76·

36·

85·

35·

1ic

hr00

8824

·25·

15·

0—

—5·

66·

78·

94·

65·

96·

06·

67·

65·

46·

24·

94·

6ic

hr00

894·

4—

——

4·8

5·3

5·8

—4·

85·

36·

36·

7—

6·5

4·5

—ic

hr00

9019

·45·

47·

47·

37·

710

·6—

4·6

10·7

9·2

11·8

7·7

9·1

7·0

6·3

ichr

0091

6·0

6·7

6·4

9·3

10·0

5·8

5·1

10·5

9·0

11·3

9·5

8·1

6·1

7·3

ichr

0096

13·5

——

5·5

——

4·8

4·4

—4·

54·

1—

—ic

hr00

974·

65·

06·

4—

—7·

26·

96·

14·

87·

2—

6·8

ichr

0098

6·0

6·2

4·4

4·2

6·3

6·8

6·4

5·5

6·3

6·6

4·9

ichr

0102

12·1

5·2

4·9

10·2

9·9

9·4

7·5

6·3

7·9

7·1

ichr

0103

6·2

5·5

12·2

12·5

13·0

8·7

8·4

9·8

7·0

ichr

0105

5·9

——

—4·

14·

36·

14·

4ic

hr01

09—

—5·

04·

54·

15·

2—

ichr

0110

23·7

12·5

9·5

8·6

7·9

6·5

ichr

0111

12·8

10·1

8·7

6·0

6·8

ichr

0112

8·7

9·9

7·3

6·6

ichr

0113

9·6

5·3

6·5

ichr

0128

4·8

4·2

ichr

0129

5·7


4000Years (relative scale)

35050 100 150 200 250 300

141 – 2374000 35050 100 150 200 250 300

ichr0084167 – 260ichr0051170 – 261ichr0030165 – 266ichr0083121 – 272ichr0042198 – 294ichr0112207 – 303ichr0050189 – 307ichr0010130 – 307ichr0043198 – 308ichr0113237 – 315ichr0067229 – 319ichr0130241 – 321ichr0129

ViolinsRelative dates

78 – 300ichr0006Violas

61 – 234ichr002589 – 253ichr0026

128 – 254ichr0096129 – 271ichr0097117 – 271ichr0111101 – 273ichr0110116 – 294ichr0090116 – 303ichr0091

1 – 308ichr0062146 – 314ichr0089179 – 322ichr0102208 – 327ichr0087168 – 330ichr0063

Cellos

184 – 330ichr0103205 – 332ichr0080191 – 335ichr0079221 – 339ichr0098243 – 343ichr0109143 – 344ichr0088213 – 348ichr0081217 – 353ichr0105137 – 361ichr0128

Figure 2. Relative dating of sequences that cross-matched with t-values >6·0.

these instruments used the split wedge constructiondescribed in the introduction and it is therefore highlylikely that the two sides of the front are from adjoiningsections of the same tree. There was a high degree ofcross-matching between the sides in every case witht-values ranging from 11·0 to 15·3 (mean 12·9). Theresults from the 17th and 18th century instrumentssuggest that similar procedures were often followed.For example comparison of the ring patterns of thetwo sides of the John Betts cello (Figure 4) make ithard to avoid the conclusion that he worked in thisway. From the results from contemporary instruments(Table 4) it seems reasonable to propose that side-sidecross-matches with a t-value >10·0 are highly sugges-tive that both pieces originated from adjacent sectionsof the same tree. Although this arbitrary value cannotbe accepted uncritically, it is consistent with the valueproposed for oak (Hillam & Groves, 1996). This ‘‘ruleof thumb’’ implies that about half of the British

instruments sampled may have used adjacent piecesof the same tree for the fronts. Some of the lower(although still highly significant) t-values may suggestwood from the same tree, although not necessarilyfrom an adjacent section. In spite of the high pro-portion of cross-matched sequences, it is clear thatabout 25% of makers appear to have made no attemptto match the wood, with no reported adverse effect ontonal quality. This contrasts with the findings of Klein,Mehringer & Bauch (1986; 1987) which indicate thatonly 1 of 25 instruments in his investigations hadunmatched sides.

Dendrochronological comparison of the wood fromBritish instruments showed strong cross-matchingbetween many of them (Table 6). This may suggest acommon source of wood—possibly a single woodmerchant importing spruce from a particular Alpineregion. The majority of these makers worked inLondon and almost all of them are known to have


Table 3. Cross-dating of sequences using the instrument mean chronol-ogy (IMC36). The makers’ dates and label dates are also presented

Sequencenumber

Wooddates

Maker’sdates

Labeldate

ichr0006 1502–1724 1740–1790ichr0010 1613–1731 fl. 1798–1840ichr0025 1485–1658 1774–1835 1820ichr0026 1513–1677 1774–1835 1820ichr0030 1594–1685 1727–1795ichr0042 1545–1696 fl. 1750–1762 1757ichr0043 1554–1731 1750–1762 1757ichr0050 1631–1727 1755–1823ichr0051 1591–1684 1755–1823ichr0062 1425–1732 1755–1823ichr0063 1592–1754 1755–1823ichr0067 1661–1739 1756–1810ichr0079 1615–1759 fl. 1786–1809ichr0080 1629–1756 1786–1809ichr0081 1637–1772 1786–1809 1802ichr0083 1589–1690 1717–1751ichr0084 1565–1661 1717–1751ichr0087 1632–1751 fl. 1770–1800ichr0088 1567–1768 1755–1823ichr0089 1570–1738 1755–1823ichr0090 1540–1718 1739–1808 1792ichr0091 1540–1727 1739–1808ichr0096 1552–1678 1739–1808ichr0097 1553–1695 1739–1808ichr0098 1645–1763 1764–1824 1814ichr0102 1603–1746 1727–1795ichr0103 1608–1754 1727–1795ichr0105 1641–1777 1705–1761ichr0109 1667–1767 1800–1852ichr0110 1525–1697 1717–1751ichr0111 1541–1695 1717–1751ichr0112 1622–1718 1717–1751ichr0113 1622–1732 1717–1751ichr0128 1561–1785 1739–1808ichr0129 1665–1745 fl. 1750–1780 1756

Table 4. Cross-matching of the bass and treble sides of fronts frominstruments by contemporary makers

Instrumentnumber

t-value forcross-match

Overlap(years)

VIOLINS Vn056 11·4 71Vn061 14·5 75Va069 13·1 83Vn072 15·8 93Vnd01 12·7 80Vnd02 12·0 97

VIOL VI048 12·0 97

Table 5. Cross-matching of the bass and treble sides of fronts fromnon-contemporary British makers

Instrumentnumber

t-value forcross-match

Overlap(years)

VIOLINS Vn015 *Vn022 16·4 143Vn026 6·4 54Vn027 29·3 94Vn028 7·6 74Vn031 7·4 68Vn033 19·4 95Vn035 4·9 78Vn036 * —Vn039 * —Vn043 6·8 73Vn059 8·7 97Vn068 5·7 79

VIOLA Va020 11·1 62

CELLOS Ce009 12·9 106Ce013 9·0 146Ce014 * —Ce030 8·9 130Ce032 8·5 141Ce037 5·6 160Ce041 4·8 128Ce042 * —Ce045 6·6 63Ce046 24·2 169Ce047 19·4 179Ce051 13·5 126Ce052 * —Ce053 5·3 136Ce054 12·1 139Ce055 16·3 137Ce057 * —Ce058 23·7 155Ce060 17·7 128Ce064 16·6 161Ce067 * —

17601560Year (AD)

1740172017001580 1600 1620 1640 1660 1680

ichr0088 (Ce046T)

ichr0089 (Ce046B)

Figure 3. Comparison of ring sequences from the treble (ichr0088)and bass (ichr0089) sides of a cello (Ce046) made by John Betts(1755–1823).

had working interactions such as master/apprenticeor employer/employee relationships (Harvey, 1995).Many of the cross-matches are so high that thepossibility of some of the front wood from differentinstruments coming from the same tree cannot be ruledout. For example, cross-matches between the wood ofthe viola by Thomas Smith (Va006) produce t-valuessuggestive of the same tree status when compared withinstruments by Hill (Ce013), Johnson (Vn022), Betts(Ce032), Walmsely (Vn059), Forster (Ce047) andBanks (Ce054).


ConclusionThis study has indicated that the wood of a largeproportion of 17th and 18th century British stringedinstruments can be reliably dated using spruce andlarch reference chronologies. It has also given someinsight into the working practices of the craftsmenhighlighting, in particular, the probable use of a com-mon wood source by many of these makers. Furtherstudies are being undertaken in which we will increasethe number of instruments examined and additionalreference chronologies will be sought in an attemptto derive more precise information concerning thegeographical source of the wood.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to thank Cathy Groves andJennifer Hillam (Sheffield University) and Prof MikeBaillie and Dave Brown (The Queen’s University ofBelfast) for their help and criticism of this work. Weare also grateful to J. & A. Beare Ltd (London), Morris& Smith (London) and the private owners who madeinstruments available for investigation.

Table 6. t-value matrix obtained from cross-matching mean ring width sequences from instruments with matching bass and treble sides (t-values<4·0 are represented as ‘‘—’’)

Vn0

07

Ce0

13

Vn0

22

Vn0

26

Ce0

32

Vn0

35T

Ce0

41

Vn0

43

Ce0

45

Ce0

46

Ce0

47

Ce0

51

Ce0

54

Ce0

55B

Ce0

58

Vn0

59

Ce0

67B

Vn0

68

Va004 5·8 11·7 13·5 6·8 10·6 — 10·2 12·9 5·0 5·6 11·8 6·8 12·3 — 14·7 10·6 10·2 9·3Vn007 4·5 4·6 6·1 6·7 — 6·1 6·9 7·0 4·1 6·9 4·8 4·1 — 6·1 5·9 6·2 4·3Ce013 10·9 6·3 7·8 — 7·4 10·8 4·1 5·2 11·4 6·0 10·1 — 12·6 11·1 8·6 5·7Vn022 5·9 11·0 5·1 7·6 9·3 4·0 5·9 11·0 4·8 10·4 4·7 10·0 9·6 7·8 9·0Vn026 9·0 6·1 10·6 6·8 4·8 5·6 5·6 6·0 6·6 4·2 7·6 10·3 9·2 7·9Ce032 6·5 10·8 8·4 6·5 — 8·5 4·8 12·0 4·6 9·3 11·3 7·6 8·4Vn035T 4·4 — 5·8 — 5·0 — 5·3 — — 6·8 4·6 6·8Ce041 8·4 7·9 5·4 10·7 7·8 12·0 5·7 12·7 11·1 9·0 10·5Vn043 5·0 5·6 11·2 6·1 9·3 — 11·4 10·6 9·4 4·9Ce045 6·6 6·6 4·0 7·3 — 5·4 7·0 6·0 6·1Ce046 5·1 — 7·4 4·6 6·4 6·3 6·3 5·3Ce047 8·2 10·6 5·1 11·2 13·0 9·3 10·7Ce051 6·3 — 7·9 6·6 7·0 6·1Ce054 6·7 12·7 12·6 7·4 11·9Ce055B — 4·9 4·3 6·1Ce058 16·1 9·1 9·5Vn059 11·4 10·5Ce067B 6·0

ReferencesBaillie, M. G. L. (1982). Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology. The

University of Chicago Press Ltd, London.Baillie, M. G. L. & Pilcher, J. R. (1973). A simple cross-dating

program for tree-ring research. Tree-ring Bulletin 33, 7–14.Corona, E. (1980). Richerche dendrochronologiche su due violini del

XVIII secolo. Italia For. E Mont XXXV, 112–115.Corona, E. (1988). Eta del violino collezione Destro. Economia

Montana—Linea Ecologica 20, 58.Corona, E. (1990). Note dendrochronologiche sugli strumenti

dell’Istituto dell Pieta di Venezia. In (M. Tiella & L. Primon, Eds)

Collana di studi organologici. Marco Tiella-Luca Primon, Trento,pp. 83–87.

Harvey, B. W. (1995). The violin and its Makers in the British Isles.Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Henley, W. (1973). Universal Dictionary of Violin and Bowmakers.2nd edition. Amati Publishing Company, Brighton.

Hillam, J. & Groves, C. (1996). Tree ring research at Windsor Castle:aims and initial results. In (G. F. Dean, D. M. Meko & T. W.Swetnam, Eds) Tree Rings, Environment and Humanity. Radio-carbon, Department of Geosciences, The University of Arizona,Tucson.

Husken, W. (1994). Dendrochronologische und okologische Studienan Nadelholzern im Gebiet der Pragser Dolomiten (Sudtirol/Italien). Dissertations Botanicae Band 215. J. Cramer, Berlin &Stuttgart.

Klein, P. (1985). Dendrochronologische Untersuchungen angemaldetafeln und Musikinstrumenten. Dendrochronologia 3,25–44.

Klein, P. (1987). Dendrochronological analysis of European stringinstruments. CIMCIM Newsletter, 37–94.

Klein, P., Mehringer, H. & Bauch, J. (1984). Tree-ring chronology ofspruce wood and its application in the dating of stringed instru-ments. In ICOM, Committee for Conservation, Seventh TriennialMeeting, Copenhagen. 69–72.

Klein, P., Mehringer, H. & Bauch, J. (1986). Dendrochronologicaland wood biological investigations on string instruments.Holzforschung 40, 197–203.

Lavier, C. & Lambert, G. (1996). Dendrochronology and works ofart. In (G. F. Dean, D. M. Meko & T. W. Swetnam, Eds) TreeRings, Environment and Humanity. Radiocarbon, Department ofGeosciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, 543–556.

Lottermoser, W. & Meyer, J. (1958). Uber die moglichkeit einerDendrochronologie von alitalianischen Geigen. Instrumenten-bauzeitschrift 12, 295–296.

Munro, M. A. R. (1984). An improved algorithm for cross-datingtree ring series. Tree-ring Bulletin 44, 17–27.

Pilcher, J. R., Baillie, M. G. L., Brown, D. M., McCormac, F. G.,MacSweeney, P. B. & McLawrence, A. S. (1995). Dendrochronol-ogy of subfossil pine in the North of Ireland. Journal of Ecology83, 665–671.

Siebenlist-Kerner, V. (1984). Der Aufbau von Jahrringchronologienfur Zirbelkiefer, Larche, und Fichte eines alpinen Hochgebirgs-standortes. Dendrochronologia 2, 9–29.

Dendrochronological Investigation of British Stringed of Violin

Documents

Transcript of Dendrochronological Investigation of British Stringed of Violin