O

TW

EL

a

ARA

KTDCWTS

I

shFodfe

v

h1

Dendrochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Dendrochronologia

j ourna l h o mepa ge: www.elsev ier .com/ locate /dendro

riginal article

he historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures at theynnewood State Historic Site, Castalian Springs, Tennessee, USA

lizabeth A. Schneider1, Lauren A. Stachowiak, Henri D. Grissino-Mayer ∗

aboratory of Tree-Ring Science, Department of Geography, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-0925, USA

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 18 November 2014ccepted 19 November 2014

eywords:ree ringsendrochronologyonstruction historyynnewood

ennesseeoutheastern 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 logcabins located at the Wynnewood State Historic Site in Castalian Springs, Sumner County, Tennessee. Onecabin was reportedly built by the first explorer in the area, Isaac Bledsoe, sometime between 1772 and hisdeath in 1793. The second cabin was known as Spencer’s Cabin after the first settler of the region, ThomasSharp Spencer, who lived in the immediate vicinity from 1776 to 1779. The goal of this research was todetermine the probable construction year(s) for both cabins and determine whether Bledsoe and Spencerdid indeed build these structures. Forty-one cores were extracted from Bledsoe’s Cabin, and 30 were usedfor crossdating and building a floating chronology using COFECHA. The Bledsoe’s Cabin chronology wasthen 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, anchor-ing the chronology between 1720 and 1804, with nearly all cores indicating tree harvesting betweenFebruary and April 1805. Twenty-two cores were extracted from Spencer’s Cabin, and 17 were used tobuild 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 chronol-

ogy between 1726 and 1825. All trees appear to have been harvested between February and August in1826. Therefore, neither structure was built by its historical namesake. No known historical documentssuggest who the potential builders were, although the property was owned between ca. 1797 and 1829by General James Winchester. He and his family, however, never resided on the Wynnewood propertybecause Winchester had built a large multi-room structure in nearby Gallatin, Tennessee, by 1802.

© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

ea22fi(

ntroduction

Dendrochronological research as a method of dating historictructures has expanded in recent decades in the southeastern U.S.,aving overcome two primary obstacles (Grissino-Mayer, 2009).irst, successfully dating historic sites and structures in most areas

f the southeastern U.S. is more likely because existing and recentlyeveloped tree-ring chronologies have been developed that extendar enough back. Currently, historic structures can be dated at sitesxtending from northern Alabama and Georgia into central and

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 6029.E-mail address: grissino@utk.edu (H.D. Grissino-Mayer).

1 Present address: Department of Geography, Environment and Society, The Uni-ersity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.

(caagtnesbc

ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2014.11.003125-7865/© 2014 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

astern Tennessee, western and central North Carolina, and nearlyll locations in Virginia (DeWeese Wight and Grissino-Mayer,004; Grissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007; Henderson et al.,009; Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013). Additional locations with suf-cient spatial coverage of tree-ring chronologies include ArkansasStahle, 1979; Therrell and Stahle, 2012) and northeastern FloridaGrissino-Mayer et al., 2010; Garland et al., 2012). Second, miscon-eptions about the (in)ability of dating tree rings found in beamsnd logs of structures in the southeastern U.S. are being overcome,lbeit slowly, by engaging more closely with field archaeolo-ists, academic researchers, and historical architects, especially inhe early stages of research or restoration projects. Dendrochro-ologists often are consulted first about the best technique to

xtract and/or preserve samples for immediate or future analy-is. For example, we have recently advised agencies about howest to preserve wood sections taken from prehistoric log dugoutanoes, old timbers from creek-side dilapidated iron forges, and

rochronologia 33 (2015) 34–41 35

wc

tahpsaaagGSs(Mfi

toiTcadTotroodsqbt

5Cimt1sbapsBoWphhssTmdTGts

Fig. 1. Wynnewood is the main structure at the historic site and is one of the largestlm

tti(IwNafwldwL(Spencer. It is important to note that some historians and archaeol-ogists do not associate these cabins with Bledsoe and Spencer. Thegoal of our project was to date the years of construction for both

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dend

aterlogged/submerged wood from archaeological sites nearoastal areas.

Historical agencies, societies, and commissions are charged withhe task of managing, preserving, and restoring historical sites,nd they often wish to authenticate the dates of construction ofistorically significant structures on their sites. Tree-ring datingrovides valuable information for unknown or poorly documentedettlements (DeWeese Wight and Grissino-Mayer, 2004; Lewis etl., 2009; Slayton et al., 2009; DeWeese et al., 2012). Occasion-lly, the reported dates of construction are suspect or exaggerated,nd analyses often show that actual construction is one to twoenerations younger than what is reported (Mann et al., 2009;rissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007; Henderson et al., 2009;tachowiak et al., 2014). Supplying this level of accuracy in con-truction and additional building sequences in subsequent yearse.g., the Ximenez-Fatio House in St. Augustine, Florida; Grissino-

ayer et al., 2010) benefits restoration by providing the temporalramework by which historical architects can restore a structure tots original condition.

Once all tree rings are absolutely dated, we then closely evaluatehe terminal tree ring present on the sample because the clusteringf the outermost tree-ring dates to one or a few years is a goodndicator of the likely year or years of tree harvest and construction.he outermost rings are then classified as a cutting date, a near-utting date, or a non-cutting date based on the condition of the lognd preservation and clarity of the terminal tree ring. Even then,ates for these outermost tree rings must be carefully interpreted.imbers (i.e., squared beams) and logs can be reused, resulting in anutermost date that is considerably older than the majority or all ofhe other samples. Alternatively, timbers or logs can be replaced,esulting in an outermost date that is younger than the majorityr all of the other samples. Furthermore, the squaring of timbersften removes the bark and vital outermost rings that can precludeetermining the cutting date for a beam or even all beams in atructure. Nonetheless, such timbers can provide a terminus postuem, or the earliest year in which the structure could have beenuilt, by noting the very youngest tree-ring date for an outermostree ring.

The Wynnewood State Historic Site is located approximately0 km northeast of Nashville, Tennessee, in the community ofastalian Springs. The site is home to Wynnewood (called “Castal-

an Springs” between ca. 1834 and the 1940s), a complex ofulti-use buildings that features one of the largest log structures in

he United States at 34 m in length and 10 m in width, consisting of4 rooms (Fig. 1; Harper, 1971). The complex sits adjacent to Bled-oe’s Lick, a natural salt lick and sulphur spring that once attractedig game that subsequently attracted Native American huntersnd later European-American settlers and long hunters (i.e., smallarties of early explorers who hunted for month-long periods). Theite was bought in July 1829 by Colonel Alfred R. Wynne, Humphreyate, and Stephen Roberts from James Winchester (whose familywned the property from 1797 to 1829) but, a few years later,inchester realized that the three had signed notes but never

aid for the property. Winchester in turn gave the property tois daughter Almira as part of her father’s inheritance. Almira alsoappened to be the wife of Alfred Wynne. Wynne originally envi-ioned the site as being an inn and health resort because mineralprings were popular tourist destinations in the early to mid-1800s.he venture was only partially successful in later decades becauseost commercial traffic to and from Nashville was eventually

iverted to the south of the complex (Eason, 1936; Durham, 1974).

he complex remained with the Wynne family until 1971 wheneorge Winchester Wynne, grandson of the original builder, sold

he property to the State of Tennessee for preservation as a historicite.

Fs

og structures in the United States, consisting of three two-story attached pens andeasuring 34 m in length and 10 m in width.

The focus of our study was two log structures on either side ofhe complex that some believe actually pre-date the main struc-ure. The first structure is known as Bledsoe’s Cabin (Fig. 2), whichs connected to the main Wynnewood structure via the “south ell”Durham, 1974). Local folklore associates the two-story cabin withsaac Bledsoe, the first explorer in the area having arrived in 1772,

ith a construction date sometime prior to his death at the hand ofative Americans in 1793. An earlier analysis on several structurest the Wynnewood site performed by Bowers and Grashot (1975)ound one log in Bledsoe’s cabin with a terminal ring date of 1790,hich would support its attribution to Isaac Bledsoe. The second

og cabin is known as Spencer’s Cabin (Fig. 3) with a constructionate suspected to be in the 1770s or 1780s. Thomas Sharp Spenceras the first settler of the region, having arrived near Bledsoe’s

ick in 1776 and began to “fell logs for building cabins” ca. 1778Durham, 1972, 1974). Folklore associates the cabin with Thomas

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

36 E.A. Schneider et al. / Dendrochro

Fig. 3. North wall of Spencer’s Cabin that is today encased in aluminum sidingtnS

he

M

F

obcthtoeaodowticatiafat

I

fiecGtm

psc

ufia(fiff(Cctlowmpt2auacfap

E

ccdIrwr1fis1cTh(aueae

E

ymta

hat hides the original logs. The chimney marks the western extent of the origi-al cabin. The structure now serves as the office for the Wynnewood State Historicite operated by Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association.

istoric cabins and determine who the potential builder was forach based on the cutting dates of the logs.

ethods

ield methods

In both structures, all logs were carefully inspected for presencef a continuous curved surface that would indicate a high proba-ility of obtaining the terminal ring formed and therefore a trueutting date (Grissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007). Cores wereaken from the lower curved surface of each chosen log where theoles left would be inconspicuous and to facilitate rapid evacua-ion of sawdust during the coring process. We extracted at leastne sound core from each selected log from either an interior andxterior location using a specialized 25-cm-long hollow drill bitttached to a variable-speed hand drill. Logs were drilled to a depthf ca. 5 mm, then the bit was removed and a conspicuous blackot was placed on the outer surface of the wood to verify that theutermost rings were retained after coring and mounting. The bitas then reinserted and the log was drilled to a depth estimated

o reach the center (pith) of the log. Once extracted, the core wasmmediately glued to wooden core mounts with the cells verti-ally aligned. Cores were identified by the cabin name (Bledsoe = BCnd Spencer = SC), facing cardinal direction of the wall containinghe log, and a three-digit core number (e.g., “BCN003”). In somenstances, two or more cores were taken from the same log until

sound core was obtained and the cores were labeled A, B, and soorth. Sketches were made of each wall for each cabin, both interiornd exterior, on which all logs were appropriately labeled as werehe locations where the cores were extracted.

nternal crossdating and statistical significance

In the laboratory, all cores were sanded using progressivelyner sandpaper beginning with ANSI 80-grit (177–210 �m) andnding with ANSI 400-grit (20.6–23.6 �m), so that all tree rings

ould be clearly identified under 10× magnification (Orvis andrissino-Mayer, 2002). Internal crossdating began with assigning

he innermost incomplete ring on each sample with year “0” andarking every subsequent 10th ring with a dot using a mechanical

1

nologia 33 (2015) 34–41

encil (Stokes and Smiley, 1996). All tree-ring widths were mea-ured to 0.001 mm accuracy using a Velmex measuring systemoupled with the MEASURE J2X software.

We used COFECHA, a quality control computer program thatses segmented time series correlation analysis, to statistically con-rm the temporal placement of tree rings from one series againstll other series to create an initial undated (floating) chronologyHolmes, 1983; Grissino-Mayer, 2001). COFECHA uses spline-tting and autoregressive modeling algorithms to remove low-

requency trends that arise due to climate and other disturbanceactors that would otherwise mask the overarching year-to-yearhigh frequency) climate signal required for successful crossdating.orrelation testing used 40-year segments with 10-year overlapsompared against a temporary master chronology that excludedhe series being checked. Crossdating was verified when the corre-ation coefficients for all segments exceeded the critical thresholdf 0.37 (p < 0.01), although most correlations for all tested segmentsere above 0.40. Any series flagged by COFECHA as being possiblyisdated were carefully re-inspected to ensure correct temporal

lacement. We used the average mean sensitivity (Fritts, 1976) andhe average interseries correlation (Holmes, 1983; Grissino-Mayer,001) of all cores to assess the strength of the overall climate signalnd the overall quality of the final dataset. Mean sensitivity val-es as low as 0.20 are common for the southeastern U.S. (DeWittnd Ames, 1978) but indicate an appropriate level of sensitivity tolimate that imparts common ring patterns necessary for success-ul crossdating. Interseries correlations for individual series >0.40re desirable and suggest a sample that has been dated with highrecision (Grissino-Mayer, 2001).

xternal crossdating

Absolute (external) crossdating was achieved using COFECHA byomparing the undated floating series with a reference chronologyreated from eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) previouslyeveloped by Cook et al. (2014) and archived as TN031 in the

TRDB (Grissino-Mayer and Fritts, 1997). This is the only easterned cedar chronology developed for Tennessee and the region, andas developed from trees growing or that once grew in the Nor-

is River Basin (36.1734◦N, 84.1003◦W) and located approximately55 km directly east of Wynnewood. Once crossdating was con-rmed, calendar years were assigned to each individual undatederies using the EDRM (Edit Ring Measurement) program (Holmes,992). Graphical comparisons were made using the master datinghronologies (i.e., residual chronologies) created using COFECHA.he final placement of the undated series suggested by COFECHAad to be convincing both graphically and statistically (p < 0.001)Grissino-Mayer, 2001). To further ensure that crossdating wasccomplished, we graphically and statistically compared the resid-al chronologies for both Spencer’s and Bledsoe’s Cabins against theastern red cedar chronology developed for Alfred’s Cabin locatedt The Hermitage approximately 55 km to the southwest (Lewist al., 2009).

stablishing cutting dates

Once all tree rings were crossdated and assigned exact calendarears, the outermost ring for each core was inspected under a highagnification to determine if the terminal ring represented a cut-

ing date, a near-cutting date, or a non-cutting date. Symbols weressigned for each series to evaluate the cutting date (Bannister et al.,

966; Nash, 1999):

B: Bark is present, indicating the outer ring is fully intact (acertain cutting date);

rochro

tiItpc

R

S

cm2otwogBt1et5Oca2

B

itctcdB0daEcweaTct1(o

ds

rtacbscd1dTs

S

CsewarlmvytbnSn(wnycalSsyi1Tb

cobdlhmeF

D

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dend

r: The outermost ring is continuous and intact around a smoothsurface, but no bark is present, outer rings are intact (considereda cutting date);

v: The date is within a few years of the cutting date, based onthe presence of sapwood (considered a near-cutting date);

vv: Cutting date is not possible because we could not determinehow far we are from the outermost ring.

The season the tree was likely cut was also evaluated. If theerminal ring appeared to be complete, then the tree was likely cutn the dormant season (fall of one year to winter of the next year).f earlywood was present after the last full ring but no latewood,he tree was likely harvested sometime in spring. If latewood wasresent but the ring appears incomplete, then the tree was likelyut in early to late summer, depending on the amount of latewood.

esults

pecies used

The Bledsoe and Spencer Cabins were built with eastern rededar logs, an uncommon tree species used as log cabin buildingaterial in Tennessee and the southeastern U.S. in general (Rehder,

012). Most log structures in the Southeast are made from eitherak (Quercus spp.) or tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera L.) becausehese are among the more durable and widely distributed hard-ood species in the region (Morgan, 1990; Rehder, 2012). The use

f eastern red cedar is likely related to the abundance of “cedarlades” that are common in central Tennessee (Hawley, 1937;askin and Baskin, 2004), and because Juniperus species are knowno be more resistant to decay compared to other conifers (Hoadley,990). Today, the Wynnewood complex is surrounded by manyastern red cedars that represent the remnants of a larger foresthat once stood on the complex prior to a devastating tornado on

February 2008 that wiped out many of the trees (Carey, 2008).ne other log structure known to be built entirely from eastern rededar logs and dated via dendrochronology is Alfred’s Cabin, locatedt The Hermitage, Home of President Andrew Jackson (Lewis et al.,009).

ledsoe’s Cabin

Forty-one cores were extracted from Bledsoe’s Cabin from thenterior and the exterior of the first floor and from the interior ofhe second floor. Six cores were too damaged for analysis while fiveores came from tulip poplar logs and were not analyzed becausehey did not contain enough rings. The final dataset consisted of 30ores from 23 logs with tree rings that were successfully cross-ated. The average interseries correlation for all samples fromledsoe’s Cabin was 0.67 while the average mean sensitivity was.30 (Table 1). Both values are considered exceptional for tree-ringata from the southeastern U.S. COFECHA indicated no segmentss being potentially misdated out of 81 segments tested (Table 2).xternal crossdating statistically verified that the Bledsoe’s Cabinhronology begins in year 1720 and ends in 1804. The chronologyas statistically correlated against the eastern red cedar refer-

nce chronology with an r-value of 0.42 (t = 4.18, n = 85, p < 0.0001)nd a graphical comparison shows a convincing match (Fig. 4).his chronology also correlated highly against the Alfred’s Cabinhronology (r = 0.67, n = 56 years overlap, t = 6.63, p < 0.0001). The

erminal ring of eight logs in Bledsoe’s Cabin clustered in the year805, while six logs had terminal rings that clustered in 1804Table 3). These were all considered cutting dates. The remainderf the logs had terminal rings dating from 1796 to 1803, but were

w1

nologia 33 (2015) 34–41 37

etermined to be near-cutting dates only based on the presence ofapwood.

Earlywood growth was present on the logs with 1805 terminalings, usually as a thin amount of earlywood cells, meaning thatree harvesting occurred soon after the dormant period had endednd spring growth had initiated. Therefore, these trees were likelyut in March or April of 1805. BCN003 was the only log that hadark present and an outermost terminal ring of 1805 (Fig. 5). Theix logs that had terminal rings that dated to 1804 appeared to haveomplete outermost rings suggesting that tree harvesting occurreduring the dormant season or anytime from fall 1804 to winter805, just prior to the 1805 growing period. Tree harvest likelyid not occur during the coldest part of winter because the centralennessee region sits on a plateau and can experience harsh andnowy winters.

pencer’s Cabin

Twenty-two cores were extracted from 17 logs in Spencer’sabin. The outside of the structure was covered with weatherboardiding (Fig. 3) such that logs were only accessible from the inside,xcept for the south wall, which was exposed in an outer walk-ay. Two of the 22 cores were too broken and unusable, while

nother three cores came from tulip poplar logs and had too fewings to be dated. The final dataset consisted of 17 cores from 13ogs with an average interseries correlation of 0.55 and an average

ean sensitivity of 0.30 (Table 1). Both values again are consideredery high for tree-ring datasets from the southeastern U.S. Ten 40-ear segments were flagged by COFECHA out of 64 segments (15%)ested (Table 4). These were carefully re-inspected and found toe in their correct temporal position. Some segments at the begin-ing and at the end of each series were flagged (e.g., SCE001B andCS004), which is common because of a low climate signal in juve-ile growth and later as the tree senesces (Grissino-Mayer, 2001)Table 4). The Spencer’s Cabin chronology was highly correlatedith the eastern red cedar reference chronology (r = 0.44, t = 4.85,

= 100, p < 0.00001) and showed that the chronology spanned theears 1726 to 1825. A graphical comparison showed a strong andonvincing match (Fig. 4). This chronology also correlated highlygainst the Alfred’s Cabin chronology (r = 0.68, n = 78 years over-ap, t = 8.09, p < 0.0001). Graphical correspondence between thepencer’s Cabin and Bledsoe’s Cabin chronologies (Fig. 4) and atatistically significant correlation between the two (r = 0.68, n = 79ears overlap, t = 8.14, p < 0.0001) further confirmed our crossdat-ng. Eight of the 13 logs had terminal rings that clustered in the year826, while three logs had a terminal ring date of 1825 (Table 5).he remaining two logs had outermost ring dates of 1805 and 1824,ut these were not considered to be cutting dates.

Similar to logs from Bledsoe’s Cabin, these trees were also likelyut in late winter or early spring, based on the terminal ring datesf the other logs and the need to harvest trees once temperaturesegan to rise after the hard winter. Eight logs had already brokenormancy when harvested and formed earlywood cells, with five

ogs indicating harvest during early spring while three other logsad more substantial amounts of earlywood, indicating harvest inid- to late summer of 1826. We suggest that harvesting of the

astern red cedars to build Spencer’s Cabin had occurred betweenebruary and August of 1826.

iscussion

We conclude that all trees used to build Bledsoe’s Cabinere harvested in the dormant season (February and March) of

805 and into early to mid-spring (April and May) of 1805. The

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

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

Structure Period Mean correlation within trees Mean sensitivity within trees Correlation with master Total logs Total cores

Bledsoe’s Cabin 1720–1804 0.67 0.30 0.42 23 30Spencer’s Cabin 1726–1825 0.55 0.30 0.44 13 17

Table 2Internal correlation testing of tree-ring measurements for 30 cores from Bledsoe’s Cabin.

40-Year segment lagged 10 years

1720–1759 1730–1769 1740–1779 1750–1789 1760–1799 1770–1809

Begin year End year Correlation coefficients

BCE001B 1729 1804 0.60 0.59 0.68 0.76 0.73 0.59BCE002B 1760 1800 0.77 0.80BCE003A 1729 1799 0.56 0.56 0.64 0.75 0.69BCE003B 1724 1804 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.78 0.81BCE004 1731 1795 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.73BCE006 1736 1804 0.52 0.50 0.64 0.58 0.68BCE007 1744 1804 0.55 0.57 0.80 0.79BCE008 1762 1804 0.75 0.77BCE010A 1749 1802 0.77 0.77 0.74 0.71BCE010B 1736 1800 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.76 0.73BCN002 1739 1801 0.80 0.78 0.83 0.81 0.82BCN003 1732 1804 0.56 0.49 0.53 0.55 0.59BCS001A 1735 1803 0.70 0.68 0.73 0.74 0.72BCS001B 1728 1803 0.60 0.59 0.67 0.75 0.76 0.77BCS002 1741 1802 0.66 0.82 0.78 0.80BCS003A 1725 1804 0.60 0.73 0.76 0.80 0.74 0.73BCS003B 1733 1804 0.70 0.72 0.76 0.77 0.74BCS004A 1720 1803 0.71 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.57 0.50BCS006 1735 1803 0.68 0.73 0.88 0.80 0.78BCS007 1732 1803 0.53 0.61 0.78 0.80 0.75BCS008 1732 1803 0.74 0.81 0.83 0.81 0.80BCW001A 1752 1801 0.82 0.74 0.62BCW001B 1736 1802 0.67 0.72 0.75 0.62 0.63BCW002 1760 1800 0.57 0.58BCW003 1723 1802 0.47 0.61 0.72 0.80 0.64 0.66BCW004 1733 1804 0.47 0.49 0.58 0.65 0.64BCW006A 1749 1802 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.79BCW006B 1756 1802 0.75 0.74 0.77BCW007B 1743 1803 0.77 0.80 0.79 0.77BCW007C 1733 1803 0.50 0.59 0.60 0.74 0.71Average segment correlation 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.75 0.72 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 cedarchronologies 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 3Outermost ring dates and types for 23 logs sampled from Bledsoe’s Cabin.

Log ID Inner ring Outermost date Ring type 1 Terminal ring information

BCE001 1728 1805 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCE002 1744 1801 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCE003 1723 1805 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCE004 1730 1796 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCE006 1735 1805 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCE007 1743 1805 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCE008 1761 1805 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCE010 1735 1803 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCN002 1738 1802 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCN003 1731 1805 B Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCS001 1727 1804 r Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805BCS002 1740 1803 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCS003 1724 1805 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCS004 1719 1804 r Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805BCS006 1734 1804 r Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805BCS007 1731 1804 r Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805BCS008 1731 1804 r Appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1804–1805BCW001 1728 1803 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCW002 1754 1801 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCW003 1721 1803 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCW004 1731 1805 v Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1805BCW006 1748 1803 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateBCW007 1732 1804 r 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.

F eft) coe g in e

htds(

a

TI

ig. 5. Core from log BCN003 (Bledsoe’s Cabin) showing intact shreddy bark (far larlywood had already formed in 1805 when this tree was cut, indicating harvestin

arvesting period would be considered very rapid for so many

rees, but eastern red cedar is a softwood species and can be cut,e-limbed, hewn, and notched more quickly than can hardwoodpecies. Furthermore, the diamond notching used to build the cabinFig. 6) is considered a simple notch type that can be hewn quickly

tnat

able 4nternal correlation testing of tree-ring measurements for 17 cores from Spencer’s Cabin.

1720–1759 1730–1769 17

Begin year End year

SCE001A 1751 1825

SCE001B 1749 1825

SCE002 1762 1825

SCE003A 1726 1825 0.41 0.68

SCE003B 1759 1825

SCE004 1737 1823 0.88

SCN001 1744 1825

SCN002 1761 1825

SCS001 1751 1804

SCS002A 1746 1825

SCS002B 1743 1824

SCS003 1745 1825

SCS004 1729 1824 0.28a 0.49

SCS005 1757 1824

SCW002 1788 1825

SCW004A 1761 1825

SCW004B 1746 1820

Average segment correlation 0.35 0.68

a Indicates a 40-year segment flagged by COFECHA due to low correlations. Re-inspecti

llected from the third log from the bottom on the north wall. A small amount ofarly spring of 1805.

nd does not require the expertise as does more complex notch

ypes, such as the half dovetail notch, the most common in Ten-essee (Morgan, 1990; Rehder, 2012). The diamond notch type islso rare (Cotton, 1990). Rehder (2012) noted that only six struc-ures in Tennessee out of nearly 3000 have this notch type. The

40-Year segment lagged 10 years

40–1779 1750–1789 1760–1799 1770–1809 1780–1819 1790–1829

Correlation coefficients

0.61 0.53 0.47 0.23a 0.15a

0.52 0.53 0.60 0.56 0.33a 0.31a

0.67 0.64 0.34a 0.420.87 0.89 0.85 0.86 0.79 0.75

0.67 0.69 0.76 0.72 0.650.88 0.89 0.84 0.72 0.55 0.530.62 0.56 0.51 0.53 0.40 0.26a

0.70 0.68 0.60 0.460.65 0.63 0.69

0.37a 0.48 0.61 0.59 0.61 0.470.41 0.50 0.49 0.47 0.51 0.440.85 0.84 0.85 0.73 0.61 0.510.65 0.69 0.62 0.56 0.30* 0.30*

0.71 0.72 0.74 0.65 0.620.49

0.77 0.79 0.50 0.440.71 0.75 0.73 0.68 0.59 0.580.65 0.67 0.68 0.65 0.51 0.46

on found these segments to be dated correctly.

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

Table 5Outermost ring dates and types for 13 logs sampled from Spencer’s Cabin.

Log ID Inner ring Outermost date Ring typea Terminal ring information

SCE001 1748 1826 r Ring appears incomplete, cut mid- to late summer 1826SCE002 1761 1826 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826SCE003 1725 1826 r Ring appears incomplete, cut mid- to late summer 1826SCE004 1736 1824b r Ring appears complete (see note below)SCN001 1743 1826 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826SCN002 1760 1826 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826SCS001 1750 1805 v Outer rings decayed or eroded, near-cutting dateSCS002 1742 1826 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826SCS003 1744 1825 r Ring appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1825–1826SCS004 1728 1825 r Ring appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1825–1826SCS005 1756 1825 r Ring appears complete, cut in fall/winter dormant season 1825–1826SCW002 1787 1826 r Thin amount of earlywood cells present, cut in early spring 1826SCW004 1745 1826 r 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 througolder than all others.

Btd

BdftmntsrstwbUmcB

g

kctic

ecto11thtwtbcb

cebJpinnBiet

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

ledsoe Cabin curiously was not inventoried by Rehder (2012) andherefore represents the seventh such structure in Tennessee withiamond notching.

Our analyses do not support the conclusions reached byowers and Grashot (1975) who had previously conducted a den-rochronological analysis on three logs from Bledsoe’s Cabin. Theyound outermost dates of 1941 and 1952 for two of the logs, whichhey then concluded must be replacement logs. However, replace-

ent logs of such relatively recent origin would have been quiteoticeable because of the better conditions of the logs compared tohe older original logs, and likely would not have been sampled. Weaw no replacement logs in Bledsoe’s Cabin, nor did any terminaling dates return years that post-date most of the other dates, thusignifying a replacement log (see Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013). Theyhen found a cutting date of 1790 for the third log (which had bark),hich returned a t-value of 3.53 against a regional pine chronology,

ut this t-value would be considered marginal for the southeastern.S. by today’s dendrochronological standards. Because no infor-ation is given on the number of rings in this one sample, we

annot verify the statistical significance of p < 0.001 reported byowers and Grashot (1975).

Our tree-ring analysis of logs from Bledsoe’s Cabin strongly sug-ests that Isaac Bledsoe did not build the structure. Bledsoe was

WwSy

h a slightly eroded surface, thus giving a terminal ring date that is one to two years

illed by Native Americans in 1793 and James Winchester pur-hased the property four years later (Durham, 1974). Based on theerminal dates of the logs that cluster in the year 1805, the fam-ly of James Winchester was the builder of the cabin that is todayonnected to the main Wynnewood log structure.

The speculation that the second cabin on the Wynnewood prop-rty was built by Thomas Spencer perhaps arose because of thelose proximity of the cabin (about 125 m to the south–southwest)o the supposed location of an immense sycamore tree (Platanusccidentalis L.) that local folklore says was approximately nine to2 feet (274 to 366 cm) in diameter (Harper, 1971; Durham, 1972,974; Smith, 1975). It was within a large cavity of this sycamoreree that Spencer over-wintered in 1778–1779. Spencer alreadyad spent the year 1778 clearing ground and building a cabin underhe mistaken notion that he would gain title to as much land as heould want. Smith (1975) observed, however, that the low mound

hat once stood at this specific location and assumed to be causedy the stump of the tree was in fact caused by a rock pile (perhaps ahimney fall from a previous structure) of mid-19th century originased on recovered artifacts.

James Winchester owned the property on which Wynnewoodurrently sits until his death on 26 July 1826, after which the prop-rty was put up for auction in 1829 and subsequently purchasedy Alfred Wynne, Humphrey Bate, and Stephen Roberts. Curiously,ames Winchester and his family never resided on the Wynnewoodroperty because Winchester had by the year 1802 completed an

mpressive two-story, multi-room structure known as Cragfont inearby Gallatin, Tennessee, which is today also owned by the Ten-essee Historical Commission. An advertisement in the Nationalanner and Nashville Whig newspaper from 11 April 1829, auction-

ng off several tracts of land, confirms that two structures alreadyxisted by the time Alfred Wynne purchased the property. Amonghe tracts that were sold was one described as:

“300 acres at Bledsoe’s Lick, including the principal Springs ofMineral Water, so highly recommended for their medicinal qual-ities. This land is generally of good quality and remarkably welltimbered throughout; improved with a comfortable cabin andwork shop.”

This description of the area that would later become

ynnewood mentions two structures already having been built,hich could have been Bledsoe’s Cabin (constructed in 1805) and

pencer’s Cabin (constructed in 1826) based on our tree-ring anal-ses. However, the “workshop” could also describe a cabin nearer

rochro

tfW(bapmnc

TpcdJCirbtsOhri

A

DSoMatfput

R

B

B

B

C

C

CD

D

D

D

DE

FG

G

G

G

G

G

G

H

H

H

H

H

H

L

M

M

N

O

R

S

S

S

S

E.A. Schneider et al. / Dend

o Bledsoe’s Cabin that no longer stands today. Curiously, Wynneamily tradition sets the initial year of construction of the main

ynnewood structure at 1828 and likely completion by 1829Durham, 1974), but this clearly could not have been the sequenceecause the land was put up for auction in April 1829, with thectual auction taking place in July of 1829. We suggest that a com-anion tree-ring study be performed in the future on logs from theain structure at Wynnewood, concentrating on the three con-

ected pens across two floors, to determine the years and seasons ofonstruction for the various portions of this immense log structure.

“Bledsoe’s Cabin” has been renamed the “Winchester Cabin.”he tree-ring dates confirm that the cabin was built while theroperty was owned by James Winchester and his family. Furtheronfirmation comes from a newspaper article that was recentlyiscovered and dated 1817 that has an advertisement posted by

ames Winchester and Henry Belote (a fellow resident of Sumnerounty) wanting to hire a person who was an expert in extract-

ng salt from the springs. In all likelihood, the “comfortable cabin”eferred to in the 1829 announcement refers to the 1806 cabinuilt by James Winchester and was used by the person hired forhis job. Finally, Spencer’s Cabin is now simply called the “workhop” (Rick Hendrix, personal communication, 9 July 2014, on file).ur study further demonstrates the value of tree-ring research byelping enlighten and improve our regional and national histo-ies, highlighting the potential adverse impacts of local folklore andnaccurate oral history.

cknowledgements

We thank Alex Collier, Savannah Collins, Brandon Corrier, Alexye, and Daniel Brock for assisting us in the field, and thank Dr.ally Horn for critically reading and commenting on earlier draftsf this paper. We thank Mark McKee, Pam Ilott, Steve Rogers, PatrickcIntyre, Martha Akins, Sam Smith, Benjamin Nance, Kevin Smith,

nd Rick Hendrix for assisting greatly in the various aspects ofhis research. We thank the Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Associationor providing the funding and logistical support for this extensiveroject, and the Tennessee Historical Commission for their contin-ed support of dendrochronological research on historic structureshroughout the State of Tennessee.

eferences

annister, 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 Uni-versity of Arizona, Tucson.

askin, J.M., Baskin, C.C., 2004. History of the use of “cedar glades” and otherdescriptive terms for vegetation on rocky limestone soils in the Central Basin ofTennessee. Bot. Rev. 70, 403–424.

owers, L.J., Grashot, D.L., 1975. Tree-ring research at Castalian Springs NationalHistoric Landmark. In: Smith, S.D. (Ed.), Archaeological Explorations at theCastalian Springs, Tennessee, Historic Site. Tennessee Historical Commission,Nashville.

arey, C., 2008. Storm’s Wrath Uncovers Gem: Historic Log Cabin Rests inSumner Home’s Walls. TheTennessean.com www.tennessean.com/article/20080718/COUNTY08/101140004/-1/news15

ook, E.R., Buckley, B.M., Krusic, P.J., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Pederson, N., 2014.Norris Basin. http://hurricane.ncdc.noaa.gov/pls/paleox/f?p=519:1:::::P1

STUDY ID:12716

otton, J.R., 1990. Log houses in America. Old House J. 18, 37–44.eWeese, 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.

S

T

nologia 33 (2015) 34–41 41

eWeese Wight, G., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., 2004. Dendrochronological dating of anAntebellum Period House, Forsyth County, Georgia, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 60,91–99.

eWitt, E., Ames, M., 1978. Tree-Ring Chronologies of Eastern North America. Lab-oratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona.

urham, W.T., 1972. Thomas Sharp Spencer, man or legend. Tenn. Hist. Q. 21,240–255.

urham, W.T., 1974. Wynnewood. Tenn. Hist. Q. 33, 127–156.ason, W.J., 1936. Historic American Buildings Survey, HABS-TENN-81, Castalian

Springs. Manuscript on File. Bledsoe’s Lick Historical Association and TennesseeHistorical Commission.

ritts, H.C., 1976. Tree Rings and Climate. Academic Press, New York, pp. 567.arland, N.A., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Deagan, K., Harley, G.L., Waters, G., 2012. Den-

drochronological dating of wood from the Fountain of Youth Park ArchaeologicalSite (8SJ31), St. Augustine, Florida, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 68, 69–78.

rissino-Mayer, H.D., 2001. Evaluating crossdating accuracy: a manual and tutorialfor the computer program COFECHA. Tree-Ring Res. 57, 205–221.

rissino-Mayer, H.D., 2009. An introduction to dendroarchaeology in the southeast-ern United States. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 4–10.

rissino-Mayer, H.D., Fritts, H.C., 1997. The International Tree-Ring Data Bank: anenhanced global database serving the global scientific community. Holocene 7,235–238.

rissino-Mayer, H.D., van de Gevel, S.L., 2007. Tell-tale trees: the historical den-droarchaeology of log structures at Rocky Mount, Piney Flats, Tennessee. Hist.Archaeol. 41, 32–49.

rissino-Mayer, H.D., Kobziar, L.N., Harley, G.L., Russell, K.P., LaForest, L.B., Opper-mann, J.K., 2010. The historical dendroarchaeology of the Ximénez-Fatio House,St. Augustine, Florida, USA. Tree-Ring Res. 66, 61–73.

rissino-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. Den-drochronology reveals the construction history of an early 19th century farmsettlement, southwestern Virginia, USA. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 481–489.

arper, H.L., 1971. Castalian Springs/Bledsoe’s Lick, Inventory and NominationForm, National Register of Historic Places. Manuscript on file. Bledsoe’s LickHistorical Association and Tennessee Historical Commission.

awley, F.M., 1937. Relationship of southern cedar growth to precipitation and runoff. Ecology 18, 398–405.

enderson, J.P., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., van de Gevel, S.L., Hart, J.L., 2009. The his-torical dendroarchaeology of the Hoskins House, Tannenbaum Historic Park,Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 37–45.

oadley, R.B., 1990. Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. TauntonPress, Newtown, Connecticut, pp. 223.

olmes, R.L., 1983. Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and mea-surement. Tree-Ring Bull. 43, 69–78.

olmes, R.L., 1992. User’s Manual for Program EDRM. Laboratory of Tree-RingResearch, The University of Arizona, Tucson.

ewis, D.B., Nelson, W.L., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Cook, E.R., Jones, R.D., 2009. Den-drochronological dating of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) logs fromAlfred’s Cabin, The Hermitage, Home of President Andrew Jackson. Tree-RingRes. 65, 47–55.

ann, D.F., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Faulkner, C.H., Rehder, J.B., 2009. From blockhouseto hog house: the historical dendroarcheology of the Swaggerty Blockhouse,Cocke County, Tennesse, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 57–67.

organ, J., 1990. The Log House in East Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville, pp. 192.

ash, S.E., 1999. Time, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-Ring Dating and the Developmentof North American Archaeology 1914-1950. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity, UT, pp. 294.

rvis, K.H., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., 2002. Standardizing the reporting of abrasivepapers used to surface tree-ring samples. Tree-Ring Res. 58, 47–50.

ehder, J.B., 2012. Tennessee Log Buildings: A Folk Tradition. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville, pp. 190.

layton, J.D., Stevens, M.R., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Faulkner, C.H., 2009. The historicaldendroarchaeology of two log structures at the Marble Springs Historic Site,Knox County, Tennessee, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Res. 65, 23–36.

mith, S.D., 1975. Archaeological Explorations at the Castalian Springs, Tennessee,Historic Site. Manuscript on file. Tennessee Historical Commission, Nashville,Tennessee.

tachowiak, L.A., Schneider, E.A., Rochner, M.L., Collins, S.A., Swiney, C.P., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., McKenzie, T.G., 2014. Dendrochronological dating of the historicMcKenzie Home, Meigs County, Tennessee, USA. Tree-Ring Res. 70, 31–39.

tahle, D.W., 1979. Tree-ring dating of historic buildings in Arkansas. Tree-Ring Bull.

39, 1–28.

tokes, M.A., Smiley, T.L., 1996. An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University ofArizona Press, Tucson, pp. 73.

herrell, M.D., Stahle, D.W., 2012. Tree-ring dating of an Arkansas Antebellum plan-tation house. Tree-Ring Res. 68, 59–67.