THE REILATIONSHEP BETWEEN WOODWORKING TOOLS

AND FURNITURE DESIGN IN

AMERICA 1607-1760

i)y

JO ANN L. SHROYER, B.S. in H.E.

A THESIS

IN

HOME MANAGEMENT

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HOME ECONOMICS

Approved

December, I98O

-r; a. SO

• n !

-1

6 by r~

ACKNOWLEDGEMEITTS

I wish to express my appreciation to my committee chairperson, I

Cora McKown, for her direction, support and encouragement during the

preparation of this thesis. Also, I would like to thank Dr. A.

William Gustafson and Dr. James W. Kitchen for their instructive

comments and suggestions.

Sincere gratitude is expressed to my husband, Dewey, and my

children, Brenda and Trayle, for their patience, cooperation and unde

standing. I would like also to thank Mrs. Eric Palmer for typing thj

manuscript.

11

TABLE OF GONTET-ITS

AGKNOWLELGS'lE^ITS

LIST OF TA3LSS ,

LIST OF FIGURES

I. INTRODUCTION

Need for Study . , , .

Over^/iew of Proolein

Purposes and Objectives

Definition of Terms .

References . . . . . .

References . . • • • •

II. RET/IiW OF LITEBATURE , . .

Historical Background

jumiture resign

Woodworking: I'ools

G'nlse''

Plane

Saw .

References

I. METHODOLOGY . .

References

Y. FINDINGS . . .

References

111

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS AI'iD HE CO J 4EI ID ATI ONS .

Summary . . .

Conclusions 1

Implications 1

Recommendations 1

References 1

rLlU'^-.li-Li'r-i fl . , fl . .

IV

LIST OF TABLES

1. Chise ls 1607-1760 ,

2 . Lathes 1607-I76O

3 . P lanes 1607-I76O

^ , Saws 1607-1760 ,

5. Chronology of Colonial American F u r n i t u r e S t y l e s

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Mortise and tenon construction joint

2. Dowel or peg construction joint , . . .

3. Tongue and groove construction joint

k. Forming or firmer chisel

5. Framing chisel

6. Paring chisel

7. Skew-forming chisel

8. Mortising axe chisel

9. Twybill chisel

10, Twivel chisel

11, Pole lathe

12. Mandrel lathe

13. Jack or fore plane

m-. Trying or truing plane

15. Bullnose plane

16. Compass plane

17. Sun plane . . . .

18. Plane box plane

19. Plough plane

20. Round plane

21. Rabbeting plane

22. Ogee plane

23. Pit saw . . . .

VI

2^', Veneer saw

25. Felloe saw .

26. Bow saw

27. Fret saw

28. Coping saw

29. Turning saw

30. Hand or panel saw . , ,

31. Whip saw

32. Keyhole saw

33• Compass or fret saw , .

3^, Dovetail or tenon saw ,

35* Early Jacobean chair

36. Carolean chair . • . .

37• Carver chair . . • , .

38. Brewster chair , , . .

39• Gromwellian chair . . ,

^0^ Restoration chair . . ,

^l, Late Jacobean chair . ,

^'2, William and Mary chair

^3. Queen Anne chair . . ,

44. Early Georgian chair ,

45. Windsor arm chair , . ,

46. Windsor chair . . . • .

47. Georgian chair . . , 1

Vll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The founding of the colonies in America initiated the beginning

of an independence from Europe in furniture design and construction.

Furniture design and construction in America were inspired by fumitur

design influences prevalent in Europe from l607 to 1760. The colonist

craftsmen in their own right, began to build and construct furniture

primarily for their own use. Colonial furniture design and const.nc-

tion tecbniques were limited to the woodworking tools brought to

America and those tools wMch could be constructed with the resources

available (l:27).

The furniture of colonial America was smaller in scale and uncom­

fortable in comparison to European furniture of similar designfl As

Srwin 0, Christensen stated: "Furniture was not yet related to the

curves of the human figure" (2:120). The furniture design Jiotifs ofte

were representative of liberty, individual autonomy and idealistic

values wbdch were the desires and dreams of the early settlers and

craftsmen. Woodworking tools of these early settlers were as personal

as the design of each woodworking tool created.

The woodworking tools were used for construction of shelters,

wagons and wagon wheels, repair of agricultural implements and black-

smithing as well as furniture construction. Single-purpose woodworkir

tools, designed specifically for use in furniture design and construc­

tion, were not employed until after the American Revolution of 1"63 tc

1783» The end of the American Revolution marked a new era in fumitur

design and construction. The era began the commercialization and

industrialization of furniture design and construction which eventual!

led to mass production as is known today.

Need for Study

In recent years, several factors have generated a renewed interes

in objects of the past and objects with historical significance. Some

of the factors which have contributed to this interest include a more

affluent society, a higher level of education, an emphasis by mass

media on the importance of the heritage of Americans and the Bicen­

tennial of 1976. This study depicts the relationship of the historica

development of furniture design and the influence of woodworking tools

in America between 1607 and 176O.

Collecting objects with historica! significance has become com­

plicated and technical. During the past 75 years, public interest in

objects of the past has grown from a hobb;/ to a major area of special­

ization (3!126), The movement to collect objects from the past places

renewed importance on research into specific areas of evolution in

furniture design and construction to assist in determining the origin

of objects from the past.

Overview of Problem

The time period from 1607 to 176O is significant to a study of -':

development of woodworking tools since this period was the only one ir

American bJ.story when it was necessary for the individual craftsman tc

construct his own tools and furniture. l607 marked the beginning of

colonization in America and 1760 was the onset of the Industrial

Revolution which changed the techniques of furniture design and con­

struction through the extensive use of mass production.

The evolution and development of woodworking technology, carpentry

and furniture design have been documented in books, magazines and these

However, technology of woodworking tools and carpentry are treated as

separate topics and rarely are discussed in conjunction with furniture

design and construction techniques made possible by woodworking -ools

of a given period. Interrelationships between these two topics should

aid in identifying period furniture.

Colonial America, unlike Europe, did not have extensive furniture

design traditions; therefore, adaptations of European designs in coloni

furniture were handcrafted by Europeans who immigrated to America. The

colonial craftsmen attempted to recreate the European furniture designs

prevalent from i607 to 176O. The results were unique furniture designs

and constriction techniques. The distinct character and individuality

of pieces of colonial furniture were attributable to the ingenuity of

the craftsmen in the use of woodworking tools (4':23l).

Furniture design and constnction from 1607 to 176O included cr^de

copies of Jacobean and William and Mary furniture styles which were

characterized by turned work, crossbanding and veneering. In approxi­

mately 1720, furniture design and construction became more sophisticate

as copies of the English Queen Anne style emerged. The American Queen

Arjie furniture was characterized by the splat back, various ccmbinatioj

^

of turned support pieces and the cabriole leg (5:231).

Furniture craftsmen on the Northeast seaboard were able to design

and produce furniture for profit due to the concentration of the popu­

lation and establishment of commercial trade centers. The craftsmen of

the South had a more difficult time marketing furniture products becaus

agriculture was the primary industry and few major commercial trade

centers had been established (6:17)fl Furniture design and constriction

trends were more progressive in the North as a result of the geographic

and commercial differences.

In the early days a welcome visitor to the outlying farms and remote settlements was the itinerant craftsman. These men wove cloth or made shoes, but none was more heartily received than tne worker in wood. Many were the things his skillful hands could fashdon, from butter molds to chairs, from cupboards to beds (7:26).

From 1607 to 176O, communication of furniture design trends betwee

the Northeast and the South was carried out through an exchange of

information amcng travelers. As time passed 3.nc. communities developed,

means of communication such as furniture design pattern books and

periodically produced newspapers were mere readily available. Comnuni-

cation of furniture designs and trends was made known also by the black

smiti-is and the wheelwrights who were often the interpreters of furnitur

designs and furniture construction techniquesfl The techniques were

learned from travelers stopping at the blacksmiths' and wheelwrights'

shops for repair of carts, wagons and wagon wheels (3:56-8).

Purnoses and Objectives

To determine the relationship between colonial furniture design

and construction and the lathe, plane, chisel and saw, three objectives

were established for this study.

1. To trace the development of woodworking tools used in f irniture

design and construction between l607 and 1760, specifically

noting the influence of the chisel, lathe, plane and saw,

2. To show the relationships between fiirniture design and

construction techniques and the development cf woodworking

tools,

3. To review colonial furniture design motifs from 1607 to lv"60

and construction techniques made possible by the crlsel,

lathe, plane and saw.

The relationships between furniture design and construction

techniques and the chisel, lathe, plane and saw will be illustrated

through the use of line drawings of chairs. Chairs will be depicted

since these articles of furniture more easily represent design and

constriction elements. Traditionally the decorative motifs on chairs

vary from period to period; therefore, they are often used to distin­

guish specific period and style ch2.racteristics.

Definition of Terms

Webster's New World Dictionary, rev. ed. (l97S).

Cabinetmaker: A workman who makes fine furniture and decorative

moldings.

Carpenter: A workman who builds and repairs wooden objects.

Chisel: A sharp edged tool for cutting or s'na-ping wood, stone or

metal.

Joiner: A workman who constructs and finishes interior woodwork, as

doors, molding or stairs.

Lathe: A machine for shaping an article of wood, metal, etc., by

holding and turning it rapidly against the edge of a cutting

or abrading tool.

Plane: A caJT)enter's tool for shaving a wood surface in order to make

it smooth or level.

Saw: A cutting tool, of various shapes and sizes, worked by hand or

machinery, consisting essentially of a thin blade or disk of

metal, usually steel, the edge of which is a series of sb.arp

teeth.

References

For the convenience of the reader, the literature cited in each

chapter of this thesis is cited at the end of each respective chapter.

All references are then listed alphabetically at the end of the thesis.

REFERENCES

1. Marvin D. Schwartz, The Concise Encyclopedia of American Antiques, vol. 1: Furniture 1640-1840 (New York; Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1958)

2. Erwin 0. Christensen, Index of American Design (New York: Macmillan Company, 19507"

3. Charles F. Montgomery, "American Antiques as History and Art," Art News 76 (November 1977):126-9.

4. Jonathan Fairbanks and Elizabeth Sussman, "Frontier America: The Far West," Antiques 107 (February 1975):2S0-4.

5. Sherrill WhAton, Interior Design and Decoration (New York: J. 3, Lippincott Company, 1974).

6. Philip Trupp, The Art of Craftsmanship (Washington, D.C: Acropolis Books Limited, 1976).

7. Campbell M. Lorine and Henry Lionel Williams, How to Restore Antique Fumit^ire (New York: Pellegrine and Gudahy, 1949).

8. Maurice Fabre, A History of Communications, vol. 9 (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1964)".

CFJ^PTER II

REVIEW OF LITERAT-JRE

Historica! Background

The first colonies were founded in America in l607 along the

Atlantic seaboard. The early pioneers were of English origin with the

exception of a few German, Dutch and Spanish immigrants.

The design of the furniture used in the colonies reflected the

struggles of the pioneers to convert a wilderness into a civilization.

The settlers were more concerned with sur^/ival than furniture design

and construction. Furniture was scarce because the Pilgrims brought

few pieces of furniture with them. For the most part, pieces of furni­

ture were crude copies of English furniture and were designed to be

utilitarian (l:3?3-^)-

The furniture of this period can hardly be found today because the

first settlements, such as the settlement founded in Maine in 1607,

failed after the settlers experienced their first American winter

(2:120), The settlers who survived that first winter packed their few

belongings and began to search for places more suitable for sui"/ival

and existence. Furniture in existence at this time was destroyed

because the settlers were unable to carry the furniture with them.

Early settlers in Amierica also suffered from the lack of adequate

shelters and qualified leadership and the existence of hostile Indian

tribes (3:6-13).

The first settlers, upon arriving in America, found a wild and

8

uncivilized continent rich in such natural resources as wood, animal

hides and skins, Scott Williamson described the beginning of craftsman­

ship in 1607 as:

When the puritans, the Dutch, the Swedes, the cavalier English of the South, and the French arrived at various times on the shores of America, they came to a wilderness. Widely divergent motives had prompted the adventure; a considerable range and contrast in equipment and wealth distinguished them. But the wilderness was common to them all. Their welfare and hope of future prosperity rested largely in what they were to wrest, or make, from the plentiful materials at hand. There were memories, sharpened by the migration, of the styles and fashions of their homelands, to "ce carried over, as far as possible, in the homes, furniture, and accessories that must be made in the New World (4:23).

In colonial America, the carpenter constructed pieces of furniture

using customer descriptions as guides. The carpenter's primary

building material was wood, which was used for furniture, shelter,

utensils and transportation (5:279).

With limited materials and liirlted time at his disposal and with his efforts directed to combatting a wilderness an.d maintaining survival, the pioneer made sturdy objects, tnat were simple and economical of means (5:279).

Colonial furniture design and construction was more simple than

English furniture design and construction mainly because of the

technology of woodworking tools in America, Also most of the colonists

were less skilled than the furniture craftsmen of Europe. The colonists

formed a primitive society suffering from technological and economic

deprivation and were forced to use their intelligence, ability and

available resources to the fullest (6:3).

The colonists continued to follow familiar design and construction

techniques of England with the exception of a few significant changes.

10

These changes were mainly the elimination of extraneous detail such as

carving, inlay and painted decorations. What embellisbmient on furniture

did exist was used mainly to disguise the utilitarian purpose of the

furniture, a technique still practiced today in f'lrniture design (7:235)

The elimination of some of these details resulted in an emphasis on

the line and proportion of the furniture and the true beauty of the

wood (8:31),

From approximately I63O to 1725. American furniture was Tiade by

joiners who were craftsmen commonly known for the joining of woodwork

and for the constmction and finishing of interior woodwork. Oak and

other coarse grained woods were used in large rectangular forms, mainly

chests, that served as both storage and seating (2:120).

Most frontier craftsmen made an earnest effort to reproduce the forms and ornament they remembered from their earlier homeland, but the isolation of life in the West caused them to simplify their construction methods and designs. With axe and plane the pioneer shaped his domestic world, making slat-back chairs with seats of abundant animal hides (9: 281).

Crude forms, by today's standards, of the plane and the saw were

primary tools used by frontier craftsmen for furniture constriction.

Sherrill Whiton described the early American furniture of 16O8 to 1720

as "unpretentious and wooden with little thought of design" (l0:23l).

As communities developed from 16O8 to 1636, craftsmen opened up

small furniture shops to supply the needs of the people (9:280).

There were few schools of cabinetry and therefore few professional

cabinetmakers. The carpenter was still the primary furniture builder

and designer. The migration of Europeans to the colonies in

11

approximately 163O brought many joiners (4:3l).

The most characteristic feature of the joiner's furniture of our early period is its constriction. It is composed of straight members, joined at right angles. The curve is entirely absent in the structural sense and barely begins to assert itself in the decorative aspects (4:3l).

Along with the beginning of industrialization, the joiner,

carpenter and cabinetmaker did not evolve as people with separate

areas of specialization until approximately I76O, When speaking of

the three trades prior to this time, historians combine them under

one of the three professional headings. One individual craftsman

combined his knowledge of all three areas to produce one piece of

furniture. The craftsmen who worked in the shops were generally

paid by the piece and not by the hour (ll:576-80). Normally these

individuals practiced not only furniture construction but also

furniture repair and any other odd jobs involving woodworking.

Furniture construction alone would not financially support the early

craftsman (12:5-6).

Joiner and cabinetmaker were both concerned basically with fitting together pieces of wood to make a whole stricture. The pieces or parts had to ce sb^ped, of course; and it was in the shaping processes - sawing, planing, and chiseling - that the worker's real skill showed up. Pieces properly formed will fit together neatly and enduringly, while no amount of glue will make a sound joint of pieces that do not fit (l2:6).

Unable to afford large furniture displays to advertise his

abilities, the early furniture craftsman carved and turned candlesticks

of various designs to demonstrate h-is carving, joining and turning

abilities (l3:9).

12

Furniture Design

Historians do not agree on the exact date on which a specific

furniture design or trend was introduced, Louise Boger stated:

American furniture styles are frequently divided into two historica! groups, colonial and federal. The former refers to the styles prevailing before and at the time of the Revolution, that is through the Chippendale style. Essen­tially the earliest furniture brought to America or made in America was in the Early Jacobean style, and very little of it still exists; late Jacobean styles are slightly more plentiful (1:375).

Early Jacobean furniture was generally characterized by turning

which utilized the lathe and the chisel. Late Jacobean furniture had

flemish scrolls, various forms of turned posts and woven cane seats

(l4:8l8-9). These late Jacobean designs were the basis for the

furniture design introduced in the colonies during the eighteenth

century (15:5-13)'

During the dominance of the early Jacobean style of furniture, the

wainscot chair was introduced. The wainscot chair generally exhibited

a paneled back and solid wooden seat. The panel in the back was often

flat-carved, having no applied decoration. The wainscot chair dis­

appeared during the late Jacobean period and slat-back chairs came

into existence. As the name suggests, the chair back resembled a

ladder composed of a series of horizontal slats. Historians sometimes

refer to these chairs as stick furniture (l6:15). Still another

version of the slat-back chair was seen during the latter part of the

Jacobean period. This chair was the banister-back chair which was

characterized by the use of flat bars aligned vertically in the back

13

of the chair. Some of the slat-back chairs and banister-back chairs

exhibited carved designs, such as the "s" and "c" curves on the crests

of the chair (l0:240).

In the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Windsor cb^ir was

introduced in the American colonies. The Windsor chair was seen in

many forms, some with arms and some without arms (15:126-35), "The

American colonists carried the Windsor to its ultimate development,

producing a chair of the utmost strength, comfort and lightness, and

ease of manufacture" (l5:46l).

Windsor chairs had backs resembling wheel spokes and were con­

structed with the comb, fan, hoop and bow backs. These chairs had no

aprons and used a peg like a nail or screw for joint constriction.

Most historians agree that these chairs were designed and built in the

shops of joiners and wheelwrights (l5:4cl).

At the turn of the eighteenth century, the trained cabinetmal .ers

increased furniture production as improved economic conditions created

a demand for furniture in the latest European styles (l0:240).

The first years of the l3th century saw a rapid growth of the American economy, the emergence of a wealthy merchant and landowning class and the construction of fine houses in the narrow area along the Atlantic coast (l7:l33).

The William and Mary furniture style was introduced at this time.

This style was characterized by the extensive use of walnut wood. The

characteristics of William and Mary furniture were trumpet turnings,

flat serpentine stretchers, aprons of various shapes on tables and

chairs, and extensive use of both the bun foot and the Spanish foot

(10:240).

14

William and Mary chairs generally had high-backs and arms which

were both fully upholstered (l6:24).

The high-back William and Mary armchair was the earliest form of the wing chair which was to enjoy great popularity during both the Queen Anne and Chippendale eras. These chairs often have baroque curves combined in the cresting and, at their best, have Spanish feet (l6:24-5).

The Queen Anne furniture style, beginning in 1725i encompassed the

same English influences as previous pieces of furniture, but the design^

and construction were more accurate and less crude than previously had

been executed. The extensive use of the cabriole leg with shell

carvings applied at the top of the leg typified the Queen Anne style.

The foot was generally the pad or the animal foot (l5:13). A vase-

shaped splat in the back of armless chairs also typified the Queen Anne

style (l:38l). Some Queen Arme chairs found in New York and in the

Hudson River area did not have stretchers which disting-iished these

chairs from those built in other New England areas (18:186),

All four Georges of England reigned from 1715 to 1330, the period

of time during which Georgian furniture appeared in England. Neverthe­

less, the Queen Anne style continued to be the leading furniture style

in America until approximately 1760, After 176O and the Industrial

Revolution, the Georgian period of American furniture included

Chippendale, Hepplewhite, Sheraton and Adam brothers furniture design

and construction (l:3^0-1).

Furniture during the eighteenth century could be acquired in

several ways.

A Virginian who wanted fine furniture might order it from

15

one of the cities such as Philadelphia, Newport, Gharlestown, and elsewhere. More likely, he would buy it at a sale of "venture" furniture made in a northern or middle colony and shipped south to be sold for the best price it would bring. Or, he could send to England for his wants (l2:15-6).

The elite, who could afford the luxury of fine furniture, con­

sidered the articles built by the master English craftsmen superior

and more in fashion than the "country made" articles built by colonial

craftsmen. Many of the colonial craftsmen had not apprenticed with

master craftsmen but became skilled in techniques of furniture con­

struction and design through practical experience, application and

observation (l2:15-7).

The techniques of furniture design and construction employed by

the colonists from I607 to I76O included the utilization of the cMsel,

lathe, plane and saw. These woodworking tools were used extensively

for furniture design and construction prior to the Industrial Revolution

of 1760.

Woodworking Tools

Chisel

The colonial chisel was a woodworking tool used primarily for

notching, hollowing and paring raw wood. The craftsmen designed their

chisels and had them hammered out to their specifications by a black­

smith (19:163).

Carving with the simplest of tools - mallets, chisels, and grinding stones - these native artists managed to convey an astonishing variety of pictorial images, re­flecting the attitudes of their time and reaching beyond them in vision and originality (20:18).

16

The forming chisel or firmer chisel was the heaviest of the

chisels. The craftsman primarily used this chisel with a mallet to

create the mortise in which a tenon was fitted for the joining of

wood. The mortise and tenon method was one of the earliest American

methods of joining wood. The mortise was the hole or slot in which

the tenon was placed (21:275)* In joining wood with the mortise and

tenon, the carpenter, joiner or cabinetmaker had to make allowances for

the constant movement of wood because it was a "live" material (22:44).

"Chair and table stretchers were inserted into vertical legs and stiles

by the use of the tenon which fitted into the corresponding mortise"

(21:275).

As the name suggests, the forming chisel was used before the

paring chisel. The forming chisel prepared the chips to be knocked off

by the paring chisel. The fonning chisel was driven carefully into the

wood with a mallet so as not to break or chip off a piece of the wood

(23:76).

The forming chisel was the basic design from which all other

chisels were copied. It was used to clean out the wood in a mortise

after an auger or drill tool had been used to make holes in the wood

(24:52).

The framing chisel, a variation of the basic forming chisel, was

specifically used to cut the tenon to fit the mortise. These chisels

were usually larger metal copies of European tools with wooden handles

designed by the craftsmen (24:52-4).

Another basic type of chisel was a paring chisel. The paring

(

chisel followed the same design as the forming chisel except the paring

chisel had a slimmer blade which was sharpened on both sides. The

parir-g chisel functioned like a knife and was never knocked with a

mallet. The paring chisel was always pushed and, as the name suggests,

was used to pare rough surfaces. The mortise was rough after the

forming chisel had 'oeen used so the paring chisel was used to smooth

out the mortise (25:l40-i),

The paring chisel was kept much sharper than the forming c'nisel

because the paring chisel was never used to start work and was controlled

either by shoulder or hand pressure. The blade of the paring c'rlsel

varied in width from one and a half to three inches. In Pennsylvania,

carpenters referred to the paring chisel as a slick (l9:l67).

The paring chisel was handled very carefully to avoid hurting the

craftsman and to avoid damage to the wood being chiseled, Wrlle using

the paring chisel, the craftsman had to keep his eye on the tool at all

times to avoid unnecessary cuts into the wood (23:77). The paring

chisel was used to form the rounded edges of the paneled construction

of the colonial period (l9:l66).

The skew-forming chisel was designed to carve out angles that

other chisels could not reach. The sides of this chisel were 'oeveled

but not sharpened as were those of the paring chisel (23:77). The

skew-forming chisel was often used when crossgrained wood had to be

pared smooth, Crossgrained woods were border to smooth and form than

woods cut with the grain (25:150). The skew-forming chisel had a

diagonal blade sharpened on its flat side and was used to excavate

13

corners (i9:l65). This chisel was used to form the rectan^ilar paneled

construction design popular in England which influenced the first

furniture built in the colonies.

Some other forms of chisels, wbdch h^ve been identified from

paintings and drawings executed by the early settlers out which do

not exist today, were called set chisels. These chisels resembled the

axe in appearance 'oecause each handle was set perpendicular to the

blade. With the exception of the twivel which was used for paring,

these chisels were struck with a mallet for efficiency of use (25:l4l).

The mortising axe was the larger of the set crlsels and was used

for the forming of the mortise. The twybill, a set chisel which

resembled two chisels with a handle attached to the middle with one

blade perpendicular to the handle and one blade parallel to the handle,

also was used for forming the mortise (25:142).

The twivel chisel b ad two blades much like the twybill chisel

except that the blades were formed into small hooks at each end of the

curved head. The hooks were sharp and were used for paring (25:142).

The different chisel designs, described by historians, all shared

one common function. The primary function of each chisel was to carve

out acute angles (26:197). The chisels were often adapted in design

and made in curved shapes to be used for carving and cutting moldings

such as found in panels and frames (i5:13l).

Chisels of different shapes and designs were used for all types

of carving. Modern versions of original carved work often display too

much car'v'-ing which identifies them as copies. The early craftsmen had

19

a- special feeling for the warmth and grain of the wood in its natural

state, and carving was used only to accent the wood (27:215).

Many of the early chisels were designed and constructed to meet

the specific needs of the craftsmen. Only a few of the different types

and designs of chisels used by the early craftsmen are still in use

today. Consequently, the many purposes served by the chisel and the

designs created by this tool must be assumed.

Lathe

The colonial craftsman used a type of machine called a lathe.

Very few of these homemade machines, which were used in the colonies as

early as l607f exist today.

Before discussing the lathe, one, must first consider the care the

furniture craftsman took in the selection, felling and preparation of

timber to be used on the lathe. The furniture craftsman's favorite

wood for turning on the lathe was beech because it lent itself well to J

the lathe's turning process. First, the craftsman selected a very

straight and tall tree. The tree was then felled and sawn into

approximately two foot lengths (17:123).

The sawn lengths are split into halves and quarters with a beetle and froe and further reduced with a short-handled broad-axe into pieces suitable for legs, spars and stretchers. These operations preserve the grain by cleavage and require a fine judgement to avoid waste (17:123).

The furniture craftsman kept a large supply of turned pieces on

hand to save time when constructing a piece of furniture with turned

work. The pieces of wood were turned on the lathe to create a desired

(

20

pattern. After the pieces had been turned, they were stacked and

allowed to dry and season before they were used in furniture construc­

tion (17:124-5).

Historians seem to agree that the joiners were the primary users

of the lathe. Joiners, primary builders of chairs, also fit different

pieces and kinds of wood together to form items such as window frames

(28:294).

It is believed that lathes are the oldest example of man's wood­

working machines. The lathe was uncomplicated and could be built

easily, which accounts for its use by the frontier craftsman from l607

to 1760 (25:193). The frontier cra.ftsman needed only to construct his

lathe and have a selection of chisels to be able to create turned work

for furniture pieces such as those seen in the early Jacobean furniture

style.

A lathe is no more than a source of power which continuously tu2:ns a stick between two fixed points so that a cutting tool held against the stick will shape it to some desired design. The only major differences in the first prehistoric lathe and those used in professional woodworking shops of the 1970s is the source of power, outside the worker, and con­stant rotation of the piece of work being turned. No principles have been altered in all that time (25:193).

The first lathe used in the colonies was the pole lathe and was

used in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The pole lathe could

be constructed inside a work room or out of doors, depending on the

needs and facilities of the craftsman. The power to turn the wood on

the lathe came from a foot treadle and the use of a springy pole or

lath. The lath was attached to a ceiling joist over the lathe. Outdoor

21

lathes had the lath attached to a springy tree limb. A strap was

stretched from the lath around the wood and then attached to the foot

treadle. When the craftsman depressed the foot treadle, the strap

would become taut and would cause the wood to turn rapidly. When the

craftsman released the treadle, the wood was turned in the opposite

direction until it stopped in its original position. The process was

then repeated until the turned piece was completed. When the foot

treadle was depressed, the craftsman would place a chisel against the

wood. The chisel was held in place by resting on a small board fastened

to the lathe (25:193-5).

The great advantage of this circular cutting and smoothing foot-worked apparatus, which survived into the middle of the 19th century, among country workmen, was that it left both hands free; also, that it was cheap, too simple to get out of order, and worked true upon its rigid pike points. But its back action, exacting special skill in the pull of the tools, was one great objection to it. Another was that as the wood pivoted at both ends, the machine would only work uninterruptedly against the side, not against and into the ends of the revolving material, and hence could not turn glo'oes, decorated board surfaces, or hollow wooden ware, without leaving a central untouched pivoted core for the wood to revolve upon (19:219).

The continuous action mandrel lathe was also used during the

seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The mandrel lathe had a foot

treadle but no pole or strap like that of the pole lathe. The treadle

was attached directly by a strap to a flywheel and spindle called the

mandrel. The mandrel lathe moved in one continuous direction rather

than back and forth as did the pole lathe. The use of the mandrel

lathe allowed the craftsman to turn globes and bowls because the

materia! did not have to be attached at both ends to the lathe, A

22

problem with the mandrel lathe was inaccuracy. Not being attached or

pivoted on both ends, the material had some wobbling action, making

the turned piece uneven and irregular (l9:220-3), "This more expensive

homemade machine, would turn bowls, table or Windsor chair legs, or

spinning wheel spokes, etc., or bed posts, or decorate the valve boards

of old fireside bellows, or drill holes" (l9:22l).

During the late eighteenth century, a third lathe, the wheel lathe,

was used. The wheel lathe resembled the continuous action mandrel lathe

without a foot treadle. The wood piece was turned continually in one

direction. The wheel was approximately six feet in diameter and was

placed some eight feet from the stock or turning mechanism of the

lathe. A pulley of leather was attached to the stock of the lathe and

was turned by the wheel which generated the turning action of the lathe

stock. The wheel lathe had a sliding rest for the support of the

turning chisels which made possible the turning of globes and bowls as

well as chair legs and stretchers. The power to turn the wheel lathe

was generated by an apprentice joiner. The master joiner directed the

speed at which the apprentice turned the wheel lathe (25:195).

Seventeenth-, eighteenth- and early nineteenth century turners usually constructed their own lathes, each showing only minor differences from all others; for instance, the difference of wooden and wrought-iron head stocks and bearings. The ancient unchangeable form has been easily adapted to steam and electric power (25:197).

The wheel lathe was designed to turn heavier work such as large

bed posts. The handles on the wheel of the lathe were of iron and were

of various designs (23:177-9).

23

Besides the commanding heavy work about the wheel rides work faster off than the pole can do; because the springing up of the pole makes an intermittent in the running about of the work, but with the wheel the work runs always the same way; so that the tool need never be off it, unless it be to examine the work as it is doing (23:179),

The joiner was not as well trained as the cabinetmaker in all the

facets of cabinetmaking and furniture construction. The furnitiire

constructed by the joiner consisted primarily of turned wood pieces.

These pieces were usually joined by wooden pins or dowels. The furni­

ture created by the joiner did not always follow the current furniture

styles of the time. An exajnple of furniture believed to have been

biilt by the joiner is the Windsor chair which appeared sometime during

the early part of the eighteenth century. The furniture built by the

joiner was usually associated with the rural or folk art tradition of

design (l6:9).

Some historians feel that even though the lathe had been in use

since medieval times, the lathe was an offspring of the potter's wheel

(29:344), In the historica! development of the lathe, as in other

woodworking tools, there is an interweaving of innovation and invention.

Each woodworking tool included the combination of technology from past

generations with the technology of the present generation (30:62).

Each woodworking tool was developed according to the needs of the

individual craftsman.

Like the saw, lathes have been mechanized until turning is an automatic operation today, but during the 17th and l8th centuries, successful turning was literally in the hands of the turner. Therefore, each of the turned legs and spindles of a piece of early furniture will be unique - no two turned legs will measure exactly the same (31:28).

24

Plane

The plane was one of the most fascinating early American wood­

working tools in terms of personality and individuality. Planes were

made by the craftsmen and often were masterpieces of carving and

design, making each tool individual. Early planes often bore

inscriptions, some of a religious nature. The early plane was em­

bellished with elaborate floral carvings and elaborately shaped 'nandles.

Not all of the early planes were elaborately carved, however; those

early planes existing for utilitarian purposes only resembled a 'DOX

and were in numerous sizes for various planing jobs. The average

carpenter's tool chest consisted of at least thirty different varieties

of planes (24:56). "From the big ones ('long planes') down, these

either leveled the surface or fit pieces (side by side) together.

Leveling was called 'trying' and 'trueing'; fitting was called 'jointing'"

(24:56),

Planes, like other woodworking tools, fall into several categories.

Each category consists of numerous planes for doing a special task.

The plane was a simple and uncomplicated tool which did not require as

much skill as some of the other woodworking tools. However, the

simplicity did not lessen the importance of the platne. As Alex Bealer

stated, "no other tool offers the esthetic qualities of fine molding,

inlay, and joinirg which are produced by the plane" (25:l65).

The plane was a very important woodworking tool in the design and

construction of furniture. To describe the plane, Bealer stated:

All planes follow basically the same design. Each is made

25

of a block of wood which has an opening chiseled through it to receive a bla.de, set at an angle, and a wooden edge to secure the blade in position. Each has a throat through which the shavings are ejected as the tool is pushed along the wood (25:165-6).

The two broad categories of planes were the smoothing planes, some­

times called bench planes, and molding planes. Most carpenters and

cabinetmakers had several planes from each category in their shops and

tool closets (25:166).

The smoothing plane, as the name suggests, smoothed the flat sur­

faces of the wood. Smoothing planes varied in length from six inches to

thirty inches. These planes removed saw marks or marks made by other

tools such as the axe (l2:22).

The most frequently used type of smoothing plane was the jack

plane, sometimes called a fore plane. This tool was used for rough

leveling before a board was smoothed by another type of plane. The jack

plane had a curved blade which cut deeper into the wood than other

planes. "This blade . . . [is] usually mitred or basilled like a chisel

on the underside of the cutting edge, projecting farther than usual

below the sole, so as to cut deep and quick" (19:99-100).

Grooves or marks left by the jack plane are sometimes seen in

antique furniture in areas such as the bottoms of drawers in chests,

backs of mirror stands and backs of cupboards (25:l68). The marks or

grooves left by the jack plane were leveled by the use of the trying

or truing plane. The trying planes were usually fifteen to twenty

inches long and were broader in width than the jack plane (25:168).

This plane is used to shave off high points of the undulations

26

produced by the jack, but leaving a slight indication of the jack planing. If all traces of undulation are removed the corner of the trying plane blade will likely cut angular offsets in the wood, thereby ruining the wavy texture which is so characteristic of hand-planed lumber, and so beautiful (25:l68).

The blade of the trying plane was flat. There were several

varieties of the trying plane, varying in size depending on the planing

job to be done. Whatever the size of the job, the purpose of all of the

trying or truing planes was for the final smoothing of the board being

planed (l9:101-4).

The bullnose smoothing plane was used to smooth surfaces which

were broken by a perpendicular shoulder, such as the inside of a drawer.

Sun planes and compass planes were used to smooth arcs cut in wood

pieces such as lintels which were found in panels and concave furniture

surfaces (25:172),

The second category of planes was the molding planes. These planes

were considered the largest group or category of planes and were found

in numerous shapes because of their purpose. The molding planes were

used to produce ornamental shapes of different designs. Some of the

molding planes were called ogee, reed, flute, beaded flute, fillet and

fascia planes. As the names suggest, each plane was used to create a

specific design or motif popular in seventeenth and eighteenth century

furniture pieces (12:22-4).

The most common types of molding planes were the plough and the

round molding planes. The plough plane, as the name suggests, was used

to plough a concave shape in a board. The round plane, sometimes

27

referred to as a forksta.ff, planed a concave shape in a board. These

two planes could produce a great many designs (25:172-3).

Ploughs and rounds in the old days were usually bought in sets of matching pairs. The numbers of planes in each set consisted of from usually nine to fifteen. Ploughs can be used alone to cut fluting in columns or parts of furniture, and rounds may be used, sometimes in combination with the rabbeting planes, to create the common but beautiful thumb­nail molding so often found on the edges of desks and table tops (25:173).

The crai'tsman could use a combination of the plough and round

planes to produce many different designs and motifs. As each new

colonial furniture design or molding was introduced, the craftsman

would adapt a new blade contour to plane a specific design. Con­

sequently, planes can be dated according to the furniture decoration

popular during a period of time (l9:130).

Rabbeting planes were used to allow one board to overlap and join

another board. These planes were na.rrow because they were used to cut

and fit comers of boards together (l9:122-3).

The slight uneveness found in planed surfaces of the seventeenth

and eighteenth century furniture was due to the lack of consistent

pressure by the hand of the craftsman on the plane as it was applied to

the board being planed. Again, as with all woodworking tools, there

was a relationship between the colonial craftsman and his work which is

not found in the furniture produced by today's machines.

A curious phenomenon exists about the plane of the seventeenth and

eighteenth century. A custom of the colonial craftsman regarding the

plane was to carve dates and floral designs on his planes. When these

28

planes became ex t inc t , so did the custom of carving on the planes (26:

85) .

Saw

There were two main categories of saws in use during the early

colonial period. One category was called frame saws and the other

category was called open or unframed saw (24:66).

The principles of sawing wood have not deviated significantly

since the stone age although the design of the saw as a woodworking tool

has experienced some significant development over the years. During

the colonial period, the saws had a metal blade and wooden handle. The

teeth of the saws were of two kinds. To cut across the grain, a blade

with sharp points and edges which would cut like small knives through

each layer of the wood was needed. To cut with the grain, the teeth

on the saw were like small chdsels which dug into the wood instead of

cutting the wood. Saws were either push type saws or pull type saws,

depending on the direction they cut. Saw teeth pointing forward were to

be pushed, and saw teeth pointing back were to be pulled. The cuts

the teeth of the saw made were called kerfs. The spread of the teeth

on the saw was called the set of the saw. The teeth were set by the

xise of a device called a saw set. The saw set allowed all teeth to be

the same size and shape (25:81-4),

Saws as woodworking tools were designed for shaping and fitting

pieces of wood as American saw factories were not to appear until

approximately 1840. The colonial craftsman generally carved and

29

fashioned his own handle for each saw (l9:136).

Framed saws were of two general forms - framed saws and bow saws

(25:84-5).

The frame saw was invarible for ripping and was designed so that the stretchers on the side of the frame would clear the edges of a board or leg being ripped. Pit saws, veneer saws and felloe saws all came within this category as well as the framed panel saws (25:85).

The most common frame saw was the pit saw. The pit saw was used

over a pit with a man in the pit and a man on top of the pit. The man

on top of the pit stood on a board laid across the pit to control the

line of the two-handed saw, and the man in the pit did the pushing and

pulling of the saw (31:25). The pit saws were of several different

widths and lengths.

The boards will vary slightly in width and thickness, despite a cabinetmaker's efforts to minimize these differences by planing and sawing. If 18th century boards are measured, they will show discrepancies in size (31: 25).

The pit saw was often used by joiners to prepare and cut the wood

pieces for turning on the lathe. If the joiner did not have a pit, he

placed the wood piece on two high frames and used the pit method of

sawing (23:99-101).

A variety of the framed pit saw, sometimes referred to by historians

as the whip saw, is included as a frame saw even though the whip saw was

not in a frame. The only difference between the framed pit saw and the

unframed whip saw was in the saws' design. The use of the two saws was

the same. The pit saw had a square frame with the saw blade in the

middle. The whip saw was not in a frame but was a single blade with a

30

handle on both ends (19:23-5).

The veneer saw was a large form of the pit saw. The veneer saw

also was used for ripping and its use required two men. The materia!

being sawed was placed in a large vice and one man pushed the saw

through the kerf while the second man returned the saw to its original

position. Both the pit saw and the veneer saw became obsolete after

the Industrial Revolution (25:87).

A smaller type of frame saw was the felloe saw. The felloe saw,

sometimes referred to as a felly saw or chairmaker's saw by historians,

was a type of rip saw. This saw was used by wheelwrights to saw the

fellies or rims of wagon wheels. Wheelwrights and joiners are believed

to have used this saw extensively during the early colonial period to

cut the arc or curve in the rim of the felloe and in some furniture

designs such as the Windsor chair back and arms. The only difference

in design between the felloe saw and other rip saws was in the design of

the blade and the way it was held by the worker. The blade was thinner

so that the saw could be turned while sawing to make a curve (25:93--).

As for the holding techniques:

. , , the sawyer grasps the side stretcher of the saw with his right hand and the frame end, normally the handle, with the left hand. Motion of the saw in this position is up and down, vertical rather than horizontal. The path of the kerf, matching and marking of the felloe outline, is observed and directed from the top (25:96).

The bow saw generally was used to crosscut wood cut variations of

the bow saw included the fret saw, coping saw and turning saw. These

saws could be used for various designs depending on the need of the

31

craftsman. These saws all had the same capabilities but were referred

to by different names (l9:145-9),

The very thin blades with their teeth slightly raked to cut one way, and which can be turned by means of the handles to any desired angle, are strained between the lower arm ends of the instrument, by twisting a stick through strands of cord connecting its upper arm ends, and then, to prevent back twist, catching the lower end of the stick upon the central brace (l9:150).

The main advantage of the bow saw was in its versatility. Bow

saws could crosscut, rip or cut a curve in a board. The bow saw, used

in shaping many designs, is believed to have been more extensively used

by the craftsman in Europe than in the American colonies. The American

colonial craftsman seemed to prefer the open hand saws to the bow saw

(19:1^).

The second category of saws, called the open saws or unframed saws,

were common in the colonies and were used for cutting several different

designs. The most common colonial open saws were the hand saw or panel

saw, key hole saw, compass saw and back saw (25:85).

The hand saw or panel saw was much like the framed panel saw except

the hand saw or panel saw was not used in a wooden frame. The saw was

used with one hand, leaving the other hand free to guide the materia!

being sawed. These saws cut on the forward stroke and were used for

the general shaping and cutting of lumber (23:102-3).

Panel saws were also used for ripping. The panel saw was used to

crosscut pieces of wood. These saws varied according to the coarseness

of the teeth. The colonial craftsman usually had several of these saws

to be used on different thicknesses and lengths of boards. These saws

32

were used when the boards needed to fit tightly together to make a

construction joint and when shallow arcs or notches were needed to hold

a chair leg or supporting member in a piece of furniture (25:97).

The key hole saw was designed to cut circular kerfs such as a key

hole or lock hole in a door. The key hole saw had a long thin blade

and a straight handle like a chisel. The key hole saw could be carried

in the pocket of the carpenter's apron (19:137-^1). The compass saw,

sometimes referred to as the fret saw and lock saw, looked like tr.e key

hole saw in design except that it was slightly larger and had a handle

like a pistol grip (l9:139).

The back saws consisted of two general types - the dovetail saw or

tenon saw. The dovetail saw or tenon saw were used to sr.ooth the edges

of joints such as the mortise and tenon and dovetail construction joints.

These saws resembled the panel saws in design (25:97).

Historians differ in their interpretation of tool design and use

because of the lack of copyright laws during the early settlerrient of

the American colonies. This study has utilized the most frequently used

names of tools which were supported by illustrations and photographs.

The chisel, lathe, plane and saw had some shared commonalities.

All tools, whether hand or machine operated, had only two forms of

movement - rectilinear and circular. The craftsman sometimes used a

combination of both forms to achieve the desired design (29:3^5).

Woodworking tools evolved similarly to the evolution of civilization.

Each century and culture b^d needs in tools that the previous century

and culture had not discovered or needed. Each tool from the century

33

before was changed in design and adapted to the contemporary society of

the time but always maintained some degree of its original form (32:83).

"The reason why the question of priority of invention is so often the

subject of heated debate is that an historic invention is never wholly

original" (32:83).

The Industrial Revolution, which began in approximately 1760, was

a continuance of the evolution of hand tool design. The development of

the chisel, lathe, plane and saw in America made possible the widespread

distribution of a particular furniture design to people in a rapidly

expanding and developing America,

Today, furniture is still carved and constructed utilizing imple­

ments similar to tools used two centuries ago. However, these tools

have been adapted for mass production. "In mass production, of major

and primary importance was the increased use of methods of fabrication"

(30:93).

34

REFERENCES

1. Louise Ade Boger, Furniture Past and Present (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., I966).

2. Erwin 0. Ghristensen, Index of American Design (New York: Macmillan Company, I950J!

3. Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, and Frank Freidel, The Essentials of American History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972),

4. Scott Graham Williamson, The American Craftsmen (New York: Crown Publishers, 194o).

5. Helen Marie Evans, Man the Designer (New York: Macmillan Publisb-ing Co., Inc., 1973).

6. Amos Rapoport, House Form and Culture (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969).

7. Albert Brace Pattou and Clarence Lee Vaughn, Furniture Finishir g Decoration and Patching (Chicago: Frederick J. Drake and Co., 1955).

8. Ann Louise Parthum, "The Influence of Various Factors on the Development of Furniture Design" (Masters thesis, University of Washington, 197l).

9. Jonathan Fairbanks and Elizabeth Sussman, "Frontier America: The Far West," Antiques 107 (February 1975):280-4,

10. Sherrill Whiton, Interior Design and Decoration (New York: J, B. Lippincott Company, 1974).

11. Elizabeth A. Ingerman, "Persona! Experience of an Old New York Cabinetmaker," Antiques 84 (November 1963):576-80,

12, Williamsburg Graft Series, The Cabinetmaker; Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg, inteirp. Johannes Heuvel (Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, 1969).

13, A. S. Madsen and Joseph J. Lubowitz, Problems in Furniture Design and Construction (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1923).

14, Anthony Wells-Cole, "Carving in Vernacular Traditions," Country; Life 159 (April 1976):8l8-9.

15. Joseph Aronson, The Encyclopedia of Furniture (New York: Grown Publishers, Inc., 1965).

35

16. Joseph T. Butler, American Furniture (London: Trewin Copplestone Publishing Ltd., 19731 ^

17. James Arnold, The Shell Book of Country Grafts (New York: Hastings House Publishers, I968).

18. Robert G. Smith, "America," World Furniture, ed, Helena Hayward (New York: Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1976),

19. Henry C. Mercer, Ancient Carpenter's Tools (Pennsylvania: Bucks County Historical Society, I96O),

20. Avon Neal, "Early New England Gravestones," How to Know American Folk Art, ed, Ruth Andrews (Toronto: Clarke, Irwin and Company, Limited, 1977).

21. Clarence P. Hornung, Treasury of American Design, vol. 1: The Cult of Fine Cabinetry (New York: Harry N, Abrams, Inc., 1950).

22. Gordon Logie, Furniture from Machines (London: George Allen and Union Ltd., 1947).

23. Joseph Moxon, Mechanick Exercises, intro, Charles F. ?Iontgomery (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970).

24. Eric Sloane, A Reverence for Wood (New York: Wilfred Funk, Inc., 1965).

25. Alex W, Bealer, Old Ways of Working Wood (Massachusetts: Barre Publishers, 1972^7"

26. W, L. Goodman, The History of Woodworking Tools (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1964;,

27. E, J, Tangerman, Whittling and Woodcarving (New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1962j,

28. Denis Diderot, A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Trades and Industry. ed. Charles Goulston Gillispie (New York: Dover Publications,

Inc., 1959).

29. T. K. Derry and Tervor I, Williams, A Short History of Technology (New York: Oxford University Press, 196l).

30. Harold G. Bowen and Ch arles F, Kettering, A Short History of Technology (New Jersey: Thomas Alva Edison Foundation, inc., 195^).

31 Nancy A. Smith, Old Furniture (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975).

32. L. T. C, Rolt, A Short History of Machine Tools (Cambridge-Massachusetts I n s t i t u t e of Techi^ l^ i7rT965)7^ iv^amDridge.

36

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The historical research method WSLS used to obtain information

pertinent to the relationship between woodworking tools in colonial

America from l607 to I76O and the design and construction of furniture.

The historical research method has been defined by Carter Good as:

"History differs in method from the natural sciences, since it is not

a discipline of direct observation or experimentation, but uses reports

of observations that cannot be repeated" (l:233). Fred Kerlinger

further pointed out: "The historica! method, or historiography, differs

from other scholaLrly activity only in its rather elusive subject matter,

the pa.st, and the peculiarly difficult interpretive task imposed by the

elusive nature of its subject matter" (2:70l).

The historica! research method generally differs from other types

of research methods in that the researcher is attempting to provide

facts and information in chronological order about people, objects or

events of the past. Information is found in books, reports and records,

written or visual, of past historica! events (3:89-117).

The first thing to note about history, then, is that it has its origin in man's awareness of continuity. But this idea is at once modified by that of separateness - of moments, days, years, hours, centuries. Ideas and objects find their place in Time, or more exactly in recorded Time (which is History), with aid of Before and After (4:38),

This historica! research study of the development of woodworking

37

38

tools and furniture design has been dependent upon information recorded

by historians, literary writers and folk artists who were concerned witn

historica! events. Historians and literary writers often disagree on a

timeline both for woodworking tool development and specific furniture

designs and styles. Nevertheless, this study of the development of the

woodworking tool and of furniture design and construction utilizes

photographs, colonial American literature and illustrations as the

major sources for documentation.

The methodology used in this study has consisted of critical

reviews of literatirre written about the colonial period prior to the

beginning of the first Industrial Revolution in America, The study

began with a survey of references to obtain information concerning the

evolution of woodworking tools, furniture design and furniture con­

struction techniques of the period l607 to 1?60.

Information about each tool was recorded on a date c .art. The

date chart was organized according to divisions of English furniture

styles appearing from l607 to 176O. .After each tool and furniture

style was researched, the data were compiled and chronologically

correlated according to the time span in which each tool and style

appeared.

The information for this study has been obtained from the following

sources: Texas Tech University Library, Oklahoma State University

Library, Cornell University Library and Yale University Library.

References for this study were obtained through the Food and Fiber

National Institute Computer Search in Lubbock, Texas, and the Southwest

39

Collection on the Texas Tech University campus. Information has been

interpreted from study and analysis of photographs of museum collections

of woodworking tools and of the furniture of the colonial period.

Prints of woven pictorial tapestries and historical paintings were

examined for relevant information. The study of language dictionaries,

folklore, customs and manners prevalent from l607 to 176O has provided

some insight into the "quality of life," a factor determining con­

struction and design characteristics of furniture during the period

studied.

Colonial furniture design and construction techniques were affected

by social, political and economic factors of the colonial period. The

level of technology and understanding of a culture determines the

ornateness or simplicity of furniture design motifs and methods of

construction.

Periods and time divisions merge slowly. Each furniture con­

struction technique is a developmental process inclusive of construction

methods preceding the specific technique. Each furniture design of a

specific period is a continuum of the preceding designs with stylized

adaptations of motif characteristics made possible through the

technological development of woodworking tools (5:23).

Studies which involve microanalysis of the woods used and a

thorough analysis of craftsmanship are being conducted by historians.

Both wood analysis and craftsmanship can help determine the place of

origin of objects of furniture built between l607 and 176O.

An understanding of the evolutionary process of furniture design

40

and construction techniques is dependent upon a knowledge of the designs

and construction techniques used by the colonial American craftsman

between I607 and 176O. This historical research study provides

additional information for society's collective memory of furniture

design and construction techniques.

41

REFERENCES

1. Carter V. Good, Introduction to Educational Research (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 196377

2. Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973),

3. Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1951).

4. Jacques Barzun and Henry F. Graff, The Modem Researcher (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1977).

5. Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical Method (New York: Fordham University Press, 194617

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Until American adaptations of English furniture began to develop,

colonists lived in temporary shelters and constructed various pieces of

furniture to make life easier and more comfortable. As the colonists

became settled amd organized, more permanent dwellings began to evolve.

As craftspeople strove to improve physical comfort and to construct

furniture symbolic of their material, social and political development,

American furniture design and construction began to resemble English

furniture styles. However, due to the limited communication from l607

to 1760, American adaptations of English styles often appeared later

than English furniture styles, English design motifs were identifiable

on American furniture because colonial technology and materials were

significantly different. For example, native woods, better suited to

serve the particular need of the craftsmen, were adopted. Since

American furniture adaptations had less ornamentation and were smaller

in scale and proportion, woodworking tools were designed and constructed

by the craftsmen (l:75-6).

The colonists pursued comfort in their furniture. Decoration and

motifs were secondary concerns of the furniture craftsmen until after

the Industrial Revolution of 176O. Furniture inventories and account

books attest to the primary concern for comfort, American cabinet-

making schools evolved during the Georgian period from 1727 to 176O

42

43

and were strongly influenced by English fumiture design.

English designs often were named for rulers of the period. Com­

piled from the Encyclopedia Britannica and Funk and Wagnalls Dictionary,

the following chart of English rulers provides insight to period and

name associations in American furniture design,

R^ler Date Name of Fumiture Style

James I I603-I625 Early Jacobean

Charles I 1625-1649 Carolean

Oliver Cromwell 1649-166O Gromwellian

Charles II I66O-I685 Restoration

James II

William III

Queen Anne

1685-1688

1689-1702

1702-1714

Late Jacobean

William and Mary

Queen Anne

George I 1714-1727 Early Georgian

George II 1727-1760 Georgian

England had the power and the naval technology to come to the New

World. England's navy was more powerful than any other in Europe at

the time. London was the largest seaport and was responsible for

seven-eighths of the seaborne trade (2:68), English furniture adap­

tations were made possible in part because of England's naval strength

and ability to travel between England and the American colonies.

Some early immigrants such as vagrants, orphans, paupers and

thieves were forced from England to the new world against their will.

The migration attracted gentlemen, but they soon found life too hard

and uncomfortable and returned to England, Their youngest sons

44

generally stayed because of the inheritance laws in England. (All of

the land went to the oldest son.) The gentlemen's sons had money to

purchase land, give them prestige and place them in positions of power.

The artisans (carpenters, joiners and sawyers) came eagerly to America

because of the opportunities for free enterprise and economic success

(2:68-96).

Even though many similarities existed between the design of

colonial and English fuimiture, it is apparent that early colonial

fumiture designs differed from their English counterparts primarily

because of technological factors. In Housing and Environment for

Living. Marjorie Keiser wrote: "The level of technology in a society

determines design and construction of housing" (3:64). Though Keiser

spoke of housing, the same is true of furniture design and construction.

The colonists were chiefly farmers, skilled only in crude woodworking;

their tools were those needed for clearing the land and tilling the

soil.

Woodworking tools evolved and were produced as a result of emerging

English fumiture designs. As English fumiture styles becajne popular

in America, woodworking tools were fashioned to assist the colonial

craftsmen in achieving similar design characteristics and design motifs

on American fumiture (4;2l).

The colonists constructed fumiture and woodworking tools for both

utility and survival. There were no places to buy ready-made fumiture

or woodworking tools.

The early implement was also a piece of art, as much as the

^5

work it fashioned, for the worker designed his tools too. In Early America the ironworkers forged only the cutting blade; they gave no thought to the design of the wooden handle and the rest of the finished tool (5:3).

Using English construction techniques, the individual craftsman developed

American adaptations of English fumiture styles.

Wood used for colonial fumiture construction was prepared by

craftsmen with a variety of saws. Each saw was designed for a specific

purpose and was dependent upon manual skill and labor. As a result

of the dependence upon manual labor and skill, each piece of furniture

was unique in its visual statement. The chairs of a specific style in

the colonial period varied in size, scale and proportion even though

they were built by the same craftsman and were intended to appear

similar.

Framed pit saws or veneer saws were used to begin the preparation

of the wood by cutting larger planks into smaller pieces (Figs. 23-24).

With such a rig one man and a helper - often a boy - could cut four thousand board feet of lumber in a ten-hour day. This was a prodigious innovation that immediately affected the economy, for it brought the price of lumber down with­in reach of many more consumers (4:47-9).

Unframed whip saws (Fig. 31) were used to cut logs into smaller

pieces and shapes which were suitable for fumiture construction. Hand

or panel saws (Fig. 30) were used to cut and shape rectangular chair

parts out of the smaller pieces of wood. Rectangular chair parts were

used primarily in the construction and design of Early Jacobean, Carolean,

Gromwellian, Restoration, Late Jacobean and Early Georgian chairs

(Figs. 35-36, 39-41 f 44). Dovetail or tenon saws were used to smooth

-*r-

the edges of construction joints (Fig. 34). Three methods of joinery

used in the colonial period were mortise and tenon, dowel or peg, and

tongue and groove (Figs. I-3).

Felloe saws, sometimes called chairmaker's saws by craftsmen, could

be turned by the user while cutting wood pieces (Fig. 25). The Queen

Anne style of fumiture suggests that felloe saws were used by the

colonial craftsmen for fumiture design. Prior to the Queen Anne period

from 1702 to 1714, felloe saws were used primarily for cutting and

shaping wagon wheels. However, the crai'tsman also found the felloe saw

suitable for cutting and shaping curved slats, rails, crest rails and

seats of Early Jacobean, Carolean, Restoration, Late Jacobean, William

and Mary, Queen Anne, Early Georgian, Windsor and Georgian chairs (Figs.

35-38, 40-^^7).

The pierced chair-back-crest and the pierced stretchers common in

Restoration, Late Jacobean, and William and Mary chairs (Figs. 4^-42)

are believed to have been shaped with bow saws, key hole saws, fret saws,

coping saws or turning saws (Figs. 26-29, 32-33). These saws, though

ancient in origin, are not believed to have been widely used or available

in America until the curved, pierced designs began to evolve on colonial

fumiture. Variations of these saws most likely were used throughout

the remainder of the colonial period in fimiture design and construction.

The initial planing of the wood was done by using jack or fore

planes (Fig. 13). The trying or tming plane was then used to level

marks left by the jack or fore plane (Fig. 14). Wood chair parts were

planed to fit flush against adjoining wood surfaces. The rectangular

47

back posts, leg supports, arm rails and stretchers of Early Jacobean,

Gromwellian, Restoration, Late Jacobean, William and Mary, Queen Anne,

Early Georgian and Georgian chairs (Figs. 35, 39-44, 47) were made

smooth by the plane box (Fig. 18) which contained blades designed to cut

and smooth various shapes and sizes (Figs. 19-22).

The Late Jacobean style (Fig. 4l) indicates that the plough, round,

rabbeting and ogee blades (Figs. 19-22) became widely used by colonial

craftsmen as adaptations of the plane. The curved shapes which evolved

in colonial fumiture in approximately 1675 and continued throughout

the remainder of the period would have been smoothed with these planes.

Compass planes and sun planes (Figs. I6-I7) probably were used in

fumiture design to smooth the rounded top rails, cabriole legs, splats

and arm rails seen in Late Jacobean, William and Mary, Queen Anne,

Early Georgian, Windsor and Georgian chairs (Figs, 41-47), The paneled

construction and joints of the Early Jacobean period (Fig, 35) would

have been made smooth by the use of the bullnose plane (Fig, 15),

Chisels of numerous shapes and sizes were designed by the crafts­

men to meet their needs as each new design evolved. During the colonial

period, chisels were used primarily in forming construction joints and

for the decorative turning on most styles of fumiture from 1607 to

1760.

The craftsman chose a chisel according to the depth of groove he

wished to make. Each craftsman had various shapes and sizes of the

chisels, some of which have no generic name. Historians assume the

chisels were used primarily with the lathe. The craftsman probably held

43

the chisel against the wood piece to incise a design as the wood was

rotated by the lathe. Turned pieces of chair elements existed on most

chairs from l607 to I76O, Variations of the forming or firmer, framing,

paring and skew-forming chisels (Figs. 4-7) were used by the craftsmen

to shape and form the turned wood pieces.

The comers of panels seen in the Early Jacobean style (Fig. 35)

were formed and smoothed by using skew-forTning chisels (Fig. ?). Skew-

forming chisels had a diagonal blade for the excavation of comers.

Shell carvings on Georgian chairs (Fig. 47) were incised into the wood

with chisels having various cutting blades designed by the individual

craftsman (Figs. 4-7).

Three types of joinery were used during the colonial period -

mortise and tenon, dowel or peg, and tongue and groove (Figs. 1-3).

Back posts, lower back rails, leg supports and stretchers were joined

by the mortise and tenon construction method (Fig. l). The mortising

axe, twybils and twivels (Figs. 8-10) were chisels used to form the

mortise. Paring chisels (Fig, 6) were used to smooth out rough spots

on the mortise. Framing chisels (Fig, 5) were used to shape tenons

and make the ch^ir pieces fit snugly into the mortise.

The yoke-shaped top rails of Queen Anne chairs (Fig. 43) were

joined to back posts by dowels (Fig. 2). The dowel was a wood pin or

peg carved to a blunt point. The dowel fit into a corresponding hole

in the adjoining wood surface. The wooden dowels were held in place by

glues or wedges made of wood. The wooden dowels were shaped by using

the same woodworking tools as the tenon (6:76-81). The dowels were

9

round and smadler than the tenon.

Back splats were joined to the yoke-shaped top rails and straight

bottom rails seen in Queen Anne chairs (Fig. 43) by the tongue and

groove construction method (Fig. 3). The tongue was a continuous pro­

jecting member which fit into a groove. The groove was the same length

and width of the tongue. Glue was used as an adhesive to tighten the

joint and hold the splat firmly in place.

Lathes were used for turned work appearing on most colonial wood

fumiture from 1607 to 176O. The two lathes used for the construction

of colonial turned pieces were the pole lathe and the mandrel lathe.

The wheel lathe was alread.y in existence during this time but primarily

was used for turning larger pieces such as bed posts and architectural

columns•

The turned arm posts, leg supports, finials, back rails, spindles

and back uprights were shaped on the pole lathe (Fig, 11) by using one

of the various chisels. The Brewster and Carver chairs (Figs, 37-38)

sometimes were called turned chairs because of the turned spindles. Each

element of these chairs was turned and shaped on the pole lathe, Pole

lathes were used throughout the colonial period to create turned pieces

which were irregular and uncomplicated in design. Pieces turned on the

pole lathes were rarely identical in design or shape because of the

manual control and skill required to use the pole lathe.

The mandrel lathe (Fig. 12) is believed to have been used to tum

the ball shapes seen on Carolean, William and Mary, Queen Anne and

Georgian chairs (Figs. 36, 42-43, 47). The mandrel lathe could have

50

been used to tum the balls because the material did not have to be

attached at both ends. However, the mandrel lathe was more inaccurate

than the pole lathe because the materia! was not held as securely which

allowed for some movement while it was being turned.

The colonial craftsman developed specific tools to achieve specific

fumiture designs. He used each tool for as many purposes and designs

as possible. Therefore, each piece of fumiture was unique and reflected

the ingenuity and creativity of the individual craftsman and his wood­

working tools. The tool used for a specific design cannot always be

definitely stated because each craftsman developed his own style and

method of carving and shaping the wood elements used to construct chairs

during this period (5:1-3). However, the woodworking tools and processes

discussed in this chapter provide a general overview of the tools and

techniques used in furniture construction during the colonial period.

The following line drawings and tables of colonial woodworking tools

and chairs illustrate the development both of American fumiture design

and methods of construction.

51

-2

J. iX • ^ f

0

0

Fi^. 2 .

/

/

^ i

Fig . 3.

53

TABLE 1

CHISELS 1607-1760

Tool

Forming or firmer

Figure

Framing

Paring

Skew-forming 7

Sets

Mortising axe

Twybill

Twivel

8

9

10

Description

used with a mallet to shape mortise; used to clean out wood chips in mortise after auger had been used

variation of forming or firmer; slimmer blade; was not used with a mallet

used to pare rough surfaces, smooth out mortise, form rounded edges

used to carve out angles which other chisels could not reach; sides of chisel blade were beveled but not sharpened

used for paring board surfaces

used to form mortise

used to form mortise; had two blades with hooks at each end of curved head

5^

55

/l

ri^. 4.

J^

^ - ^ ' j - ^

^ % ^ . • ' " N * '

< .'/

/

Fir . 6.

i* 1 7. Ct . I .

Fig. 9.

' i ^ . 10.

^

TABLE 2

LATHES 1607-1760

Tool

Pole

Figure

11

Mandrel

Description

12

used to tum wood pieces suitable for leg supports, arm supports, rails and stretchers; turning action generated by foot treadle and springy pole

used to turn wood pieces suitable for leg supports, arm supports, rails and stretchers; turning action generated by foot treadle and flywheel

51

^

ig. 11.

• i

"'is. 12.

59

TABLE 3

PLANES 1607-1760

Tool Figure Description

Smoothing

Jack or fore

Trying or truing

Bullnose

Compass

Sun

Molding

Plane box

Plough

Round

Rabbeting

Ogee

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

first plane used for rough leveling of wood

used to level marks left by jack or fore plane; used to make two boards fit perfectly together

used to smooth surfaces broken by perpendicular shoulders

used to smooth outward curves in wood surfaces

used to smooth concave curves in wood surfaces

wooden box which held various molding plane blades

blade having a curved shape

blade having a round shape

rectangular-shaped blade with a block cut out

blade with an s-shaped curve

60

^^

13.

F i g . V-r.

Fig. 15.

62

63

Fig. I c .

i' ic? .9.

^'ig. I c .

y".

i 6

20

-^ ^

^ <d

L Fig. 21.

64

TABLE 4

SAWS 1607-1760

Tool Figure Description

Frame Saws

Pit

Veneer

23

Felloe

24

Bow

25

Fret

26

27

Coping

Turning

28

29

Open or Unfrajned Saws

Hand or panel 30

used in pit by two men for ripping of logs; cut different widths and thicknesses of lumber; cut logs into large wood planks

used by two men for ripping of logs; cut thin sheets of wood used in veneering

used for ripping l imber; called chairmaker's saw; used to cut rims of wagon wheels and cut arcs or curves; could be turned while sawing to make a curve; contained a thin blade

used to make a crosscut or rip or cut a curve in a board

special bow saw designed for specific designs; used to cut circular kerfs and angular designs

designed for specific designs; used to cut circular kerfs and angular designs

designed for specific designs; used to cut circular kerfs and angular designs

used with one hand; not framed; used for general shaping and cutting of lumber for different elements of chairs

65

TABLE 4-Gontinued

Tool

Whip

Figure

31

Keyhole

Compass

32

33

Back

Dovetail or tenon 34

Description

used in pit by two men; primarily for ripping; cut different widths and thick­nesses of lumber; cut logs into large wood planks

used to cut circular kerfs; contained long thin blade and had a handle like a chisel

used to cut circular kerfs; contained long thin blade; larger than keyhole saw; handle shaped like a pistol grip

used to smooth the edges of joints such as the mortise and tenon, dovetail and mitred furniture construction joints

66

67

Fig. 23.

Fig. 2^.

^^K - — p^ •

y ...... .K

-<'.

r.

_ i i fl ~ 1 •

68

F i s . 28.

V 2 ^ ^ '

\

\

Fig . 29.

69

Figfl 30 .

Fig. 31 .

Fig. 33-

F i s .

70

TABLE 5

CHRONOLOGY OF COLONIAL AMERICAN FURNITURE STYLES

Period

James I (1603-I625)

Figure

35

Charles I (l625-l649) 36

37

38

Style

Early Jacobean chairs (c. 1609-c. I68O) sometimes referred to as wainscot chairs, were characterized by plain turning, panel work, straight lines, solid wood seats and incised back panels. The shape of the arms are believed to be an American design created bv colonial craftsmen (7:1-7).

Carolean chairs (c. I63O to present) were characterized by heavy posts, plain turning, and ball or mushroom turnings which crowned front arm supports. The seats of the slat-back chairs were made of woven rush or solid wood (7:15-20).

Carver chairs (c, l620-c, 1700) were called turned chairs. They were characterized by heavy tuimed posts measuring approximately two inches in diameter. Carver chair backs had three turned horizontal rails and three turned vertical spindles. Carver chairs rarely exhibited any decorative turning below the seat (3:190-202).

Brewster chairs (c, l620-c. 1700) were turned chairs characterized by heavy turned posts measuring approximately two inches in diameter. The backs of Brewster chairs biad three horizontal rails. The distinguishing feature between Carver chairs and Brewster chairs was the number and location of spindles, Brewster 1

71

Table 5-Continued

Period Figure

Oliver Cromwell (1649-166o) 39

Charles II (166O-I685) 40

James II (1685-I688) 41

Style

chairs had turned spindles either in the back or under the arm rails or seat. Sometimes turned spindles appeared in both places (8:190-202),

Gromwellian chairs (c. I65O-c, 1700) were characterized by low backs and high seats. The upholstery was leather, serge, velvet, silk or seaiskin secured to the wooden chair frame by large headed nails placed in a single row. Plain turning on leg supports and back rails were common forms of ornamentation (7:21-3).

Restoration chairs were a transitional style between colonial turned chairs and the more ornate chairs of the William and Mary period. American Restoration chairs (c, 1700-c, 1720) were characterized by small scaled posts which were rectangular and simple in design. These chairs had carved crests and lesser structural members such as arms (9:5).

Late Jacobean chairs (c. l675-c. 1725) were characterized by flemish scrolls, turned posts, woven cane seats and woven came back panels. The woven cane back panels were enclosed in turned bannisters and the flemish scroll crest. Stretchers between the front legs were carved with flemish scroll designs (7:26).

1

72

Table 5-Continued

Period

William III (1689-1702)

Figure

42

Queen Anne (1702-1714) 43

George I (171^-1727) 44

45 46

Style

William and Mary chairs (c. 1710-c, 1720) were characterized by trumpet turnings on leg supports, vase-shaped turnings on arm posts, high-backs, up­holstery, flat serpentine stretchers, and scroll shaped arms (7:71-2),

Queen Anne chairs (c, 1720-c. 1760) were characterized by curved lines, vase-shaped splats, yoke-shaped top rails, plain turned leg supports, plain cabriole legs and pad or ball feet (7:74-80).

Early Georgian chairs (c. 1720-c, 1760) continued to be fashioned after the Queen Anne style. Early Georgian chairs were characterized by cabriole legs; pad, trifid or slipper feet; vase-shaped splats; aprons across seat fronts and yoke-shaped rails. The pre­dominant fumiture characteris­tic of this period was the use of the cabriole leg which has a pronounced curve at the knee (7:81-4).

Windsor chairs (c. 1720-c. 1825) were characterized by turned-splayed leg supports, spindles, saddle-shaped seats, arrow feet, lightness in scale and bentwood frame backs (9: 461-2),

73

Table 5-Continued

Period Style

George II (l727-1760) 47 Georgian chairs (c. 1720-c. 1760) continued to be designed in the Queen Anne style. Georgian chairs were charac­terized by cabriole legs, ball and claw feet, splats in various curved forms, carved seat rails and carved shell designs (7:85-7).

74

(D

iack Panel

Incised Panel

ll ' iir, I

n i l i i i i i l i

D

Fig. 35.

%

o root

Fig. 36.

78

79

• r i n i a l

Back Post

Stretcher^

X'lg, 3 , ' .

31

1

Finial

Back Rail

Snindle

lack Post

Stretcher

SuDticrt

ri :. 38.

83

. l a i i n Head

-^ack Ha i l

o ©s x*

-L -r- o -*- r '^ ^ T*

Leg Supporo

Fig. 39.

84

8^ J

rest

Back Panel

Back Post

Seat

r.er

;. 40.

86

87

'JA ; /

Crest

-r-; rack Panel

Back Post

rm Rail

Post

O 63* u

Stretcher

fyii r -Leg Support

ill"' /, ;„-. OOt

Fig. 41.

88

PQ

Leg Supports

Crown

—Stretcher

Fig, 42.

90

91

Cabriole

Pad Foot

92

93

Top Rail

Splat

Back Pes-

Lower Back Rail

Seat

Seat Hail

Anee

Cabiole Leg

otretcner

Foot

Fig, 44,

94

95

Spindles

Arm Support

, "T Leg Support

Spindle

\\\ M >; \> \\\ 1 ^ ^

Seat

Leg Support ,

Stretcher

U'

96

97

Top Rail

Stlat

Back Post

Lower rack Hail

Seat Rail

Hacriole Les

cot

Fis. 47.

g„^^f^ A%J. ViW^

98

REFERENCES

1. Robert Bishop and Patricia Coblentz, Fumiture I (Washington: Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Design, 1979).

2. David Hawke, The Colonial Experience (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 195^7^

3. Marjorie Branin Keiser, Housing (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, 1978),

4. Aldren A, Watson, Country Fumiture (New York: The New American Library, 1976).

5. Eric Sloane, Museum of Early American Tools (New York: Ballantine Books, 1976),

6. Campbell M, Lorine and Henry Lionel Williams, How to Restore Antique Furniture (New York: Pellegrine and Gudahy, 1949),

7. Marion Day Iverson, The American Chair 1630-1890 (New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1957).

8. Wallace Nutting, Fumiture of the Pilgrim Century (New York: Bonanza Books, 1977).

9. Joseph Aronson, The Encyclopedia of Fumiture (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc, 1965).

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship between

woodworking tools and furniture design and construction in America from

1607 to 1760,

Technology ultimately covers as wide a field as history and has, of necessity, history's slowness and ambiguities. Technology is explained by history and, in its tum, explains history, though the correlation in neither case is entirely satisfactory. This domain, co-extensive with the whole of history, does not involve one action but a multiplicity of actions and reactions and a series of interlinking cogs (1:244).

It seems apparent that early colonial furniture designs differed

from their English counterparts primarily as a result of technological

factors. While colonial craftsmen followed familiar forms in the styles

they recalled from England, there were significant differences. Because

they had many demands on their time and were less skilled than the

craftsmen of England, colonial craftsmen eliminated extraneous design

details such as carving and inlay. The result was a tendency to

emphasize the beauty of line and fineness of proportion of the basic

style. John Kirk stated: "The colonial product thus became a

completely new statement as a result of the factors of distance,

thought, earlier training, and the materials available in the new

99

100

setting" (2:70). W, L. Goodman further stated: "Generally speaking the

number of different tools available at any time depends upon the pre­

vailing level of culture, which determines the kind of work the crafts­

man is called upon to do" (3:9).

However, as the social life of the colonists developed and prospered,

they found a need for more elaborately furnished homes. The elaborate­

ness increased the need for more expertly crafted fumiture to assist

in daily life and entertaining. As the colonies grew and developed,

technology continued to be a vital factor in design changes, but the

sociological and political aspects of the colonists' life also exercised

a strong influence.

As each new generation of craftsmen were called upon to express the

status and needs of society through fumiture design statements, new

fumiture statements were introduced. The new design statement varied

from curvilinear to rectangular as well as combinations of both. Each

fumiture design gave rise to new interpretations of old themes and was

called contemporary to reflect the times socially, politically and

economically (2:17-26).

Except in their source of power, tools have changed little in

design from the colonial period; thus, it can be assumed that fumiture

design and construction was not a direct result of the woodworking tools

but resulted from several factors. These factors were technological,

sociological, economic and political. Technological development and

advancement resulted from improved living conditions, the establishment

of a government and the arrival of European craftsmen skilled in the

101

newer techniques of furniture design and construction. Sociological

development produced a demand for a variety of fumiture designs. This

demand created a market for objects of furniture and caused cabinet-

making to become a marketable and respected profession in the colonies.

Economic factors influenced design as colonists achieved a higher degree

of prosperity. As they became more prosperous, the colonists experienced

an increasing need to display material possessions as a reflection of

social status and economic worth. Political factors included the

struggle for freedom from England and the establishment of an autonomous

government in colonial America (•- :2-3).

In the history of American furniture design, many forms of

decorative motifs and construction techniques evolved. Colonial American

fumiture design and construction continued to exhibit simple and

functional forms. However, the period from l607 to 176O represents

American ingenuity in both technology and furniture design which

established precedents that are observable today in rirniture design.

The chairs illustrated in this study are 'oeing reproduced and used in

modern day interiors.

Collectors have little opportunity to purchase authentic colonial

fumiture. The few pieces which have survived are in private and

museum collections. However, reproductions of colonial fumiture are

plentiful and can be used by modern day collectors to create the feeling

of the colonial interiors.

Conclusions

Technological innovations evolved slowly during the colonial period

102

as a result of a scattered population, lack of organized communities and

slow communication. The authenticity of the few objects of fumiture

which still exist today from this period is questioned by some historians.

These historians believe much of the colonial fumiture in both museums

and private collections are importations instead of authentic American-

made colonial fumiture. In-depth knowledge of all aspects of fumiture

design and construction is essentia! to identify and distinguish between

reproductions and authentic antiques (l:120-2).

Colonial woodworking tools are gaining in popularity as collectables

and are becoming expensive. Many of the colonial tools were made of

rosewood, hickory and other fine woods. The blades and cutting edges of

these tools were made of fine hand-wrought iron. These woodworking

tools can be used as decorative accessories in interiors because of the

quality of workmanship and design. "Tools made by a man after he

finished his apprenticeship in a woodworking shop were usually ornately

caxved with the date of graduation" (5:130).

Availability of authentic colonial woodworking tools has become a

major problem for collectors. The understanding and recognition of the

design influences of a specific period is the major means of identifying

collectables. Because of the time and expense involved, museums and

individuals who have become interested in colonial fumiture and

woodworking tools are employing designers to search out a particular

object or to have an object reproduced (6:127-9). "Not long ago in

Vermont, you could buy planes by the barrel as firewood for five dollars.

That included the barrel" (7:56), Some of the reasons for collecting

103

colonial fumiture and woodworking tools are for home accessories and

investments and to reflect the collector's personality and profession.

There is still much to be learned by historians about American

fumiture design and woodworking tools during the colonial period. In

general, however, American design continued to reveal an emphasis on

the simpler, functional forms, while following the design trends in

England, The emphasis on simpler and functional forms in furniture

design was directly related to the level of technology and the design

of woodworking tools.

Much of the attraction of these pieces lies in the careful, painstaking work they represent; the utilization of the natural characteristics of the material, and the careful craftsmanship with which they are put together to last many lifetimes. The more we examine them the better are we able to appreciate how closely is good design allied to structural integrity (8:ll).

Woodworking tools and pieces of fRirniture during the colonial

period were a continuing evolutionary process. As furniture designs

evolved, so did woodworking tools.

Implications

There are several important implications for future research in

the areas of fumiture design and construction and woodworking tools in

colonial America, Past studies of colonial fumiture and woodworking

tools have concentrated on fumiture design characteristics (such as

cabriole legs and tumings) and on general aspects of woodworking tools

(such as purpose and shape) as separate areas of technology. This

study points out the importance of the relationsrip between furniture

104

design and construction and woodworking tools from l607 to I76O. Future

research in the relationship between colonial fumiture design and

construction and woodworking tools might include kinds and characteristics

of the woods used. The correlation of these three areas of study would

reveal additional information for identification, interpretation,

restoration, repair and rehabilitation of colonial fumiture.

In addition, public museums which are concerned with collecting,

preservation, conservation, exhibition and education could use the re­

sults of this study for exhibits by combining woodworking tools and

pieces of fumiture in displays (9:9-13).

They serve as depositories devoted to the preservation and conservation of objects of particular value - treasured for their association with events and personalities of history, for their significance in representing human excellence in terms of scientific ingeniousness or of artistic achieve­ment, and for providing sajnples of the natural environment or objects related to human ways of living at different times and in different societies (lO:l),

The study's findings have implications for current furniture style

developments. The eclectic style is currently popular. This study,

which details line, form and shape in furniture design from 1607 to

1760, would assist both furniture designers and interior designers who

are working with an array of fumiture styles.

Recommendations

Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations

are suggested:

1. Further study of the impact of sociological, technological,

political and economic factors on furniture design and

105

construction from 1607 to 1760.

2. Museums should conduct workshops and seminars in the repair

and renovation of antique furniture for local craftsmen.

3. The information reported here could be utilized by the

National Trust for Historic Preservation and State Historical

Societies for historic preservation.

4. The information provided in this study could be utilized 'oy

museums in training docents for public education of

technological advancement.

5. Museums could utilize these findings to select and arrange

objects of fumiture and woodworking tools to design an

interpretive exhibit concerning American heritage.

6. The information provided in this study should be adapted as a

guide for furniture identification of the period I607 to 176O

which would be useful data for interdisciplinary studies in

Museum Sciences.

7. The illustrations and information should be incorporated into

a textbook of historica! furnishings to be used by interior

design educators,

8. Continuing education programs could use the information to

develop a community program in antique furniture collection,

preservation and appreciation.

106

REFSRE:CES

1. Robert Bishop and Patricia Coblentz, Fumiture I (Washington: Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Design, 1979).

2. John T, Kirk, Early American Fumiture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977).

3. W. L. Goodman, The History of Woodworking Tools (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1964).

^. John E. Hutchison, Periods and Styles (College Station, Texas: Texas Agricultural Service, 1974J.

5, Jim Brown, "Tools of the Trade," Houston Home and Garden, July 1978, pp. 123-30.

6, Regina Nadelson, "Collector's Items," House Beautiful, Octcher 1979, pp. 127-9.

7, Eric Sloane, A Reverence for Wood (New York: Wilfred F irJc, Inc., 1965).

3. Henry Lionel Williams, Country Furniture of Early America (New York: Thomas Yoseloff Ltd., 1963).

9. Edward P. Alexander, Museums in Motion (Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1979).

10. Alma S, Wittlin, Iri Search of a Usable Future (Camtridge: HIT Press, IT^O).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adam, T. R. The Civic Value of Museums. New York: George Grady Press, 1937.

Alexander, Edward P, Museums in Motion. Nashville: American Association for State and Local History, 1979,

Andrews, Charles M. The Colonial Background of he American Revolution, London: Yale University Press, 1939.

Arnold, James, The Shell Book of Country Grafts. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1965.

Aronson, Joseph. The Book of Furniture and Decoration. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1952.

The Encyclopedia of Furniture, New York: Crown Publishers, Inc, 1965.

Barzun, Jacques and Graff, Henry F, The Modern Researcher. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc, 1977.

Bealer, Alex W. Old Ways of Working Wood, Massachusetts: Barre Publishers, 1972.

Beckmann, John. A History of Inventions. Discoveries, and Origins. Trauislated by William Johnston. Covent Garden: Henry G, Bohn, 1846.

Benjamin, Asher, The American Builder's Companion. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1969.

Bishop, Robert. "American Country Fumiture" in How To Know .American Folk Art, pp. 100-17, Edited by Ruth Andrews. New York: E. P. Dutton, 1977.

. The American Chair, New York: E. P. Dutton and Go,, Inc., 1972.

Bishop, Robert and Coblentz, Patricia. Furniture I. Washington: Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Design, 1979.

Boger, Louise Ade, Fumiture Past and Present. New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., I966.

107

108

. The Complete Guide to Furniture Styles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.

. Furniture Styles. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.

Bowen, Harold G., and Kettering, Charles F. A Short History of Technology. New Jersey: Thomas Alva Edison Foundation, Inc., 1954.

Brawdel, Femand. Capitalism and Material Life l400-l800. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1975.

Butler, Joseph T, American Fumiture. London: Trewin Gopplestone Publishing Ltd., 1973.

Callahan, Kevin. Early American Firniture. New York: Weathervane Books, 1976.

Ghxistensen, Erwin 0, Index of American Design. New York: Macmillan Company, 1950.

Clark, Ronald W. The Scientific Breakthrough, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1974.

Gomstock, Helen, ed. The Concise Encyclopedia of American Ar.tiques. 2 vols. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., I96O.

Cornelius, Charles Over. Early American Furniture, New York: Century Co,, 1926.

Current, Richard N.; Williams, T. Harry; and Freidel, Frarik. The Essentials of American History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.

Daumas, Maurice. A History of Technology and Invention. Vol. II. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., I969.

Derry, T. X. , and Williams, Trevor I. A Short History of Techr.olo -y. New York: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Diderot, Denis. A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Trades and Industry. Edited by Charles Goulston Gillispie. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1959.

Disston, Henry and Sons, The Saw in History. Philadelphia: Keystone Saw, Tool, Steel and File Works, 1915.

Doyle, J. A. English Colonies in America. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1907.

109

Earl, Polly Anne, "Craftsman and Machines: The Nineteenth-Century Fumiture Industry" in Technological Innovation and the Decorative Arts, pp, 307-29. Edited by Ian M. G. Quimty and Polly Anne Earl, Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1973,

Eberlin, Harold Donaldson and McClure, Abbot. The Practical Book of PQ^^Qd Furniture. London: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1914.

Encyclopedia Britannica. 1977 ed. S.v. "Britain."

Ester Stevens Brazer Guild of the Historical Society of Early American Decoration, Inc, The Ornamented Chair. Vermont: Chiarles E. Tuttle Company, 1966,

Evans, Helen Marie. Man the Designer. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co,, Inc, 1973.

Fa cre, Maurice, A History of Communications. 12 vols. New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1963-1964.

F ^ ^ and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary. 2 vols. New York: ^drik and Wagnalls Company. l_196rTi

Garraghan, Gilbert J. A Guide to Historical Method. New York: Fordham University Press, 1946.

Giedion, Siegfried, Mechanization Takes Command. New York: Oxford University Press, 1948,

Gloag, John, A Short Dictionary of Fumiture, New York: Studio Publications, Inc, 1951.

A Social History of Fiirniture Design. New York: Bonanza Books, 1966.

. English Furniture. London: Adam and Chiarles Black, 1965.

, The Chair. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1964.

Good, Carter V, Introduction to Educational Research. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1963.

Goodman, W. L. The History of Woodworking Tools, New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1964.

Gottschalk, Louis, Understanding History, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, 1951.

no Harmes, Earl, Fumiture of Yesterday and Today, New York: Bruce

Publishing Company, 1947.

Hawke, David, The Colonial Experience. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc, 1966,

Holloway, Edward Stratton, American Fumiture and Decoration, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1928,

Hornung, Clarence P, Treasury of American Design. 2 vols. New York: Harry N, Abrams, Inc, 1950.

Hutchison, John E. Periods and Styles. College Station, Texas: Texas Agricultural Service, 1974.

Iverson, Marion Day. The American Chair I63O-I89O. New York: Hastings House Publishers, 1957.

Kahle, Katharine Morrison. An Outline of Period Fumiture. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1929.

Keiser, Marjorie Branin. Housing. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc, 1978.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1973.

Kettell, Russell Hawes. Early American Rooms. New York: Dover Publications, Inc, I967.

The Pine Furniture of Early New England, New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1929.

Kirk, John T. Early American Furniture, New York: Alfred A, :<nopf, 1970.

__. Early American Furniture, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1977,

Logie, Gordon, Furniture from Machines. London: George Allen and Union Ltd,, 1947.

Lorine, M, Campbell and Williams, Henry Lionel, How to Restore Antique Furniture. New York: Pellegrine and Gudahy, 1949.

Lynch, Ernest Carlyle, Jr. Fumiture Antiques Found in Virginia. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 195^.

Madsen, A. S., and Lukowitz, Joseph J. Problems in Furniture Desi:m and Construction. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1928.

HI

Margon, Lester. More American Fumiture Treasures. New York: Architectural Book Publishing Co., 1971.

Mercer, Henry C. Ancient Carpenter's Tools. Pennsylvania: Bucks County Historica! Society, 196O.

Morse, Frances Clary. Furniture of the Olden Time. New York: Macmillan Company, 1943.

Moxon, Joseph. Mechanick Exercises. Introduction by Charles F. Montgomery. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1970.

Nagel, Charles. American Fumiture I65O-I85O. New York: Chanticleer Press, 1949.

Neal, Avon, "Early New England Gravestones" in How to Know American Folk Art. Edited by Ruth Andrews, Toronto: Clarke, Irwin and Company, Limited, 1977.

Neve, Richard. The City and Country Purchaser. London: Latimer Trend and Company, Limited Whitstable, 1726; reprint ed.. New York: Augustus M. Kelley, Publishers, I969.

Newark Museum Association, Early Fumiture Made in New Jersey 169O-1870. New Jersey: Newark Museum, 1959.

Nutting, Wallace. Fumiture of the Pilgrim Century. New York: Bonanza Books, 1977.

Ormsbee, Thomas Hamilton. Early American Fumiture Makers. New York: Tudor Publishing Company, 1936.

. The Windsor Chair. New York: Hearthside Press, Inc., I962.

Osbum, Burl N. Measured Drawings of Early American Fumiture. Wisconsin: Bruce Publishing Company, 1926.

Pattou, Albert Brace and Vaughn, Clarence Lee. Furniture Finishing Decoration and Patching. Chicago: Frederick J. Drake and Co., 1955.

Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1969.

Roe, Gordon F. Windsor Chairs. London: Phoenix House Ltd., 1953.

Rolt, L. T. C. A Short History of Machine Tools. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I965.

112

Sack, Albert. Fine Points of Fumiture: Early American. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., I96I.

Salomonsky, Vema Cook. Masterpieces of Fumiture, New York: Dover Publications, Inc, 1974,

Schiffer, Margaret Berwind. Furniture and Its Makers of Chester County. Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1966.

Schwartz, Marvin D, "Fumiture l640-l840" in The Concise Encyclopedia of American Antiques, 2 vols. Edited by Helen Gomstock, New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc, 1958.

Shackleton, Robert and Shackleton, Eliza'::eth, The Quest of the Colonial. Detroit: Singing Tree Press, 1970.

Singleton, Esther. The Fumiture of Our Forefathers. New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1900.

Sloane, Eric. A Reverence for Wood. New York: Wilfred Funk, Inc., I965.

Museum of Early American Tools. New York: Ballantine Books, 1976.

Smith, Nancy A. Old Furniture. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1975.

Smith, Robert C. "America" in World Furniture. Edited by Helena Hayward. New York: Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited, 1976.

Spooner, Ella Brown, Way Back When, New York: Exposition Press, 1953*

Steeds, W. A History of Machine Tools 1700-1910. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Sulahria, Diamond, Inside Design. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

Tangerman, E. J. Whittling and Woodcar /ing. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1962.

Taylor, Henry Hammond. Knowing, Collecting and Restoring Early American Furniture. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1930.

The Family Handyman Staff. Early American Fumiture-MaJ-iing Handbook. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972,

Trupp, Philip, The Art of Craftsmanship. Washington, D. C. : Acropolis Books Ltd., 1976.

Watson, Aldren A, Country Furniture. New York: The New American Library, 1976.

113

Whiton, Sherrill, Interior Design and Decoration. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1974,

Williams, Henry Lionel. Country Fumiture of Early America. New York: Thomas Yoseloff Ltd., 1963.

Williamsburg Graft Series. The Cabinetmaker; Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg. Interpreted by Johannes Heuvel. Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, 1969.

Williamson, Scott Graham. The American Craftsmen. New York: Crown Publishers, 1940.

Wittlin, Alma S. Museums: In Search of a Usable Future. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970,

. The Museum, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1949.

Articles

Brown, Jim. "Tools of the Trade," Houston Home and Garden, July 1978, pp, 128-30.

Fairbanks, Jonathan and Sussman, Elizabeth. "Frontier America: The Far West." Antiques 107 (February 1975):280-4.

Garrett, Wendell. "Detail of a Painted Chest, Probably Bern Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania, 1784." The Magazine Antiques 5 (May

1978):1033.

Graff, Ch^rlan, "Making A House A Home." Journal of Home Economics 69 (May 1977):ll-2,

Greene, Richard Lawrence, "Fertility Symbols on the Hadley Chests." The Magazine Antiques 2 (August 1977):250-7.

Hill, Mike. "Tomoirrow's Fumiture Makers: A Controlled Revolution in Rural Dorset." Design 343 (July 1977):30-1.

Ingerman, Elizabeth A. "Personal Experience of an Old New York Cabinetmaker." Antiques 84 (November I963):576-30.

Montgomery, Charles. "American Antiques As History and Art." Art News 16 (November 1977):126-9.

114

Nadelson, Regina. "Collector's Items." House Beautiful. October 1979f pp. 127-9.

Newby, Sonia. "Down With Systems." Design 339 (March 1977):32-5.

Otto, Celia Jackson. "Pillar and Scroll: Greek Revival Furniture of the I830's." Antiques 8l (May 1962):507-10.

Wells-Cole, Anthony, "Carving in Vernacular Traditions," Country Life 159 (April 1976): 818-9.

Unpublished Materials

Hicks, Donald, "An Investigation of Furniture Design as an Evolutionary Process," M,S, thesis, Oklahoma State University, 1969.

Nail, Anne Haralson. "A Guide to the Utilization of Older Fumiture: Conservation, Renovation, and Preservation." Masters Thesis, Texas Tech University, 1975.

Parthum, Ann Louise, "The Influence of Various Factors on the Development of Fumiture Design." Masters thesis, University of Washington, 1971.