The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of the Liberal Arts
THE HOUSE THAT BRANT BUILT:
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURE THROUGH
MODERN EYES
A Thesis in
Anthropology
by
Daniel J. Dombrowski
© 2009 Daniel J. Dombrowski
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
May 2009
ii
The thesis of Daniel J. Dombrowski was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Dean R. Snow Professor of Anthropology Thesis Adviser Graduate Program Coordinator
Lee Newsom Associate Professor of Anthropology
David Webster Professor of Anthropology
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
iii
Abstract
The Brant family house of the Mohawk Village of Canajoharie (also known as the
Upper Castle) was built in the 18 th century, and no record of it exists other than brief mentions in historic records. It was likely built in either the Dutch Colonial or Georgian style according to the trends in the area at the time. Using primary and secondary historic sources, biography, official records of historic survey, and modern computer technology, the Brant family house is analyzed and its architectural style is determined to be Dutch
Colonial based primarily on the dimensions of its foundation which still exists today.
iv
Table of Contents
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. . 1
2. Historical Background………………………………………………………………. . 3
Pre-Contact Iroquoia…………………………………………………………………... 3
New Netherlands and the Mohawk……………………………………………………11
Dutch Influence on Mohawk Society………………………………………………….18
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………24
3. Joseph Brant and William Johnson……………………………………………………27
William Johnson…………………………………………………………………...... 28
Joseph Brant...…………………………………………………………………………33
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………42
4. Architecture……………………………………………………………………………43
Early Colonial: 1600-1650………………………………………………………….....45
Dutch Colonial: 1650-1714……………………………………………………………53
Georgian: 1714-1776………………………………………………………………….62
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………70
5. The Indian Castle Site…………………………………………………………………72
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………75
Figures…………………………………………………………………………………77
6. Methodology and Results……………………………………………………………..81
v
Data Collection and Methods………………..…………………………………...... 81
Google SketchUp……………………………………………………………………...87
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………91
Figures…………………………………………………………………………………92
7. Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………..106
Appendix………………………………………………………………………………..107
Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………. 132
vi
List of Figures
Figure 5.1: The Dutch barn at the Indian Castle site………………………………. 74 Figure 5.2 Map of the Indian Castle site…..………………………………………..75 Figure 5.3: The foundation wall…………………………………………………… 76
Figure 5.4: The Indian Castle Church……………………………………………… 77
Figure 6.1: A house with even window spacing…………………………………… 88
Figure 6.2: A house with uneven window spacing………………………………… 88
Figure 6.3: A house with potential windows creating even spacing……………….. 88
Figure 6.4: The Formula……………………………………………………………89
Figure 6.5: House with variables…………………………………………………...89
Figure 6.6: Histogram of Dutch Colonial Ratios (Unadjusted)……………………. 90
Figure 6.7: Histogram of Georgian Ratios (Unadjusted)…………………………..90
Figure 6.8: The Van Schaick House………………………………………………..91
Figure 6.9: The Bronk-Silvester House…………………………………………….91
Figure 6.10: The Fonda House Example…………………………………………...92
Figure 6.11: Histogram of Dutch Colonial Ratios (Adjusted)……………………... 93
Figure 6.12: Histogram of Georgian Ratios (Adjusted)…………………………… 93
Figure 6.13: The Bouwerie and SketchUp…………………………………………. 94
Figure 6.14: The Bouwerie with 3D walls…………………………………………. 94
Figure 6.15: Small-scale Study Box……………………………………………….. 95
Figure 6.16: Large-scale Study Building…………………………………………... 95
Figure 6.17: Small Scale Study Results……………………………………………. 96
vii
Figure 6.18: Large Scale Study Results……………………………………………. 97
Figure 6.19: Dutch Colonial probability curve…………………………………….. 98
Figure 6.20: Georgian probability curve…………………………………………… 98
Figure 6.21: Dutch Colonial probability plot………………………………………. 99
Figure 6.22: Georgian probability plot……………………………………………...99
Figure 6.23: Footprint comparison………………………………………………...100
Figure 6.24: Full example of process……………………………………………...101
viii
List of Tables
Table A.1: Dutch Colonial House Data – Location and Construction Details…….. 104
Table A.2: Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements - House ID and Notes...... 108
Table A.3: Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements – Long Side……………. 110
Table A.4: Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements – Short Side……………. 112
Table A.5: Dutch Colonial House Data – Actual and Adjusted Ratios……………. 114
Table A.6: Dutch Colonial House Data – SketchUp Comparison…………………. 115
Table A.7: Georgian House Data – Location and Construction Details…………… 116
Table A.8: Georgian House Data – Measurements – House ID and Notes………... 120
Table A.9: Georgian House Data – Measurements – Long Side…………………... 121
Table A.10: Georgian House Data – Measurements – Short Side…………………. 123
Table A.11: Georgian House Data – Actual and Adjusted Ratios…………………. 125
Table A.12: Georgian House Data – SketchUp Comparison…………………...... 126
ix
Acknowledgements
To Dean Snow, Claire Milner, and Ken Hirth for their help and guidance over the years and their remarkable ability to put up with me. My time at Penn State has been truly rewarding, and I owe them an enormous debt for everything I have accomplished. To the entire Department of Anthropology which allowed me to forge a new path with the SHC
Integrated Undergraduate/Graduate Program. For that I am eternally grateful. And to my parents, who allowed me to follow the winding path I have taken these past five years, always trusting me to make my own decisions and supporting me the whole time. I could not have made it through this without you. Thank you all.
1
1. Introduction
The purpose of this thesis is to determine the architectural style of an 18 th century house using only the dimensions of its foundation. The remains of the Brant family house are located in the Mohawk River Valley at a site best known today as Indian Castle but which has been called the Upper Castle historically and Canajoharie by the Mohawk who inhabited it. The Mohawk were the guardians of the eastern door of the Iroquois League, and as such they were among the first natives to come in contact with European explorers and settlers. As a tribe, they became increasingly westernized during the 17 th and 18 th centuries, and this process of enculturation is exemplified in the person of Joseph Brant.
Brant, or Thayendanegea to use his given Mohawk name, started life as a common
Mohawk, but due to his work ethic and a few key personal relationships, he became a war chief and more within his tribe and one of the most influential and important Native
Americans in the history of the New World.
The Brant family house was technically owned by Joseph’s mother and then later by his half-sister, Molly. It is customary amongst the Mohawk for property to be held by and passed down through the female line. The house was occupied by Brant and his own family for a time, however, and may have been built originally using his money. The house was abandoned by the Brant family in the late 18 th century when the Mohawk relocated to Canada during the American Revolution, and it was occupied for a time by
Europeans before burning down early in the 19 th century. No descriptive or visual record of the house exists.
A Dutch barn stands at the site today, and a cursory inspection of the long, narrow foundation suggests that the house was likely also Dutch Colonial in style. But the history
2 of the region and the story of Brant’s life tell a different story. At the time the house was built, Dutch Colonial architecture was on its way out in New York, and the Georgian style was becoming more and more prevalent. William Johnson, the British
Superintendant of Indian Affairs at the time, was both a close association of Brant’s and a proponent of the Georgian style, constructing his own home, Johnson Hall, and having other buildings constructed in the style during the 18 th century.
To determine the architectural style of the Brant family house, three main avenues will be explored. First, a relatively brief look at the historical background of the Mohawk and Brant and Johnson will be accomplished using a mix of primary and secondary sources and the detailed biographies that have been produced for both individuals.
Second, an analysis of Dutch Colonial and Georgian architecture both in their countries of origin and their incarnations in America will reveal information crucial to differentiating between the styles which overlap both in time and in detail. Third, records from various surveys of historic architecture in New York will be analyzed using Screen
Calipers TM , Google SketchUp TM , and a formula developed for this thesis to compare the footprint shapes of houses of both styles.
3
2. Historical Background
Before delving into the lives of Joseph Brant, William Johnson, and others, it seem appropriate to contextualize the 18 th century Mohawk historically. The world of the
Mohawk Iroquois was turned upside-down by their trade with Dutch colonists of New
Netherland in the 17 th century. According to Jacqueline Goodman-Draper, “Mohawk participation in the fur trade as well as Christianity’s intrusion into tribal life were major contributors to the dissolution of the traditional, collectivist Native way of life”
(Goodman-Draper, 1994:44). The effects of Christianity were largely the result of French
Jesuit and, later, English Anglican interactions, and they will not be looked at here. The
Dutch did not attempt to force Christianity on the Mohawk. They were interested almost exclusively in trade, and thus any major cultural shifts resulting from the interaction can be attributed to an economic influence and not a spiritual one. This is not meant to imply that the Mohawk were not influenced by Christianity, but these influences are largely irrelevant to this study.
This chapter seeks to analyze the effects of Dutch-Mohawk interaction using information from historical, archaeological, and primary sources. A picture of Mohawk civilization prior to meaningful contact with Europeans is presented, a historical account of New Netherland and its interactions the Mohawk follows, and a final section discussing the effects of Dutch-Mohawk interaction concludes the chapter.
Pre-Contact Iroquoia
The first half of the second millennium A.D. was a turbulent time for the native population of New York state and New England. Dean Snow has shown that the
4 prehistoric Iroquois are descendent of the Owasco people, an intrusive group which migrated into the region from central Pennsylvania where they are tentatively identified as part of the Clemson’s Island culture. This runs counter to the long-standing hypothesis that the Owasco peoples were descendent of the Princess Point peoples native to the area.
Snow supports his hypothesis of migration using linguistic and ceramic evidence as well as the contrasting site distribution patterns and cultural organization between the Owasco and Point Princess cultures. Calibrated radiocarbon dates place the Owasco in New York from 1000-1350 A.D. While the dates are close enough to postulate a smooth transition from the earlier Point Peninsula culture of the area and the Owasco, there is no hybrid culture which would indicate such a transition, backing up the hypothesis of migration.
(Snow, 1995:66, 70-74)
With the in-migration of the successful, agricultural Owasco, increased population pressure resulted in a greater rate of soil exhaustion, and this was countered by an increase in the periodic village relocations to areas with newer soil. These movements were often accompanied by the combination of two or more smaller groups into one large village during the violent years preceding 1525 and the beginning of
European colonization in the New World. Such combinations were beneficial for village defense because a four-fold increase in population would only require that the perimeter of a village be doubled to maintain the same population density within the village.
Archaeological evidence suggests, however, that by around 1525, population density within villages had also increased from about one person for every 20 square meters to about one person for every 12 square meters. The increased population density would have decreased the necessary perimeter of the village and made the establishment of a
5 new village and its defense even easier (Snow, 1994:52-53). Village movements also became more frequent as a result of increased violence. Defensive positions were selected over fertile areas, and this resulted in a faster depletion of soils and increased village movement (Snow, 1994:67).
Society at this time, prior to the formation of the Iroquois League, was made up of clans grouped into two moieties. The clans were the basis for safe intergroup trade and other interactions, and the moieties divided the clans into two groups which provided reciprocal support of various kinds. Society at the time was characterized by intense violence between groups balanced against strong cohesion within groups. The intense competition and violence were the result of limited resources, and the strong group cohesion was a necessary adaptation for group survival during periods of increased violence and yearly variations in resources (Snow, 1994:53-54).
In an article on Iroquoian political development, William E. Engelbrecht attempts to explain the formation of the tribes that make up the League using an analysis of ceramics. While his dates for League formation and ideas on European involvement in the formation of the League are in stark contrast with almost every other authority on the matter, his analyses of the ceramic samples are sound and offer a clue to the process behind the formation of the five nations of the League. Analysis of Seneca pottery from different sites spanning a long period of time show that heterogeneity decreases over time. This supports the idea that groups merged together and combined their cultures over time to form the nations of the League (Engelbrecht, 2007:224).
The increase and consolidation of population lead to the formation of the Iroquois
League around 1525. According to Dean Snow, the League could not have been formed
6 much earlier judging from archaeological evidence, and it definitely did not happen much later because it was fully formed by the time European explorers visited the New World.
The formation of the League is known historically through the legend of Deganawida, a
Huron prophet who entered the lands of the Iroquois and united them with the help
Hiawatha, a converted Onondaga chief and cannibal. The pair traveled throughout
Iroquois territory, preaching a message of peace and uniting the peoples into the Iroquois
League (Snow, 1994:60).
Subsistence
Iroquois subsistence is based around swidden horticulture. Clearing the land was the domain of the men. “Men opened up fields around new villages by girdling the trees of the forest. In the spring of the year, they burned the lower shrubs and brush to clear the soil so that the women could scrape it into small hills among the skeletal trees” (Snow,
1994:68). The rest of the work was done exclusively by the women. They planted, tended to the fields, and harvested the crops. In addition, they gathered roots, berries, nuts, and other resources as they were available to supplement the horticultural base (Snow,
1994:68).
The Iroquois used fire to clear the land and prepare it for planting. The open fields and meadows that European explorers thought were a natural part of the North American landscape were in fact cultural artifacts of a subsistence strategy based around burning, planting, and moving on to repeat the process. When Europeans witnessed the fires, they immediately associated them with the fires of hell and condemned the natives and their practices as evil. But for the Iroquois and other natives who used fire, flames represented
7 new life and transformation. Their perceptions are a large part of the reason that natives were never intimidated by missionaries who warned them of the fires of hell (Dennis,
1993:34-35).
Much has been written on the benefits of the Iroquoian horticultural system. The
Three Sisters (corn, beans, and squash) dominated their horticultural complex, and the method used to plant them has benefits that sustained Iroquoian planting for many years in a single location. When all three sisters were planted together, the corn provided a stalk for the beans to grow up, and the beans in turn helped to collect rain and shelter lower plants with their leaves (Dennis, 1993:27). The squash grew out from the mounds, covering the surrounding land and preventing the growth of other plants that might hinder or choke the growth of the corn or beans (Snow, 1994:69). Cultivation was a highly ritualized process. Women, the stewards of the land in the matrilineal structure of the
Iroquois, used various rituals and practiced menstrual taboos to ensure the fertility of the land and increase their harvests (Dennis, 1993:28).
The dominance of women in the horticultural practices seemed backwards to the
European explorers when they first encountered it. They characterized the Iroquois men as lazy, the women as drudges, and pronounced the society as a whole to be primitive
(Dennis 1993:30). Writing in 1628, Isaak de Rasiers describes the horticultural practices of the women, apparently little changed by two decades of Dutch colonization:
At the end of March they begin to break up the earth with mattocks,
which they buy from us for the skins of beavers or otters, or for sewan.
They make heaps like molehills, in each heap five of six grains; in the
middle of May, when the maize is the height of a finger or more, they
8
plant in each heap three or four Turkish beans, which then grows up
with and against the maize, which serves for props, for the maize
grows on stalks similar to the sugarcane [de Rasiers, 1937: 107].
De Rasiers also comments on the lack of men tending to the fields saying that “it would compromise their dignity too much” (de Rasiers, 1937:107).
This system proved to be very efficient. The same mounds were used every year, reducing soil erosion, and the planting of three crops in such close proximity to each other kept the soil in balance chemically (Dennis, 1993:27-28). At their peak, smaller, earlier villages could stand in a single spot for half a century before refuse built up and the land was too depleted to be productive (Dennis, 1993:26). Women planted first in fields near the village and moved further out as the inner fields became depleted. By the time the outer fields were depleted, enough time had usually passed for the inner fields to re-grow natural vegetation and replenish nutrients in the soil (Snow, 1994: 70-71).
The shifting horticultural system was complemented by the hunting of the men.
While hunting was not done exclusively for the meat, as will be discussed shortly, it did provide valuable protein that was missing elsewhere in the horticultural diet. The men also fished, and the women gathered naturally growing crops outside of the village when necessary (Dennis, 1993:36-37). According to Dennis, “By maintaining the complexity of nature and spreading the risks in their subsistence system, the Iroquois lived well during times of agricultural abundance, and they survived during periods of failure”
(Dennis, 1993:37).
As populations grew, the time between moves shortened to around 25 years as soil was depleted more quickly and refuse piled up faster and faster (Dennis 1993:26).
9
Overall, however, the Iroquoian horticultural strategy was extremely efficient and beneficial to the environment. Historic geographers have commented on its sustainability and sensibility, and evidence suggests that European introductions into the Northeastern ecosystem were largely rejected by the Iroquois in favor of their tried and true system
(Dennis, 1993:31).
Villages
Iroquoian village life revolved around longhouses. They contained as many as twelve compartments, and they housed 120 people or more (Snow 1994: 71). According to Mima Kapches, the Iroquoian Longhouse was symbolic of Iroquoian society as a whole. “…much of their cultural and political imagery was an extension of the physical layout of the longhouses” (Kapches, 2007:174). The houses were owned by matrilineal heads, and their large size and multiple compartments were a perfect architectural symbol of a large lineage made up of many component families. The image of many families living under a single roof is also symbolic of the Iroquois League as a whole (Kapches,
2007:176-177). The structure and its symbolism were enduring. Longhouses were still the preferred method of housing when the colonists first visited the Iroquois in the 17 th century as evidenced by de Laet’s description of one such structure in his journals (de
Laet, 1937:57), and this preference continued through the turn of the 18 th century.
Longhouses were used for every aspect of Iroquoian life. The interior spaces were mostly open and not functionally specific. A series of hearths ran down the middle of the central aisle, and each family received half of the area around a hearth. There is evidence of some longhouses in New York having partitions that divided the areas physically, but
10 this is not common elsewhere and not universal in New York (Kapches, 2007:176).
While specific areas did not have prescribed functions, the longhouses were the site of almost every conceivable activity. “Sleeping, food storage, food preparation, death, ceremonials, political meetings: in short, all activities” (Kapches, 2007:177) took place inside the structures.
Families living in the longhouses were typically small. De Rasiers comments that
“they breed but few children, so that it is a wonder when a woman has three or four children” (de Rasiers, 1628:108-109). Small family sizes and small populations in general have puzzled scholars for years. Engelbrecht believes that the low populations were linked to unreliable deer populations and variations in crop productivity
(Engelbrecht, 1987:16). Snow relates the population size of the Mohawk directly to the deer population as a limiting reagent, but he does not think that yearly fluctuations played a part. He hypothesizes that the meat from a deer was a bonus, and that the main reason for hunting deer was the acquisition of skins. Every family needed hides from an average of 17 deer per year for clothing. An estimated pre-contact population of 7,740 at 5 people per family puts the annual need for deer at 26,316. The estimated deer population sustainable in the Mohawk Valley is around 76,000. The Mohawk were thus exploiting
1/3 of the deer in the valley each year. This is the most that they could have utilized without destabilizing the deer population or expanding their hunting grounds to territories they had no claim over (Snow, 1994:92).
11
New Netherlands and the Mohawk
While the first contact many Iroquois had with Europeans was with Basque and
French fishermen in the first years of the 17 th century, the first long-term relationship was with the Dutch of New Netherland. Henry Hudson sailed into New York Bay in 1609, and Fort Nassau was established near modern Albany by 1614 as a trading post. When the first small group of colonists arrived in 1614, the Iroquois League was already fully developed, and villages had moved down from hilltops and other defensive positions to line the banks of rivers. The Mohawk lived in four villages along the Mohawk River, and they found themselves in the perfect position to trade with the new colonists. They had already been supplying the rest of the League with Herkimer diamonds, quartz crystals found along the banks of the Mohawk River, and they would soon replace the crystals with glass beads acquired from the Dutch and other European goods (Snow, 1994:83,
86).
First impressions of the native peoples of North America were almost universally poor. Isaack de Rasiers, writing in 1628, describes the local natives (presumably
Iroquois) as “cruel by nature…so inclined to freedom that they cannot by any means be brought to work” (de Rasiers 1937:105) De Laet describes peoples of the New World saying:
The barbarians being divided into many nations and people, differ
much from one another in language though very little in manner; they
possess the same constitution of body as those that inhabit a great part
of New France [de Laet, 1937:57].
12
A missionary, Rev. Jonas Michaelius, wrote in 1628: “As to the natives of this country, I find them entirely savage and wild, strangers to all decency, yea, uncivil and stupid as garden poles, proficient in all wickedness and godlessness…” (Michaelius, 1937:126).
The Mohawk and the Iroquois League as a whole were in many ways the beneficiaries of chance. They gained prosperity because they were in the right place at the right time. They were located very close to the spot chosen for Fort Nassau, but they were far enough away that their territory was rarely threatened. Other groups were not so lucky. The Algonquin bands living in the vicinity of Fort Nassau were displaced, and the
Dutch fought three minor wars with other groups in the area. The Iroquois were tolerated because they had direct and indirect access to the furs that the Dutch desired, and the demand for furs was so great that conflict never broke out between the two. Small disagreements were largely ignored because the economic implications of a break in relations would be far too detrimental (Trelease, 1961:137-138).
The arrival of the Dutch in 1614 put European goods on the doorstep of the
Mohawk and the Iroquois League as a whole. The Mohawks had been competing with the Algonquin for trade with European fishermen along the St. Lawrence, and Fort
Nassau put an end to the brewing conflict between the two groups. The Mohawk began trading with the Dutch tirelessly, and the archaeological record reveals a great upsurge in
European goods at this time, especially in burials. When asked by the Jesuits why they buried so many European goods with their dead, the Mohawk explained that the next world did not yet have an abundance of the goods. If they did not bury their new possessions, the dead would go without them for eternity (Snow, 1994:89-90).
13
In 1617, Fort Nassau was destroyed by flooding. This greatly hindered trade between the Dutch and the Mohawk because the mouth of the Hudson was guarded by the rival Mahicans, and safe passage up the river was difficult (Snow, 1994:81, 90). New
Netherland was put under the control of the Dutch West India Company in 1621 with the hope that it could be developed further, but the venture soon took a backseat to colonies in South America and West Africa, leaving New Netherland to become dominated by private enterprise. In 1624, a new wave of colonists arrived, including 30 families. They rebuilt Fort Nassau a short distance further upstream and renamed it Fort Orange (Dennis,
1993: 129).
Tensions in the area between the Mohawk and the Mahican present when the
Dutch first arrived turned to outright violence as the two competed for access to the new colonists. The Dutch first sided with the Mahicans but eventually decided to stay out of the conflict entirely. The Mohawk emerged victorious in 1628 or 1629, although archaeological evidence suggests that the real victor over the Mahican was a disease which wiped them out far more effectively than the Mohawk. The Dutch saw the conflict as competition over trade rights, but in reality it was probably competition for social ties with a seemingly powerful potential ally. The Mohawk wanted to develop the new relationship into something much more than simple trade. They wanted to bring the
Dutch into their tribe and treat them as brothers (Dennis, 1993:130-131).
The Dutch, however, kept their distance, not leaving the fortification to venture into Mohawk territory for many years. There was friction between the two groups at first.
The Dutch took initial offerings from the Mohawk and gave little or nothing back. They cheated the naïve tribesmen and physically beat them to get them to agree to their terms.
14
This purely capitalistic approach to societal interactions was new to the Mohawk. They felt that the Dutch should act fairly towards them in the interest of developing bonds of kinship (Dennis, 1993:124-126). The Mohawk did, however, settle the score with the
Dutch by slaughtering and stealing a good number of the Dutch livestock. The conflicts were mainly petty, and they never escalated to the point where any real damage was done. The economic relationship between the two groups was far too valuable to both sides to be ruined by squabbles over a pittance or poor treatment (Trelease, 1961:141).
The misunderstanding between the two groups is summarized well by Matthew
Dennis:
While the Dutch attempted to keep their distance culturally and
physically from Iroquoia, they nonetheless sought the profits that only
Iroquois furs could produce. And while the people of the Five Nations
strove to maintain their cultural identity and political autonomy, they
nevertheless hoped to merge with the Dutch, transforming New
Netherlanders into allies and kinspeople [Dennis, 1993:154].
The Dutch did eventually become the “brothers” of the Iroquois, despite their best effort to remain completely separate. They took part in Iroquois ceremonies and were expected to “provide help in repairing village fortifications, to offer military assistance, and to shelter [Iroquois] women and children in times of peril” (Dennis, 1993:169). The
Iroquois intervened to bring peace between the Dutch and the Esopus, and they expected the same thing from the Dutch when they clashed with the French (although they did not really get it). The Dutch put up with all of this because the fur trade was so profitable for them (Dennis, 1993:169-170).
15
The Mohawk resisted the Western style of living introduced by the Europeans much as the Dutch refrained from adopting the ways of the Mohawk. They used copper pots as raw materials for arrow heads for a long time, only using them as vessels once copper became sufficiently abundant. It took them a long time to understand the concept of price as well. Once a steady stream of fur began coming in, prices went up as demand went up back in Europe. The Mohawk, unfamiliar with the concept of a profit, lowered their fur output. They were content to only produce enough to support themselves. They had no desire to reap the rewards of a booming market. This of course was counterintuitive to the business-minded Dutch colonists. The Mohawk and the Dutch had completely different views of the world, but the fur trade would eventually bring them closer together (Dennis, 1993:174-176). The creation and use of wampum, beads made from marine shell, had incredibly widespread effects on Mohawk society as well. These effects will be discussed thoroughly in the third section of this chapter.
Disease struck the Mohawk a decade after the establishment of Fort Orange. A smallpox epidemic tore through the population killing over half and striking hardest at the younger and older generations. The epidemic resulted from the presence of children at
Fort Orange and in other European settlements. European adults in the 17 th century were largely immune to smallpox because most had contracted and survived it as children.
Mohawk adults had no such immunity, making everyone equally susceptible. The Dutch did not notice the epidemic until the supply of furs began to drop off for they rarely ventured too far from the safety of the fort. They suspected French treachery, and they put together an expedition headed by Harmen van den Bogaert to inspect Mohawk territory and find out why furs were no longer flowing into the fort (Snow, 1994:95-96).
16
A journal recounting the expedition (author unknown, presumably van den
Bogaert) survives. It requires some interpretation, but it is clear that the Mohawk were suffering greatly at the hands of the European disease. The author describes the journey of the expedition to the four villages of the Mohawk. He also notes four other villages that they did not enter because their guide informed them that they were not worth visiting (Jameson, 1937:139-145). Snow points out the importance of the observations that the explorers missed. Prior to the epidemic, there were only four Mohawk villages
(called castles by the Dutch). The eight observed by the expedition were actually the original four that were in the process of being abandoned and a second four that were replacing the originals (Snow, 1994:96).
The journal also comments on fresh graves outside of most of the villages, and an encounter with a chief named Adriochten living outside of the first village that they visited. They believed he was living outside of the village to protect himself from the smallpox present in the village (Jameson, 1937:141-142). According to Snow, the explorers misinterpreted the situation yet again. They took the word Adriotchten to be the name of the chief living outside of the first village, but Snow points out that “Adriochten” roughly translated means “he has caused others to die” (Snow, 1994:96). The man was being ostracized because the people in the village believed he had brought the disease with him. This was a very bad sign. The Mohawk had turned away from their tradition of blaming their problems on witchcraft and the treachery of others and began to blame each other (Snow, 1994:96-97). The full effects of the disease on the Mohawk will be discussed in the third section of this chapter.
17
The epidemic was followed by a period of intense violence as the surviving
Mohawk turned their frustrations on neighboring peoples. They fought both to avenge the deaths of their lost tribesmen and to capture members of other groups to assimilate into their own societies to replace those who had been lost. This mixing of cultures combined with losses among the elders broke down many Mohawk traditions. Longhouses eventually became standardized with 3 or four compartments, no longer representative of a single lineage since few if any of the lineages survived the epidemic more or less intact.
Men who were able to make their way in the world as traders or warriors broke from the matrilineages and weakened the power of the chiefs and the head matrons (Snow,
1994:109-110).
The remaining years of Dutch presence at New Netherland are characterized by intense violence and an expansion of the power of the Iroquois League. They made peace with the French in the 1650s and eliminated the Northern Iroquoian tribes that were not part of the League. In 1657, they attacked and drove off the Huron and Ottawa, and they drove the Sokokis into New France in 1662. They became the preeminent Indian Power of the Northeast. In 1664, the English seized New Netherland during the Second Anglo-
Dutch War. The rise to power of the English would lead to much hardship for the
Mohawk and the rest of the Iroquois, but the historical scope of this chapter ends here
(Snow, 1994:116-119). A discussion of the effects of Mohawk-Dutch interactions on
Mohawk culture follows.
18
Dutch Influence on Mohawk Society
The interaction of the Dutch at New Netherland and the Mohawk changed the way that the Mohawk lived on a fundamental level. The previous section provided a brief historical background of the Mohawk and their relationship with the colonists at New
Netherland. This section looks at the way that key trade items and everything that came along with them drastically changed the way that Mohawk society functioned. The three major topics that will be discussed are the effects of textiles, epidemic diseases, and wampum.
Textiles
Textiles had a huge impact on Mohawk population. As already discussed, the
Mohawk relied on the deer population for their clothing, and as a result, their population was limited to around 7,700 by the number of deer they could exploit while still maintaining the wild population in the Mohawk Valley and without leaving their territory to exploit resources that were claimed by others (Snow, 1994:92). Several accounts of how the Iroquois dressed prior to Dutch trade exist. Writing in the second quarter of the
17 th century, Johan den Laet described the clothing of the natives that he encountered as being “composed of the skins of wild animals, especially beavers, foxes, and the like, sewed together in the manner of savages, with which they cover themselves entirely in the winter and slightly in summer” (de Laet, 1937:57). A letter by an unknown author to investors in the Netherlands speaks of the dress of the Mohawk thusly: “Some have bears’ hides which they made doublets; others have coats made of the skins of raccoons, wild-cats, wolves, dogs, otters, squirrels, beavers, and the like, and also of turkey’s
19 feathers” (Jameson, 1937:301). These descriptions leave out any specific mention of deer skin. They focus on details and embellishments and do not state the nature of the standard clothing even though the major component is known historically to be deer skin.
After initial interaction and trade with the Dutch, Isaack de Rasiers states that
“They also use a good deal of duffel cloth, which they buy from us, and which serves for their blanket by night, and their dress by day” (de Rasiers, 1937:106). Snow characterizes the dress of the Mohawk after a few decades of contact and trade:
Men wore leggings, breechcloths, or aprons front and back, along with
shirts and moccasins. These were probably decorated with dyed quills
and moose hair early on, beads and other trade items later. Still later
they would wear fringed pants and calico shirts with attached ribbons.
Women wore leggings from the knees down, long skirts, and long
overblouses [Snow, 1994:92].
He comments further that a truly reliable picture of Mohawk clothing before meaningful contact is impossible because so few good accounts exist, and those that do exist are very general and have a narrow geographic focus (Snow, 1994:92).
Disease
Regardless of the actual style of clothing before and after contact, it is certain that the population of the Mohawk had the potential to increase dramatically because the limiting factor of deer skins had been eliminated. The effects of the trade in textiles can only be speculated upon, however, because before any dramatic rise in population could
20 occur, Iroquois populations were ravaged by a smallpox epidemic. Discussed only briefly earlier, Snow estimates that within a matter of months the Mohawk population dropped from 7,740 to 2,830. The four castles of the Mohawk were abandoned in favor of a new set of four, and these were consolidated to only three within a few years. The Oneida,
Cayuga, and Onondaga suffered similar losses; the Seneca escaped more or less intact by absorbing others into their society to counteract the massive losses (Snow, 1994:100).
The results of the epidemic were catastrophic. Because the most affected were the young and the old, the Mohawk were left without the wise direction of the village elders and without the hope and promise of a younger generation that would eventually take the reins of the society. In Snow’s words:
The survivors found themselves forced to reconstitute society without
the wisdom of many of the elders on whom they had depended only a
few months earlier, and without many of the other individuals who had
previously made up their kindred constellation [Snow, 1994:98].
Mohawk society had been altered on such a fundamental level that they would never truly recover. The violence that erupted after the disease finally departed brought power to the
Iroquois briefly, but it only put them at odds against the English after they gained power in New Netherland later in the 17 th century. The tenuous relationship lasted for more than a century before the remaining Iroquois found themselves either subjugated or forced into
Canada by the conflicts of the late 17 th and early 18 th centuries (Snow, 1994:118-130).
A more immediate effect of the epidemics was a rise in shamanism. Mohawk medicine societies expanded and took on the form that is commonly known today as a result of the epidemic. A shaman was a person who was able to use power through song
21 and chanting. They had a special connection with their tutelary animal, and they were skilled herbalists who were able to treat injuries and illnesses. We know that these societies and their shaman rose to prominence during this period through archaeological evidence. Medicine masks constructed of wood with brass and horse hair (two items not available to the Mohawk before contact with Europeans) have survived in large numbers.
The masks do not appear until the middle of the 17 th century even though they materials would have been available since initial contact with the Dutch in the 16 th century, showing that some change in the middle of the 17 th century brought about the sudden change in ritual practices. It is agreed that this change was the small pox epidemic (Snow,
1994:101-102).
Wampum
Wampum had a great effect on Mohawk society as well. The beads were introduced by the Dutch shortly after the establishment of Fort Orange in 1624. They were made from whelk and quahog shells by the Dutch and by Indian craftsmen. (Snow,
1994:91). According to Lynn Ceci, the majority of wampum was constructed by the
Algonquin. They then traded the completed beads to the Dutch for various commodities, and the Dutch traded the wampum with the Mohawk for furs which were sold in Europe for tremendous profit (Ceci, 1982:98). The question then is what exactly did the Mohawk get in the deal? Why did they trade away valuable furs for shell beads instead of items with more intrinsic value?
Ceci has come up with a laundry list of reasons why the Mohawk valued the wampum. First, they had simple aesthetic value. The beads that the Mohawk had made or
22 traded for previously were not nearly as fine. They desired the beads because they could use them to beautify and add value to everything that they owned. Shell beads are also a common symbol in North American prehistory. They have been found in abundance in
Middle Woodland mounds. It seems likely that they have a long tradition as positive symbols of wealth and status in the region. Shell beads are also very durable. They can be passed from generation to generation and exchanged countless times without easy damage, and they eventually become relics that can be associated with ritual and ceremony. Shells are symbolic of water, and the Iroquois would have seen them as powerful symbols of life. The shells gained symbolic value because of their white or purple coloring as well. White was a symbol of peace, health, and prosperity to the
Iroquois, and purple (seen as black) was the symbol of hostility, sorrow, death, and mourning. The shell beads could thus be integrated into Iroquois culture easily (Ceci,
1982:98-99).
The wampum also embodied several qualities that would not have been possible without the actions of the Dutch. First, the beads were exotic both in material and in form. The material was exotic to the Mohawk because it came from an area that they did not have access to. The form of the beads was also exotic because they could not have been so finely made without European tools. These tools contributed to make the beads fairly standardized in terms of size and shape. Because the beads were all more or less the same size, shape, and quality and differed only in color, they could be used as a standard means of exchange. The Iroquois were able to erect a rudimentary market system using the beads, and the Dutch settlers, for lack of a metal coinage system, eventually started to
23 accept and use the beads as currency. The use of beads as money among the Dutch only added to their value amongst the Mohawk.
The beads had value because they represented labor. It took a certain amount of time and effort to make a bead, and this measurement became the value of the bead.
Likewise, processing of furs took a good deal of time and effort on the part of the
Mohawk. It therefore was acceptable to exchange beads for furs. They were simply two representations of labor being exchanged. Rates of exchange were somewhat standardized, although the beads did go down in value over time because they became so common. This downward trend in value was counteracted to some extent by Iroquois destruction of the beads. The Iroquois buried their dead with many European goods to assure their representation in the next world. Beads shared a similar fate, being buried in great abundance as well as being destroyed as sacrifices during many ceremonies. This destruction kept the wampum from ever becoming so common that it lost value (Cici,
1982:99-101).
The creation and exchange of wampum had a huge impact on Mohawk society.
Cici ties the trade of wampum and exchange in general with the colonists to increases in community size as well as a general rise in social and political complexity:
The onset of European contact and trade on the coast also correlates
with increasing settlement pattern complexity. In contrast to precontact
occupations, historic sites now meet the criteria for villages and year-
round sedentism, and large, perhaps multiseason camps. New
cemetery sites appear, many with graves rich in European trade goods,
24
as well as small trade houses, or bead ‘factories’, commonly known as
‘forts’ [Ceci, 1982:97].
Conclusions
The effects of Dutch-Mohawk interaction are far reaching. In a 1994 article,
Jacqueline Goodman-Draper discusses how the development of the Mohawk, and the entire Iroquois League by proxy, was stunted by their exploitation by the European colonies to such an extent that it has not recovered even in modern times. She presents the Iroquois as an example in opposition to the idea that colonization is the first step towards inevitable assimilation of a lesser group by a greater group:
While this theoretical perspective has clearly not been realized, it has
also been criticized for its lack of attention to the material causes of
American Indian under-development. It does not attempt to explain
relations of subordination and domination between Indians and non-
Indians, nor does it address their struggles for political resource
control [Goodman-Draper, 1994:41].
Goodman-Draper (1994) characterizes Iroquoian society prior to European contact as collectivist as opposed to individualist. They were agriculturalists living in an environment that early explorers described as an abundant paradise. Their way of life was fundamentally group oriented. Hunting, fishing, and agriculture were more productive when a group approached the tasks as a collective instead of as individuals (41-43).
The introduction of European goods and ideals shifted the Iroquois away from their collectivist mindset. Trapping was a job for one man. There was no significant
25 advantage to having a large group check trap lines, and it was more profitable for every man to work independently. Thus, the trapping industry led to the breakdown of communal living. It created the concept of private property and individualism. The longhouse began to disappear and the nuclear family became more and more common as a residential unit. Men who occupied their time mainly with trapping abandoned other forms of subsistence. Goodwin-Draper (1994) also believes that when the furs ran out in their area, the Iroquois (specifically the Mohawk) became middlemen, acquiring furs from other groups for their own gain (41-45). Summing it all up nicely:
What is most significant about Native participation in the fur trade is
the way in which, aside from engendering wars among different Indian
tribes for control of the trade…, it necessitated the break up (sic) of the
collective household [Goodman-Draper 1994:41].
The notion of the Iroquois acting as middlemen, mentioned rather causally in the
Goodman-Draper article, has been challenged in the past. Allen Trelease refutes the claim of Charles McIlwain, who claimed in the early 20 th century that the Iroquois rose to dominate the Northeast for largely economic reasons. McIlwain claims that while the fur trade with the Dutch and English was highly profitable, the beaver population in the
Mohawk Valley was exhausted as of 1670. From that point on, the Iroquois acted as middlemen between the Dutch and other tribes in more fruitful areas. This had the dual effect of sustaining the profits of the Iroquois as well as putting them in a position of dominance over the tribes that they traded with. It subsequently made them the allies of the Dutch and English, the highest bidders for the furs, and the enemies of the French,
26 who would otherwise have received the furs that the Iroquois redirected to the Dutch and
English (Trelease, 1962:33-34).
Trelease disputes the “middleman hypothesis” on the grounds that there is little evidence of such activities in historical records. He cites records dating from 1634 to
1751 that contain four times as many references to continued Mohawk hunting of beaver relative to references of the Mohawk acting as middlemen to another tribe. A 1670 letter to Canadian Intendant Jean Talon is also offered as evidence. It explicitly states that
Iroquois were robbing French allies of their furs and hunting on their lands (Trelease,
1962:37,42). Both sides of the argument have weak points, but it does seem more likely given the documentary evidence and the known violent tendencies of the Iroquois later in the 17 th century that they would resort to violence and theft in order to keep their privileged position at the side of the Dutch and English.
The effects of North American colonization on the Mohawk shattered the very foundation of their society. It has been shown here that their populations declined, their economies shifted, their subsistence strategies were altered, and their societies changed so drastically that their traditional way of life had become unrecognizable before the middle of the 18 th century. Their collectivist way of life was replaced by Westernized individualism. The longhouse that had once symbolized the League was broken, and the household came to be characterized by European trade goods and a capitalistic mentality.
It is on this backdrop that the life of Joseph Brant is presented. Brant grew up in a world that bore little resemblance to that of his ancestors, and the changes that were occurring around him allowed him to rise up through the world of the Mohawk and become one of the most influential Native Americans in history.
27
3. Joseph Brant and William Johnson
The lives of Joseph Brant and William Johnson are two of the greatest stories in the history of North America. They were both men who rose above their humble beginnings, due in large part to family connections by marriage, and became great historical figures. Both were loyalists, although Johnson did not live to see the American
Revolution, which means that neither is found in the patriotic lore of the United States.
And both have been the subjects of multiple biographies both in the decades after their deaths and into modern times. William Stone wrote two volume biographies of both men in the 19 th century. Helen Caister Robinson wrote a narrative and relatively brief biography of Brant in 1971, and Isabel Thomas Kelsay wrote the definitive biography of
Brant in 1984. Johnson has been the subject of additional biographies by James Thomas
Flexner (1959) and more recently by Fintan O’Toole (2005).. Johnson’s papers were also published in fourteen volumes in 1957.
These biographies and papers as a whole contain thousands of pages of information about the two men, and the idea of recreating even a fraction of all available material in an attempt present a comprehensive history of the two men is intimidating.
The goal of this chapter is not to undertake such a summary, however. Rather, the goal is to place Brant and Johnson in a historical context and to give a summary account of their interactions. The timeframe will be bracketed by William Johnson’s birth in the early 18 th century and his death in 1774. After Johnson’s death, Brant remained in New York for a few short years before moving to Canada. The history of Joseph Brant at Canajoharie essentially ended after Johnson’s death. While he lived many years and did many great
28 things for himself and his people, the details of this later period are not relevant here and will only be discussed briefly.
William Johnson
The exact time and place of William Johnson’s birth are unknown. Flexner
(1959). believes it occurred in 1715 on the Manor of Killeen in the County Maeth of
Ireland. Johnson was born into a land that had been deserted by its wealthy. The landowners lived in England and cared little for their tenants. Christopher Johnson,
William’s father, rented 199 acres and a grist mill, and he was father to seven children, three sons and four daughters (7-8). Little is known about Johnson’s early life, although he apparently learned to read and do basic math, “but his real education was people”
(Flexner, 1959:9-10).. Flexner describes Johnson as a young man: “Men loved him and women loved him. He loved liquor and masculine jokes; fast horses, hunting and fights; he loved soft breathing women and their tenderness” (Flexner, 1959:10).
In 1733, Captain Walter Butler was granted 86,000 acres along the Mohawk
River. Soon after, Johnson’s uncle, Peter Warren, married the sister of the chief justice of the New York colony. Warren became involved in the populating of the new colony, and he hired Johnson to recruit peasants who would work as indentured servants in exchange for passage to the New World. The young Johnson went along with his uncle to Boston as well. He stayed in Boston for a short time before venturing out on his own to the new territory along the Mohawk River. He ran a small store for his uncle and leased land to new settlers as they arrived from Europe. The store was at first full of European fineries, but Johnson quickly changed his stock to more utilitarian wares when it became apparent
29 that the poor settlers could not and would not buy the extravagant items (Flexner,
1959:13, 19).
At some point during these early years, Johnson met and became rather close with
Catharine Weisenberg, a woman whose story has been lost to history but who is believed to have been an indentured servant of German descent. She became Johnson’s
“housekeeper” and bore several children to him without ever formally marrying him
(Flexner, 1959:26-27).
An Irishman Gone Native
Johnson’s curious affinity for the native peoples of North America began early. A friend once wrote of Johnson’s connection with the local tribes:
Something in his natural temper responded to Indian ways. The man
holding up a spear he had just thrown on which a fish is now impaled;
the man who runs, with his toes turned safely inward, through a forest
where a greenhorn could not walk; the man sitting silent, gun on knee,
in a towering black glade watching by candle flame for the movement
of antlers toward a tree whose bark has already been streaked by the
tongues of deer; the man who can read a bent twig like a historical
volume – this man is William Johnson, and he has learned all of these
skills from the Mohawks. [Flexner, 1959:37-38]
Johnson learned to speak Mohawk early on, and at some point, the date is unknown,
Johnson was formally adopted as a member of the Mohawk people. He was given the
30 name Warraghiyagey meaning “a man who undertakes great things” (Flexner, 1959:39-
40).
Johnson as Liaison and a Military Man
Johnson’s relationship with the local Iroquois and his ability to speak their language made him a resource ready to be tapped by the political and military leaders of the young colonies. His career as an intermediary between the Europeans and the Native
Americans began by accident. While attending a meeting between Governor George
Clinton and the Iroquois in 1746 as an observer, Johnson was thrust into the limelight once things began to break down. Clinton had been trying to recruit Iroquois warriors for the North American arm of King George’s War, but things did not go as plan. Defeated,
Clinton made Johnson colonel of whatever forces could be raised from the crowd and essentially dumped the entire mess in his lap before leaving. Thus, Johnson’s military career began with a bit of a whimper, the young man left behind to deal with a mass of unruly Iroquois (Flexner, 1959:59-63).
Johnson had some luck recruiting Iroquois to the British side during King
George’s War, although many, like the Mohawk, tried to remain neutral, and the more western and north nations tended to side with the French. The main task was to get the
Iroquois to fight. They were treated poorly during by the white settlers also under
Johnson’s command during their one brief excursion, and problems with pay also prevented full cooperation. Johnson’s involvement in King George’s War was far less significant than the outcome (Flexner, 1959:63-79, 81-82, 88-92).
31
In the Treaty of Utrecht, signed in 1713, the British had gained “official” control over the Iroquois nations. The French disputed this claim of dominion, but they were forced to accept it with their defeat in King George’s War. Since the Iroquois themselves claimed lands in the Ohio Valley, the British now claimed to control the frontier territory by virtue of their jurisdiction over the Iroquois (Flexner, 1959:94).
A Growing Family
With his first military experiences behind him, Johnson became increasingly settled in the Mohawk Valley. He built his great house known as Mount Johnson between
1748 and 1750. It is a stylish 2.5 story Georgian home with a semi-subterranean basement containing the kitchen and a tall attic under a broad gambrel roof which was divided into two half-stories for servants sleeping quarters by placing boards across the rafters. The floor plan is classic Georgian with a central hall with symmetrical rooms to either side. European materials were used for the finishing touches, and fineries of all kinds filled the great house. Catharine and Johnson’s children with her were present without a doubt, but the house was also sometimes home to Johnson’s first Iroquois mistress and the child that the two had together. This child was Brant Johnson, the only completely illegitimate half-Iroquois child that Johnson would ever recognize as his own
(Flexner, 1959:97-99).
Johnson met with Mohawk leaders in 1752 to discuss a land purchase, and
Flexner (1959) has identified this event as the first meeting of Johnson and the young
32
Joseph and Molly Brant who were 9 and 15 at the time respectively (112). From this point forward, the story becomes Brant’s. Johnson’s political career in the colonies was just beginning in 1752, but almost every single significant action that Johnson took either as a diplomat or as a military commander involved Brant in some way from here on out.
And so the focus shifts from the white savage to his protégé.
33
Joseph Brant
Joseph Brant, born Thayendanega, meaning two sticks of wood bound together, was the son of two common Mohawk. His father, Tehowaghwengaraghkwinkwa (a man taking off his snow shoes) also known as Peter, bore no distinction within the Mohawk community, and his mother, Margaret, was a simple Mohawk maiden. She had a daughter, baptized Mary, born in 1734 or 1735 from a previous relationship. Hisorians have identified Mary as Molly Brant. Joseph was apparently born in 1742 while his parents were on a hunting trip in the Ohio territory. His birthday was probably in March
(Kelsay, 1984:39-44). Early biographers of Brant let his stature late in life and the legends told of him cloud their judgment regarding his origins. Stone (1846) states that
Brant’s father, the same Tehowaghwengaraghk-winkwa named by Kelsay, was a sachem and that Brant was a chief from birth (3).
Helen Caister Robinson (1971) took the known details of Brant’s life and turned them into a narrative which reads almost like a novel. She took many liberties to paint a vivid picture, and much of what she has written is based both on biographical information about Brant specifically and ethnographic information about the Mohawk and the
Iroquois in general. She describes the birth and the naming of Brant:
At dawn a young Indian girl emerged from the hut with a newborn
infant clutched in her arms. Weary from her hours of labour (sic ), she
carried him slowly toward the washing place…Presently an elderly
woman emerged from the shed…a chubby Indian girl of five or six
dancing at her side excitedly…”What name would you give him, my
daughter?” the old woman asked as the mother began to feed her baby.
34
For a moment the young girl gazed thoughtfully at her offspring. Then,
with her forefinger, she drew two parallel lines in the soft sand, and
circled them. “See,” she said, “I have drawn the ring and parallel lines,
the Mohawk symbol of strength. My son will be called
‘Thayendanegea,’ the name that means strength…[Robinson, 1971:2-
3]
This story, while entirely the invention of Robinson, does give an uncommon perspective on Brant’s Mohawk name which is usually dismissed as being plain and unremarkable by his other biographers.
Brant’s father died of during an epidemic in the years after his birth, and Margaret remarried to a man names Lykas shortly thereafter. Lykas met a similar fate, however, and was killed while heading off to battle in 1750. Margaret, twice a widow, found herself in a tough position, the mother of two young children without the support of a husband. She made a fair income during the ginseng boom of 1752, but that did not last
(Kelsay, 1984:44-45). It was during this interim period that the family met William
Johnson for the first time. Johnson had moved to the area in 1738. Things turned around for Margaret quickly once again, and in 1753 she was married to Brant Canagaraduncka, a sachem, whose status elevated the entire family. Molly and Joseph were 17 and 10 respectively at the time (Kelsay, 1984:47, 52-54).
The Young Warrior
Little is known about the first decade and a half of Brant’s life. It was likely the typical childhood of any Mohawk boy, although he did have the benefit of being the step-
35 son of a sachem. According to Kelsay (1984)., the first evidence of Brant’s actions as a young adult are military records from the French and Indian War that show him a part of the Iroquois detachment commanded by William Johnson during Major General
Abercromby’s unsuccessful invasion of Canada in 1758. Joseph was fifteen at the time
(62). Brant was also present at Colonel Bradstreet’s victory at Fort Frontenac later that same year, and he served under Brigadier General Prideaux as a part of Major General
Jeffrey Amherst’s capture of Ft. Niagara (63-65). Brant also served during a campaign on
Montreal in 1760 and stayed on when many of his fellow Iroquois deserted, earning him a silver star (65-66). Brant apparently enjoyed his time as a warrior, and he would reprise this role several times in his life. He is quoted by Stone (1846). as commenting “I like the harpsichord well, and the organ still better; but I like the drum and the trumpet best of all, for the make my heart beat quick” (19).
A Relationship with Johnson and an Education
In 1759, Catherine Weissenberg died. Molly Brant had already been living at
Mount Johnson as yet another of Johnson’s dubious housekeepers, and she was pregnant with Peter, the first of the children the two would eventually have together. After Peter was born in August of 1759, the Mohawk considered Johnson and Molly married, and they granted Johnson 80,000 acres of land along the Mohawk River as a wedding gift.
During this period, Johnson made frequent trips to Canajoharie, and he always stayed with Joseph at the Brant family house (Kelsay, 1984:67-70).
The story of how Johnson and Molly met is the stuff of legend in the Mohawk
Valley. One version is recounted by Flexner:
36
According to Valley legend, Johnson was trying to bolster morale on
his frontier with a militia muster when a royal officer cavorted up on a
highbred steed. From a clump of trees, a beautiful Indian maiden was
drawn to the beautiful horse. She touched the gleaming flanks,
fingered the silver bridle, and then with one light, graceful movement
leaped from the ground and landed behind the officer…the great Sir
William helped the Mohawk maiden dismount. She told him her name
was Molly Brant. He took her home that night and kept her as his love
till death did them part. [Flexner, 1959:185]
Another version is set in Albany during a parade. Molly again jumps onto the back of a horse behind a British officer and catches the eye of Johnson (O’Toole, 2005:169).
The relationship between Brant and Johnson grew during Johnson’s visits to
Canajoharie, and Johnson’s respect for the intellect of the young Mohawk led him to send
Brant off to Rev. Eleazor Wheelock’s school in Lebanon, CT in July of 1761 with two other young Mohawk. While his two companions left the school after only a few months,
Brant stayed on learning English quickly, adopting the Christian faith, and taking steps towards becoming a missionary (Kelsay, 1984:71-72, 76, 83-89). He was summoned back to Canajoharie by Molly a short while later to deal with the shady land dealings of
George Klock, however. Klock was the heir of a man who had unfairly traded a pittance for huge chunks of Mohawk territory, and he had come to the area to claim the land he felt he was entitled to (Kelsay, 1984:78-80).
A Home for Brant
37
While leading a small band of Mohawk against rebellious Iroquois to the north during the confusion of Pontiac’s Conspiracy, Brant met his future wife at the Oneida village of Oquaga. The girl’s name is a point of confusion; she is alternately referred to as
Neggen, Peggie, or Margaret Aoghyatonghsera (Kelsay, 1984:99). Brant visited Peggie at
Oquaga several times between 1764 and 1765. Her family, powerful members of the
Oneida tribe, eventually agreed to a marriage between the two because of Brant’s connections to William Johnson. Had he simply been a common-born Mohawk, the marriage would have never happened. The two were married on July 22, 1765 (Kelsay,
1984:108-109).
Helen Caister Robinson envisions the formal ceremony that would have joined the two:
Sometime after the Pontiac uprising, Joseph returned to the
Oneida village to ask Margaret, the daughter of a chief, to marry him.
The Oneida maiden, with whom he had once danced the Feather
Dance, was accompanied by her family when she walked through the
forest to Canajoharie for the marriage ceremony. In her most colourful
costume she led the procession to the longhouse, where she presented
the traditional cakes of sagamite to Joseph’s mother. The young girl’s
eyes were downcast, her manner shy and timid.
Eager for some indication of her approval of his choice, Joseph
watched the older women welcome her guests. She accepted
Margaret’s present with great dignity, brushed a hand across the brow
of her new daughter in a gesture of affection, and turned to offer the
38
customary gift of dried venison to the bride’s mother. When these
formalities had been attended to, she smiled briefly at her son.
Joseph and Margaret were married by the simple Iroquois
ceremony – the sagamite cakes signifying the bride’s ability to keep
house, the gift of venison proof that the husband would provide for his
wife [Robinson, 1971:37].
It is not clear where the couple lived during the interim between their marriage and their extended stay at Fort Ontario discussed below. It is possible that Brant lived at Oquaga for a time, or the couple may have returned home to Canajoharie and lived in the Brant family home.
Brant began his career an interpreter in 1766 during the treaty talks with Pontiac.
He earned 70 pounds sterling per year for his services. During his stay at Fort Ontario during the treaty talks, his first child, son Isaac, was born. When the family returned to
Canajoharie in 1767, they lived in the Brant family house. The house was referred to as
Brant’s, but it really belonged first to his mother and then to Molly as property passed down through women in Mohawk society. Molly spent most of her time at Mount
Johnson, however, so the house was open for use by Brant and his family. The house served as living quarters for the family, but it was also essentially the village inn. The house was frequently home to Johnson and other visitors (Kelsay, 1984:112-115).
While no description of the house exists in the historical records of the time, records of purchases by Brant show that he was not afraid to spend his money. He spent
150 pound at Robert Adams’ store in Johnstown between January 1769 and May 1773.
The house was furnished with two beds, a table and 12 chairs, fireplace implements, and
39 a liquor case. They kept cattle, sheep, and hogs at the house as well as apple trees and berry bushes, and they exploited the local maple trees for syrup. For all of this production, Brant owned a wagon, a plow and harrow, a sleigh for hauling (as well as another one for pleasure), and seven horses (Kelsay, 1984:116-117).
Obviously, Brant and his family lived in comfort. His spending habits on items for inside and around his house also indicate that he might have spent a good deal of money on embellishment for the architecture of the house. While there is no record of anything of this nature, it is hard to imagine that Mount Johnson with its symmetrical and austere Georgian façade had no influence on Brant’s house. From a historical perspective, it seems plausible that Brant would have modeled his home after the Georgian homes of the time. The biggest bump in the road for that line of thinking is the fact that it is unknown exactly how much influence Brant had over the initial construction of the house since it originally belonged to his mother. Archaeological evidence in Chapter 4 will further this discussion as a construction date range can be identified using remains found in the foundation walls.
More Work and Family
Brant continued to work as an interpreter, and he also opened up a small store in
Canajoharie trading wampum, paint, and other supplies. He was present as an interpreter during the meeting at Fort Stanwix in 1768 where a boundary was established between the colonies and the hunting grounds of the Iroquois. During this meeting, missionaries sent by Rev. Wheelock to try to secure land for his school almost ruined negotiations by getting the Senecas to back out of the agreement at the last minute. This greatly angered
40
Johnson causing him to break off all ties with Wheelock. Brant followed suit as Johnson had now become a closer mentor than the distant Wheelock (Kelsay, 1984:124-126).
Brant’s daughter Christina was born in 1769. This new joy was tempered by the death of Peggie from consumption in March of 1771. Shortly after his wife’s death, Brant retired to Fort Hunter for a time to work on translating scripture into Mohawk (Kelsay,
1984:131-134).
Doctor Stewart was then engaged upon another revision of the Indian
Prayer Book, and Joseph assisted him in making various additional
translations. He likewise assisted the Doctor in translating a portion of
the Acts of the Apostles and a short history of the bible, together with
a brief explanation of the Church catechism, into the Mohawk
language. [Stone, 1846:27]
He was ready to publish the Gospel of Matthew in 1774. While at the fort, Brant remarried to Susanna, the half-sister of Peggie, in the Mohawk tradition (Kelsay,
1984:131-134). Dr. Stewart, also a reverend, refused to marry Brant and Susanna, but
Brant was able to find a less scrupulous German minister who would (Stone, 1846:27).
A Mentor Passes On
William Johnson died on July 11, 1774, hours after a speech where he implored the Mohawk to remain patient even though settlers were beginning to violate the boundary set in the 1768 treaty (Kelsay, 1984:136-138). Johnson is often thought of as the most important American at the time other than Benjamin Franklin, although his influence was in a decidedly different direction. It has been suggested that if Johnson had
41 been alive during the American Revolution, the Iroquois would have been persuaded to support the British fully, and the tide of the war might have turned in the opposite direction (Flexner, 1959:332-336, 340-341).
Johnson left a legacy behind him that can still be felt today. Late in his life,
Johnson had turned to the cause of Indian rights. He felt that Iroquois culture should be protected lest it be absorbed by the Europeans and disappear altogether. But he was not just trying to protect the Iroquois; he was trying to reinvent them. Joseph Brant stood as an outstanding example of this “New Indian” that Johnson had tried to create, one that had all the benefits of Western civilization while still in touch with his native roots.
Johnson also built several churches and schools, many of which still stand today, and he established Johnstown in 1765 to serve a center for craft production and farming development. When he died, Johnson left a wide wake behind him. His son Guy would try to take the reigns as the new Superintendant of Indian Affairs, a position Johnson had held unofficially since he came to North America and officially since 1755, but he never had the impact of his father (Flexner, 1959:287-301).
Brant’s Life after Johnson’s Passing
After Johnson’s death, Brant led a long, complex, and interesting life until his death in 1807 in Canada. During the intervening years, he fought extensively for the
British during the American Revolution, he and his men becoming feared for their ruthlessness and given credit for countless acts of cruelty that they had nothing to do with. He travelled to Britain on two occasions, had an audience with the king, and had his portrait painted. He lost Susanna, his second wife, and married Catharine Croghan who
42 he loved passionately. He settled with the rest of the Mohawk in Canada and built a fine house in the Federal style at the new village of Cataraqui. All of this and much more makes up nearly three quarters of Kelsay’s (1984). biography, but there is no need to delve into it in further detail here.
Conclusions
This brief look at the lives of Joseph Brant and William Johnson provides valuable insight into the question of the style of the Brant family house. It has been established that the house was probably built for Brant’s mother and her husband, and
Brant only occupied it later, throwing doubt on the notion that Brant built the house from the ground up for himself in whatever style he might have felt was appropriate. If it is assumed that Brant’s mother built the house without outside input, it seems likely that it would have matched the utilitarian Dutch style of the accompanying barn. There would have been no reason to build them differently if the more style-conscious Brant was not involved. However, it has also been shown that Brant was a man who enjoyed spending his money, and it would not be hard to imagine him updating the façade of the house or changing its architecture slightly to suit his desires after moving in. Finally, the house that he later built for himself at Cataraqui was of the Federal style. As will be explained in Chapter 3, the Federal style is merely a variation on the Georgian style. The distinction between the two is largely political. If Brant built in the modified Georgian later in his life, it makes sense that he would be referring back to his original house along the
Mohawk River. Further investigation is necessary to arrive at any meaningful conclusions.
43
4. Architecture
Perhaps the most interesting period in American architectural history, the story of the transition from ramshackle huts and dug-outs to solid structures built of stone, brick, and wood is incredibly complex and rife with over-generalizations and misconceptions. It can also be seen as the first instance of America in its role as a great cultural melting-pot as styles blended and changed in the new environment. After the initial period of houses being shaped more by circumstance and necessity than principles of proper form, academic styles emerged first in the cities and then spread across the countryside, and the earlier, more informal styles developed and transformed as they adopted some of the principles of the formal styles while still holding on to their vernacular roots. A close look at this entire period will build an understanding of architecture in the mid-18 th century and allow for fine distinctions to be made between the Dutch Colonial and
Georgian styles. Cursory readings show that there is overlap both in time period and in several features that need to be sorted out before any kind of comparative study can be conducted.
Joseph Jackson breaks the history of colonial architecture in America down into three distinct time periods. The first includes the initial wave of colonization and the subsequent fifty years. The second includes the latter half of the 17 th century and ends with the rise of the House of Hanover in Britain in 1714. The third encompasses the reigns of the first three Georges from 1714 to 1820 (Jackson, 1924:6). Jackson (1924) names these subdivisions “the period of the pioneers, the period of building from books, and the period of both books and Americanization of the styles” (6) respectively. These time divisions, while not universally agreed upon and slightly misleading in their
44 simplicity and titles, are useful. Hugh Morrison (1952), who proposes only a distinction between Colonial and Georgian, makes the point that such distinctions are necessary because “Early Colonial” and “Late Colonial” does not do enough to illustrate the dramatic changes that occurred during these periods. (3-4)
Other, more specific timelines exist (Parissien, 1995:12-13), but they usually better reflect European and, more specifically, British trends that were not seen as strongly in the colonies. These timelines are also inadequate because their focus on
British trends leaves out the influence of the other European nations whose people influenced the architecture in less definable but still very real ways. As Thomas
Wertenbaker (1963) puts it, the United States is “the child, not of England, but of
Europe” (11).
This chapter is broken down into three main sections generally following a structure taken from the timeline laid out by Jackson with only a few modifications. The half century after the initial colonization of North America is referred to as The Period of the Pioneers, the following half century and more is referred to The Period of Building from Books and Memory, and the years between 1714 and the American Revolution are referred to as The Period of Building from Books and the Americanization of the Styles.
Dutch Colonial and Georgian architecture will be found in the second and third sections respectively, and the first section will focus on the quick transition of the colonists from dug-outs and wigwams to proper houses. Attention is paid to both the roots of Dutch
Colonial architecture in the Hudson and Mohawk Valleys and to the progression of
British architecture in the North in the first section. The three periods contain only two concrete dates: the colonization of the American Northeast in the 17 th century and 1714,
45 the year that the first of the Georges took the throne in Britain and the Georgian period properly began. Dutch Colonial and Georgian architecture existed side by side in New
York for many years, influencing each other to the point that some houses appear to be an amalgamation of the two, fitting into both styles and neither style at the same time.
Early Colonial: 1600-1650 - The Period of the Pioneers
When the first Dutch settlers arrived in the Hudson Valley and the first English settlers arrived in New England in the 17 th century, constructing fine houses was not a high priority. Colonists were on a relatively strict timeline from the moment they left
Europe through their second summer in the New World. Ideally, a settler left Europe in the winter, arrived in North America by March or April, and spent the summer clearing land, farming, and throwing together a temporary dwelling of some kind. The winter months could then be spent cutting timbers and gathering other materials for a more permanent structure, and the following summer would be spent building the new house and developing the subsistence base by expanding farming efforts, acquiring cattle, and/or setting up shop as one of the rare craftsmen of the early settlement (Reynolds,
1965:16).
The first shelters built in the New World by the colonists of New Netherland were crude, thrown together in the months before the first North American winter hit. They were designed not by an architect but by circumstance, and they bore little or no resemblance to the houses that the colonists had left behind (Embury, 1919:1-2). Since the requirements for survival were relatively universal in the first colonies, the resulting architecture was similar, and some have suggested in jest that these early structures were
46 the closest America has ever come to having a national architecture (Waterman,
1950:191).
The method used to construct some of these early dwellings has been immortalized by the observations of Cornelius Van Tienhoven, secretary of New
Netherlands from 1638-1656:
Those in New Netherland…who have no means to build farm
houses at first according to their wishes, dig a square pit in the ground,
cellar fashion, 6 or 7 feet deep, as long and as broad as they think
proper, case the earth inside with wood all around the wall, and line
the wood with bark of trees of something else to prevent the caving in
of the earth.
Floor this cellar with plank and wainscot it overhead for a
ceiling, raise a roof and spars clear up and cover the spars with bark or
green sods, so that they can live dry and warm in these houses with
their entire families for two, three, and four years…[Jackson, 1924:68]
The dug-out style of dwelling described above was likely the most common early structure in the colonies, but it was not the only type to be found. There is speculation that wattle and daub structures similar to basic indigenous housing found around the world existed with specific reference to those found on the Island of St. Martin, land controlled by the Dutch West India Company at the time (Waterman, 1950:192).
Other colonists with more time before winter or who arrived with the later waves of settlers are said to have built log or board cabins as more resources were available to them. These structures are usually associated with the first neighborhoods as population
47 densities began to climb over the first few decades of settlement. The simplest had only one room with a central fire pit and a hole above for ventilation – a miniature Iroquois longhouse in many respects. More substantial homes of this type might have two rooms with a central fireplace made of stone, brick, or wood. Thatched roofs were common at first, but wooden shingles and other materials were quickly substituted as thatching has little chance of standing up to the harsh winters of the American Northeast (Reynolds,
1965:17). The notion that log cabins existed in the American Northeast at this time is ruthlessly attacked by Harold Shurtleff (1939), however, who lists “tents, Indian wigwams, and huts or cottages covered with bark, turf, or clay” (3) as the primary early colonial structures. His book, The Log Cabin Myth , goes to great lengths to show that log cabins, though they enjoy a prominent place in the American mythos, were hardly if ever built by early settlers (Shurtleff, 1939:3).
After the first winter was over, settlers began to build more permanent structures of wood, stone, and brick. John Milnes Baker (1994) generously describes the early attempts at architecture in the British colonies of New England as “late medieval structures…Tudor and Jacobean buildings: asymmetrical, informal designs with steeply pitched roofs and gabled ends” (19). Baker even goes so far as to say that all it would take to make these early houses conform to the Georgian style are a few “embellishments over the eaves, window heads, and door surrounds with even vestiges of classical details”
(27). Embury is less complimentary, stating that these early structures were merely the work of masons and carpenters building as they were accustomed to build. The “English
Cottage Style” that emerged bears a resemblance to the country houses of the British
48 homeland, but Embury feels that they cannot be considered a part of any architectural regime (Embury, 1919:2-3).
The first truly Dutch houses appeared on Long Island and along the Hudson River during the first half of the 17 th century, but they were not the Dutch Colonial that we think of when we hear the term today. The Dutch West India Company had established a trading post on Long Island around 1613. The company did not actually receive a charter for the lands until 1621, and they wasted little time after that in getting the colony up and running. The first wave of settlers, a group of about 30 families, arrived in 1623. The families lived in makeshift shelters as already described for the first few years. Fort
Orange was built by 1630, and the first permanent houses began to appear shortly after that. These were built mainly of wood at first, but the transition to stone and brick came quickly as did the transition from thatching to wooden shingles. These early houses followed the traditional patterns of the cities of Holland with their doors on the gabled
(short) ends of the houses facing the street (Jackson, 1924:63-65).
The Dutch West India Company took steps to make sure their colony was being put together properly. In the first decades of the colony’s existence as the first waves of settlers arrived, the company put out pamphlets explaining where and how to properly build a proper house. In 1647, the Director General of New Netherland appointed a surveyor of buildings to keep shoddy buildings from being erected in the colony
(Jackson, 1924:67-70). These precautions were largely to minimize the risk of fires, and they were more than justified. Less than twenty years later, the Great Fire of London consumed a large portion of the city (Parissien, 1995:27).
49
The best was to build a settlement safe from the threat of fire is to build using brick and stone. Stone was used earlier because of availability. Bricks needed to be made.
Stone were plentiful across the landscape, and they needed to be moved out of the way to make the land suitable for farming anyway. The first stones used in houses were rough and uncut. (Reynolds, 1965:18) It was not uncommon to find houses made entirely of rubble if large stones were not readily available (Kimball, 1922:65). Masons, like most other members of the service trades, had not yet come to the New World in large numbers. The stones of these first houses were held together by a mixture of clay, mud, and straw or horsehair. Ground shell was used later as a tempering material to add strength, and limestone quarries were eventually exploited to make an even stronger, more traditional mortar (Reynolds, 1965:18-19). Over time, the quality of stone houses improved greatly from the rubble and rough fieldstone of the early days to more carefully selected stones placed to create a more stable wall to fully worked stones. Walls were made thick (1.5-3 feet) to increase stability (Morrison, 1952:102).
The origin of the bricks used in the early buildings of New Netherland is a point of contention that requires some explanation. Some historians believe that at least a portion of the bricks used in early buildings were brought over from Europe as cheap ballast on merchant ships that could then be traded for furs, timber, and other raw materials exported from the colonies (Baker, 1994:29). Jackson (1924) thinks that that idea of bricks being carted across the Atlantic is utterly ridiculous (4). The first brick kiln in New Netherland appears in 1628 (Wertenbaker, 1963:47). This negates the idea that all bricks were imported during the first period of settlement, but the idea that bricks that
50 also served a useful purpose as ballast were brought from Europe to help supply a rapidly expanding colony is sensible if nothing else.
While brick and stone were desirable building materials, wood was the most practical and readily available resource. Wood-frame houses probably appeared fairly early, but few have been preserved. Their presence in New Netherland early on is virtually assured by the well-known carpentry skills of the Dutch (Morrison, 1952:101-
102). Morrison describes a typical early frame house in New Netherland:
Framing and wall construction were much the same as in New
England, with heavy posts, smaller studs, and a framework of laths
holding a filling of clay bound by chopped straw or horsehair. This
was protected by exterior siding, most commonly wide clapboards
rather than the vertical plank siding of North Holland [Morrison,
1952:102].
Floor plans during this early period were fairly standard and simple. Houses built by the first wave of settlers may have only contained one room, but this was quickly succeeded by the common and long-lived two-room plan which is found from New
England (Morrison, 1952:20-21) down through New Netherland both in the Hudson
Valley and into northern New Jersey (Waterman, 1950:198). This most basic of plans usually included a central fireplace and could sometimes include a second floor, although a true second floor did not typically appear until after the Revolution (Reynolds,
1965:19). Rather, a “half” story under the sloping roof was commonly used as a bedroom for any children (Waterman, 1950:204).
51
A Typical House of the Pioneer Period
The architectural history of the first century of colonization in North America is essentially one long period of constant change, and creating a comprehensive summary of such a period is difficult if not impossible. Another tactic when dealing with information of a complex nature is to look at a specific instance and consider it within the context of the whole and the whole within the context of the one instance (the hermeneutic circle).
Inconsistencies become more obvious when information is subjected to this type of reasoning. To that end, excerpts from two 17 th century house construction contracts are presented and analyzed below. The big question: How do they fit into the pioneer period as already described?
Morrison presents the following excerpt from a contract for a house built in 1642 in New Amsterdam. The house measures twenty feet by thirty feet, but it is not stipulated in this section of the contract:
It shall be enclosed all around and overhead with clapboards tight
against the rain, inside even as the mason’s house, one partition, one
bedstead and pantry, two doors, one double and one single transom
window. The carpenter shall deliver 500 clapboards for the house:
Schepmoes [the owner] shall furnish the nails and the food for the
carpenter during construction, which commences this day, and for
eight weeks, when the house, accidents accepted, must be
ready…[Morrison, 1952:102]
Similarities can be seen between this brief description and the picture of an early colonial house already constructed here. The use of clapboards and the simple, two-room floor
52 plan both agree with what can be thought of as a typical mid-17 th century house in the
New World. The use of transom lights, windows placed over the door to allow light into the area around the doorway, is a more modern element usually associated with the introduction of more formal styles in the 18 th century (Baker, 1994:42; Morrison,
1952:316). This contract, however, suggests that the transom light had snuck across the
Atlantic and was in use long before the rest of the Classical entablature.
A second contract excerpt presented by Waterman describes a house built in 1655 in Brooklyn:
We, the Carpenters Jan Cornelisen, Abram Jacobsen, and Jan
Hendrickson, have contracted to construct a house…thirty feet long
and eighteen feet wide, with an outlet for four feet, to place in it seven
girders with three transom windows and one door in the front, the front
to be planed and grooved, and the read front to have boards
overlapping in order to be tight…and in the recess two bedsteads, one
in the front room and one in the inside room, with a pantry at the end
of the bedsteads…[Waterman, 1950:196]
This contract has more detail than the first, but it tells the same story. Like the first, the house is covered in clapboards and has a basic two-room layout. The door is embellished with transom windows as well. As a clarification, a bedstead (or bed-place) is a large shelf set into a wall where a mattress is placed ( Waterman 1950:214).
These two examples provide a good picture of what house architecture in New
Netherland looked like during the mid-17 th century, a period when houses had progressed past the primitive dug-outs and wigwams of the first generation but before the academic
53 trends of Europe had influenced the area much if at all. They also conform as well to the basic image of a pioneer period house as can be expected for a time of such diversity.
Dutch Colonial: 1650-1714 - The Period of Building from Memory and Books
The Dutch Colonial style is not an academic style. It cannot be found in the pages of 17 th and 18 th century architectural pattern books. In fact, it can be defined by its lack of ornamentation and distinctive embellishment. The term Dutch Colonial is often thought of today one definite thing: “…wide clapboards, a broad gambrel roof with flaring eaves, and fieldstone masonry to taste” (Morrison, 1952:104), but the variations present during the first century and more of colonization make this summary laughable. In fact, the defining characteristic of Dutch architecture in many minds, the sweeping gambrel roof mentioned in the description above, is not found historically in Holland. It was borrowed from the Huguenots, their settlement in northeastern New Jersey in the early days of colonization within shouting distance of the Dutch in New Netherland (Waterman,
1950:201).
Historical Background
The history of how Holland became an international economic powerhouse is long and interesting, but it is best summed up here along with a brief rehashing of the history of New Netherland with emphasis on what effect the political happenings had on the architecture. The entire country was once a swamp. A significant percentage of the landscape lay below sea level, but this was overcome by the patience and industry of the
Dutch people who spent years building a system of dikes to hold back the water while
54 they built up the land. The land underneath the swamps held no natural resources, and it lacked fertility. The Dutch displayed their great work ethic once again by slowly working nutrients into the soils and creating the verdant landscape of the Dutch countryside.
Without much viable farmland to go around at first though, they turned to the seas and were soon among the best fishermen and wealthiest merchants in the world with a fleet of over 35,000 ships by 1634. They took advantage of their positioning between the British
Isles and the Baltic nations and claimed trading rights along that route and others through force (Wertenbaker, 1963:29-31).
Holland stood out on the political landscape of the 17 th century as a nation ruled not by a monarch but by burghers, wealthy members of the urban upper and middle class who held power in the nations elected body, the Estates General, and kept the focus of the nation on trade (Baker, 1994:29). The Dutch East India Company, a well-known merchant enterprise that was given life by the Estates General, “became a state within a state, for it had power to conclude treaties, to keep an army and navy, to build forts, to acquire and govern colonies” (Wertenbaker, 1963:33). This emphasis on individual enterprise caused the Dutch to avoid the influence of the Renaissance at first, its ornate architecture seeming to symbolize the aristocracy of other European powers which they had no intention of letting into their fair land. This distaste for the ornate resulted in the development of the comfortable, small, ‘homey’ feeling in that is cherished in so much of today’s house architecture. (Baker, 1994:29)
In 1664, the Dutch were forced to hand New Netherland over to the British because of their mismanagement of the colony. Their interests in Central America had kept them from dedicating financial resources and from making a concerted effort to
55 increase the population, and as British power in North America expanded both north and south of New Netherland, the colonists found themselves in an increasingly tenuous position (Wertenbaker, 1963:34-35). When Colonel Richard Nicholls sailed into the harbor of New Amersterdam and demanded that the territory, granted to the Duke of
York by his brother King Charles II be turned over immediately. The Dutch had no option but to surrender (Morrison, 1952:107). The city of New Amsterdam, know as New
York from that point on, was divided in half by Wall Street. Buildings below Wall Street became increasingly the product of the Renaissance while the buildings above kept more of their original Dutch character (Wertenbaker, 1963:34-35, 57). The English influence can be seen on the facades of many Dutch Colonial houses built after the transition.
Pediment flanked doors and formal entablatures begin to appear below the eaves of a gambrel roof from this point on. (Morrison, 1952:107) The Dutch Colonial house took many forms throughout the 17 th and 18 th centuries. What follows is a concise description of the most important of these forms and how they relate to each other.
The Dutch Colonial House in America
Once Dutch settlers had spent sufficient time in the New World and had established themselves as farmers, merchants, or other tradesmen, they began to build more permanent structures that expressed their cultural heritage. Two main styles of
Dutch architecture existed at first: that which was influenced primarily by architectural trends in Holland which could be found in New Amsterdam and throughout the Hudson
Valley, and that which was influenced by the architecture of Flanders which could be found in New Jersey and parts of Long Island. The style of the Hudson Valley and New
56
Amsterdam is considered the True Dutch Colonial. The Flemish Colonial house did not even reach the peak of its popularity until after the Revolution, making its inclusion as a colonial style a bit of a misnomer (Morrison, 1952:105). This discussion focuses on the
“true” Dutch Colonial style of the Hudson Valley focusing on the range of materials used and associated details, the roof, the façade, the floor plan, and other, miscellaneous features.
Materials and their details
The true mark of a successful Dutch Colonial house is in the proper use of materials. Embury credits the pleasing look of a proper Dutch Colonial house almost entirely to the materials themselves and puts much less emphasis on the method of utilization. The Dutch in America never labeled a certain material as essential. Rather, they used whatever was available so effectively that the style has been able to transcend the limits of its environment. The houses of New England and South were typically made of clapboards over a wooden frame while the oldest and best of the houses in the Middle
Colonies, where the style originated, successfully blended multiple materials. (Embury,
1919:13-14)“Quite a common trick among the Dutch builders appears to have been to construct a square block enclosure of stone up to the height of the bottom of the rafters, and then to finish the gable end walls with shingles or clapboards, a type illustrated in the houses at Cresskill and Demarest” (Embury, 1919:14-15). Known materials include clapboards, brick, stone, stucco, and wooden shingles. These varied according to local taste and availability.
57
The favorite building material of the Dutch was brick, but they seldom used it exclusively. A house made entirely of brick in the 18 th century was a novelty (Reynolds,
1965:20-21). Terminology referring to brick can be confusing. Holland brick and English brick refer to standardized sizes set by the respective government; the bricks were not necessarily made in Britain or elsewhere. Holland bricks were about 2.5” thick and
English bricks were about 1.5” (Morrison, 1952:103). These bricks were usually laid in the English bond (alternating rows of headers and stretchers) or the Flemish bond
(alternating stretchers and headers throughout) (Reynolds, 1965:21). Some houses employed the attractive Dutch cross bond which employed larger spacing between bricks in a pattern to create diamond shapes (Morrison, 1952:103-104). The colors of the bricks made at the time include red, orange, purple, and salmon pink. Bricklayers often used multiple colors in one wall to put emphasis around a window or add a line of color through an otherwise bland, monotonous wall (Wertenbaker, 1938:43).
Dutch Colonial houses are known today for their understated colors. Faded greens and reds contrast with the light gray shingles and clapboards once freshly whitewashed.
When they were originally built and painted, however, the colors were as startlingly bright and would be seen as garish today. “The oxide of iron paint is a brilliant vermillion; whitewash, about the whitest white known; and the green, a raw pea green”.
The green came from copper oxide (Embury, 1919:18). These colors were used mainly on the door and on the shutters, their bright presence on the façade of an 18 th century house necessary “as eyes to the face” (Embury, 1919:58).
The Roof
58
In the current vernacular, Dutch Colonial architecture usually brings to mind a tall, sweeping, gambrel roof. It is one of if not the defining characteristics of the style in modern times. A gambrel roof is defined as:
A form of roof in two slopes on each side, the lower slopes steep like
an early roof, the upper rather flat. Probably derived from the French
Mansard, so called, and used for the same purpose, to prevent an
enormous height of the steep roof in the wide houses of the later type
[Isham, 1968:12].
Morrison (1952) hypothesizes that the name for the roof might have come from the angle formed by the roof of the house which is similar to the angle formed by the hock (tarsal joint) of the rear leg of a horse, also known as a gambrel. More likely, the term originated from the French word gamberel – “a crooked stick used by butchers” (37).
Though it is associated with Dutch Colonial architecture and is thought to have originated in Holland, the gambrel roof did not appear on Dutch houses until the 18 th century (Morrison, 1952:37). And while some like Kimball (1922) feel that seeking the origin of gambrel roofs is a fool’s errand since it was being used in many places at once during the 17 th and 18 th centuries (45), others still seek its origin. Morrison (1952) notes the use of the roof over Henry VIII’s Great Hall as early as 1530 and in Essex farmhouses of the 17 th century (37). Waterman (1950) feels that the gambrel roof originates in France with the Huguenots who derived it from the mansard roof. Waterman apparently is either unfamiliar with the British structures Morrison speaks of or does not count them as true gambrel roofs because he states, “It is worth recalling that gambrel
59 roofs are exceedingly rare in Holland and unfamiliar in England as well, while in France they were common, if not customary, after 1650” (201).
Even forgetting the origin of the style, there is still much debate over where the first example of a gambrel roof in the New World is located. Morrison (1952) cites sixteen examples of New England houses built before 1680 that all supposedly featured a gambrel roof, although he also cautions readers that further investigation is necessary as some of the houses may have been remodeled (37-38). Waterman traces the origin of the style to Bergen County, New Jersey, an area originally settled by the Huguenots. He bases this conclusion on the density of early houses still present in the area which feature a gambrel roof, but he too cautions the reader to avoid making definitive statements about the origin of any architectural feature in America because of the diversity of cultures present and the freedom most people took in borrowing from each other during this period (Waterman, 1950:201).
While the gambrel roof survives today as the Dutch Colonial roof of choice, it was not the only major form found during the 17 th and 18 th centuries. Hipped roofs, defined as “a roof which pitches from all four wall of the building it covers” (Isham,
1968:13), are found but were not common in the Hudson Valley during the 18 th century
(Reynolds, 1965:23). They are much more commonly found on Georgian houses, although Baker (1994) attributes this to the influence of Dutch architecture, suggesting that the style was more prevalent than others suggest (33).
The Façade
60
The façade of a Dutch Colonial house in the 17 th century looked nothing like one that would be found in the middle of the 18 th century. The earliest were designed by basic necessity and the latter were influenced by the Renaissance styles that appeared during the second century of European presence in North America. The principle and necessary features of any façade are its windows and its doors.
Windows in the 17 th century were made up of small panes separated by muntins - strips of wood or lead. The craftsmanship of the muntins was greater than any other part of the house at this time, and Embury (1919) wonders aloud why early settlers chose to put so much effort into their windows (49-50). These large, heavy windows were usually hinged so that could be opened outward (Morrison, 1952:106). Around the turn of the
18 th century, double-hung sash windows became popular, and they came to dominate the architectural landscape as soon as 1715. These windows were still made up of several small panes joined by muntins (Baker, 1994:27). Sash windows are made up of two sashes on tracks that allow them to move up and down, enabling the window to be opened without swinging it outward. (Isham, 1968:21-22)
About half of all surviving Dutch Colonial houses from the period have a split door where the top half can be opened independently of the bottom half (McAlester &
McAlester, 1984:114). Doors werealso battoned or paneled. Regardless of style, they were usually relatively broad compared to modern doors (Reynolds, 1965:24). In the 18 th century, doors were shorter than they are today largely because of the influence of
Renaissance architecture on the Dutch Colonial style and the desire to fit a classical entablature above the door without crossing over the line of the second story (Embury,
1919:50). Full entablature is comprised of architrave, frieze, and cornice (Isham, 1968:9).
61
The use of a full entablature was only one of the ways that Dutch Colonial houses adjusted to the changing styles of the 18 th century. The simplest modification, one that we would consider to be an obvious requirement for an attractive façade, is the symmetrical placement of the doors and windows across the façade, and symmetry increase steadily throughout the 18 th century (Rifkind, 1980:5). In addition to or instead of the classical entablature, doors were often flanked by pilasters (Embury, 1919:49). Transom windows became important to the Dutch Colonial façade during the 18 th century. The transition to a center-hall floor plan (discussed below) meant that the hallway leading in from the front door did not have the benefit of light from windows in the rooms that flanked it.
These classical ideas that brought about the changes in the Dutch Colonial façade spread through the colonies via books. Renaissance architecture is usually attributed to the efforts of Andrea Palladio, Inigo Jones, and others, but the ideas spread more rapidly because of pattern books which were filled with drawings of more practical uses for the classical elements and were more accessible to the average carpenter or mason.
Plan
The plan of a typical Dutch Colonial house evolved over time. An example of such an evolution from a one room plan to a two room plan and finally to a larger, more modern plan given by Morrison (1952:21) is typical of the evolution of every type of colonial architecture during the 17 th century with some modification. A center hall plan became popular during the 18 th century. Embury sums this basic pattern up:
The old houses almost invariably had a narrow central hall extending
through the building, with two rooms opening from it at each side;
62
these rooms were of about the same size, and their uses could be
interchanged without hurting the plan in the least. [Embury, 1919:61]
As the 18 th century progressed, the need for more internal space increased. The most popular way to increase the floor space of an existing house was to add two rooms to the back of the house, making it a ‘saltbox’. A saltbox is “a house squarish in plan with two stories at the front and one story at the rear, having a short sloping roof on the front sloping and a long sloping one on the back” (Baker, 1994:176).
The Dutch Colonial house of the countryside did not typically have two full stories until after the Revolution. They are often said to have 1½ stories, referring to the low ceilinged rooms above the first floor and below the roof. The upper floor was sometimes used as a granary when the house and barn were combined out of necessity
(Reynolds, 1965:23-24). Often, the upper floor was divided into one or two rooms that the children slept in (Waterman, 1950:204).
Georgian – 1714-1776: The Period of Building from Books and the Americanization of the Styles
During the first half century and more of colonization, “need shaped structure and structure was style” (Morrison, 1952:300). While the Dutch Colonial style did bring some order to the architecture of the Middle Atlantic, it was not an academic style with strictly defined characteristics. Baker says the following of the Georgian style:
Whether built in the North, the South, or the Middle Atlantic colonies
of Delaware, Pennsylvania, or New York, the same simple formality
epitomized this new popular style. Symmetry, aligned windows, and
63
accepted conventions based on Renaissance precedent for all the basic
component parts of the house characterize the American Georgian
style [Baker, 1994:42].
It is important to remember that the Georgian style in America is the first truly formal style in the colonies, but certain features of the structures make it appropriate to call most examples American Georgian or Georgian Colonial rather than simply Georgian. The
Georgian of North America differed from the Georgian of Britain, but it sprang from the same classical roots.
Historical Background
Before discussion the roots of the Georgian style in history, it is necessary to explain broader historical context of the term “Georgian” and what exactly it refers to in
Britain and in America. In a political context, according to Parissien, the Georgian period began in 1714, the year that George I of the Hanover line took the throne after the death of Queen Anne, the last of the Stuarts. The Georgian period lasts through the reigns of the
George II, George III, George IV, and, though it is debated, William IV, the brother of
George IV who died without a legitimate heir, ending the line of succession in the house of Hanover. This takes the period to 1837, the year that Queen Victoria took the throne and the Victorian era officially began. Parissien places an end to the period in 1820, the year George III died, to keep it from mixing with the emerging Victorian (Parissien,
1995:11-12). It bears noting that the there is a distinction in America between the
64
Georgian and Federal periods. Federal is a term used to define the architecture of the
United States after the Revolution, but as its end is still marked by the death of George
III, it is more a historic and political distinction than one that reflects changes in the general styles of the day (Morrison, 1952:4).
The Georgian style is rooted in Renaissance classicism. Renaissance architects, like many other scholars and craftsmen of the time, looked to the Romans for inspiration.
Much of their knowledge came from Marcus Vitruvius Pollio’s Ten Books of
Architecture written in the first century B.C. Pollio is seen as the most influential figure in Renaissance architecture and in the history of architecture in ge2neral, though his works are seldom viewed directly. The most influential interpreter of the works of Pollio was Andrea Palladio. His Four Books of Architecture boiled down the works of Pollio into a set of rules which, while they limited the creativity of the architect, brought the architecture of the Roman Empire into the 17 th century (Morrison, 1952:273-274).
Palladio’s books were popular enough to require twelve editions between 1663 and 1733
(Kimball, 1922:58). Palladio’s books were popularized in Britain by Inigo Jones. This was an essential step as the English, fresh from their split with the Catholic Church, would never have accepted the work of an Italian like Palladio directly (Parissien,
1995:21).
Palladio’s books found an immediate use after the Great Fire of London in 1666.
The fire destroyed 13,000 homes and 90 churches, and the history of architecture was changed forever because of it. Instead of a gradual evolution from the medieval styles to the emerging Renaissance influence, architects of the time had the chance to rebuild a city from scratch and make it better (Jackson, 1924:11-12). In the half century after the
65 fire, several laws were passed in London which aided in the transition to a more formal architectural style. Immediately after the fire, a law was passed requiring all façades to be made of brick or stone to lower the risk of fire. In the first decade of the 18 th century, wood cornicing was outlawed and wooden window frames were required to be recessed four inches into the walls (Parissien, 1995:27).
The Georgian House in America
Morrison (1952) states that the first truly Georgian house built in America was
Boston’s Foster-Hutchinson House built more than a decade before the start of the 18 th century (271). This is, more than likely, simply an instance of using convenient terminology, but it illustrates a crucial point about the Georgian period in America: it is ill-defined. What Morrison should have said is that the Foster-Hutchinson house is one of the first built in America to show a strong Palladian influence. The works of Palladio were first published in England in 1663, and while the books did influence the later Stuart architecture in the latter half of the 17 th century, they were not fully appreciated until after the Georgian period officially began in 1714.
This point clears up some confusion that is found frequently in the literature.
Baker (1994), while still using the term “Georgian” to describe the period in America, traces its roots to the late Stuart styles, specifically the late 17 th and early 18 th century
Queen Anne style which immediately precedes the Georgian (33, 35). Morrison (1952) also states that “the origin of the Georgian style in America was in the English architecture of the late Stuart period” (289). The Queen Anne style is characterized as having “an easy-going classicism” (Reid, 1989:16). It is not fully classical as Georgian
66 tries to be, but it is not fully medieval either (Reid, 1989:16). The point seems to be that the architecture of second half of the 17 th century and beyond was greatly influenced by the work of Palladio and others who explored classical themes. Saying that the American
Georgian is actually a derivative of the Queen Anne style would be like saying that the true Georgian of Britain is a derivative of late Stuart architecture when in fact they represent a continuum. The distinction of Georgian is made because of the convenient shift in monarchal power and the continued development and use of classical themes in the 18 th century.
Morrison divides the Georgian period in America in two at 1750 into the Early
Georgian and the Late Georgian. While this date is somewhat arbitrary, there is a definite pattern of increased formality and detail after 1750 that should be noted:
Before 1750 After 1750 - Wood houses: plain clapboards - Wood houses: sometimes rusticated treatment - Unbroken façade usual - Projecting central pavilion common - Corners marked by angle quoins - Corners often marked by giant pilasters - No entrance portico - Small entrance portico, or, in South, two-store portico - Front door with regular transom - Front door with semicircular arched window fanlight occurs - Angular or scroll pediment over - Segmental pediment over door also door used - Windows with many small panes - Windows with fewer and larger panes - Plain or corniced windows - Pedimented windows often occur - Single arched window on stair - Palladian window more popular for landing stair landing - Steeper roof pitches - Lower roof pitches - Balustraded roof-decks common - Balustraded roof-decks common - Formers have rectangular windows - Dormers sometimes have arched windows - Interiors have full-height wall - Interiors with paneled dado and paneling wall-paper above
67
- Several panels in the chimney - One large panel, elaborately framed breast, no mantel shelf over a mantel shelf - Plain or scrolled step ends on stairs - Paneled step ends on stairs - Classical and baroque decorative - Rococo and Chinese decorative motives motives occur [Morrison, 1952:316-317]
Materials and their details
The materials of Georgian houses in 18 th century America were the same as those used in Dutch Colonial and other houses. The only major difference was the quality.
Anyone wealthy enough to be building a Georgian house was wealthy enough to buy the best materials. Thus, there is a difference in the mean quality of Georgian houses relative to Dutch Colonial houses but little difference in the type of materials used. The standard building material of Georgian houses is brick (Morrison, 1952:293). Rifkind (1980) agrees that brick is the standard material used in a true Georgian house, but she does list wood frame and clapboard houses as important in the early days of Georgian in America.
She also mentions the use of fieldstone in Pennsylvania and the Hudson River Valley
(19).
Parissien (1995) lists wood as an important building material, placing it above stone for importance because of its availability. The laws passed after the Great Fire of
London and the general scarcity of wood in Great Britain made Georgian houses constructed of wood hard to find in the motherland (35). The McAlesters (1984) break the materials down by region. In New England, frame houses covered in clapboards dominated. In the Middle Colonies, brick and stone were much more common (140). The final word on materials may have been the cost. The Georgian style requires a lot of ornamentation and detail work that would have been expensive to carve from stone. Even
68 the wealthier colonists may have shied away from the price tag of such craftsmanship in the New World. The result of such economizing is the use of wood for cornicing and other detail work on houses constructed entirely of stone otherwise (Kimball, 1922:68).
The Roof
The Georgian style has no single style of roof that characterizes it the way the gambrel roof is synonymous with the Dutch Colonial style. There is much more variety, and the McAlesters (1984) divide the American Georgian into several subgroups mostly according to the style of roof. They list the side-gabled (40% of surviving Georgian houses), the gambrel (25%), and the hipped (25%) roofs as the primary with the remaining 10% having a variety of other types (139). A side-gabled roof has “the outline of the wall at the end of the roof from the eaves or cornice to the peak or ridge” (Isham,
1968:11).
The Façade
According to Foster (2004), “the main ingredient of Georgian design is symmetry
– as much as can be worked into both the elevations and the floor plans” (67). And there is indeed no other word used as frequently to describe the Georgian style. This symmetry is seen in the façade which typically features five-bays (central door with four flanking windows on the ground floor and five evenly spaced windows on the second). (Foster,
69
2004:66) This desire for external symmetry is even known to persist to the detriment of the floorplan:
…if the central hall at Westover needed a front window it must borrow
one at the expense of a neighboring room; and when in the Jeremiah
Lee House a partition abutted against a window…the conflict did not
budge the window from its axial position [Morrison, 1952:300].
This strict attention to detail made a Georgian house “superior to the ground rather than a part of it” (Morrison, 1952:300).
The first feature to change drastically was the door. Georgian door were typically paneled and wide (Morrison, 1952:300-301). They were usually dressed with classical pillars and a full entablature or other overdoor feature. A transom or fan light above the door was also common, but side-lights did not appear until after the Revolution (Baker,
1994:42). The most common overdoor features were the flat, classic entablature, the simple angular pediment, the arched or segmented pediment, and variations of the angled and arched pediments with gaps at their peaks known as broken pediments (Morrison,
1952:302). The cornicing above the door typically had “tooth-like dentils” for further embellishment (McAlester & McAlester, 1984:139).
Georgian houses used the double-hung sash windows that had become popular during the 18 th century and were already being used almost universally in any newly-built house at the time. The windows typically had many small panes early in the 18 th century
(18-24 at first), and this number decreased as time passed and technology allowed for the production of larger pieces of glass more easily (Morrison, 1952:303). The windows were
70 embellished as much as the doors, “surrounded molded architraves and capped with classical crown moldings or cornices” (Baker, 1994:42).
During the last years of the 18 th century, the Georgian style became simpler and less ornate. The façade became flatter while still retaining its dignified symmetry
(Rifkind, 1980:20). The transition from the less formal and entirely plain architecture of the 17 th century to the ultra-refined, austere Georgian in the middle of the 18 th century to the subdued formality of the late 18 th century creates a range of styles that can all be considered Georgian.
Plan
The floor plan of a Georgian house is relatively simple and it is almost completely standard in small houses. They are typically two stories tall, and they are almost universally two rooms deep. (McAlester & McAlester, 1984:139) The plan approaches a perfect square over time. The four rooms on the first floor are roughly symmetrical, and a hallway runs down the center with a stairway to the second floor. (Rifkind, 1980:19)
Very little meaningful variation on the basic plan exists in the geographical areas crucial to this study.
Conclusions
The preceding discussion paints a clear picture of what should be expected in a survey of Dutch Colonial and Georgian architecture. Dutch Colonial houses should be
71 more rectangular with simpler floor plans and plain façades unless otherwise updated.
Georgian houses should approach square, although there is enough variation that there could be difficulty in trying to paint a clear picture of the typical Georgian footprint.
They should be more ornate in general and have a simple, more standardized floor plan.
Both can be made of the same general range of materials, and a well-made Dutch
Colonial house will be similar in quality to an average Georgian house. Perhaps most important, there seems to be at least some overlap between the two styles, and the date of construction for the Brant House places it during a time when the overlap was probably at its highest point. To place the Brant House into either architectural category will require evidence that leaves little room for doubt.
72
5. The Indian Castle Site
Excavations of the Brant family home at Canajoharie were conducted by members of the anthropology department of The University at Albany, SUNY during the summers of 1984 and 1985. The project was supervised by Dean Snow. Graduate student
David Guldenzopf participated in the excavations and completed a dissertation using data from the site entitled The Colonial Transformation of Mohawk Iroquois Society
(Goldenzopf, 1986) which focused on the economic effects of colonialism on Mohawk society. This chapter provides details from the site and the excavations. All information is either taken from the Guldenzopf dissertation or has been provided by Snow in the form of personal communications.
The Site and the Excavations
The Brant family home site sits approximately 1.5 miles to the west of the site of the former Fort Hendrick. According to the Draper Papers, the house stood 50 rods
(251.46 meters) to the east of Nowadaga Creek and 60 rods (301.75 meters) north of a nearby Anglican Church known as the Indian Castle Church which still stands today.
(Guldenzopf, 1986:96) The remains of the house actually sit about 1000 feet from the church. A Dutch barn (Figure 5.1) stands between the church and the site of the house, still used occasionally today as a cattle barn. The house was destroyed in the 18 th or 19 th century, and all that remained when the team arrived in 1985 was a shallow depression marking the position of the foundation. Another, smaller depression was found nearby, the remains of a small outbuilding (Guldenzopf, 1986:93-96).
73
During the first summer of excavation, the team dug an 18m x .5m trench across the middle of the larger depression revealing portions of two walls of the foundation. The soil above the 18 th century deposits revealed a later occupation of the site during the 19 th century and also contained 19 th and 20 th century trash that had accumulated in the pit over the years. Using ceramic sherds found within the foundation walls, a George III copper coin, and glass beads, the team was able to date the construction of the house at some point between 1762 and 1780.
During the second summer of the dig, 40.5 square meters of the site were excavated, a total of less than 5% of the surface area. Units were opened both in the main house and in the outbuilding. Shovels were used to quickly move through the upper deposits. Figure 5.2 shows a map of the site with all units identified. In the house
(designated Structure 1), the walls of the foundation were .61 meters thick and were made of large, roughly cut limestone blocks (Figure 5.3). Remains of charred boards and rosehead nails indicate that the house had a wooden superstructure. No builder’s trench was found, indicating that the house was built by first excavating the cellar pit and then lining the walls with the limestone blocks (Guldenzopf, 1986:96)
Large flagstones along the east wall indicated the presence of a hearth above.
According to Guldenzopf’s own architectural research, the placement of the hearth on a short wall and its assumed mate on the other short wall are consistent with Dutch
Colonial architecture. The German style commonly used in New England would have placed the hearth in the center of the house, ruling it out as a possible style. The Georgian style usually placed the hearth in the center of the house as well, but chimneys placed at the two ends of a structure are not uncommon. The presence of a the Dutch Colonial
74 barn, the elongated rectangular shape of the foundation, and the placement of the hearth together provide enough evidence for Guldenzopf to conclude that the house was built in the Dutch Colonial style (Guldenzopf, 1986:106).
The smaller foundation (Structure 2) was likely the site of an outbuilding that could have been used for any number of purposes. Guldenzopf hypothesizes that it was most likely a summer kitchen. The foundation measures 3m x 4.5m with .46 meter thick walls. More nails and the remains of boards indicate the smaller structure was almost identical to the main house in wooden frame construction (Guldenzopf, 1986:107).
A refuse midden to the north of Structure 2 revealed an undisturbed stratigraphy that aided in establishing a timeline for site occupation. Level 1 of the feature was composed of 10cm of sod. Level 2 represented the secondary occupation of the site by
European settler Peter Schuyler and his family. It was made up of a very dark brown gravelly silt loam with a depth of 10-22cm and a ceramic date range of 1795-1820. Level
3 represented the 18 th century occupation of the house by the Brant family. It was made up of a very dark grayish brown gravelly sandy loam with a depth of 22-65cm. Ceramics place the date range for this level from 1762-1780 (Guldenzopf, 1986:108).
The Indian Castle Church
The Indian Castle Church (Figure 5.4) makes for an excellent case study for architecture in the area. Built in 1769, the church was originally constructed in the
Georgian style with the long side of the structure facing the road with a door centered on it. In 1855, the church was rotated 85 degrees so that the short ends faced north and south, and the door was moved to the north side. Other stylistic changes were made as
75 well to make the church conform to the Greek Revival style popular at the time
(Guldenzopf, 1986:92). The church is evidence in favor of the Brant family house being built in the Georgian style. First, the church was built in the Georgian style within only a few years of the Brant house. This proves that the Georgian style could be found in the
Mohawk Valley at this time. The Georgian style was the most prevalent style of the region in the mid-18 th century according to Morrison (1952:2) and others. Second, the changing of the style from Georgian to Greek Revival in the 19 th century shows that people in the area, even though the Mohawk had left at that point, were conscious of the styles of the day and went to a considerable amount of trouble to adapt the church.
Conclusions
The dating of the house foundation to between 1762 and 1780 is supported by historical data. While the exact date of construction is not known, it is known that Brant moved into the house with his wife and child in 1767. The structure must have been built before then unless it was heavily modified at a later date. This also puts the construction date potentially before 1766, the year that Brant received his first salaried position as an interpreter. If the house was built before Brant had a significant income, it seems unlikely that we would have exerted an influence over its construction by helping to pay for materials and labor.
Guldenzopf’s assumptions about the architectural style of the house are well founded. Dutch Colonial and Georgian would have been the two most prevalent styles in the area at the time. His one minor error seems to be in associating the Hudson and
Mohawk Valleies with New England instead of with the Middle Colonies of
76
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware. The Georgian style in the Middle
Colonies is typified by chimneys placed at the ends of the house rather than at the center.
(Foster, 2004:66) Consequently the Brant house could have been built in the Georgian style and the placement of its chimney is not conclusive evidence that it was built in the
Dutch style. The presence of the Dutch barn and the elongated footprint do both point to
Dutch Colonial architecture, but further investigation is necessary to be sure.
77
Figures
Figure 5.1: The Dutch barn at the Indian Castle site.
78
Figure 5.2 Map of the Indian Castle site showing the outlines of the two foundations and the excavated units.
79
Figure 5 .3: The foundation wall as seen from the excavation unit at the east end of the house.
80
Figure 5.4: The Indian Castle Church in its current Greek Revival style (upper left) and the original Georgian style (upper right). The map below shows the position of the church before and after its rotation in 1855.
81
6. Methodology and Results
The most concrete architectural data available from the Brant House of the Upper
Castle is its footprint. The foundation of the house remains, its stone walls relatively unaffected by the fire that consumed the rest of the structure. The dimensions of the foundation are readily available in the site report of the excavation conducted by faculty and students from The University at Albany, SUNY under the supervision of Dean Snow during the 1984-1986 field seasons. The two most common architectural styles of the region in the mid-18 th century were Dutch Colonial and Georgian. The goal of this chapter is to correlate the dimensions of the Brant House foundation with the footprints of houses from the same time period in either the Dutch Colonial or Georgian architectural styles.
Data Collection and Methods
Databases of historic architectural records are freely available online. Most, however, are lacking important details. The Historic American Buildings Survey
(HABS), possibly the most comprehensive and certainly the longest running survey of historic American architecture conducted to date, does not classify houses by architectural style. A typical HABS document consists primarily of photographs and measured drawings with a brief description of the structure. The description usually contains details regarding construction dates and family background of the original owners as well as additional historical details pertinent to the time and place of construction, but the level of detail of inconsistent. The lack of a definition of style is crippling, however, because of the similarities between many contemporary architectural
82 styles including Dutch Colonial and Georgian. Similar building materials, major architectural features such as roof style that can be identical across many styles, or minor detailing that may have been added later to update an early house can confuse visual analysis of architectural style.
The online architectural database of the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation of the State of New York, the New York State and National Registers of
Historic Places Document Imaging Project, is searchable by architectural style, but the records do not include measured drawings. Most contain photographs, however, and many of the scanned images contain enough detail to take usable measurements of multiple sides of the structures. Since the photographs contain no scale or reference of any kind, the only useful measurements are those done proportionally. For instance, the number of windows on one side of a house relative to the number of windows on a perpendicular side says something about the proportions and general shape of the footprint of the house. This assumes, however, that the windows are uniform both in size and spacing. The evenness in spacing and size produces, for the purposes of this study, a house of ideal proportions (Figure 6.1).
Certain architectural styles, like Georgian, put a heavier emphasis on symmetry while others, like Dutch Colonial, focus on function and economy over form. It is not uncommon for Dutch Colonial houses, and even the odd Georgian house, to have windows in a non-symmetrical configuration (Figure 6.2). This unevenness usually reflects the interior floor plan of the structure. The challenge is to develop a method to estimate the number of windows that would fit on the side of a house if even proportions
83 are maintained. A house such as the one in Figure 6.2 could be measured in terms of its potential windows (w p) instead of the number of windows it actually has. (Figure 6.3)
A house which, in reality, has only three windows across its façade can be said to have four potential windows. If this method is applied to two perpendicular sides of a house, the resulting ratio represents the footprint of the house. With a population of data from examples of both Georgian and Dutch Colonial houses, statistical analysis will reveal if the typical footprint of one style is more closely related to the Brant House.
The Formula
The formula to determine the number of potential windows on a given side of a building (Figure 6.4) is straightforward. The number of potential windows (w p) is equal to the distance between the two outermost windows (c) minus the average of the space between the edges of the house and the outside edge of the two outermost windows (a, b).
The difference between the two is then divided by the average of the space between the edges of the house and the outside edge of the two outermost windows (a, b) and the average width of the two windows (x, y). It is easiest to think of the spacing as being divided into ‘window units’ – the window and the empty space to one side of it. The average of ‘a’ and ‘b’ is subtracted from ‘c’ to account for the space between the last potential window and the known, outermost window (see the shaded box in Figure 6.5).
In order to arrive at the total number of potential windows, the two outermost windows are then added to the quotient. The result of the equation is the number of windows that could potentially fit between the two windows if even spacing is assumed. The variables
84 and the dotted outlines of the potential windows are shown in their proper places in
Figure 6.5.
Data Collection
New York’s State and National Registers of Historic Places Document Imaging
Project contains records of 50 houses deemed Dutch Colonial in style. Of those 50 records, 20 contain photographs that were sufficient for the purposes of this study.
Sufficient photographs show perpendicular sides either in a single photograph from a corner perspective or show perpendicular sides in two separate photographs.
Photographs showing two sides must be taken from an appropriate angle so that distortion due to perspective is minimized. The angle limitation for the side of a house for this study is set at 22.5˚ from horizontal, allowing a maximum range of 45˚.
Measurement are taken using Screen Calipers TM , a program created by Iconico, a software developer specializing in precision, on-screen measurement applications.
Measurements are in pixels even though the Screen Calipers can be set to measure in either hundredths of inches or hundredths of centimeters. Pixels are a definable unit on a computer screen, and their mathematical usefulness in terms of significant digits is therefore much greater than measurements accurate to .01 inches or .01 centimeters.
Initial Results
The results of the data collection of all fifty Dutch Colonial houses can be found in Appendix A including historic and physical details of each structure and the
85 measurements taken from usable photographs. A rather uninspiring histogram results
(Figure 6.6) when the ratios from the twenty usable photographs are plotted. The sporadic shape of the graph indicates that the formula did not produce a normal population of data. The results from the collection of Georgian house records are equally disappointing (Figure 6.7). The Georgian survey consists of 35 house records with 17 usable for the study. The two likeliest culprits for these results are the size of the population and the formula. Since a larger population of relevant and complete data is not readily available, it is necessary to adjust the formula in an attempt to produce more regular and more accurate results.
The formula does not account for the variability in the size of windows or the size of the space between windows relative to the entire width of the house. For instance, the façade of the house in Figure 6.8 has second floor windows that would produce a very low w p number because of the distance between the edge of the house and the outside edge of the first window (the first floor windows were used in the study) while the façade of the house in Figure 6.9 would produce a much larger w p number. Despite the fact that the two houses appear to be similarly proportioned, the ratios of their footprints produced by the formula are drastically different. While this is an extreme example that does not actually represent a case from the study, it does illustrate how smaller differences in window spacing and window size across the entire population could skew the data.
Adjustments
To account for these variances, two of the variables are mathematically normalized according to trends across the entire population. The average width of the
86 two outside windows ((x+y)/2=z) and the average window spacing from the outer edges of the house ((a+b)/2=d) for each house are compared in terms of their percentage of the total width of the house. The average of these numbers across the entire population creates global-d and global-z percentages that can be applied to all houses. The new window sizes are not applied to the outside windows that have already been directly measured, but the “c” variable is adjusted so that the spacing between the outside edges of the house and the outside edges of the outermost windows are equal to the spacing of the windows in the middle of the house. This keeps the house properly proportioned in terms of window spacing but essentially constricts the inside windows to make them conform to the proportional average of the entire population while still counting them as one full window. (See Figure 6.10 for a visual explanation) All measurements and adjustments can be found in Appendix A.
Adjusted Results
After all of the data has been adjusted and the histograms recreated with the new numbers, Figures 6.11 and 6.12 are produced. In both cases, the sample means have only been changed by an average of 3%, but the standard deviations have been reduced by about 2/3. While the sample sizes still prevent the samples from producing nice, neat bell curves, the samples appear to contain relatively normal distributions of data. In order for the data to truly be meaningful, however, it must be back-checked against the original houses to see if the resulting ratios do accurately represent the footprints of the structures.
87
Google SketchUp
Google SketchUp is a three-dimensional drafting program that is available in a limited form for free. The professional version of the program boasts more advanced tools for constructing complicated 3D architectural models, but the basic version is more than adequate for the purposes of this study. The program has the ability to create accurate 3D models from photographs using lines of perspective. The scaling of these models is far from accurate, relying on the placement of a human analog to approximate relative size, but since the study relies on proportion instead of actual measurements, this limitation is not important. Still, the accuracy of the program must be established before it can be used.
The program allows a user to select the central axis of the object to be three- dimensionally rendered and place an upper and lower line of perspective for each plane.
Scale is established by sizing a human model relative to whatever object is being rendered. (Figure 6.13) Results are typically more accurate the further apart the upper and lower lines of perspective are from each other and the further they can be extended towards the vanishing point. After proper perspective has been established, walls can be drawn on the perpendicular planes over the walls of the structure. (Figure 6.14) The program has a dimension tool that can measure the sides of the structure, and a ratio is produced from these dimensions that can be compared to the ratio resulting from the formula.
Two studies show the efficacy of the SketchUp program, one at a scale much smaller than the houses in the study and one at a somewhat larger scale in the hopes that if the program does have a significant margin for error, it will be more easily seen at one
88 of these extremes. The small scale study measures the size of a cardboard box (Figure
6.15) from four different angles at four different distances. Figure (Figure 6.17) displays the study graphically and contains the results. The average of only 1.9% difference from the actual for the entire study is an encouraging result. The large scale study measures the western wing of the Ferguson Building (Figure 6.16) on the Penn State University
Park campus. The study (Figure 6.18) focuses on the effects of distance and the use of magnification rather than angles. The measured vantage points of the study produce an error (1.6% average) similar to the small scale study, and the three unmeasured vantage points show that extreme distance can have a detrimental effect on the accuracy of
SketchUp’s measurements.
The requirements of the SketchUp rendering function are strict enough to exclude the majority of house images from the database. The image must include two perpendicular sides of the building in one shot, preferably at an isometric angle that shows both sides from a similar perspective. While the formula can produce comparable measurements of two sides from separate images, SketchUp cannot. This eliminates a fairly large portion of the house images. The second limiting factor is the type of lens that was used to take the original photograph. In order to fit the entire structure into the frame when there was limited space to stand away from the house, many photographers apparently used wide-angle lenses which distort the photographs in ways that make them unusable in SketchUp. Wide-angle lenses “increase the size of objects which are closer to the camera in relation to the background, and decrease the size of objects that are distant” (Paduano, 1996:13). The distortion, called foreshortening, increases the closer
89 the camera is to the subject and how close the object being photographed is to the edge of the frame. (Paduano, 1996:13)
The effects of foreshortening make many of the house images distorted to the point that they cannot be used in SketchUp. This does not disqualify the images from the statistical portion of the study, however, because the side of the house is not being directly measured – the goal instead is to determine the number of potential windows using proportion. Regardless of how distorted the side of a house becomes because of the use of a wide-angle lens, the windows remain in proper proportion to the side of the house so long as the measurements are averaged. For instance, two windows measured directly may take up an average of 15% of the total width of a house. If the house were photographed using a wide-angle lens from an angle, the window nearer to the camera would appear larger (perhaps 25% of the total width) while the further window would appear smaller (perhaps 5% of the total width). This distortion is more exaggerated than the difference in apparent size caused by perspective if a normal lens were to be used.
The windows in this example average to the actual proportion of 15% of the total width of the house. Thus, the formula can still be applied. Taking an average of a near and a far window minimize distortion caused by foreshortening. The measurements are also taken carefully in every instance so that the dimensions are always as close to the top of the house as possible. Windows are measured along their top edge, and the spacing between the windows is always measured from the top corner of the window. This limits the effect of foreshortening further between the measurements since they are all taken along nearly the same line of sight.
90
Results and Statistical Analysis
Of the twenty houses in the Dutch Colonial sample, four (20%) could be modeled in SketchUp without distortion, and of the seventeen houses in the Georgian sample, four
(23.5%) could be modeled. The full results of the comparison study can be found in the
Appendix. The ratios from the four modeled Dutch Colonial houses are an average of
1.76% different from their formula ratios. The ratios from the four modeled Georgian houses are an average of 2.54% different from their formula ratios. The combined average error from both the large- and small-scale studies is 1.85%. The margin for error of the formula can therefore be conservatively placed at ±5%. This error is less than half of one standard deviation from both means.
The error suggests that there may not be a significant statistical difference between the two architectural styles, but the typical floor plans of the two styles according to historical sources suggest that the study may put the ratios too close together rather than too far apart. The traditional two-deep, center-hallway floor plan of a
Georgian house necessitates an increase in house depth while Dutch Colonial houses are typically log and narrow with only two rooms per floor except when a saltbox extension is added to the house later. This makes it unlikely that samples of Georgian and Dutch
Colonial houses would have similar average footprint shapes.
The ratio of the Brant House footprint is 1.760 (12.83m x 7.29 m) - .25 standard deviations from the mean of Dutch Colonial ratios and 1.45 standard deviations from the mean of Georgian ratios. In normal populations with means and standard deviations equivalent to those of the study samples, the probability of a house with the Brant House footprint appearing in the Dutch Colonial population is 40% while the chance that one
91 would appear in the Georgian population is 7.4%. (Figures 19 and 20). This analysis is persuasive, but it must be acknowledged that it is not conclusive. When the samples are tested for their normality, the Georgian sample passes with a p-value of 0.086 and an
Anderson-Darling number of 0.626 while the Dutch Colonial sample fails with a p-value of <.005 and an Anderson-Darling number 1.159. (Figures 21 and 22) The Dutch
Colonial sample is not representative of a normal population. The most that can be said for sure about the Brant House statistically is that it is unlikely that it was of the Georgian style. The results of the Dutch Colonial study say nothing conclusively on their own because of their lack of normality, but they do produce an average ratio that is similar to what is expected of Dutch Colonial houses based on historical evidence.
Conclusions
Figure 5.23 visually displays the results of the study. The center rectangle is a proportionally accurate representation of the Brant House footprint. It sits between two rectangles that accurately represent the average house footprints from their respective samples. Once again, the fact that the Dutch Colonial sample does not conform to a normal distribution is not crippling. The Brant House clearly does not fit with the average Georgian House. Figure 5.24 shows an example house put through the entire process of this study to further clarify any confusion before moving on to the concluding portion of this paper.
92
Figures
Figure 6.1: A house with even window spacing.
Figure 6.2: A house with uneven window spacing.
Figure 6.3: A house with potential windows creating even spacing.
93
Figure 6.4: The Formula
x y a c b
Figure 6.5: A house with variables and potential window units in place. The gray box represents the average of ‘a’ and ‘b’ which is subtracted from ‘c’ to account for the extra space needed to create a complete façade.
94
Figure 6.6: Histogram of footprint ratios of Dutch Colonial houses before adjustments with bell-curve overlaid.
Figure 6.7: Histogram of footprint ratios of Georgian houses before adjustments with bell-curve overlaid.
95
Figure 6.8: The Van Schaick House
Figure 6.9 : The Bronk -Silvester House
96
A
B
C
Figure 6.10: The Dutch Colonial Fonda House of Cahoes, NY in its original form (A), with an unadjusted number of potential windows (B) where W p=3.328358, and with an adjusted number of windows (C) where W p=4.494931.
In image ‘B’, the spacing of the windows is equal to the average distance from the outside edges of the house and the outside edges of the outermost windows. This constrains the number of potential windows.
In image ‘C’, the spacing of the windows has been changed in relation to the average for the entire population to allow for a more accurate number of potential windows. The two actual windows have been moved to reflect this change in spacing, but their size has not been changed. The interior windows are sized in proportion to the entire width of the house according to the global average. (i.e. the two larger windows count as one whole window each even though they are smaller than the two actual windows. They represent the “ideal” size for a window relative to the width of the house.)
Note: These are approximate drawings used to illustrate the effects of the formulas. They use but do not reflect the results of the formulas with any measured amount of accuracy.
97
Figure 6.11: Histogram of footprint ratios of Dutch Colonial houses after adjustments with bell-curve overlaid.
Figure 6.12: Histogram of footprint ratios of Georgian houses after adjustments with bell-curve overlaid.
98
Figure 6.13: The Dutch styled Bouwerie of Clermont, New York with SketchUp axis, lines of perspective, and human scale.
Figure 6.14: Bouwerie with 3D walls and dimensions.
99
Figure 6.15: Cardboard box used for the small-scale study.
Figure 6.16: The western wing of the Ferguson building used for the large-scale study.
100
101
102
Figure 6.19: Probability that the Brant House falls within the population of Dutch Colonial houses assuming a normal distribution.
Figure 6.20: Probability that the Brant House falls within the population of Georgian houses assuming a normal distribution.
103
Figure 6.21
Figure 6.22
104
Average Dutch Colonial
Joseph Brant House
Average Georgian
Figure 6.23: Proportionally accurate footprints of the average Dutch Colonial and Georgian home compared to the footprint of the Joseph Brant House. All three have the same depth to better show the differences in width. In reality, Georgian houses are typically larger than their Dutch Colonial counterparts rather than smaller as depicted above.
105
Façade wp = 5.318043 Adjacent wp = 2.384615
Ratio = 1.960692 Adj. Ratio = 1.585391
SketchUp Façade = 9851 Difference in Ratios: Adjacent = 6328 0.028659 (1.8%) Ratio = 1.556732
Fig 6.24 The Georgian styled Davis Town Meeting House of Coram, NY with measurements, results of the formula both unadjusted and adjusted, SketchUp measurements and ratio, and the difference between the two. (see appendix for adjusted measurements)
Formula Variables : h = width of side; a,b = distance from edge of side to edge of outmost windows; c = distance between inside edges of outermost windows; x,y = width of outermost windows
106
7. Conclusions
The argument presented here points squarely at a Brant family home built in the
Dutch Colonial style. Historical evidence shows that the house was finely built relative to the rest of the village, and the Brant family was very comfortable in terms of material possessions. However, there are no clues to architectural style other than the influence that William Johnson may have had. Archaeological evidence proves that a good bit of effort went into the construction of the house as evidenced by the rough-cut limestone foundation and rose head nails and the remains of planking. The dimensions of the foundation and the Dutch barn still present at the site suggest less finery than was possible, however, according to the research of the architectural styles of the time.
The study that forms the backbone of this thesis has produced a measureable result. Statistically, the Brant family house was built in the Dutch Colonial style. It may have been ornamented in the Georgian style as the style of the time demanded, for Brant certainly had the resources to do so, but no evidence of this exists. The narrow foundation of the house would not have allowed for the standard two-deep floor plan of
Georgian houses, however. And since there is no evidence one way or the other for symmetry, the defining characteristic of a Georgian house, the preponderance of evidence must be relied upon. Joseph Brant’s house was Dutch Colonial in style.
107
Appendix
Table A.1 Dutch Colonial House Data – Location and Construction Details
ID Site Name Address City Zip Code County 1 Abraham & Maria LeFevre House 56 Forest Glen Road Gardiner 12525 Ulster 2 Abraham Glen House Mohawk Avenue Scotia 12525 Schenectady 3 Bergh -Stoutenburgh House U.S. Route 9 Hyde Park Dutchess 4 Big House 100 Rt. 9W Palisades Rockland 5 Bouwerie Buckwheat Bridge Rd. Clermont Columbia 6 Brett, Madam Catharyna, Homestead 50 Van Nydeck Ave. Beacon Dutchess 7 Bronk, Pieter, House Route 9W Coxsackie Greene 8 Bronk -Silvester House 188 Mansion Street Coxsackie 12051 Greene 9 Coeymans, Ariaanje, House Stone House Road Coeymans Albany 10 Coeymans -Bronck Stone House NY 144 Coeymans 12045 Albany 11 Cornell Farmhouse 73 -50 Little Neck Parkway New York Queens 12 De Wint House Tappan Rockland 13 Decker, Johannes, Farm Red Mill Road Shawangunk Ulster 14 Decker, William, House Shawangunk Ulster 15 Defreest Homestead - Philip's House Jordan Road North Greenbush Rensselaer 16 Defreest Homestead - David Jordan Road North Greenbush Rensselaer 17 Dellemont -Wemple Farm R. D. #5 Wemple Road Rotterdam Schenectady 18 Elting Memorial Library 93 Main Street New Paltz Ulster 19 Fonda House 55 Western Avenue Cahoes Albany 20 Fort Crailo Riverside Avenue Rensselaer Rensselaer 21 Heermance Farmhouse West Kerley Corner Road Red Hook Dutchess 22 Horton, Joseph, House Route 376 New Hackensack Dutchess 23 Jansen, Thomas, House Jansen Road Shawangunk Ulster *Addition to above 24 Kingsland Homestead 37th Street and Parons Blvd Flushing Queens 25 Kreuzer -Pelton House 1262 Richmond Terrace New York Richmond (Staten Island) 26 Lent Homestead and Cemetery 78 -03 19th Road New York Queens *Addition to above New York Queens
108
ID Site Name Address City Zip Code County 27 Mabee House State Route 5S (Mohawk Valley) Rotterdam Schenectady 28 Mandeville House Lower Station Hill Rd Philipstown Putnam 29 Quackenbush House 683 Broadway Albany Albany 30 Salyer, Edward, House 241 South Middletown Road Pearl River Rockland 31 Schenck -Mann House 222 Convent Road Syosset 11791 Nassau 32 Scott -Edwards House 752 Delafield Avenue Staten Island 10310 Richmond 33 Sharpe Homestead and Cemetery 44 Laura Lane Defreetville 12144 Rensselaer 34 Staats, Joachim, House and Gerrit Staats Ruin Staats Road Castleton -on -Hudson Rensselaer 35 Stevens, H.R., House 234 Congers Road New City 10956 Rockland 36 Terneur -Hutton House (west unit) 160 Sickelton Road West Nyack Rockland 37 Van Alen, Johannis L., Farm Schoolhouse Road Stuyvesant Columbia 38 Van Alstyne House Moyer Street Canajoharie Montgomery 39 Van Cortlandt Manor Riverside Avenue Croton -on -Hudson Westchester 40 Van Denbergh -- Simmons House 537 Bought Road Cohoes 12047 Albany 41 Van Hoesen, Jan, House State Road 66 Claverak Columbia 42 Van Loon, Albertus, House Athens Greene 43 Van Ostrande -Radliff House 48 Hudson Avenue Albany 12207 Albany 44 Van Schaick House Van Schaick Avenue Cohoes Albany 45 Van Wyck, Cornelius, House 126 West Drive Douglastown Queens 46 Van Wyck -Wharton House New York Rt. 9 and Interstate 84 Fishkill Dutchess 47 Vander Ende -- Onderdonk House Site 1820 Flushing Avenue Ridgewood Queens 48 Wyckoff, Pieter, House 5902 Canarise Brooklyn Kings 49 Wyckoff -Bennett Homestead 1669 East 22nd Street Brooklyn Kings 50 Wynkoop House 6932 Rt. 32 Saugerties 12477 Ulster 109
ID Year(s) Built* NR Number Façade On Side No. of Stories Primary Building Materials 1 1742 05NR05554 short 2.5 Stone walls - 20in thick 2 c. 1730 03NR05157 short 2.5 Stone foundation, wood walls 3 90NR00304 1 4 c. 1735 90NR03072 short 1 Brownstone 5 c. 1762 90NR00222 long 2 Brick - Dutch cross bond 6 c. 1713 90NR00440 long Cedar shingles 7 1663 90NR00540 long 2 Stone, brick, stone (3 sections) 8 02NR01905 long Stone foundation, brick walls 9 c. 1716/1723 90NR02767 long 2.5 Stone walls up to cornice, brick under gable 10 c. 1769 03NR05107 long 2 Stone 11 c. 1750 90NR01581 long 1.5 12 1700 90NR02400 long Stone and brick 13 c. 1720 90NR01082 1.5 Stone rubble 14 1776 90NR01085 long 1.5 Stone 15 mid -18th C 90NR00964 long 1.5 Brick - Flemish bond 16 c. 1774 90NR00964 long 2 Brick 17 c.1790 90NR02651 long 2.5 Stone foundation, brick walls - Dutch cross bond 18 03NR05146 long 1.5 Stone foundation, stone and wood walls 19 c. 1727 03NR05108 long 1.5 Stone foundation, brick walls - Dutch cross bond 20 c. 1712 90NR01003 2.5 Brick walls - Dutch cross bond 21 Second half of 18th cen. 90NR00324 long 1.5 Stone 22 c. 1752/1755 90NR00363 long 1.5 Stone foundation, wood and brick walls 23 1727 90NR01088 long 1.5 Cut stone walls 1790 1 24 1774 90NR01578 long 2.5 Wood frame and shingles 25 1722 90NR01014 1 Fieldstone 26 1729 90NR01565 long 1.5 Stone Late 18th century 90NR01565 long 1.5 Stone
110
ID Year(s) Built* NR Number Façade on Side No. of Stories Primary Building Materials 27 c. 1740 90NR02652 long 1.5 Stone 28 c. 1735/1737 90NR02370 long 1.5 29 c. 1736 90NR01646 short 2.5 Brick 30 c. 1765 90NR02402 long 2.5 Wood plank and mortar 31 c. 1700 91NR00186 long 1.5 Stone foundation; wood walls. Wood shingles 32 c. 1730 90NR01016 long 2 Stone foundation; wood and stone walls 33 c. 1740 03NR05110 long 2 Stone foundation; clapboard walls 34 c. 1700 90NR00968 long 2 Stone 35 c. 1775 04NR05229 long 1.5 Stone foundation; stone and wood walls 36 1731 90NR02396 long 1.5 Stone 37 c. 1760 90NR00244 long 1.5 Brick 38 c. 1730 90NR01525 long 2.5 Fieldstone 39 1749 90NR02530 long 2.5 Sandstone 40 c. 1720/1760 90NR02795 long 1.5 Wood frame and clapboard shingles 41 c. 1715/1750 90NR00216 long 1.5 42 90NR00558 long 2 Stone 43 1728 06NR05622 long 2.5 Stone foundation, wood walls 44 c. 1735 90NR02830 long 1.5 Brick walls 45 c. 1735 90NR01610 long 2.5 46 c. 1733 90NR00297 long 1.5 Brick and clapboard 47 90NR01564 long Stone 48 c. 1652 90NR01350 long Rubble foundation; wattle and daub over wood frame 49 c. 1766 90NR01351 long 1.5 50 90NR01080 1.5 Stone
111
Table A.2 Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements – House ID and Notes
ID NR Number Notes 1 05NR05554 unclear picture/extreme angle 2 03NR05157 unclear picture/extreme angle 3 90NR00304 unclear picture/extreme angle 4 90NR03072 unclear picture/extreme angle 5 90NR00222 6 90NR00440 No side picture 7 90NR00540 spacing too extreme 8 02NR01905 9 90NR02767 10 03NR05107 partial tree obstruction, no side view 11 90NR01581 12 90NR02400 unclear picture/extreme angle 13 90NR01082 14 90NR01085 spacing too extreme 15 90NR00964 unclear picture 16 90NR00964 unclear picture 17 90NR02651 one window on short side; a=b, c=full width minus 2*(a+x) 18 03NR05146 19 03NR05108 one centered window on short side 20 90NR01003 no pictures 21 90NR00324 one story, no side view 22 90NR00363 odd proportions on side of house 23 90NR01088 later additions skew the original size of the house 24 90NR01578 25 90NR01014 no picture of short side 112
ID NR Number Notes 26 90NR01565 *Addition to above 27 90NR02652 28 90NR02370 no side view 29 90NR01646 odd spacing on left side
30 90NR02402 slight tree obstruction 31 91NR00186 32 90NR01016 left window partially blocked by column 33 03NR05110 one centered window on long side second floor, first floor heavily modified 34 90NR00968 35 04NR05229 windows spaced strangely 36 90NR02396 no picture of short side 37 90NR00244 picture shows no detail 38 90NR01525 tree obstruction 39 90NR02530 1st floor is partially underground, measurements taken from 2nd floor exposed side 40 90NR02795 no windows on second floor long side 41 90NR00216 Window bays heavily modified later 42 90NR00558 no text document, tree obstruction, side building blocking short side 43 06NR05622 house in downtown location; photos unclear 44 90NR02830 first floor windows used 45 90NR01610 side view obstructed by addition 46 90NR00297 picture of short side at extreme angle 47 90NR01564 burned down in 1975 48 90NR01350 no pictures 49 90NR01351 50 90NR01080 heavily modified later
113
Table A.3 Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements – Actual and Unadjusted – Long Side
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 1 2 3 4 5 616 40 60 50 404 46 62 54 5.403846 5 11.40741 32.99305 12.32 69.25955 384.7404 5.085309 6 935 150 201 175.5 464 63 63 63 3.209644 3 14.84127 50.07873 5.327635 105.1261 534.3739 4.765686 7 8 549 58 31 44.5 371 54 35 44.5 5.668539 5 12.33708 29.40452 12.33708 61.72645 353.7735 5.204696 9 732 108 65 86.5 452 59 43 51 4.658182 5 14.35294 39.20602 8.462428 82.30194 456.1981 5.077133 10 709 87 86 86.5 437 40 39 39.5 4.781746 4 17.94937 37.97414 8.196532 79.71595 443.7841 5.093448 11 467 104 20 62 280 39 20 29.5 4.382514 4 15.83051 25.01259 7.532258 52.50684 289.4932 5.057122 12 13 371 89 6 47.5 313 29 9 19 5.992481 4 19.52632 19.87081 7.810526 41.71314 318.7869 6.499122 14 15 16 17 811 86 91 88.5 508 64 64 64 4.75082 5 12.67188 43.43728 9.163842 91.18425 505.3158 5.076265 18 574 93 126 109.5 290 24 23 23.5 3.357143 3 24.42553 30.74352 5.242009 64.53731 334.9627 4.838193 19 669 119 86 102.5 325 71 59 65 3.328358 2 10.29231 35.83174 6.526829 75.21857 352.2814 4.494931 20 21 22 318 48 79 63.5 126 23 30 26.5 2.694444 2 12 17.03213 5.007874 35.75412 153.7459 4.235275 23 24 415 57 65 61 213 31 66 48.5 3.388128 3 8.556701 22.22746 6.803279 46.66025 227.3397 4.622812 25 Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows. 114
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 26 1062 387 92 239.5 435 37 103 70 2.631664 3 15.17143 56.88087 4.434238 119.4053 555.0947 4.47149
27 427 106 96 101 143 41 39 40 2.297872 2 10.675 22.87018 4.227723 48.00946 195.9905 4.08778 28 29 488 23 201 112 213 20 28 24 2.742647 3 20.33333 26.13735 4.357143 54.86796 270.132 4.657407 30 573 71 46 58.5 372 42 27 34.5 5.370968 5 16.6087 30.68996 9.794872 64.42488 366.0751 5.171432 31 662 101 42 71.5 388 26 20 23 5.349206 5 28.78261 35.45681 9.258741 74.43153 385.0685 4.826841 32 823 43 83 63 585 38 49 43.5 6.901408 5 18.91954 44.08 13.06349 92.53346 555.4665 5.388635 33 34 530 90 73 81.5 274 51 42 46.5 3.503906 4 11.39785 28.38688 6.503067 59.5902 295.9098 4.68615 35 36 404 70 109 89.5 149 36 55 45.5 2.440741 2 8.879121 21.6383 4.513966 45.42347 193.0765 4.201747 37 38 483 43 73 58 319 14 27 20.5 5.324841 3 23.56098 25.86955 8.327586 54.30579 322.6942 5.347519 39 443 42 42 42 288 36 34 35 5.194805 5 12.65714 23.72714 10.54762 49.80841 280.1916 5.132949 40 41 42 43 44 584 108 52 80 345 51 25 38 4.245763 5 15.36842 31.27912 7.3 65.66165 359.3383 5.029444 45 46 47 48 49 506 23 54 38.5 339 20 40 30 6.386861 3 16.86667 27.10143 13.14286 56.89178 320.6082 5.139735 50
Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows. 115
Table A.4 Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements – Actual and Adjusted – Short Side
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 1 2 3 4 5 197 34 15 24.5 91 28 25 26.5 3.303922 2 7.433962 16.663 8.040816 34.50063 80.99937 2.908824 6 7 8 313 38 26 32 169 42 32 37 3.985507 2 8.459459 26.47472 9.78125 54.81573 146.1843 3.123976 9 391 41 74 57.5 188 37 44 40.5 3.331633 2 9.654321 33.07225 6.8 68.47588 177.0241 3.068934 10 11 373 56 75 65.5 176 24 37 30.5 3.151042 4 12.22951 31.54974 5.694656 65.32354 176.1765 3.144309 12 13 449 95 148 121.5 114 37 44 40.5 1.953704 2 11.08642 37.97811 3.695473 78.63342 156.8666 2.670887 14 15 16 17 342 49 49 49 160 42 42 42 3.21978 1 8.142857 28.92765 6.979592 59.8945 149.1055 3.004378 18 483 139 96 117.5 154 44 39 41.5 2.22956 2 11.63855 40.85396 4.110638 84.58785 186.9122 2.815711 19 20 21 22 338 49 62 55.5 170 30 18 24 3.440252 14.08333 28.58931 6.09009 59.19398 166.306 3.220187 23 24 248 62 39 50.5 102 25 18 21.5 2.715278 11.53488 20.97677 4.910891 43.43227 109.0677 3.019041 25 Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows. 116
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 26 695 230 102 166 211 81 54 67.5 2.192719 2 10.2963 58.78572 4.186747 121.7154 255.2846 2.73999 27 28 242 61 79 70 56 18 23 20.5 1.845304 2 11.80488 20.46927 3.457143 42.38149 83.61851 2.65611 29 30 349 55 34 44.5 155 55 45 50 3.169312 3 6.98 29.51973 7.842697 61.12041 138.3796 2.852373 31 439 102 97 99.5 147 46 44 45 2.32872 2 9.755556 37.13227 4.41206 76.88212 169.6179 2.813369 32 286 56 32 44 139 27 15 21 3.461538 2 13.61905 24.19096 6.5 50.08721 132.9128 3.115073 33 124 35 24 29.5 34 13 11 12 2.108434 2 10.33333 10.48839 4.20339 21.71614 41.78386 2.623134 34 35 471 141 84 112.5 133 47 41 44 2.13099 2 10.70455 39.83895 4.186667 82.48629 163.0137 2.658306 36 37 38 39 164 34 20 27 83 8 6 7 3.647059 2 23.42857 13.87174 6.074074 28.72134 81.27866 3.23394 40 387 76 34 55 189 47 31 39 3.425532 3 9.923077 32.73392 7.036364 67.77536 176.2246 3.078998 41 42 43 44 45 227 32 43 37.5 120 9 17 13 3.633663 2 17.46154 19.20051 6.053333 39.75454 117.7455 3.322888 46 47 48 49 50 286 77 61 69 91 20 12 16 2.258824 2 17.875 24.19096 4.144928 50.08721 109.9128 2.805426 Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows. 117
Table A.5 Dutch Colonial House Data – Measurements – Actual and Adjusted Ratios
ID Ratio Ratio(adj) ID Ratio Ratio(adj)
1 26 1.200183 1.631936
2 27
3 28 1.245254 1.53901
4 29
5 1.635585 1.748236 30 0.865376 1.632819
6 31 2.306404 1.838164
7 32 1.545326 1.549512
8 1.422288 1.666049 33 3.273239 2.054274
9 1.398168 1.654364 34
10 35 1.644262 1.762833
11 1.390814 1.608341 36
12 37
13 3.067242 2.43332 38
14 39 1.460037 1.653561
15 40 1.516496 1.667084 16 41 17 1.475511 1.689623 42 18 1.505742 1.718284 43 19 44 20 45 1.168452 1.513576 21 46 22 0.783211 1.315226 47 23 48 24 1.247802 1.531219 49 25 50 2.827517 1.83207 Chart compares short sides:long side ratios of the W and W(adj) variables.
118
Table A.6 Dutch Colonial House Data – SketchUp Comparison ID NR Number Property Name Formula SketchUp SketchUp SketchUp Diff.(Abs.) %Diff.(Abs.) 5 90NR00222 Bouwerie 1.748236 8724 5079 1.717661 0.030575 0.017489 8 02NR01905 Bronk -Silvester House 1.666049 9146 5473 1.671113 0.005064 0.003039 31 91NR00186 Schenck -Mann House 1.549512 8490 5628 1.508529 0.040983 0.026449 49 90NR01351 Wyckoff -Bennett Homestead 1.83207 12348 6891 1.791902 0.040168 0.021925 Average: 0.017226
119
Table A.7 Georgian House Data – Location and Construction Details
ID Site Name Basic Shape Address City Zip Code County 1 Aikens, Abraham, House Rectangle NYS Route 22 (Lakeshore Road) Willsboro 12996 Essex 2 Bouwerie Rectangle Buckwheat Bridge Road Clermont Columbia 3 Clinton House Rectangle 547 Main St Poughkeepsie Dutchess 4 Coeymans -Bronck Stone House Rectangle NY 144 Coeymans 12045 Albany 5 Cornelius Van Derzee Farm Rectangle Van Derzee Road Coeymans 12046 Albany 6 Davis Town Meeting House Rectangle Middle Country Road (NY25) at Coram 11727 Suffolk Coram-Mt Sinai Road, NE Corner 7 DuBois, Josiah, Farm Rectangle Libertyville road New Paltz Ulster 8 Evans -- Gaige -- Dillenback House Rectangle 2 Evans Street Chaumont Jefferson 9 Floyd, Gen. William, House Rectangle Main Street and Gilford Hill Rd Westernville 13486 Oneida 10 Fort Johnson Rectangle State Route 5 Fort Johnson Montgomery 11 Frey House Rectangle New York Route 5 Palatine Bridge 13428 Montgomery 12 Fulton County Courthouse Rectangle North William Street Johnstown Fulton 13 Glebe House Rectangle 635 Main Street Poughkeepsie Dutchess 14 Governor's House Multi Governor's Island New York New York 15 Guy Park Rectangle West Main Street Amsterdam Montgomery 16 Hardenbergh, Isaac, House Rectangle NY 23 Roxbury 12474 Delaware 17 Hill, Nathaniel, Brick House Rectangle NY Route 17 K east of Berea Road Montgomery Orange 18 Hogeboom, Stephen, House Rectangle 562 NYS Route 23B Claverack 12534 Columbia 19 Johnson Hall Rectangle Hall St. Johnson Ave. Johnstown Fulton 20 King Manor Rectangle 150th St. and Jamaica Ave New York Queens 21 Ludlow, William Henry, House Rectangle 465 NYS Route 23B Claverack 12513 Columbia 22 Mann, Andrew, Inn Rectangle 33 Riverside Unadilla Otsego 23 Mooney, Edward, House Rectangle 18 Bowery New York New York 24 Morris -Jumel Mansion Rectangle W 160th St and Edgecombe Ave New York New York
120
ID Site Name Basic Shape Address City Zip Code County 25 Newcomb -- Brown Estate Rectangle Brown Road at US Route 44 Pleasant Valley Dutchess 26 North Mansion and Tenant House Rectangle North Mansion Road Duanesburg Schenectady 27 North Salem Town Hall Rectangle Route 116 (Titicus Road) Salem Center Westchester 28 Philipse Manor Hall Multi Warburton Ave and Dock Yonkers Westchester Street 29 Rock Hall Rectangle 199 Broadway Lawrence Nassau 30 Schuyler, Philip, Mansion Rectangle 32 Catharine Street Albany Albany 31 Teviotdale Looks square Wire Road Linlithgo Columbia 32 Van Cortlandt, Frederick, House Rectangle Van Courtlandt Park at 242nd New York Bronx Street 33 Van Horn Mansion Looks square 2165 Lockport -Olcott Road Newfane Niagara 34 Van Rensselaer, Henry I., House Rectangle Yates Road Greenport 12543 Columbia 35 Wynkoop, Cornelius, Stone House Rectangle US Route 29 Marbletown 12404 Ulster
121
ID Year(s) Built* NR Number Façade On Side No. of Stories Primary Building Materials 1 1807 90NR02913 long 2.5 Stone, brick, slate 2 90NR00222 long 2.5 3 1765 90NR00390 long 2.5 Stone 4 c. 1769 03NR05107 long 2 Stone 5 c. 1765 04NR05321 long 2 Stone, asphalt shingles 6 c. 1750 97NR01214 long 2 Stone, brick 7 90NR01073 long 2 Brick 8 c.1820 90NR03016 2.5 Stone 9 1803 -1804 90NR02052 long 2.5 Wood frame 10 1748 -1749 90NR01551 long 2.5 Fieldstone 11 1808 02NR05009 long 2.5 Stone 12 1772 -1773 90NR00518 long 1.5 Wooden frame 13 1767 90NR00400 long 2 Brick 14 1702 90NR00688 ? 2 Brick - Flemish bond 15 1773 90NR01543 2 Brick 16 1790 94NR00626 2 Stone, wood 17 1768 90NR02304 long 2.5 Brick 18 97NR01235 long 2 Stone, wood frame 19 1763 90NR00519 long 20 1750 90NR01618 21 1786 97NR01197 long Stone, brick 22 c.1795 90NR02179 long 2 Wood frame, clapboard walls 23 1785 -1789 90NR00938 3.5 Brick and stone 24 1765 90NR00872 2.5 Brick and wood
*Year(s) built refers to the date of earliest construction before any additions. Dates separated by slashes indicate a range of earliest construction dates. 122
ID Year(s) Built* NR Number Façade On Side No. of Stories Primary Building Materials 25 c.1770 90NR00312 long 2.5 Brick 26 c.1795 90NR02648 long 2 Wood frame, clapboard walls 27 1773 90NR02455 long 3 Fieldstone foundation, wood frame, clapboard walls 28 90NR02462 2.5 Brick and fieldstone 29 c.1767 90NR01714 long 2.5 Wood frame, shingles 30 1761 -1764 90NR01647 Stone, brick 31 1774 90NR00239 NA 2.5 Brick 32 1748 -1749 90NR00073 long 2.5 Dressed fieldstone and brick 33 1823 90NR03278 NA 3 Stone, brick 34 1785 93NR00454 long 2 Stone, brick 35 1767 96NR00929 long 2.5 Stone
*Year(s) built refers to the date of earliest construction before any additions. Dates separated by slashes indicate a range of earliest construction dates.
123
Table A.8 Georgian House Data – Measurements – House ID and Notes ID NR Number Notes ID NR Number Notes 1 90NR02913 26 90NR02648 Original shape changed by additions 2 90NR00222 27 90NR02455 3 90NR00390 slight tree ob struction on short side 28 90NR02462 No Picture 4 03NR05107 partial tree obstruction, no side view 29 90NR01714 No Picture 5 04NR05321 one window on short side, mirrored 30 90NR01647 Original shape change by modifications 6 97NR01214 good candidate for sketchup 31 90NR00239 7 90NR01073 good candidate for sketchup 32 90NR00073 Poor Quality Picture 8 90NR03016 tree obstruction 33 90NR03278 9 90NR02052 no picture 34 93NR00454 10 90NR01551 no side picture - look for pictures of this 35 96NR00929 tree obstruction, one window on side, mirrored 11 02NR05009 12 90NR00518 tree obstruction 13 90NR00400 14 90NR00688 odd structure 15 90NR01543 picture from bad angle, distance 16 94NR00626 Addition obscures original structure 17 90NR02304 18 97NR01235 19 90NR00519 20 90NR01618 Bad Picture 21 97NR01197 22 90NR02179 23 90NR00938 No Picture 24 90NR00872 No Picture 25 90NR00312
124
Table A.9 Georgian House Data – Measurements – Actual and Unadjusted – Long Side
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 1 860 58 103 80.5 554 50 70 60 5.370107 5 14.33333 57.78405 10.68323 83.94117 550.5588 5.292411 2 616 40 60 50 404 46 62 54 5.403846 5 11.40741 41.3895 12.32 60.12531 393.8747 5.287692 3 349 18 47 32.5 238 16 30 23 5.702703 5 15.17391 23.44957 10.73846 34.0645 236.4355 5.518634 4 709 87 86 86.5 437 40 39 39.5 4.781746 4 17.94937 47.63824 8.196532 69.20267 454.2973 5.295889 5 664 58 45 51.5 470 52 44 48 6.20603 4 13.83333 44.61466 12.8932 64.8104 456.6896 5.581257 6 407 71 29 50 252 34 17 25.5 4.675497 5 15.96078 27.34664 8.14 39.72565 262.2744 5.318043 7 732 71 62 66.5 491 58 55 56.5 5.45122 5 12.95575 49.18363 11.00752 71.4476 486.0524 5.43696 8 9 10 11 572 53 48 50.5 378 40 35 37.5 5.721591 5 15.25333 38.43311 11.32673 55.83064 372.6694 5.361194 12 13 14 15 16 17 546 46 56 51 365 29 38 33.5 5.715976 5 16.29851 36.68615 10.70588 53.29289 362.7071 5.438737 18 653 52 77 64.5 453 30 44 37 5.827586 5 17.64865 43.87556 10.12403 63.73673 453.7633 5.624368 19 20 21 397 56 32 44 258 28 20 24 5.147059 5 16.54167 26.67473 9.022727 38.74959 263.2504 5.431458 22 568 42 67 54.5 378 30 45 37.5 5.516304 5 15.14667 38.16435 10.42202 55.44022 377.0598 5.435939 23 24 25 383 46 98 72 176 21 40 30.5 3.014634 3 12.55738 25.73406 5.319444 37.3831 210.6169 4.744638
Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows. 125
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 26 27 396 43 25 34 264 37 25 31 5.538462 5 12.77419 26.60754 11.64706 38.65198 259.348 5.381821 28 29 30 31 637 54 50 52 435 47 49 48 5.83 5 13.27083 42.80051 12.25 62.17503 424.825 5.454614 32 33 617 66 60 63 393 53 47 50 4.920354 5 12.34 41.4567 9.793651 60.22291 395.7771 5.300113 34 641 53 50 51.5 425 52 52 52 5.608696 5 12.32692 43.06927 12.4466 62.56546 413.9345 5.326265 35 498 71 64 67.5 313 23 22 22.5 4.727778 5 22.13333 33.461 7.377778 48.6078 331.8922 5.451792
Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows.
126
Table A.10 Georgian House Data – Measurements – Actual and Adjusted – Short Side
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 1 186 46 4 25 85 25 18 21.5 3.290323 2 8.651163 18.01348 7.44 26.0599 83.9401 3.313269 2 197 34 15 24.5 91 28 25 26.5 3.303922 2 7.433962 19.07879 8.040816 27.60108 87.89892 3.291731 3 79 22 19 20.5 16 9 6 7.5 1.839286 2 10.53333 7.650887 3.853659 11.06845 25.43155 2.767286 4 5 566 109 109 109 226 61 61 61 2.688235 1 9.278689 54.81522 5.192661 79.30056 255.6994 3.315273 6 262 75 50 62.5 95 27 17 22 2.384615 2 11.90909 25.37383 4.192 36.70803 120.792 3.354404 7 378 28 43 35.5 223 35 47 41 4.45098 2 9.219512 36.60804 10.64789 52.96045 205.5396 3.703491 8 9 10 11 524 78 39 58.5 305 58 35 46.5 4.347619 3 11.26882 50.74766 8.957265 73.41607 290.0839 3.745017 12 13 14 15 16 17 212 32 26 29 102 24 16 20 3.489796 2 10.6 20.53149 7.310345 29.70268 101.2973 3.425217 18 179 15 37 26 88 9 14 11.5 3.653333 2 15.56522 17.33555 6.884615 25.07915 88.92085 3.505178 19 20 21 310 44 28 36 197 26 23 24.5 4.661157 3 12.65306 30.02247 8.611111 43.43317 189.5668 3.989414 22 261 50 34 42 122 29 19 24 3.212121 2 10.875 25.27698 6.214286 36.56793 127.4321 3.469226 23 24 25 429 151 62 106.5 155 44 32 38 2.33564 2 11.28947 41.54722 4.028169 60.1059 201.3941 3.389905
Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of
adjusted potential windows.
127
ID h a b d c x y z W Actual h/z z(adj) h/d d(adj) c(adj) W(adj) 26 27 348 38 42 40 184 35 41 38 3.846154 2 9.157895 33.70264 8.7 48.75724 175.2428 3.533904 28 29 30 31 559 34 94 64 338 26 69 47.5 4.457399 5 11.76842 54.13729 8.734375 78.31981 323.6802 3.852376 32 33 565 73 30 51.5 385 35 39 37 5.768362 4 15.27027 54.71837 10.97087 79.16046 357.3395 4.077842 34 575 30 56 43 347 53 83 68 4.738739 3 8.455882 55.68684 13.37209 80.56153 309.4385 3.679851 35 346 65 65 65 187 29 29 29 3.297872 1 11.93103 33.50895 5.323077 48.47702 203.523 3.891128 Variables: h=width of house side a,b =distance from outside edge of house to outside edges of outermost windows d=average of a and b c=distance between inside edges of outermost windows x,y =width of outermost windows z=average of x and y W=number of potential windows Actual =actual number of windows z(adj) =’z’ variable adjusted to the global average of h/z proportion d(adj) =’d’ variable adjusted to the global average of the h/d proportion c(adj) =’c’ variable adjusted for the d(adj) variable but not the z(adj) variable W(adj) =number of adjusted potential windows. 128
Table A.11 Georgian House Data – Measurements – Actual and Adjusted Ratios
ID Ratio Ratio(adj) ID Ratio Ratio(adj) 1 1.632091 1.597338 26 1.44 1.522911 2 1.635585 1.606356 27 3 3.100499 1.994241 4 28 5 2.308589 1.683498 29 6 1.960692 1.585391 30 1.307938 1.415909 7 1.224723 1.468064 31 8 32 0.85299 1.299735 9 33 1.183584 1.447413 10 34 1.433584 1.401083 11 1.316029 1.431554 35 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.637911 1.587852 18 1.595142 1.604588 19 20 21 1.104245 1.361468 22 1.71734 1.566903 23 24 25 1.29071 1.399638
Chart compares short sides:long side ratios of the W and W(adj) variables.
129
Table A.12 Georgian House Data – SketchUp Comparison
SketchUp SketchUp SketchUp Diff. %Diff. ID NR Number Property Name Formula Width Depth Ratio (Abs.) (Abs.) 22 90NR02179 Mann, Andrew, Inn 1.5669 9358 6249 1.49752 0.069383 0.044281 21 97NR01197 Ludlow, William Henry, House 1.36147 9221 7044 1.309057 0.052411 0.038496 6 97NR01214 Davis Town Meeting House 1.58539 9851 6328 1.556732 0.028659 0.018077 18 97NR01235 Hogeboom, Stephen, House 1.60459 7490 4664 1.605918 0.00133 0.000829 0.02542
130
131
References
132
WORKS CITED
Baker, J. M. 1994 American House Styles: A Concise Guide . W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Ceci, L. 1982 The Value of Wampum among the New York Iroquois: A Case Study in Artifact Analysis. Journal of Anthropological Research 38(1): 97-107. de Laet, J. 1937 From the “New World”, by Johan de Laet, 1625, 1630, 1633, 1640. In Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664 . James Franklin Jameson ed. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, 29-60. de Rasiers, I. 1937 Letter of Isaack de Rasiersto Samuel Blommaert, 1628. In Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664 . James Franklin Jameson ed. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, 97-115.
Embury, A. 1913 The Dutch colonial house: its origin, design, modern plan and construction . McBride, Nast & Company, New York.
Dennis, M. 1993 Cultivating a Landscape of Peace: Iroquois-European Encounter in Seventeenth- Century America . Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
Engelbrecht, W. E. 2007 New York Iroquois Political Development. In Archaeology of the Iroquois: Selected Readings and Research Sources. Jordan E. Kerber ed. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, 219-233.
Flexner, J. T. 1979 Lord of the Mohawks: a biography of Sir William Johnson. Little, Brown, New York.
Foster, G. 2004 American Houses: A Field Guide to the Architecture of the Home. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
Goldenzopf, D. B. 1986 The Colonial Transformation of Mohawk Iroquois Society. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, State College.
133
Goodman-Draper, J. 1994 The Development of Underdevelopment at Akwesasne: Cultural and Economic Subversion. American Journal of Economics and Sociology , 53(1):41-56.
Hamilton, M. W. (editor) 1951 The Papers of Sir William Johnson . 14 vols. The University of the State of New York, Albany.
Harris, J. and G. Higgott 1989 Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Designs . The Drawing Center, New York.
Hamilton, M. W. 1967 Sir William Johnson and the Indians of New York . The University of the State of New York, Albany.
Isham, N. M. 1968 A Glossary of Colonial Architectural Terms . American Life Foundation, Watkins Glen, New York.
Jackson, J. 1924 American Colonial Architecture: Its Origin & Development . David McKay Co., Philadelphia,
Jacobs, J. 2005 New Netherland: A Dutch Colony in Seventeenth-Century America . Brill, Boston.
Jameson, J. F. (editor) 1937 Narratives of New Netherland, 1609-1664 . Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York.
Kapches, M. 2007 The Iroquoian Longhouse: Architectural and Cultural Identity. Archaeology of the Iroquois: Selected Readings and Research Sources. Jordan E. Kerber ed. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, 174-188.
Kelsay, I. T. 1984 J oseph Brant 1743-1807: Man of Two Worlds . Syracuse University Press, Syracuse NY.
Kimball, F. 1922 Domestic Architecture of the American Colonies and of the Early Republic. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
134
Library of Congress 2008 Historic American Buildings Survey. Library of Congress: American Memory . http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/
McAlester, V. and L. McAlester 1984 A Field Guide to American Houses . Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York.
Michaëlius, J. 1937 Letter of the Reverand Jonas Michaëlius. Narratives of New Netherland, 1609- 1664 . James Franklin Jameson ed. Barnes & Noble, Inc., New York, 117-133.
Morrison, H. 1952 Early American Architecture: From the First Colonial Settlements to the National Period. Oxford University Press, New York.
New York State Historic Preservation Office 2006 New York’s State and National Registers of Historic Places Document Imaging Project. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation . http://www.oprhp.state.ny.us/hpimaging/
O’Toole, F. 2005 White savage: William Johnson and the invention of America. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New York.
Paduano, J. 1996 Wide-Angle Lens Photography . Amherst Media, Inc., Amherst, New York.
Parissien, S. 1995 The Georgian House in Britain and America. Rizzoli International Publications, Inc New York.
Ramsey, S. C. and J. D. H. Harvey 1972 Small Georgian Houses and Their Details . Architectural Press, London.
Reid, R. 1989 The Georgian house and its details . The Bishopsgate Press, Avon.
Reynolds, H. W. 1965 Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley . Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Rifkind, C 1980 A Field Guide to American Architecture . The New American Library, New York.
Robinson, H.C. 1971 Joseph Brant: A Man for his People . Ontario: Longman Canada Limited.
135
Shurtleff, H. R. 1939 The Log Cabin Myth: A study of the Early Dwellings of the English Colonists in North America . Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Snow, D. R. 1994 The Iroquois . Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts. 1995 Migration in Prehistory: The Northern Iroquoian Case. American Antiquity , 60(1):59-79.
Stone, W. 1846 Life of Joseph Brant – Thayendanegea . 2 Vols. H. & E. Phinney, Cooperstown, New York. 1865 The life and times of Sir William Johnson, bart . 2 Vols. J. Munsell, Albany, New York.
Trelease, A. W. 1961 Indian-White Contacts in Eastern North America: The Dutch in New Netherland. Ethnohistory , 9(2):137-146. 1962 The Iroquois and the Western Fur Trade: A Problem in Interpretation. The Mississippi Valley Historical Review , 49(1):32-51.
Waterman, T. T. 1950 The Dwellings of Colonial America . The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Wertenbaker, T. J. 1963 The Founding of American Civilization: The Middle Colonies . Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., New York.