Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 10 Aug 2010 12:50:19 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
There are numerous vernacular buildings in the Butte-Anaconda NHLD with the
very same construction; most date between 1890-1930. In several instances,
documented, workers recycled lumber from the mine yards and incorporated it
into remodels and additions.
In my own home, for example, the dimensional lumber used for the concrete
forms were reused as the primary decking (sub-floor)... you can still see
boot prints via the basement.
Chuck Carrig
Bob Skiles
<[log in to unmask]
OM.COM> To
Sent by: [log in to unmask]
HISTORICAL cc
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask] Subject
> Re: rough sub-floor used on
interior walls
08/10/2010 12:07
PM
Please respond to
HISTORICAL
ARCHAEOLOGY
<[log in to unmask]
>
The use of un-planed lumber for interior walls in vernacular construction
was quite common throughout the U.S. and, in my experience, relates more to
economics (planed lumber was significantly more expensive and provided no
advantage over un-planed lumber for walls that were going to be covered
anyway) than to ethnicity. In no case that I've ever seen has it indicated
re-use of salvaged flooring, but the cheaper un-planed planks were
purposely
selected for the original construction.
Bob Skiles
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Hanken" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 8:48 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: rough sub-floor used on interior walls
> Working on flood damaged buildings that appear to be ones possibly
> constructed by Bohemian carpenters, we discovered interior walls covered
> floor to ceiling with lapped siding or rough flooring boards. Later they
> are covered in plaster and lath. We are wondering if this was something
of
> a immigrant technique to create a quick interior wall for less money, or
> if this was something brought from Europe? Often they are covered in wall
> paper, so it appears it was sometime before they were lathed. Whatever
the
> case, these homes and businesses withstood a considerable amount of
> distructive force without collapse. We had one building that floated away
> folded over a twelve inch diameter tree and ran head long into the side
of
> one two story comercial building and it didn't even budge! All these
> buldings were built in the 1890's any thoughts?
|
|
|