Builtform.htm

Built Form Analysis Model

Some obvious limitations exist!

There are several models that have been proposed for the study of material culture in general, and built form (or structures) as well. I will discuss some of these models and outline the one I have formed with which I will research the Kennaway village.

One model that has been offered is a three step procedure by Jules Prown). The first step is to describe the object in a variety of ways. This is integral because it is here that specific measurements and documentation of physical structures will occur. Prown's next step, deductions, involves the concept of feigned innocence, where the researchers attempt to rid themselves of preconceived notions about the nature of the objects under study, so as not to close the mind to metaphors that might otherwise occur to the researcher. This step should be done early on, otherwise too much "concrete" information might be discovered about the objects to successfully "feign innocence". Prown's third step of emotional response attempts to account for feelings that are generated by the object within the researcher. Again, this step should be done early in the analysis.

Gerald Pocius uses a similar three step model for the analysis of objects, that breaks down research into collection, description, and interpretation. The collection of structures in a specific community is fixed, but description may include a large number of variables such as relative size, shapes, building materials, styles, differences in preservation, orientation to each other (settlement pattern), etc. "Interpretation" may be defined in the broad sense to include anything from personal evaluation to detailed description of the site from written records.

Bernard Herman uses another three-fold method in one of his studies that considered agricultural history and barn structures in the state of Delaware. His first step was to examine their frequency over the landscape (the larger context of settlement pattern). The main purpose here is to notice any particular patterning (for example, he noticed a higher concentration of barns in the north of the state, while in the south, other kinds of structures were used). An analysis of the Kennaway village will be much more localized, but when the larger layout is understood, the possibility of relevant patterning is very real. Herman's next step is to analyze building materials of the structures. In this, care must be exerted to notice both trends over time as well as space. Finally, he studies the actual functional layouts, in terms of shapes, internal divisions, and particular functional distinctions. Herman notes that multiple buildings with limited individual uses connotes a high degree of specialization in the allocation and segregation of working space.

Robert Gordon is another material culture scholar whose model is of direct significance to a study of the remains of structures. He breaks it down into two categories, Archaeometry and Context. Archaeometry includes studying the object's:

Internal structure: by asking how it was made and used, and the steps taken in its construction.
Analysis of Form: with respect to engineering principles, to demonstrate how the object operated.
Surface markings: such as use wear analysis. Various marks on the structures may comment on activities that would have caused them, also analysis of marks that may indicate how wood was cut and arranged in the building.

The second category of Gordon's model is Context, which is further divided into

Backward linkage components: which relate to the object's origin, and
Forward linkage components: which refer to the uses to which the artifact is put.

In the Kennaway study, backward linkage components include the natural and human resources used to make the structures. What kind of wood is it? From where? Human resources include the skill of the builders and the social structures that have to be in place to allow them to use their skills. The majority of structures were probably built by their occupants.

The most detailed model for the specific analysis of structures in terms of conceptualizing the builder's steps in constructing it comes from Glassie Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Basing his "rules for architectural competence" on houses in Virginia, specific attributes common to houses are isolated and compared in order to demonstrate necessary patterns in design and construction. There are eight rule sets, but it is the forst three that will be particularly valid for the Kennaway study. The first deals with conceptualizations of the base structure. This is almost always a version of a square, modified to produce a scale of shapes.

The second set includes examination of the extension of the base into the structure's height. This is used to create the three dimensional structure, and the main concept will be to examine whether all extensions are carried to the same height, or if there are different heights created, creating a less symmetrical shape (unless the differences are arranged symmetrically). Any discrepancies here can possibly be explained by specific functional qualities depending on the nature of the structure (house? mill? etc.).

The third rule set outlines necessary massing and piercing. Massing refers to imagining the existence of substance, and piercing to imagining the existence of holes that allow passage through the substance. It alludes to an overall understanding of the placement and patterning of the doors and windows in relation to the walls and corners, and why they were placed where they were. Glassie offers a number of massing and piercing rules that comment on tendencies of windows to be placed in certain locations relative to each other. For example, if there is one window in a wall, it will be placed equidistant from the corners of the wall, while if there are two, they will be placed equidistant from the midpoint of the wall. Glassie's model is very important in organizing the step by step analysis of the structures themselves.

Based on the above models, an outline of the model appropriate for the Kennaway study can be conceptualized:

Future Research

In the near future I will visit the Kennaway sites and record concrete information regarding the structures, with photographs. The research model I have outlined will be applied to these as well and posted on this website.

Another important step will be the collection of documentary evidence regarding the sites. This will include land registry information, census reports and survey maps. This will allow for the identification of specific families and events that are relevant to the study of the structures themselves.

Surveys and interviews will also be conducted with individuals who used to live in or near Kennaway, and these sources of "oral tradition" will further complement research on the history of the sites.

Top || Kennaway Cabins || Schoolhouse || Settlement Pattern ||
Bibliography || || Kennaway History Back to HOME PAGE