DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL DATING TO DETERMINE THE YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BLOUNT MANSION (40KN52) COMPLEX, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, USA

Transcription

1 DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL DATING TO DETERMINE THE YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BLOUNT MANSION (40KN52) COMPLEX, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, USA A Final Report Prepared for the Blount Mansion Association Henri D. Grissino-Mayer * and Maegen L. Rochner Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science Department of Geography The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Knoxville, Tennessee * Corresponding Author grissino@utk.edu 1. Introduction The application of dendrochronological techniques to date historic structures in the eastern United States has witnessed a major resurgence in the last 20 years because agencies charged with managing these structures are now more aware that tree-ring dating can be successfully used to determine the year(s) of construction as precise as the season in which a tree was harvested to build a particular wall or room (Grissino-Mayer, 2009). In the southeastern U.S., 19 articles were published in the popular and peer-reviewed literature between 1938 and 2000 (an average of three per decade) that provided information on the absolute dating, or the potential of absolute dating, of tree rings in logs and beams in wooden structures (e.g., Lassetter, 1938; Bell, 1952; Stahle and Wolfman, 1977; Stahle, 1979; McCrea, 1995; Heikkenen, 1998). Since 2000, 32 articles have been published, or an average greater than 10 articles per decade. The majority of these publications (24) came from research performed by members of the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (e.g., Mann, 2002; DeWeese Wight and Grissino-Mayer, 2004; Blankenship, 2007; Lewis et al., 2009; Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013; Stachowiak et al., 2016). However, dendrochronological research also has been conducted by the Oxford Tree-Ring Laboratory based out of Baltimore, Maryland by Page 1

2 (Miles and Worthington, 2006; Worthington and Seiter, 2011, 2013) and at other academic institutions (Bortolot et al., 2001; Therrell and Stahle, 2012). Recently, a major initiative was launched by members of West Virginia University who sampled 20 historic structures as part of their Historic Timbers Project in summer 2016 alone (Central Appalachian Timbers, 2016). Results from these dendrochronological investigations primarily focus on determining the precise years of construction for historic houses, cabins, barns, and other types of outbuildings (e.g., smokehouses and corn cribs) and structures (e.g., crib dams and mission churches) (van de Gevel et al., 2009; Garland et al., 2012; Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013; Schneider et al., 2015). What researchers have learned, however, is that dendrochronology also can provide new insights on ownership and land-use history. For example, Stachowiak et al. (2016) learned that both cabins that collectively make up the larger Harding Cabin on the Belle Meade Plantation (Nashville, Tennessee) were built during the same year (1807), despite differences in species composition, physical properties, and workmanship of logs, which strongly suggested different builders for the two smaller cabins. Rochner et al. (2017) found cutting dates for a timber-framed house in Brighton, Michigan, that confirmed the construction date (1855) based on historical and documentary evidence, but also discovered an undocumented 1890s renovation. They also found that a large barn on the property was built later than previously documented. Brock et al. (2017) learned that the original log cabin at the Tipton-Haynes Historic Site, erected by Colonel John Tipton in the late 1700s, was not, as once thought, re-used and incorporated into a farmhouse built on the same property during the 1790s. This research also revealed that renovations and additions to the farmhouse took place in the 1820s by Colonel Tipton s son, John Tipton, Jr. Increasingly, dendrochronological dates are being used to complement results from previously performed archaeological analyses, and so far have resulted in tree-ring dates that support the archaeological interpretations (Mann, 2002; Slayton et al., 2009; Henderson et al., 2009; Grissino-Mayer et al., 2009) The Blount Mansion In 1790, William Blount was appointed by President George Washington to serve as the first governor of the Territory South of the River Ohio, as Tennessee was first known in the late Page 2

3 s (Young, 2000). Governor Blount arrived in the region that year and first governed the territory from the home of William Cobb (Cobb 1926; Hamer, 1932) in what later would become Johnson City, Tennessee (Grissino-Mayer et al., 2009). After negotiating the Treaty of the Holston between the United States and the Cherokees in 1791, Governor Blount decided to make Knoxville the new capital of Tennessee. Construction began soon after on what would become the governor s mansion overlooking the Holston River (now called the Tennessee River), not far from where the treaty was signed (Young, 2000). To afford some protection from Native American groups that remained hostile even after the treaty was signed, the location was chosen in close proximity to the James White Fort across Second Creek (Faulkner, 1984; Young, 1993). The city of Knoxville had yet to be formally established. On 2 January 1792, Governor Blount wrote James Robertson that My houses there [Knoxville] are not yet done (Folmsbee and Dillon, 1963) and later referred to my house in Knoxville in a letter dated 24 May 1793 (Patrick, 1981, p. 235). From this, we would assume that the main house of what would eventually become Blount Mansion could have been completed perhaps as early as 1793, but additional evidence suggests a later date. Materials used to construct the Blount Mansion were uncommon in frontier Knoxville, which suggests that more time may have been needed to finish the structure. Even though simple log structures were more common, Blount Mansion was constructed as a timber frame home, largely because Mary Blount, wife of William, had considerable input into the design of the mansion and wished the structure to be what she called a proper wooden house (Blount Mansion Association, 2016). Because operating sawmills were uncommon if not nonexistent in the eastern Tennessee frontier of the 1790s (Young, 2000), the timbers reportedly came from pine trees harvested in North Carolina and shaped in a sawmill possibly owned by the Blount family. The Governor and Mary Blount also insisted on glass, also rare in the Tennessee frontier, to be brought to Knoxville from Richmond, Virginia, for the windows of the Blount Mansion (Patrick, 1981). The Blount family also owned a naillery near Tarboro, North Carolina, which supplied the mansion with machine-cut nails that were in use at the time (today s wire cut nails would not become common until the late 1800s) (Young, 1994). The sheer logistics of importing sawn timbers, window glass, nails, and other architectural features for what would become a Page 3

4 true mansion on the Tennessee frontier suggest that the house may not have been completed by The Blount Mansion was originally constructed as a hall and parlor house with two rooms downstairs and a half-story loft (Blount Mansion Association, 2016). This 1½-story design was common for early timber frame houses in frontier settings but was often expanded as the needs of a family grew. The structure as it appears today (Figure 1) bears limited resemblance to the simple 1½-story structure that was initially built in the 1790s. Architectural analyses performed by Emrick and Fore (1992, 1996) demonstrated that the Blount Mansion was developed through a series of phases, each marked by a significant addition or development in the mansion or property. Phase I (ca to 1795) marked the original 1½-story, hall and parlor design, which consisted of two rooms, each with a fireplace on the east and west walls, a basement, and a half-story attic and sleeping loft, accessible via a steep staircase located in the northeast corner of the main floor. A 20 x 14 ft. slave house was located in the southwest corner of the mansion property, and a detached kitchen was located between this and the Main House (Young, 2000). The slave house is particularly interesting because its foundation was built directly on the ground surface, suggesting a hasty construction. During the following three phases, the west wing, a second story, and an east wing were added to the Blount Mansion. Phase II (ca to 1815) began with the death of Governor Blount in 1800, followed by the death of his wife, Mary, in According to Emrick and Fore (1996), a building that would eventually become the West Wing was constructed somewhere else on the Blount Mansion compound during this phase, but was not added to the Main House until Phase III (ca to 1825), which was a period of major alterations and additions. Young (2000) expanded on this speculation and observed that the dimensions of the original slave house matched perfectly with the dimensions of the West Wing. The West Wing was in all likelihood the original slave house (Faulkner 2000) and, according to archaeological findings, relocated and attached to the Main House about the year 1830, not between 1812 and 1825 as first thought. These findings also (1) suggest that the so-called Governor s Bedroom in the West Wing could not have served as such, (2) place the West Wing outside of Phase III, and (3) call into question the need for the original Phase II, especially because the slave house was part Page 4

5 of the original property plan in the 1790s. Instead, Phase III may have largely consisted of the addition of the second floor to replace the attic sleeping quarters. To accomplish this, the original roofing and roof structure were reportedly removed and/or lifted to add the second floor beneath (Emrick and Fore, 1996). The re-design of the roof resulted in a lower pitch, however, and the rafters were likely shortened. Finally, the east wing was added during the last phase, Phase IV (ca to 1830), to the State Street side of the house (Emrick and Fore, 1996) to create an aesthetically pleasing balance to the mansion complex. The East Wing is the least altered of all the buildings that today make up Blount Mansion. In summary, the development of the buildings that make up the Blount Mansion complex follow this revised trajectory, which necessitated rejection of the original phases as proposed by Emrick and Fore (1996): : Construction of the modest, 1½-story, hall and parlor Main House and the slave house that would eventually become the West Wing to 1825: The second floor to the Main House is added, retaining the original roof structure. This conclusion also is largely based on nail typology (Emrick and Fore, 1992; Young, 2000) to 1830: The East Wing is attached to the Main House. 4. After 1830: The slave house is relocated and attached to the Main House and becomes the West Wing. The goal of our study was to conduct a thorough dendrochronological investigation on exposed and accessible timbers from several locations in this historic structure to better understand its construction history. We focused on all three structures: the Main House, the West Wing, and the East Wing, to help verify or refute the construction history of the complex Methods: 3.1 Initial Reconnaissance An initial site visit and survey revealed five locations from which we could access and collect core samples from within the Blount Mansion complex. Page 5

6 Main House Cellar (MHC): Our primary focus was the Main House, and we found easily-accessible, sawn joists that support the first floor, accessible in the cellar of the Main House. These appeared to be original, and a few timbers had intact bark (Figure 2). Intact bark is a necessary requirement for ensuring that the outermost tree ring formed prior to harvest has been collected. The cellar timbers also provided additional clues to the period of their manufacture. Saw marks were straight up and down (Figure 2), which indicated that the timbers were cut with a water-powered frame saw (Howard, 1989; Wilbur, 1992) in a sawmill. The likely rarity, or absence of a sawmill in the eastern Tennessee frontier of the 1790s (Young, 2000) makes it unlikely that the timbers came from nearby. If the timbers were harvested and manufactured nearby, we would expect instead to find slanted and irregular saw marks, which would indicate manufacture using the more labor-intensive, two-person pit-saw that was commonly in use throughout the 1700s and early 1800s (Howard, 1989; Wilbur, 1992). On the other hand, the number and size of the sawn timbers in the Main House has lead others to conclude that these supporting timbers were probably obtained locally (Sheely, 1964). 2. Main House Attic (MHA): We were given access to the attic of the Main House and found easily accessible rafters above the second floor. These rafters were all numbered with carved Roman numerals (Figure 3), indicating a meticulously planned and built structure. Such marriage marks are typical of early log and timber-framed houses in the eastern U.S. (Howard, 1989). Our inspection did not uncover any hand-wrought nails anywhere in the roof structure, which are commonly used by historical architects to indicate 18 th century construction (Nelson, 1961; Keene, 1972; Fontana, 1985). Instead, we observed both Type A (clenched head, ca to 1820) and Type B (unclenched, ca to 1890) machine cut nails (Howard, 1989; Young, 1994; Visser, 1997). The report by Emrick and Fore (1996) noted that the original rafters were retained when the second floor was added, so we can conclude that, in all likelihood, these nails represent later alterations to the roof and attic area. 3. West Wing Attic (WWA): Archaeological evidence suggested that this structure was actually the original slave house that occupied the southwest corner of the original compound. We found easily accessible rafters in this structure, and the cutting dates for these rafters should support the evidence that this structure was among the earliest built, i.e. the 1790s. Page 6

7 East Wing Attic (EWA) and 5. East Wing Cellar (EWC): This structure was the last to be added to the Blount Mansion complex. We were given access to the attic of this structure and again found easily accessible rafters. Our inspection also revealed accessible joists that support the first floor of this structure in the lower room next to the cellar of the Main House. The tree-ring dates for these rafters and floor joists therefore should support the archaeological and architectural evidence that this structure was added sometime between 1815 and In summary, we expect that both the Main House and the West Wing (the former slave house) will yield tree-ring dates that support construction in the period 1792 to Tree rings collected from the attic of the Main House also should date to this early period because the rafters were retained when the second floor was added. Tree rings collected from the East Wing should yield dates that support construction during the period 1815 to Field Methods We carefully inspected the individual timbers in all three structures to select, for sampling, only those that would yield high-quality cores with tree rings that would provide cutting dates or near cutting dates (i.e. those with original curvature from the tree trunk or intact bark). When sampling log structures, we also inspect timbers to identify the basal end of the original tree trunk, but this was not possible on squared timbers. To ensure that we had a greater number of rings, as well as older rings, to work with, we sampled as close to each end of the timber as possible. To extract cores, we used a specially-designed, 10 inch long, hollow drill bit with a cutting diameter of 0.5 inch, attached to a variable-speed electric hand drill. As the outermost rings are crucial for dating, we took extra care not to damage them (Figure 4). To inform us later that the outermost rings remained intact after drilling, we stopped drilling early in the process to mark the outer surface with a black marker. We continued drilling until we extracted one or two sound cores from each selected timber (Figure 5). If rot or decay prevented us from taking a sound, solid core, we attempted to obtain another core from a different location on the timber. Page 7

8 Once extracted, we immediately and carefully mounted each core using wood glue on a grooved, pre-fabricated wooden core mount specially designed to handle these large cores (Figure 6). We then labeled the core mount with relevant information about each core, including the identification code, following this nomenclature: core location (e.g. WWA ), core number (e.g., 001 ), and if more than one core was extracted per timber, core sequence letter (e.g. A, B, etc.). In addition, we labeled the rafters sampled in the attics as either north or south. These field techniques have been used successfully on many historical structures in both the eastern U.S. (Stahle, 1979; Bortolot et al., 2001; Mann, 2002; DeWeese Wight and Grissino-Mayer, 2004; Blankenship, 2007; Lewis et al., 2009; Therrell and Stahle, 2012; Grissino-Mayer et al., 2013; Stachowiak et al., 2016) and western U.S. (Scantling, 1940; Robinson, 1985; Towner and Clary, 2001; Bekker and Heath, 2007; Towner and Creasman 2010; de Graauw et al., 2014). In addition to these core samples, Blount Mansion personnel also provided smaller sections of seven squared timbers that were stored in the cellar of the Craighead-Jackson House immediately across State Street (east side of the mansion). These detached timbers were believed to have been originally used in the structure that is today the West Wing. We took these timbers back to the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Science and cut 2-inch thick sections from them (Figure 7). Sections are often favorable to cores because they provide a greater surface on which to identify problematic rings (especially false rings, or intra-annual density fluctuations ) and ensure accuracy in assigning calendar years to each tree ring Laboratory Methods We sanded all cores and cross sections using a progression of sanding belts with finer and finer grit, beginning with ANSI 80-grit ( µm) and ending with ANSI 400-grit ( µm) (Orvis and Grissino-Mayer, 2002) (Figure 8). Beginning with the innermost complete ring (ring number 1), we annotated all tree rings on all samples using a standard decadal dot notation (Stokes and Smiley 1996; Speer, 2010). We next measured all tree-ring widths on all samples to the nearest mm using a Velmex movable stage micrometer interfaced with a personal computer running Measure J2X tree-ring measurement software. We stored all measurement data in the internationally-accepted Measurement format as required by the Page 8

9 International Tree-Ring Data Bank (Grissino-Mayer and Fritts, 1997). During the sanding process, we noted that all of the core and cross-section samples represented one or more pine species (Pinus spp.) but could not identify the individual species because southern pines generally cannot be differentiated anatomically from each other (Panshin and de Zeeuw, 1970; Hoadley, 1990) Relative Crossmatching We used the computer program COFECHA to conduct statistical crossdating of the measured tree rings series. COFECHA is a well-known program used by nearly all dendrochronologists to assure that tree rings have been assigned correct calendar years (Holmes, 1983). It uses segmented time series correlation techniques, breaking down each measurement series into shorter segments to determine if the tree-ring pattern of the series being tested matches the pattern found in all other measurement series or against reference treering data sets (Grissino-Mayer, 2001). COFECHA uses correlation analysis to assess the strength of the relationship between the two series being tested. All correlation tests and suggested matches between series must be statistically significant at the 0.01 level, although much lower p- values are common and preferred (e.g., p < ). Prior to absolute dating, we used COFECHA to perform internal crossmatching, which attempts to crossmatch the individual tree-ring series from different locations in the mansion with each other, placing them in time relative to each other. We entered the data set containing the measurement series being tested into COFECHA as an undated data set, and let COFECHA use correlation techniques to attempt to find crossmatching among them (Grissino-Mayer, 2001). The software then suggests the best placement among all series based on the top correlation values. In addition, COFECHA calculates the associated t-value, which takes into consideration the differences in number of years between two series being tested, and provides a more objective metric for evaluating whether two series crossmatch against each other. In dendrochronology, a t-value of 3.5 is used to suggest a potential match in time between two series (Baillie, 1982; Wigley et al., 1987; Laxton and Litton, 1989), although we prefer to use a Page 9

10 more rigid t-value of 4.0 (Grissino-Mayer et al., 2010). We also use an arbitrary t-value of 6.0 to suggest that two crossmatching tree-ring patterns likely came from the same tree. Once COFECHA informed us that two or more measurement series crossmatched in time, we used the program EDRM (Edit Ring Measurement) (Holmes, 1992) to adjust all relative ring numbers and place the tested series relative to each other in time. This resulted in a data set that was now easier to place in time absolutely because we could search for common terminal rings as well as common marker rings (such as especially narrow rings) that would confirm the crossdating process Absolute Crossdating To absolutely date tree-ring samples that are not anchored in time (such as samples obtained from historic structures), anchored reference tree-ring chronologies are required. Absolute dating, or crossdating, involves matching the temporal pattern of wide and narrow rings in the undated, floating tree-ring samples with the same tree-ring pattern found in the anchored tree-ring chronology (Figure 9). Crossdating is both a graphical process that involves visual verification of the matching tree-ring patterns, usually using scatter plots and line graphs in a spreadsheet, but also involves the creation of skeleton plots, which accentuate the narrowest tree rings that generally serve as noticeable marker rings over time (Swetnam et al., 1985; Stokes and Smiley, 1996; Grissino-Mayer, 2009; Speer, 2010). To begin the crossdating process, we used a larger dataset of previously-developed pine reference chronologies from the southeastern U.S. (Table 1), ranging from northern and central Georgia and western South Carolina, to North Carolina, western Tennessee, south-central Virginia, and into West Virginia. The average interseries correlation of these nine data sets is 0.46 (range 0.39 to 0.58), with t-values that range from 5.38 to All t-values and correlations were statistically significant (p < ). The values for mean sensitivity (a measure of the amount of climate signal present in the chronologies necessary for crossdating) range from 0.17 to 0.37 with an average mean sensitivity of These metrics suggested the pine regional data set has a significant climate signal that can be used to date floating tree-ring series obtained from historic structures. This regional pine data set was used previously to date the logs used to Page 10

11 construct the Green Hotel in Cave Spring, Georgia, and proved that this structure was in fact built by Euro-Americans in 1839 and not earlier by Cherokee builders as once believed (DeWeese et al., 2017). Because the origin of the trees harvested for the timbers in the Blount Mansion was unknown, we also tested the efficacy of using a sub-regional data set, created from two of the sites closest to the Blount Mansion in Knoxville, Tennessee, to date the undated series from the mansion. The sub-regional data set consisted of the Gold Mine Trail and the Lynn Hollow pine data sets. Both sites are located in the extreme western portion of Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and together show excellent crossdating (r = 0.680, n = 298 year overlap, t = 15.96, p < ). These statistics suggest a strong climate signal that could potentially match the signal in the undated Blount Mansion series. This assumes that the pines harvested and used to create the three structures of Blount Mansion came from the western side of the Appalachian Mountains, perhaps from some unknown sawmill in close proximity to Knoxville. To perform absolute dating (crossdating) in COFECHA, we entered the regional pine data set as the dated series and then entered the undated, floating measurement series from the mansion into the program, one at a time. For most of our data sets, we tested the series using 40- year segments, lagged by 10 years to provide additional diagnostics for assessing whether the series were placed correctly in time. For some data sets with shorter series, however, we tested 35-year segments lagged by 5 years. COFECHA then suggested temporal placements for all tested segments (e.g , which indicated that 1694 be added to all relative years of the series being tested). For example, a series that had been measured from relative years/rings 1 through 98 would be absolutely dated in time to the years AD 1695 to Before we could confirm absolute dating, the suggested temporal placements made by COFECHA had to be statistically significant for all or most of the segments being tested, and the suggested temporal placement had to be similar for all segments when compared to the regional pine data set. Once a series was absolutely dated in time, we used program EDRM (Holmes 1992) to adjust the years to reflect the calendar years suggested by COFECHA. We then graphically compared the dated series to the dated regional pine data set. Crossdating had to be convincing both graphically and statistically (Grissino-Mayer 2001). Page 11

12 Evaluating Cutting Dates The final assessment on logs used to build historic structures involves inspection of the terminal tree ring under high magnification to determine how much of the terminal ring formed prior to harvesting. This provided some indication of the season of tree harvesting. We have adapted the notation used to annotate terminal rings on archaeological samples collected in the Southwestern U.S. (Bannister, 1965; Bannister et al., 1966; Nash, 1999) for use on samples collected from historic structures in the Southeastern U.S. (Grissino-Mayer and van de Gevel, 2007; Schneider et al., 2015; Stachowiak et al., 2016): B: Bark is present and attached to the last formed ring, indicating the outermost ring is intact (a firm cutting date). r: The outermost ring is intact forming a partial or complete smooth curved surface on the log or beam (considered a cutting date). G: Beetle galleries are present, indicating that sapwood is present (a possible cutting date but could also be a near cutting date). v: The date is within a few years of the cutting date, based on the presence of sapwood and/or beetle galleries in the sapwood (a near cutting date). vv: A cutting date is not possible because we could not determine how far we were from the outermost ring ever formed on this tree (a non-cutting date). +: A ring count was necessary on the outermost rings because these were located in a detached sapwood portion of the core, or the rings could not be crossdated past a certain point. Clustering of the dates for the outermost tree rings indicated the likely year of tree harvesting. In addition, we evaluated the amount of wood in the last-formed ring to help determine the season of tree harvesting. For example, a terminal tree ring that is relatively the same width as others on other samples could indicate the ring had completely formed when cut, and that the tree was therefore likely harvested during the dormant season (winter across two calendar years). If only a few cells had formed in the last tree ring, then this could indicate harvesting early in the growing season. Page 12

13 Results 4.1 West Wing Cross Sections (WWX) We began by measuring and dating the tree rings from the seven cross sections obtained from the salvaged timbers located in the Craighead-Jackson cellar, which reportedly may have been original to the West Wing. We began by entering the measurements into COFECHA as undated series, and COFECHA did find strong matches for three of these sections. The strongest match was between samples WWX004 and WWX006, with a correlation of 0.78 across 68 rings and a t-value of This strongly suggested these two sections represent tree-ring patterns from the same tree. COFECHA also indicated matches between samples WWX005 and WWX006 (t-value of 3.6), samples WWX004 and WWX005 (t-value of 3.7), and samples WWX001 and WWX004 (t-value of 3.7), although these t-values are below our desired value of 4.0. Armed with this information, we then attempted to absolutely date all seven series, either against the regional pine data set, the sub-regional pine data set, and/or against other WWX samples (Table 2): WWX007: 85 complete tree rings. The tree rings on this sample dated well against the pine regional data set when entered as an undated series, revealing that 10 of year segments dated at a systematic adjustment of with an average r-value of The sample dates from 1726 to 1811, with no sapwood and therefore no cutting date possible. All we can say is that the tree was harvested sometime after WWX005: 93 complete tree rings. This sample dated well against the regional pine data set with 8 of the year segments showing a systematic dating adjustment of with an average r-value of However, we found a somewhat stronger dating when testing this undated series against just the Gold Mine Trail/Lynn Hollow sub-regional pine chronology. COFECHA showed 10 of year segments dated well against this pine data set at +1722, again with an average r-value of The final series therefore dates to the year 1723, with an outermost tree ring of This sample had no sapwood present and no outermost intact tree ring that indicated the year the tree was harvested. Page 13

14 WWX006: 77 complete tree rings. Curiously, WWX006 did not date against the regional pine data set but did date well against just the Gold Mine Trail/Lynn Hollow sub-regional data set, with 7 of 9 40-year segments dating with a systematic dating adjustment of +1722, with an average r-value of We confirmed this dating by testing it against WWX005 which showed that 8 of 9 40-year segments dated with a systematic dating adjustment of +1722, with an average r-value of These metrics confirmed that WWX006 and WWX005 might have been fashioned from the same tree. WWX006 therefore dates from 1723 to 1799, with no sapwood and therefore no cutting date possible. WWX001: 114 complete tree rings. This series dated well against the regional pine data set, with 7 of 8 40-year segments showing a systematic dating adjustment of +1688, with an average r-value of The series dated even better against the Gold Mine Trail/Lynn Hollow subset with all 8 of 8 40-year segments showing the common adjustment of +1688, with an average r-value of Some of the innermost tree rings were not very clear, and we decided to truncate this series to begin at The outermost tree ring was formed in the year 1810, with so sapwood and therefore no cutting date possible. WWX002: 96 complete tree rings. This series dated against the regional pine data set with 8 of year segments having the same dating adjustment of +1707, and an average r- value of When dated against the other WWX series, WWX002 revealed 9 of 12 segments with the same dating adjustment, with an average r-value of This series therefore dates from 1708 to 1805, but no sapwood present meant no cutting date was possible. WWX004: 80 complete tree rings. This sample was a paradox because it did not date against either the regional pine data set or the smaller data set of just Gold Mine Trail/Lynn Hollow. However, when tested against the already dated WWX006 sample, the analysis returned a systematic dating adjustment of for 8 of 9 40-year segments tested, with an average r-value of This correlation returned a t-value of 10.1, suggesting that WWX004 and WWX006 came from the same tree. In addition, WWX004 dated well against WWX005 at the same dating adjustment for 6 of 9 40-year segments and an average r-value of This sample therefore dates from 1711 to 1790, but no cutting date was possible because the sample did not contain the outermost terminal tree ring formed prior to tree harvesting. Page 14

15 WWX003: 104 complete tree rings. This sample dated against the regional pine data set with 9 of year segments showing a systematic dating adjustment of with an average r-value of The section had no sapwood and no outermost intact tree ring that would indicate the year of tree harvesting. The sample therefore dates from 1714 to 1817, with tree harvesting occurring after However, the tree rings from this sample also displayed the poorest interseries correlation (0.213, with all 8 of 8 total segments tested being flagged by COFECHA) against the other six dated series, and we determined this series should not be kept in the final data set for the WWX samples. The final data set consisted of six series from the cross sections, spanning the years from 1714 to The average interseries correlation for these six series was 0.441, indicating a data set with a common tree-ring pattern and successful crossdating. However, the quality of this data set rested on the strong crossmatching among three of these sections, WWX004, WWX005, and WWX006, which have strong interseries correlations of 0.654, 0.608, and 0.651, respectively. These sections may have come from the same harvested pine tree. No segments were flagged on these three series. In contrast, the three other series, WWX001, WWX002, and WWX007, had poorer correlations of 0.254, 0.223, and 0.289, respectively, and 14 of the year segments on these three series were flagged by COFECHA. Still, the fact that these three series returned positive correlations suggested a common tree-ring patterns among all six samples. The relationship between a chronology created from the six WWX samples and the regional pine chronology showed a statistically significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.417, n = 103, t = 4.61, p < ) and a high level of graphical correspondence (Figure 10) that were both convincing and confirmed the crossdating of the West Wing Sections. The two chronologies show poorer correspondence in the early decades of the West Wing samples (1714 to ca. 1740) because the tree rings are much wider in these early growth years when tree growth is responding more to internal physiological conditions rather than the overarching macroclimatic signal necessary for successful crossdating. After ca. 1740, the correspondence is clear, especially for the very narrow ring in 1748, the pattern from 1771 to 1789, and the pattern from 1806 to Page 15

16 Unfortunately, none of the West Wing Sections had any clear indication of an intact outermost terminal tree ring that would have formed just prior to tree harvesting. In addition, no clear sapwood was obvious on these samples, although one sample, WWX005, did have extensive insect galleries that formed post-harvesting and this usually occurs in sapwood. The date for the outermost tree ring was the year 1817, so we can assume that tree harvesting occurred soon after. All samples returned non-cutting dates, so we cannot evaluate when the trees were harvested to create the timbers from which the sections were cut Main House Cellar (MHC) The floor joists accessible in the cellar of the Main House were especially important in this study because these timbers likely would provide cutting dates that verify (or refute) the likely construction period beginning in Results of the internal crossmatching revealed that several series did in fact crossdate with each other, producing statistically significant correlations and associated t-values greater than 4.0. For example, joist MHC01 crossmatched with joist MHC06 with a t-value of 5.3; joist MHC05 crossmatched with joist MHC06 (t = 4.5), joist MHC07 (t = 5.5), and joist MHC09 (t = 4.7); joist MHC06 crossmatched with joist MHC09 (t = 5.9); and joist MHC07 crossmatched with joist MHC09 (t = 4.5). Despite these promising possible crossmatching placements, most series were short. Of the 11 series crossmatched in the MHC data set, four series are less than 50 years in length and four are between 50 and 75 years in length. None is over 100 years in length. The crossmatching exercise showed strong correspondence among the Main House Cellar samples, producing a 124-year-long chronology. However, few samples extended beyond year 90 and these samples did not show any crossmatching whatsoever. Because of the low sample depth in the outer years of this data set, we could not evaluate which series might be correctly dated nor could we attempt to search for possible rings that should be inserted or excluded that would improve the crossmatching. Essentially, the segment correlations drop considerably beginning after the 35-year segment that ended with ring 84 (Table 3). Before further attempting to crossdate the MHC samples, we truncated the measurement data for all series to end with year 84 because the tree-ring data after relative year 85 would be considered Page 16

17 too noisy for successful crossdating. After truncation, we found that the interseries correlation for these 11 series was and none of the year segments tested were flagged by COFECHA. We then entered the truncated data set as an undated series in COFECHA and compared it to the two regional pine data sets. COFECHA found a highly significant systematic dating adjustment with 7 of year segments showing a systematic dating adjustment of and an average correlation of 0.63 for these seven segments. The reason why the innermost four segments did not correlate at the same temporal adjustment is because the pine data set only goes back to 1681 and the temporal adjustment indicates the MHC data set begins in Hence, no tree rings were available to compare to the MHC data set which now goes back to Excluding the innermost four segments, our results showed that 7 of 7 35-year segments correlated at 0.63 with the regional pine data set (Table 4). When we compared the MHC data set to the sub-regional Gold Mine Trail/Lynn Hollow data set, again we found a common dating adjustment of for 7 of 7 35-year segments, with an average correlation of When adding in the outer segments that had been truncated due to absent crossmatching, the final MHC chronology was 124 years in length, spanning the years 1661 to The correlation between the regional pine data set and the truncated data set from the Main House Cellar samples was (n = 64, t = 3.39, p < 0.001) (Figure 11), but this value was negatively influenced by the outlier observation for 1689 in the regional pine data set of Excluding this one observation caused the correlation to increase to (n = 63, t = 4.45, p < ). None of the cores samples collected from the floor joists in the cellar of the Main House had what would be considered a clear terminal ring so that a cutting date for the timber could be determined (Table 5). Sample MHC01 had the youngest terminal ring at 1784, but another section of detached wood contained at least 9 tree rings that had to be added to this date, thus returning an outer tree-ring date of 1793, which could be close to the true cutting date. Sample MHC09 also had a detached portion in the sapwood that contained 32 detached tree rings, bringing this sample to 1785, with tree cutting after this date. All other core samples had noncutting dates. 494 Page 17

18 Main House Attic (MHA) The tree-ring patterns from four rafters had such high correlations and respective t- values greater than 6.0 with each other, that the rafters likely were fashioned from the same pine tree: MHAN04 (Main House Attic rafter #4 on the north side of the roof), MHAN07 (#7 north side), MHAS09 (#9 south side), and MHAS13 (#13 south side). For example, MHAN04 had a correlation of 0.71 (t-value = 8.0, n = 66 yrs) with MHAN07, and a correlation of 0.68 (tvalue = 7.5, n = 66 yrs) with rafter MHAN09. Meanwhile, rafter MHAN07 had a correlation of 0.80 (t-value = 10.7, n = 69 yrs). Finally, MHAN09 had a correlation of 0.84 (t-value = 11.3, n = 54 yrs) with rafter MHAS13. Once the tree-ring patterns from four rafters were placed against each other in the right temporal location (excluding duplicate cores), the average interseries correlation was 0.78, which demonstrated conclusively that a strong climate signal exists in these series necessary for absolute crossdating. We then compared the tree-ring patterns of these series against the two regional pine data sets in COFECHA, and we consistently found better correlations when using the sub-regional pine data set composed of just the two nearest chronologies, Gold Mine Trail and Lynn Hollow. Rafter MHAN04 showed 5 of 7 35-year segments with an average correlation of 0.58 and a systematic dating adjustment of to be added to the sample (which spanned rings 32 to 97 after relative dating against the other rafters), suggesting that the tree rings from rafter MHAN04 spanned the years 1728 to Once dated, this sample returned a correlation of 0.49 against the sub-regional pine data set (n = 66, t = 4.50, p < ). The next sample to date absolutely was sample MHAS09B which also returned a systematic dating adjustment of for 5 of 8 35-year-long segments tested and an average correlation of After adjusting the dates, sample MHAS09B spanned the years 1725 to 1793 and had a correlation of 0.46 (n = 69, t = 4.24, p < ) with the sub-regional pine data set. MHAN07B also correlated well with the sub-regional pine data set (r = 0.40, n = 83, t = 3.93, p < ). Sample MHAS13 crossdated weakly against the two pine reference data sets, but crossmatched well against the three other samples that did date well, showing the common dating adjustment of for the ring segments that overlapped (MHAS13 had older tree rings and segments that did not overlap with the other series). Lastly, sample MHAS12 dated weakly against the pine Page 18

19 reference data sets, but showed excellent agreement with the four already-dated samples, with all five 35-year segments showing a common dating adjustment of and an average correlation of The final data set consisted of five series from five rafters in the Main House: MHAN04, MHAN07, MHAS09, MHAS12, and MHAS13. COFECHA found that these five series dated well against each other with an interseries correlation of None of the year segments tested were flagged by COFECHA as being problematic (Table 6), indicating that this was a high-quality set of tree-ring series that dated well against each other. When graphically compared to the sub-regional data set (Figure 12), some disagreement is apparent, especially in the year 1709 when two rafters showed an extremely narrow tree ring for that year that was not indicated in the regional pine data sets. In general, we found discordance in the years prior to and including the year We removed the years prior to 1711 in the data set from the rafters and found a marginal correlation of (n = 83 yrs, t = 3.83, p < ) between the chronology from the five rafters with the sub-regional pine data set. In general, we prefer to see t-values 4.0 when comparing two tree-ring data sets from the Southeastern U.S. but these metrics combined with a satisfactory graphical association (Figure 12) indicated the tree rings from these five series from the rafters are absolutely dated in time. Especially noticeable agreements include the narrow tree rings formed in the years 1736, 1747, 1772, and 1780, and the wide tree rings formed in the years 1711, 1739, 1777, and 1779 (Figure 12). Similar trends in the two series are also apparent, especially in the period 1730 to 1760, as well as the period 1771 to The cutting dates for three of the rafters, MHAN04, MHAN07, and MHAS09 (all likely from the same tree), all have an outermost tree-ring date of 1794 (Table 7) although the seasonality of the terminal tree ring was not similar for the three rafters, mainly because the outermost tree rings were unclear. Sample MHAN07 had the clearest outermost terminal ring and the 1794 ring appeared to be complete. In this case, the tree harvested to make this rafter was likely cut in late 1794 after the growing season, or perhaps as late as winter in early 1795 before the growing season started. In general, it would be safe to say that the pine trees harvested to eventually be used as rafters in the Main House were cut sometime in late Page 19

20 West Wing Attic (WWA) We extracted 11 cores from seven rafters in the attic of the West Wing, and also extracted one core from a wall plate that had a high number of tree rings. Three cores did not have enough tree rings to warrant further analysis. Because the samples likely came from pine trees harvested in the same forest, we expected crossmatching to exist among the undated series because the trees would be responding to the same overarching climate signal. Unfortunately, COFECHA revealed no significant interseries crossdating among the measured samples. Because of this, we tested the cores individually against the regional pine data set as well as the sub-regional data set (Gold Mine Trail and Lynn Hollow). Samples WWAN02, WWAS05, and the one sample from a wall plate, WWWP12, returned systematic dating adjustments that appeared at first to be convincing statistically, but when we combined these to demonstrate crossdating, we found no association, as indicated by initial internal crossmatching analysis. The West Wing Attic samples will have to remain undated for now East Wing Attic (EWA) We extracted eight cores from seven rafters in the attic of the East Wing. One core (EWAN07) had too few tree rings to warrant further analysis. Two cores, EWAN08 and EWAS09, did not show any crossmatching with the other cores, despite EWAS09 having the most rings of any of the samples (125). The remaining five cores from four rafters (EWAN03A, EWAN03B, EWAS03, EWAN10, and EWAS12) showed excellent crossmatching with each other, and we were able to place these in time relative to each other. The cores from all four rafters demonstrated a common terminal year in ring number 134, indicating that the trees used to create all four rafters were harvested in the same year (Table 8). The five crossmatched series had a high average interseries correlation of 0.692, suggesting that a common climate signal was apparent that could lead to absolute crossdating. None of the year-long segments tested by COFECHA were flagged as being possibly misdated (Table 8). This data set from five cores representing four rafters in the East Wing Attic is a high-quality tree-ring data set with a common year for tree harvesting. Page 20

21 Unfortunately, we could find no crossdating between the East Wing Attic samples and the two reference chronologies. We then attempted to compare the tree rings with samples already dated from the Blount Mansion, using the chronologies created for the West Wing Sections, Main House Cellar, and Main House Attic samples. Again, we found no convincing crossdating against any of the already-dated data sets. We next compared the EWA data set against other individual pine chronologies across the Southeastern U.S., but again found no convincing or even probable crossdating. Finally, we compared the tree-ring pattern against several longleaf pine chronologies from central North Carolina, assuming that again the timbers were harvested near the original Blount family businesses in North Carolina and then shipped to Tennessee. This exercise produced no convincing results. Despite the EWA data set having superior crossmatching among the five series from four rafters, the tree-ring pattern for these four rafters simply didnot crossdate in any way with any of the already-dated data sets and reference chronologies. For now, the East Wing Attic samples will have to remain undated East Wing Cellar (EWC) We extracted five cores from three joists in the East Wing Cellar, but one core (from joist EWC02) had too few tree rings (< 40) to warrant further analysis. The final data set represented four measured series from two joists, EWC06 and EWC07. We targeted these two joists in particular because they had evidence of what appeared to be bark on an outer edge of the joist. Unfortunately, the two series from joist EWC06 only weakly crossmatched the two series from joist EWC07. We next compared the four tree-ring series against the crossmatched five series from the East Wing Attic, assuming that the pine trees harvested to make the joists in the cellar would be contemporary with the pine trees harvested to construct the roof rafters. Again, we could find no convincing crossmatching between the two data sets. We next compared the four measured series against the regional pine data set, as well as the Gold Mine Trail and Lynn Hollow sub-regional data set. Again, we found no convincing crossdating in time for the four floating series. Finally, we compared the tree-ring patterns against the West Wing Cross Sections (WWX) to see if the data set could find a temporal match with the East Wing Cellar Page 21

22 samples. Although one series (EWC07B) did show a match with the WWX samples at a systematic dating adjustment for 8 or the 9 35-year-long segments tested, the same dating adjustment did not appear for the mate (EWC07A). No systematic dating adjustment was found for series EWC06A or EWC06B. For now, the four series from two joists representing the East Wing Cellar samples will have to remain undated Discussion Of the various data sets collected and analyzed, the data sets from the Main House Cellar and Main House Attic were most informative. One sample in the cellar (MHC01) had an outermost terminal ring of 1793 after adding nine tree rings that had detached from the core, a common issue we have found with sampling conifers used in historic buildings. Unfortunately, we could not determine the season of cutting for this tree with confidence because the outer portion of the core was deteriorated. This core, however, provided the first clue on possible years of harvest for trees used in the Main House of the Blount Mansion. Because the tree was still living in 1793, we can assume that William Blount and his wife Mary could not have occupied the house until sometime after Further corroborating evidence is supplied by the terminal rings on all other samples from the Main House Cellar that could be crossdated. All outermost terminal tree rings pre-dated the likely years of construction, generally noted historically to be 1792 to Had one or more cores post-dated this period, then either the Main House likely would have been younger than previously thought, or we may have sampled some replacement (non-original) timbers. The samples from the Main House Attic further corroborate a construction period in the mid-1790s, but this interpretation is based on three rafters that likely were manufactured from the same tree. These three rafters (MHAS04, MHAN07, and MHAS09) all had an outermost terminal ring of We also identified the season when this tree was cut, likely in late 1794 or possibly in early 1795 before the winter season had ended. This provided evidence that the house was still being built in 1794 and could not have been occupied yet because the tree(s) that would eventually be cut and used to manufacture the rafters of the Main House was/were still Page 22

23 living in late Because the roof was likely the last element of the Main House to be built, it is possible that the house was ready for occupation as early as Previous historians acknowledged that William Blount, after selecting Knoxville to be the first capital of the territory, relocated to this pioneer town around 1792 and he and his wife Mary lived in a house on Barbary Hill, to the west of the present location of the house, on land now occupied by the University of Tennessee (Young, 1993, 2000). Folmsbee and Dillon (1963) noted that Pleasant M. Miller, who became a son-in-law of William Blount, wrote Lyman C. Draper that the Blounts first lived in a log cabin between the University of Knoxville and the river. In fact, Barbary Hill was so named because Blount s first daughter, Barbara, was born there in September Further, William Blount did not formally purchase the property (Lot 18 of the original 64 half-acre lots surveyed by James White in 1791) from John Carter until November 15, 1794 (Folmsbee and Dillon, 1963). The deed recording this purchase was dated November We also point out that the furnishings used to construct Blount Mansion likely would have taken time to manufacture and ship, especially the timbers, window glass, and nails from locations outside Knoxville. The tree-ring dates obtained in this study (terminal rings in 1793 and 1794) substantiate that Blount Mansion was therefore the second home of William Blount in the local area, and likely was not completed or occupied until sometime in While we were able to crossdate the cross sections that supposedly came from the West Wing, without documentation about their original provenience, we can say little about their contribution to the construction history of Blount Mansion, other than to say that the sections support construction of some structure possibly as late as the 1820s. Because the West Wing was reported by Young (2000) as being the original slave cabin built on the property in the early 1790s, along with the original mansion, we should expect outermost and cutting dates for the tree rings on these samples to pre-date ca However, the tree-ring dates for the cross sections indicate they were extracted from some structure built after ca based on the outermost dated tree ring. Given the outermost dates for these cross sections, it is more likely that they were extracted from timbers used to construct the East Wing because the East Wing was added to the State Street side of the original Main House sometime between ca to Page 23

24 according to an analysis of architectural details (such as nail typology) by Emrick and Fore (1996). Perhaps the most perplexing results of this study involve the lack of successful (absolute) crossdating of tree rings from both the West Wing attic and East Wing attic and cellar samples. The West Wing Attic samples revealed no internal (between series) crossmatching at all, which was especially surprising given these samples had clear ring patterns that we normally associated with tree-ring samples that could be crossdated. Such was not the case. Given the samples did not crossdate against each other, we knew that these samples therefore could not be absolutely crossdated. These samples will remain undated for now, but we suggest that additional samples be obtained from the rafters in the West Wing Attic in a future collection. Additional samples should be identified and collected in any future renovations that involve the original sill and wall logs, as complete cross sections stand a better chance of being crossdated. The East Wing Attic samples collected from the rafters showed promise because five cores from four rafters were found to crossmatch with each and all had the same outermost relative ring number (134). This suggested that the four rafters could yield potential cutting dates if absolutely crossdated. However, we could find no convincing match with the regional and sub-regional pine data sets, even though these had already proven useful in absolutely dating other samples from the Blount Mansion complex. We were also unsuccessful in dating these five samples against other individual pine chronologies from west of the Appalachians, and even against longleaf pine chronologies from central North Carolina. Essentially, we exhausted every possibility in choosing regional pine reference chronologies to crossdate these samples. A particularly telling result is that the East Wing rafters did not crossdate against the cross sections that we hypothesized, based on outermost dates, also came from the East Wing, but reportedly came from the West Wing. Again, the five series from four rafters in the East Wing will have to remain undated for now, but we advise that additional samples be collected from these rafters in a future collection trip, as well as any samples that might be obtained from wall logs in future restoration events. Page 24

25 Finally, the East Wing cellar joists showed promise in that the two joists we sampled appeared to have what we tentatively identified as bark. We collected only four cores from two joists in the cellar, assuming at the time of collection that these would be all that were needed to provide cutting dates for the construction of the East Wing. Unfortunately, these four series did not crossmatch against each very well, nor did they crossdate against any other samples or against the regional and sub-regional pine data sets used in this study. These samples, again, have to remain undated for now. We now have to speculate on possible reasons why absolute crossdating was so elusive in this study. First, could the samples have actually been derived from trees growing in North Carolina instead of east Tennessee? Although the history of Blount Mansion mentioned that the trees came from North Carolina where the Blounts had an interest in commercial logging (BMA, 2016), this likely would not be the case because transporting the timbers would have been difficult to a new frontier town in the early 1790s. This is especially true given that: (1) crossing the Appalachian Mountains with timbers would have been exceedingly and logistically difficult, even using the waterways (which were filled with shoals) for transportation; (2) Native Americans were still hostile to the early settlers, despite their having signed the Treaty of the Holston with Governor Blount in 1791; and, (3) the forests of eastern Tennessee already were rich with pine species from which timbers could be fashioned. Anecdotal evidence even suggested that the timbers came from a sawmill located in Blount County that was supposedly operating at the time, but no documentation exists proving the existence of this sawmill in the early 1790s. Patrick (1981) noted that [b]y 1799, there were four sawmills near Salisbury, North Carolina operating vertical frame saws via water power (perhaps at the nearby Yadkin River), and also noted that sawmills in general were easily accessible in the late eighteenth century. However, many of these likely used the more familiar two-person pit saws which continued to be used through the Antebellum Period (through ca. 1860) because these were easily set up when water power was distant from a settlement (Patrick 1981, p. 22). Second, could the regional pine data set used for the dating of the individual samples from the Blount Mansion complex be an inappropriate data set to use for this study? Our previous studies have always used regional tree-ring chronologies, grouped together into one Page 25

26 larger regional data set, to date samples from historic structures, and we have had general success in dating structures from as far north as Michigan to as far south as Florida. In addition, the regional pine data set was used recently to convincingly date samples extracted from the wall logs in the Green Hotel in Cave Spring, Georgia (DeWeese et al, 2017), so we know this data set can be used to date historic structures west of the Appalachians. Further, the regional pine chronologies demonstrated strong crossdating against each other (Table 1), suggesting the pines at these sites were responsive to the over-arching climate signal present in the region. Lastly, the sub-regional pine data set that consisted of just the nearest two pine data sets (Gold Mine Trail and Lynn Hollow) was indeed able to crossdate some samples collected in this study. We conclude that the pine data sets were appropriate to use for this study, which therefore points to some other explanation for the lack of crossdating. We essentially conclude that the pines that were harvested and used to construct the various timbers in the Blount Mansion complex likely came from forest interior locations where internal forest stand dynamics and possible disturbance factors predominated and likely masked the strong climate signal that imparts the common tree-ring patterns necessary for absolute crossdating in time. The pines likely were co-existing in a forest with mixed hardwoods, a common forest type in the Central Hardwoods region west of the Appalachian Mountains (Boerner, 2000; Aldrich et al., 2003; Hart et al., 2008; Greenberg et al., 2016). Some of the timbers used in the Blount Mansion complex likely came from trees growing in mature stands dominated by pines, such as those that exist today at the Lynn Hollow and Gold Mine Trail sites (LaForest, 2012; Stahle et al., 2017). Other pine timbers may have been harvested from pines growing in primarily hardwood dominated stands with closed canopies and enhanced competition where these pines likely would not have been responding primarily to climate. Relatively few studies have been conducted in the Southeastern U.S. that documented the treering patterns from pines growing in different forest settings (Abrams and Black, 2000; Copenheaver et al., 2002); however, most pine tree-ring chronologies from the Southeastern U.S. were developed from mature pines growing as dominants in a pure pine stand or a forest stand dominated by pines (Grissino-Mayer et al., 1989; Grissino-Mayer and Butler, 1993; Henderson and Grissino-Mayer, 2009; Harley et al., 2011; LaForest, 2012; Parker et al., 2014; Stahle et al., Page 26

27 ). Therefore, we speculate that the majority of tree-ring series from the Blount Mansion buildings likely came from pines that were not responding primarily to climate, but instead were responding to other stand dynamics factors, such as competition for light and nutrients, as well as to forest disturbances such as wildfires, which were once common in Southeastern forests prior to ca (Grissino-Mayer, 2016; Lafon et al, 2017) Conclusions The absolutely-dated tree-ring dates that we were able to obtain from the Main House Cellar and Attic suggest that the house was still being constructed in 1793 and 1794, and likely was completed and ready for occupation soon after in This corroborates the generallyaccepted years of construction for Blount Mansion of 1792 to These cutting dates also confirm the suggestion that William Blount and his family were living elsewhere during the early years after they moved to Knoxville, likely in a house on Barbary Hill to the west of the present location of the mansion, on land now occupied by the University of Tennessee. The tree rings from the cross sections provided to us could be crossdated but, without knowing more about their original provenience, we can say little from these about the construction history of the Blount Mansion complex. Most perplexing was our inability to crossdate what appeared to be suitable tree-ring patterns obtained from the West Wing attic rafters and the East Wing attic rafters and cellar joists. The East Wing series suggested a common year of tree harvest for four rafters but these could not be absolutely dated in time. We speculate that the difficulty we encountered in dating these series was likely caused by pine trees being harvested from forest stands where climate was not the main driver of growth variation from year to year. Instead, the primary mechanisms that affected pine growth in these forests were internal stand dynamics and disturbance processes that masked the over-arching climate signal needed for successful crossdating. Future research may wish to conduct a more comprehensive sampling of the rafters and joists found throughout the Blount Mansion complex so that absolute crossdating in time may be attainable. Our study is the first to attempt to date multiple historic structures made primarily from southern pine species, and highlights the difficulties that might Page 27

28 be encountered by future projects in which Pinus turns out to the dominant genus used to build historic sites. References Abrams, M.D., and Black, B.A. (2000). Dendroecological analysis of a mature loblolly pinemixed hardwood forest at the George Washington Birthplace National Monument, eastern Virginia. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society, 127(2), Aldrich, P.R., Parker, G.R., Ward, J.S., and Michler, C.H. (2003) Spatial dispersion of trees in an old-growth temperate hardwood forest over 60 years of succession. Forest Ecology and Management, 180(1 3), Baillie, M.G.L. (1982). Tree-Ring Dating and Archaeology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Bannister, B. (1965). Tree-ring dating of the archaeological sites in the Chaco Canyon region, New Mexico. Southwestern Monuments Association Technical Series, 6(2), Bannister, B., Gell, E.A., and Hannah, J.W. (1966). Tree-ring dates from Arizona N Q: Verde- Show Low-St. Johns Area. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson. Bekker, M.F., and Heath, D.M. (2007). Dendroarchaeology of the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Utah. Tree-Ring Research, 63(2), Bell, R.E. (1952). Dendrochronology in the Mississippi Valley. In Griffin, J.B., ed., Archeology of Eastern United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, pp Blankenship, S.A. (2007). Archaeological and dendrochronological investigations at Cagle Saltpetre Cave, Van Buren County, Tennessee. M.A. thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. 173 pp. Blount Mansion Association (BMA), The History of Blount Mansion. Last accessed 10 January Boerner, R.E.J. (2000). Effects of fire on the ecology of the forest floor and soil of Central Hardwood Forests. In Yaussy, D.A., (compiler), Proceedings: Workshop on Fire, People, and the Central Hardwoods Landscape. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, General Technical Report NE p. Bortolot, Z.J., Copenheaver, C.A., Longe, R.L., and Van Aardt, J.A.N. (2001). Development of a white oak chronology using live trees and a post-civil War cabin in south-central Virginia. Tree-Ring Research, 57(2), Brock, D.W.H., Heath, B.J., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2017). Dendroarchaeology at the Tipton- Haynes State Historic Site: contextualizing the landscape of an upland south farmstead in east Tennessee, USA. Dendrochronologia, 43, Central Appalachian Timbers, Historic Timbers Project, West Virginia Humanities Council. Last accessed 10 January Page 28

29 Cleaveland, M.K. (1975). Dendroclimatic relationships of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) in the South Carolina piedmont. M.S. thesis, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. Cobb, P.L. (1926). William Cobb Host of Gov. Wm. Blount: his life and times. The Tennessee Historical Magazine, 9(4), Copenheaver, C.A., Grinter, L.E., Lorber, J.H., Neathour, M.A., and Spinney, M.P. (2002). A dendroecological and dendroclimatic analysis of Pinus virginiana and Pinus rigida at two slope positions in the Virginia Piedmont. Castanea, 67, de Graauw, K.K., Towner, R.H., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Kessler, N.V., Knighton-Wisor, J., Steffen, A., and Doerner, J.P. (2014). Historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures in the Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico, U.S.A. Dendrochronologia, 32(4), DeWeese, G.G., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2004). Dendrochronological dating of an Antebellum Period house, Forsyth County, Georgia, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Research, 60(2), DeWeese, G.G., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and Bishop, W.J. (2017). The historical dendroarchaeology of the Green Hotel, Cave Spring, Georgia, USA. Dendrochronologia, 43, DeWeese, G.G., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Lafon, C.W., and Aldrich, S.R. (2010). Evaluating the dendroclimatological potential of central Appalachian Table Mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.). Dendrochronologia, 28(3), Emrick, M., and Gore, G.T. (1992). Historic Structures Report, Blount Mansion, Knoxville, Tennessee. Blount Mansion Association, Knoxville, Tennessee. Emrick, M., and Fore, G.T. (1996). Architectural analysis and the reinterpretation of a Tennessee landmark. Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 55(4), Faulkner, C.H. (1984). An archaeological and historical study of the James White second home site. Final Report, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of Anthropology. Faulkner, C.H. (2000). Knoxville and the southern Appalachian frontier: an archaeological perspective. Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 59(3), Folmsbee, S.J., and Dillon, S.H. (1963). The Blount Mansion: Tennessee s Territorial Capitol. Tennessee Historical Quarterly, 22(2), Fontana, B.L. (1985). The tale of a nail: on the ethnological interpretation of historical artifacts. The Florida Anthropologist, 18(3), Garland, N.A., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Deagan, K., Harley, G.L., and Waters, G. (2012). Dendrochronological dating of wood from the Fountain of Youth Park Archaeological Site (8SJ31), St. Augustine, Florida, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Research, 68(1), Greenberg, C.H., Collins, B.S., McNab, W.H., Miller, D.K., and Wein, G.R. (2016). Introduction to natural disturbances and historic range of variation: Type, frequency, severity, and postdisturbance structure in Central Hardwoods forests. In Greenberg, C.H, and Collins, B.S., eds., Natural Disturbances and Historic Range of Variation: Type, Frequency, Severity, and Postdisturbance Structure in Central Hardwood Forests. Springer Verlag: Berlin and New York, pp Page 29

30 Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2001). Evaluating crossdating accuracy: A manual and tutorial for the computer program COFECHA. Tree-Ring Research, 57(2), Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2009). An introduction to dendroarchaeology in the Southeastern United States. Tree-Ring Research, 65(1), Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2016). Wildfire as a once-dominant disturbance process in the yellow pine and mixed pine/hardwood forests of the Appalachian Mountains. In Greenberg, C.H. and Collins, B.S., eds., Natural Disturbances and Historic Range of Variation: Type, Frequency, Severity, and Post-disturbance Structure in Central Hardwood Forests. Springer Verlag: Berlin and New York, pp Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and Butler, D.R. (1993). Effects of climate on growth of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) in northern Georgia: a dendroclimatic study. Southeastern Geographer, 33(1), Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and Fritts, H.C. (1997). The International Tree-Ring Data Bank: an enhanced global database serving the global scientific community. The Holocene, 7(2), Grissino-Mayer, H.D., LaForest, L.B., and van de Gevel, S.L. (2009). Construction history of the Rocky Mount Historic Site (40SL386), Piney Flats, Tennessee from tree-ring and documentary evidence. Southeastern Archaeology, 28(1), Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Maxwell, J.T., Harley, G.L., Garland, N.A., Holt, D.H., Absher, C., Beale, B.J., Boehm, M.S., de Graauw, K.A., Rautio, A.M., and Dye, A.W. (2013). Dendrochronology reveals the construction history of an early 19th century farm settlement, southwestern Virginia, USA. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40(1), Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Rosenberger, M.S., and Butler, D.R. (1989). Climatic response in tree rings of loblolly pine from north Georgia. Physical Geography, 10(1), Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Sheppard, P.R., Cleaveland, M.K., Cherubini, P., Ratcliff, P., and Topham, J. (2010). Adverse implications of misdating in dendrochronology: Addressing the re-dating of the Messiah violin, Dendrochronologia, 28, Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and van de Gevel, S.L. (2007). Tell-tale trees: historical dendroarchaeology of log structures at Rocky Mount, Piney Flats, Tennessee. Historical Archaeology, 41(4), Hamer, P.M. (1932). Letters of Governor William Blount. East Tennessee Historical Society s Publications, 4, Harley, G.L., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and Horn, S.P. (2011). The dendrochronology of Pinus elliottii in the Lower Florida Keys: Chronology development and climate response. Tree-Ring Research, 67(1), Hart, J.L., van de Gevel, S.L., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2008). Forest dynamics in a natural area of the southern Ridge and Valley. Natural Areas Journal, 28(3), Heikkenen, H.J. (1998). Extracting dates from tree rings. In Heite, E.F., and Blume, C.L., eds., Mitsawokett to Bloomsbury: Archaeology and History of an Unrecognized Indigenous Community in Central Delaware. Heite Consulting, Camden, Delaware, pp Page 30

31 Henderson, J.P., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2009). Climate-tree growth relationships of longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) in the Southeastern Coastal Plain, USA. Dendrochronologia, 27(1), Henderson, J.P., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., van de Gevel, S.L., and Hart, J.L. (2009). The historical dendroarchaeology of the Hoskins House, Tannenbaum Historic Park, Greensboro, North Carolina, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Research, 65(1), Hoadley, R.B. (1990). Identifying Wood: Accurate Results with Simple Tools. Taunton Press, Newtown, Connecticut. Holmes, R.L. (1983). Computer-assisted quality control in tree-ring dating and measurement. Tree-Ring Bulletin, 43, Holmes, R.L. (1992). User s Manual for Program EDRM. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson. Howard, H. (1989). How Old is this House? A Skeleton Key to Dating and Identifying Three Centuries of American Houses. Noonday Press, New York City, New York. Keene, J.T., Jr. (1972). The nail making industry in early Virginia. The Chronicle of the Early American Industries Association, 25(1), 1 9. Lafon, C.W., Naito, A.T., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Horn, S.P., and Waldrop, T.A. (2017). Fire History of the Appalachian Region: A Review and Synthesis. Asheville, North Carolina: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report SRS pp. LaForest, L.B. (2012). Fire regimes of lower-elevation forests in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Tennessee, U.S.A. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Lassetter, R. (1938). A dendrochronological investigation in the Clinch River drainage, Tennessee. M.A. thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. Laxton, R.R. and Litton, C.D. (1989). Construction of a Kent master dendrochronological sequence for oak, A.D to Medieval Archaeology, 33, Lewis, D.B., Nelson, W.L., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Cook, E.R., and Jones, R.D. (2009). Dendrochronological dating of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana L.) logs from Alfred's Cabin, The Hermitage, Home of President Andrew Jackson. Tree-Ring Research, 65(1), Li, Y. (2011). Dendroclimatic analysis of climate oscillations for the southeastern United States from tree-ring network data. M.S. Thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Mann, D.F. (2002). The dendroarchaeology of the Swaggerty Blockhouse, Cocke County, Tennessee. M.S. thesis, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville. McCrea, W.J. (1995). Dendrochronology: A new research tool. North Carolina Preservation, 99, 3 7. Miles, D.H., and Worthington, M.J. (2006). The Tree-Ring Dating of the Hoggatt House, Blacksmith Shop, and the Armfield House, re-erected at the High Point Museum, High Point, North Carolina. Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory Report 2006/48. Nash, S.E. (1999). Time, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-Ring Dating and the Development of North American Archaeology, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Page 31

32 Nelson, L.H. (1968). Nail chronology as an aid to dating old buildings. Technical Leaflet 48, American Association for State and Local History, Nashville, Tennessee. Orvis, K.H., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2002). Standardizing the reporting of abrasive papers used to surface tree-ring samples. Tree-Ring Research, 58, Panshin, A.J., and de Zeeuw, C. (1970). Textbook of Wood Technology. McGraw-Hill, New York. Parker, K.C., Jensen, C., and Parker, A.J. (2014). The growth response of slash pine (Pinus elliottii) to climate in the Georgia Coastal Plain. Dendrochronologia, 32(2), Patrick, J. (1981). Architecture in Tennessee The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville. Robinson, W.J. (1985). A construction sequence for Hubbell Trading Post and Residence. The Kiva, 50, Rochner, M.L., Kelley, H.W., Wilson, C.S., Bennett, T., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2017). Dendrochronological dating of the Warner House and Barn (20LV334), Livingston County, Michigan, USA. Dendrochronologia, 43, Saladyga, T., Raso, C., and Hatfield, T. (2017). Babcock State Park - PIRI - ITRDB WV009. World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, National Centers for Environmental Information. Last accessed 15 January Scantling, F.H., Tree-ring dates from a Mormon church. Tree-Ring Bulletin, 7, 14. Schneider, E.A., Stachowiak, L.A, and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2015). The historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures at the Wynnewood State Historic Site, Castalian Springs, Tennessee, U.S.A. Dendrochronologia, 33, Sheely, Jr., H.J. (1964). William-Blount Mansion, National Register of Historic Places Inventory- Nomination Form. National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places. Last accessed 12 January Slayton, J.D., Stevens, M.R., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and Faulkner, C.H. (2009). The historical dendroarchaeology of two log structures at the Marble Springs Historic Site, Knox County, Tennessee, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Research, 65(1), Speer, J.H. (2010). Fundamentals of Tree-Ring Research. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Stachowiak, L.A., Schneider, E.A., Rochner, M.L., Collins, S.A., and Grissino-Mayer, H.D. (2016). Dendrochronological dating of two historic log cabins on the Belle Meade Plantation, Davidson County, Tennessee, USA. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 25(2), Stahle, D.W. (1979). Tree-ring dating of historic buildings in Arkansas. Tree-Ring Bulletin, 39, Stahle, D.W., Therrell, M.D., and Blozan, W. (2017). Lynn Hollow and Look Rock Trail - PIEC - ITRDB TN022. World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, National Centers for Environmental Information. Last accessed 15 January Stahle, D.W., and Wolfman, D. (1977). The potential for tree-ring research in Arkansas. Arkansas Archeological Society Field Notes, 146, 5 9. Page 32

33 Stokes, M.A., and Smiley, T.L. (1996). An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sutherland, E.K., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., Woodhouse, C.A., Covington, W.W., Horn, S.P., Huckaby, L., Kerr, R., Kush, J., Moore, M.M., and Plumb, T. (1995). Two centuries of fire in a Southwestern Virginia Pinus pungens community. In W.L. Myers, ed., Proceedings: Inventory and Management in the Context of Catastrophic Events: Altered States of the Forest. State College, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University. Swetnam, T.W., Thompson, M.A., and Sutherland, E.K. (1985). Using dendrochronology to measure radial growth of defoliated trees. USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Handbook, 639. Therrell, M.D., and Stahle, D.W. (2012). Tree-ring dating of an Arkansas Antebellum plantation house. Tree-Ring Research, 68(1), Towner, R.H., and Clary, M.R. (2001). Historical dendroarchaeology in central Colorado: lessons from the Keystone area. Southwestern Lore, 67(3), Towner, R.H., and Creasman, P.P. (2010). Historical dendroarchaeology in the El Malpais area: lessons from the Savage Homestead. Historical Archaeology, 44(4), van de Gevel, S.L., Hart, J.L., Grissino-Mayer, H.D., and Robinson, K.W. (2009). Tree-ring dating of old-growth longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Mill.) logs from an exposed timber crib dam, Hope Mills, North Carolina, U.S.A. Tree-Ring Research, 65(1), Visser, T.D. (1997). Field Guide to New England Barns and Farm Buildings. University Press of New England, Lebanon, New Hampshire. Wigley, T.M.L., Jones, P.D., and Briffa, K.R. (1987). Cross-dating methods in dendrochronology. Journal of Archaeological Science, 14, Wilbur, C.K. (1992). Home Building and Woodworking in Colonial America. Chelsea House Publishers, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Worthington, M.J., and Seiter, J.I. (2011). The Tree-Ring Dating of 304 East Queen Street, Edenton, North Carolina. Oxford Tree-Ring Laboratory Archive Report 2012/14. Worthington, M.J., and Seiter, J.I. (2013). The Tree-Ring Dating of Morgantown House, Marshall, Virginia. Oxford Tree-Ring Laboratory Archive Report 2013/10. Young, A.L. (1993). The Knoxville Archaeological Mapping Project: Final Report. Mid-South Archaeological Research Center, the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Young, A.L. (1994). Nailing down the pattern. Tennessee Anthropologist, 19(1), Young, A.L. (2000). Developing town life in the South: archaeological investigations at Blount Mansion. In Young, A.L., ed., Archaeology of Southern Urban Landscapes. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp Page 33

34 Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the nine pine chronologies used to create a regional reference chronology for the southeastern U.S. Chronology State Begin Year End Year Length (Yrs) Latitude (N) Longitude (W) Average Interseries Correlation 10 t-value 10 Average Mean Sensitivity Marshall Forest 1 Georgia Clemson Forest 2 South Carolina Lynn Hollow/Look Rock 3 Tennessee Gold Mine Trail 4 Tennessee Linville Mountain 5 North Carolina Marble Springs 6 Tennessee Athens 7 Georgia Brush Mountain 8 Virginia Babcock State Park 9 West Virginia Total or mean Knight (2003); ITRDB chronology GA018. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). 2 Cleaveland (1975); ITRDB chronology SC001. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). 3 Stahle et al. (2017); ITRDB chronology TN022. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). 4 LaForest (2012); Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.) and pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.) 5 Li (2011); Table Mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.). 6 Slayton et al. (2009); Unknown pine species. 7 Grissino-Mayer and Butler (1993); ITRDB chronology GA001. Shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.). 8 Sutherland et al. (1995); ITRDB chronology VA020. Table Mountain pine (Pinus pungens Lamb.). Updated by DeWeese et al. (2010). 9 Saladyga et al. (2017); ITRDB chronology WV009. Pitch pine (Pinus rigida Mill.). 10 All values are statistically significant at p < Values calculated only over the common period of overlap. Page 34

35 Table 2. Results from crossdating the cross sections that reportedly came from the West Wing. Sample Number of Rings Innermost Tree Ring Outermost Tree Ring Outermost Ring Type Comments WWX vv Cut inner segments (complacent). Dates well against PINEREG2, +1688, 7/8 segments, avg r = Dates fantastic against GOLDLYNN, +1688, 8/8 segments, avg r = No sapwood, non-cutting date. WWX vv Dates good against PINEREG2: +1707, 8/12 segments, avg r = 0.49; Versus GOLDLYNN, +1707, 8/12 segments, avg r = 0.47; versus GLB, same as PINEREG2; Dates well against all other series, +1707, 9/12 segments, avg r = No sapwood, non-cutting date. WWX vv Dates good against PINEREG2, +1713, 9/14 segments, avg r = 0.49, outer segments problematic. Versus GOLDLYNN, +1713, 9/14 segments avg r = Versus GLB, +1713, 10/14 segments, avg r = No sapwood, non-cutting date. WWX v No dating against any reference chronology; Dates bonkers against BMX006, +1710, 8/9 segments, avg r = Dates well against BMX005, +1710, 6/9 segments, avg r = USE DATED2 data set. No sapwood, non-cutting date. WWX v Dates well against PINEREG2 = 8/12 segments, +1711, avg r = Dates better with GOLDLYNN, 10/12 segments, +1711, avg r = Dates well against BMX006, 8/12 segments, +1711, avg r = Sapwood possibly present with insect galleries, near-cutting date. WWX vv Dates great against GOLDLYNN, +1710, 7/9 segments, avg r = No dating against PINEREG2. Versus BMX005, +1710, 8/9 segments, avg r = 0.68, possibly same tree. No sapwood, non-cutting date. WWX vv Dates fantastic against PINEREG2; 10 of 10 segments, avg r = 0.44 at Weaker against GOLDLYNN, +1725, 9/10 segments, avg r = Combined GLB (Gold, Lynn, Brush), +1725, 10/10 segments, avg r = No sapwood, noncutting date. Page 35

36 Table 3. Correlation matrix produced by COFECHA showing the results of crossmatching the tree-ring samples extracted from the joists in the Main House Cellar (MHC), testing 35 year-long segments lagged 5 years. The segments in the shaded columns represent the years that were truncated from the data set due to absent crossmatching. Series Begin Year End Year Correlation MHC * 0.13* 0.01* 0.01* 0.01* MHC MHC04A MHC04B MHC05A * * 0.01* 0.05* MHC05B * 0.17* MHC06A MHC06B MHC07B * MHC * 0.25* MHC Average correlation: * Indicates a segment flagged by COFECHA due to a low correlation. All flagged segments were carefully re-inspected and their temporal placement confirmed Page 36

37 Table 4. Results from COFECHA for the Main House Cellar samples, showing the systematic dating adjustment of (shaded cells) for 7 35-year segments when compared against the regional pine data set. The columns show the top five correlation coefficients ( Corr ) obtained for each 35-year segment. Corr Corr Corr Corr Corr Series Segment Add # 1 Add # 2 Add # 3 Add # 4 Add # 5 MHC MHC MHC MHC MHC MHC MHC Page 37

38 Table 5. Dates of the outermost tree rings and terminal ring types for each of the cores from the eight joists located in the Main House Cellar (MHC). Sample Innermost Tree Ring Outermost Tree Ring Outermost Ring Type Comments MHC G, v Insect holes, sapwood present, add 9 detached rings, outer date at or after MHC G, B? Insect holes, sapwood present, bark (?) or something that looks like bark MHC04A vv No sapwood, no insect holes. Non-cutting date. MHC04B G, v Insect holes galleries in sapwood. Non-cutting date. MHC05A G, v Insect holes in sapwood. Non-cutting date. MHC05B G, v Insect holes in sapwood. Non-cutting date. MHC06A vv No sapwood, no insect holes. Non-cutting date. MHC06B vv No sapwood, no insect holes. Non-cutting date. MHC07B vv No sapwood, no insect holes. Non-cutting date. MHC G, B Insect holes, sapwood present, +32 detached rings, possible missing piece, outer date at/after MHC G, v Insect holes in sapwood. Non-cutting date. Page 38

39 Table 6. Correlation matrix produced by COFECHA showing the results of crossmatching the tree-ring samples extracted from the rafters in the Main House Attic (MHA), testing 35 year-long segments lagged 5 years. Series Begin Year End Year Correlation MHAN MHAN07B MHAS09B MHAS MHAS Average correlation: Page 39

40 Table 7. Dates of the outermost tree rings and terminal ring types for five rafters located in the Main House Attic (MHA). Series Innermost Tree Ring Outermost Tree Ring Outermost Ring Type Comments MHAN B, v Bark and sapwood present, tree cut in late MHAN07B v Likely a cutting date, tree cut late 1794 to early 1795 MHAS09B B, G, v Bark, beetle galleries, sapwood present, outer ring unclear, cutting date in/after MHAS vv No sapwood, non-cutting date. MHAS vv No sapwood, non-cutting date. Page 40

41 Table 8. Correlation matrix produced by COFECHA showing the results of crossmatching the tree-ring samples extracted from the rafters in the East Wing Attic (EWA), testing 40 year-long segments lagged 10 years. Series Begin Ring End Ring Correlation EWAN03A EWAN03B EWAS EWAN EWAN Average correlation: Page 41

42 Figure 1. The north façade of the Blount Mansion as it faces Hill Avenue. The Tennessee River is located towards the back of the mansion. As situated in this photograph, the West Wing is the structure located to the right of the Main House while the East Wing is the structure located to the left of the Main House. Page 42

43 Figure 2. Floor joists for the first floor of the Main House accessible through the cellar. This timber has straight up and down saw marks indicative of a water-powered frame or vertical saw. Possible bark is also present on the lower surface. Page 43

44 Figure 3. A rafter in the attic area of the East Wing, showing the Roman numeral V (a marriage mark ), up and down, vertical saw marks indicative of a water-powered frame saw, and what appears to be an unclenched, Type B machine-cut nail to the right, dating to sometime after Page 44

45 Figure 4. Co-investigator and Ph.D. graduate student Maegen Rochner inserts the drill bit into a rafter in the East Wing of the Blount Mansion, inserting the tip of the drill bit into the corner of the timber and drilling diagonally to the opposite corner. Page 45

46 Figure 5. Undergraduate geography major Ellie Eggink demonstrates extraction of a solid core from one of the floor joists in the Main House Cellar. Page 46

47 Figure 6. Co-investigator Maegen Rochner mounts a core taken from a floor joist in the East Wing Cellar onto the wooden core mount, fastened with wood glue and held in place with masking tape. Page 47

48 Figure 7. Co-investigator Maegen Rochner sands down the cross sections cut from the larger timbers that were housed in the Craighead-Jackson House. These were assumed to have come from the West Wing. Page 48

49 Figure 8. Sanded cores that were extracted from the West Wing Attic. Unfortunately, despite the clear tree rings, we were unable to date these samples absolutely in time. Page 49