Well, this weekend produced some heavy activity on this topic. Thanks Housewright for getting Tedd Benson to chime in. He has great points indeed.
The Royal Navy in the 1300s is pretty funny. So is 14,000 years of timber framing in North America. Stone broadaxes, no doubt...
HWright: As far as the origins of CG you (and I) are still seeking, I thought we got that answered in large part by Will Truax. Ken Hume has found/ thinks there to be no evidence of an English carry-over, like I had originally surmised.
Mr. Truax said CG is a largely New England phenomenon, and northern NE at that. I remember him saying something to the effect of this style becoming popular "once the forests had been denuded of large timber.."
And it's nice to hear that Mr. Benson also sees a few advantages to the CG construction method. No doubt the early builders who "thought out of the box" did as well.
What is interesting, and Mr. Truax said this before, is why CG did not disseminate on a wider scale. I mean, if CG does have advantages, such as utilizing short timber, parts cutting efficency (girts and purlins same size, etc), and easier to erect than its long-plated contemporary... why do we see it only in these small pockets of Maine and New Hampshire?
Perhaps it was un-proven and too risky... perhaps we'll never know. I can live w/ that, but it's really pretty facinating to consider. How neat that it is being studied here today.
