I was reading through the report on the 2003 guild tour of France,
In it, there is some mention of the layout methods and something caught my attention,
At one point, one of the carpenters speaks of a half-scribe system where the joints are laid out in standardized spacing,like square rule, while only the lengths of the timbers are scribed thus eliminating the need for housings.
Then mention was made of the 'german system' used in the alsace region. It wasn't detailed exactly what was meant by this,

I am familiar with a half scribe method, and am somewhat confused by the french scribe system. I am accustomed to a system where the timbers are carefully cut and planed to exacting dimensions and the joints laid out according to reference lines. -The mortises can all be cut off of these reference lines, without any need for scribing timber irregularities. So cutting mortises works just like cutting them in square rule.
Only the timber lengths are laid out with a scribe system -after mortises are cut into the timbers, they are laid out in an assembly and their lengths marked according to any slight bow that may exist in the adjoining timber. This requires only a single reference mark on the tenon end of the timber, very fast and easy.
The result of this is very perfect joints with no housings. This requires you to start out with very near perfect timbers, though. But in German, Swiss, and Austrian carpentry that is normal. Today with precision milling and planing, that's no trouble at all. The goosewing axe was developed for the purpose of creating such exacting timbers. German and Central European hewing techniques are focused on precision.

I have often wondered when looking at these, could this German style of frame layout be the REAL origin of square rule in the United States? Could US square rule be simply a logical advancement of the German method, or an means of applying the German technique to English framing systems? Is it a coincidence that square rule appears in English-style American framing a short time after the mass immigration of German-speaking people to the colonies? The German system has been around so long in some regions, we really have no knowledge of any other method they might have used beforehand.

I like this method, it's simple and I understand it. full scribe to me is burdensome and tedious. This is quick and easy, and effectively eliminates the most troublesome and time consuming aspects of both methods.

That said, square and scribe rule as Americans know them are excellent when faced with very irregular timbers. The German system can't deal with that without the addition of extra steps. The first step of the German system is to make the timber very regular.

DL,
This would be good topic to discuss at the Conference in August.
Since I wrote the article I feel I should reply.
Square Rule was developed, as I understand it, to use with roughly (not precision) square hewn timber. The French (and English) scribe system is still being used for restoration work (and much new) that is still done with very irregular timber, for the "look" as well as the historical accuracy. I would think the Germans and others must still run into this and would default to scribing after the timber gets so irregular.

Will,
I know in Switzerland at least, irregular timber is rejected or cut up into smaller pieces where its irregularities do not matter.

The walls were generally framed with wood plank infills, and highly refined. Precision was absolutely necessary.

Half-timbered, like Fachwerk (Switz. Riegelbau) structures use very short timbers.

I can'r say as much as to how it's done north into central Germany

But if they're doing a historically accurate repair or replacing timbers, or a reconstruction, wouldn't they use timber that was irregular if that's what the previous was?

Jörn Wingender's article on German Timber framing in Timber Framing #48, page 6 shows "Wild man" curved timbers and states: "Straight,fast-growing spruce began to replace the dominant
'old-growth' oak and beech forests in the 18th century.
Timber framing was already in decline when
these trees reached maturity. Scribing remained the
prevalent layout system until the disappearance of the
craft as it was known." Maybe scribing was forgotten, but it's hard to think they would replace the bowlegged Wild Man with straight timber on a historically significant building.

That's a German technique,

There are 2 primary schools of Fachwerk, as I understand it. One uses a lot of curvy, ornate bracing
The other uses a few straight braces. THe latter is common in Switzerland.

THe system used is still a scribe system, but not as involved as the French scribe where you have to individually map each joint. You scribe only timber locations, which accounts for any irregularity in straightness, but can't handle twist or inconsistent dimensions. As a result, timber frames were made only from good stock, cut to exact dimensions.

The joints can then be mapped mathematically. You trust that the timber at the joint is true to the required dimensions and lay out the joint using the edge of the timber as a reference. Joint mapping works like square rule, only omitting the step of cutting housings.

Scribing is not lost in Switzerland, it's still used by most. I was told straight out, you never trust even the best machined wood to be straight, you always will scribe it.

Swiss buildings are always made of old spruce and fir, be it 900 years ago or today. Really the forest situation is very similar to what it would have been in the Middle Ages (They never cut them down)

The Swiss way of taking car of a historically significant building is to take it down, take it apart, and put it back together in such a way as that you can barely even tell they did anything.

Got it and understood. Thanks.
I take it your back from warmer climes?
I'll be in touch soon about presenting at the Guild Conference in August.

Yup, back to cold and windy Indiana
It snowed today. I was sad.

Looking forward to hearing from you, if I can get away from these 10 hour days!

David -

Funny this, I am somewhat confused by half scribe systems and systems which require what I see as the tedium and burden of material prep. This in part because I've used timber from some of the best tuned sizers on the planet and have seen them fail to true up bow and wind, something Plumb Line takes care of easily without the delay or expense of materials prep.

I've also spent alot of thought on the probable influences that led to the development of Square Rule, and have worked to research its genesis.

I also have come across some very early oddities that hinted at glimmers of either mass production or gains / reductions, sparks in that development - A Sixteenth C. English barn (sadly sent over here on spec, but happily a huge influence on my career path) which had universal square mortises for the up end of the riven studs sized to the largest of the varied size studs, sort of square rule thinking in reverse - And a Seventeenth C. New Jersey Dutch barn (though not a NWD typology) which had counter hewing like flattings at most all timber ends to aid in scribing which were far deeper and refined than is the norm, which appeared almost reduction like in appearence -

Such refinements and thinking were I believe, part of what in time led to methods of universality and mass production and in time the great shift to square rule.

We're all still looking for our Rosetta Stone in this little mystery of who, where and when.

Will I should clarify,

Material prep is not here the result of half scribe, but rather vice versa. The half scribe system arises as a result of the high level of preparation that goes into the material because of the styling of the architecture.

The carpenters are not putting extra work into the frame to tediously prep the material so that it can be laid out with a half scribe system. They are tediously prepping the material because that's just their way. Because the architecture calls for extreme precision all around.

Tehn, since the material is extremely accurate, they need only use half scribe.

As to bow and twist,

first of all material selection is extremely picky. Second of all, timbers are small in cross section and shorter in length. This helps to minimize these concerns. But just to be sure, mortise faces are always cut square to the reference if they deviate.

Now keep in mind, I was taught that 1/16" is a large gap in a joint, the tolerance you cut to in a hidden joint.

AS to the development of square rule, I don't think we'll ever really know. It is likely, a lot of people came up with ideas along those lines over the centuries. The genius isn't often the one who comes up with something revolutionary and unprecedented, but one who puts old ideas together in a new way. I'd bet you a nickel that happened here. We're likely to find hints of square rule all over Europe. We don't know the half of the story, and so many little details get passed over. Swiss carpenters and architectural historians, for example, don't ever talk about layout because they don't think about it. It's just how it's done, that's all. There's likely to be a lot of little gems like this throughout Europe.

But if we really want to look for deeper influences, let's skip out from timber framing for a little bit and look at log building. Here we find something that applies the concepts of square rule, but for a different purpose completely. We have joints designed with normalized and reduced connections with timber reduced to a common dimension at these locations, but not to simplify layout -no these buildings even today are fully scribed- the technique here is used for the purpose of creating joints that retain their integrity as the walls move and settle, or as a means of connecting a number of horizontal logs or timbers into a single upright. Log ends fitted into a groove in a single upright need to be reduced to a common thickness.

But nonetheless if you didn't know about the problems of settling, movement, etc. and you looked at these joints, they would strike you as remarkably square-rule like. Food for thought.

I have a question about the so-called 'Mill Rule'
I have never used this method, so I don't really know how it works. My understanding is that here carpenters are using wood that is assumed to be generally accurate and straight, marking their joints along the timber believing that the edges are where they should theoretically be. This rather than using wood that is assumed to be inaccurate and marked according to a reference point -for example a chalk line or reference face.

But I would like to know some information as to how it works.

My Swiss associates have informed me, today they use a similar process in Switzerland, where the joints are often calculated rather than being laid out in a scribing floor and carefully marked (but this is the old method) But here, the timbers are very refined and planed to tolerances within 5mm. Any variation greater than that causes problems. To be safe, joints are all marked from a single point of reference -not a chalk line, but the truest face of the timber. So this is an edge rule technique.
Joints are not shouldered or reduced as in square rule. If a timber deviates excessively from the norm at a certain joint, the difference is accounted for by adjusting the length of an adjoining timber (that is to say, timber lengths are unique and therefore parts are not interchangeable)

My question is, how similar are 'Mill Rule' techniques as used in American shops.

Hi David, from your description, I'd say that the Swiss method presented is not mill rule, the regulating scheme, to me, is mapping the joints or numerical scribe. To me, mill rule is another step towards industrial practice by the introduction of standardized material, accomplished through four sided planers. The carpentry practice is simplified even dumbed-down by reliance on regulated timber. The joinery is measured off the face you are working on not from reference sides or edges. It's necessary the the tolerance for milling must be tight, an order of magnitude closer than the cited Swiss example. The cutting relies on trusting the material and setting the depths on the tools, working from the surface. Joinery choice is up to the carpenter, free to use housings, tapers and embellishment.

The step beyond mill rule is CNC.

Roger,
I like your descriptions. Numerical scribe is a good way to put it, because it places it squarely in the traditions from which it has been derived. I could go into detail of the progression from full scribe to half scribe, into numerical scribe, but maybe you will just have to wait till august.

Thanks for the description of Mill Rule. I understand now what this is.

The practice of numerical or geometric mapping of the joints is very interesting to me and is something I have been looking into. It is a practice I think I would like to adopt.
Theoretically, numerical scribe and joint mapping could be executed with irregular timber as well, as long as a solid point of reference is established, like a datum line.

Sounds similar to mill rule, to me. Curious how or if "double cut" figures into the mess. In reverse, I have found myself thinking, while square ruling, these timber are so close I would't need to cut housing and reductions. Glad I found plumb line scribe.

Talking with my brother he gave me some good thoughts,

Square Rule carpentry is an idea that seems very typical of the Enlightenment era, which is precisely when it is supposed to have been invented. The idea governing this method is to seek the theoretical perfect timber that exists within each imperfect timber, an idea very much in the spirit of the times.

The numerical, mathematical, whatever you want to call it system on the other hand views each timber once it reaches the layout floor as a unique piece. It is what it is, and rather than forcing it to conform to our ideas of perfection we choose instead to work with it just as it is. Whereas the former could be viewed as an enlightenment idea, this could be seen as a Romantic approach to the same problem.

Both systems, I think, are examples of a building culture's response to the Industrial Revolution first and foremost. Both cultures started from pretty much the same point -skilled carpenters with scribe systems- and moved in the same direction, industrialized framing methods. Americans moved through scribe rule into balloon framing. The Swiss moved from scribed timber frames to a different type of timber frame scribed in a different way, then to a system of mapping and calculating the joints.

The American system is very democratic. Let's make carpentry accessible and easy to understand, something anyone can grasp. The Swiss system is very... Swiss...
Let's make our frames efficient, strong, but perfect. The Swiss carpenter I don't think would ever invent the square rule system, because a joint that has to be reduced to work would be considered poor and unsightly. A housed or reduced joint, you see, would be viewed as an unforgivable violation against the nature of the wood and the harmony of the frame (though they would never word it quite that way, just say, it doesn't look good)

Moving beyond this, My mind has been thinking in terms of mapped scribe systems all day and considering the possibilities. I want to do some experiments, I can see how you could accomplish the scribing of some pretty complex forms without the need of a scribe floor with this principle...

Tim,

I have often thought when working around the Square rule ideas,
Why not just eliminate the housings and reduction completely and make unique joints. Like some kind of illegitimate child of Square and Scribe rule carpentry. I was delighted to find out that someone was doing just this

On the other hand, while working with plumb line scribing I always think, why not simplify this whole process and just measure one point of the joint and map the whole thing out from there? That means, I scribe a joint, one point on each timber, and then geometrically or mathematically reduce things to regular angles (not regular dimensions)

What I end up with, I have always viewed as a sort of hybridized system.
I am happy to learn, this is an old idea. But it wasn't developed by combining the two ideas, it was developed in a different culture.

Hi David

As a framer, I am mostly self taught at yhe start. The first 15 frames or so were cut using a method of mapping and fitting. I had not heard of square rule at the beginning nor had I studied old square rule buildings. Mapping was, to me, endlessly an exercise of beating back uncertainty. I would draw up plans and know the frame cold but I could not say what the length of any piece was without surveying all the abutments. My hat is off to Mark Brandt, Mike Goldberg, Curtis Milton and Will Beemer for their presentations that opened up much needed insight into square rule and, for me, a far more clear layout of square rule.

In the early days of square rule, housings were not used, from my observation. Rather gains were cut in the non reference sides, without consideration for the joint, running past the joint horizontally and vertically. Joints most often beared on the tenon alone. The pieces all had an asymmetrical look, with an unworked ref side and gains in the non-ref side. My reasoning for housing is to provide support, restrain rotation and to hide shrinkage also to provide a more symmetrical look.

It has been a long evolving process for us all.

It is an evolving process, and that is what makes the craft, a craft...

There are different approaches to mapping, reference, etc. And people all approach it differently

The big driving difference I see between Swiss numerical scribe and American Square rule (really when I analyze the two, they are so strikingly similar in concept and practice, with just 1 or two slight, yet profound differences) is one that is centered on the way the two cultures look at a frame.

In America, a frame is a thing of pure utility. They made the frames to support the buildings, that was it. So you approach your joinery with a very practical viewpoint.
If it was a barn you built, it's ok if it is so rough and utilitarian. If it's a house, well you are going to wrap the whole thing and no one will see the frame (talking historically) so what does it matter how the frame looks.

Suddenly in modern times the frame has been thrust back into the spotlight, and these things matter again. But it seems to me, so much American mentality has been shaped by looking at the only frames you could actually see -barns.

But we have a very different situation in Switzerland. Here the frame is and always has been out in the open, visible, and a focal point of the architecture. It really really matters to a Swiss carpenter what the joints look like. The frame itself is very refined, neat, and well ordered. So of course so should the joints be.
Americans have developed this sort of romantic idea about a timber frame, having this rough frame of huge, hewn timbers, or otherwise some sort of rustic idealism. And that is fine, I am OK with that. It's just different. In Switzerland you would never do that, at least not within the context of traditional Swiss Holzbau. I totally understant the rugged idea. A lot of that comes from the American pioneering spirit.

So the idea of cutting reductions and housings makes perfect sense in American timber framing.

In Switzerland, its perfectly absurd.

Because the two cultures look at the frame with a totally different mindset.

And this is really important to this discussion. The Swiss are going to come up with an approach to layout that makes everything look ordered, regular, and well adjusted. They are not going to be satisfied with cutting a reduction at the joint to make it fit. Rather than do that, they would reduce the entire face of the timber. Now as to joints bearing on tenons, in Swiss carpentry they always do. BUT it's important to note that the design of the frame is such that timbers that need to transfer a lot of weight do not do so with a mortise and tenon joint, so the idea that this joint should be housed to support the weight more efficiently doesn't come into play at all. As we can see, there are a LOT of variables at play here, and it all comes down to the fact that here we have two totally different building cultures with extremely different ways of doing just about everything.
The old style of Swiss framing, Ständerbau, relies on heavy timber frames with a solid wood plank infill. The whole things is cut and fit together perfectly, the planks carefully fitted, and everything is neat and orderly. There is absolutely no room in this system for unorderly joints or irregular timbers. In the Canton of Bern, the planks were often pretty thick (like, say 4 or 5 inches) and fitted into the frame with tenons. You saved yourself a whole lot of work if you reduce the posts to very regualr dimensions, and can just cut the planks in a given cavity to a consistent size.
You have a parallel to this in log building just to the south, where the wall logs fit into heavy uprights framing the doors and windows. Again, with a tenon fitted into a groove in the upright. Here the process works in reverse, the wall is laid out on the ground, the location of the opening snapped, the openings measured for post height (calculated for settling) and then the posts are made to perfect dimensions, fitting into an opening that is cut perfectly.
So again to be clear, in the frames the posts were made perfect, then the planks measured to fit between them. In log buildings the logs were cut to perfect lengths, and the posts measured to fit to them. But all was greatly simplified by making sure the timber faces were as true as possible
I can attest this practice in log building as far back as the 11th century. In Ständerbau as far back as the 14th (probably much further, it's just that happens to be the oldest framed buildings still standing)

Going back to the frame as a thing of utility,
Americans have become used to that rough, rugged, utilitarian frame look. the American idea of timber frames is again shaped by looking at dusty old barns and thinking that's what it should look like. So it makes perfect sense that the idea of housed and reduced joints is acceptable. And that's not an insult at all, I am simply stressing the point that these two building cultures place the emphasis in entirely different places.

Again looking at the Swiss frame, we are a people that are mind-numbingly obsessed with detail. Little things matter a LOT, and everything has to be just right. Square rule carpentry just doesn't fit in that worldview. Again I don't say that as a criticism, but here to maybe explain when I say, why can't I just forget about the housing and map the joint, this is why. I'm working from a different mindset. I bi stolz e Schwyzer z sy

To me it just makes more sense to adjust the length of the adjoining timber. I know in my mind, if I make the joint face at the mortise regular and adjust the adjoining beam to match, it will work. But I am good at envisioning things, at taking complex things apart in my mind, disassembling them and seeing how they all fit together. It's easy for me, most of the time, to visualize how a change in one place affects the whole.


I would be interested in hearing more about the mapping technique you came up with. Even if it wasn't an ideal approach.

I'll just get the way back machine warmed up, Sherman get ready.

The first frames had material so poorly sawn, out of square edges, sawn thick to thin, sides plus or minus 5/8, there was no way to expect any consistantcy. So everything was first laid out to the exterior surface and then to interior center line. My partners and myself were all new to tf and so we had a number of control theories at the same time. But we were looking for steady clean joinery into faces that were not normal to bent or post line. So I tried to measure, record and compensate for variations. Pieces were cut long to allow for trim and scribe. At trial fit up, a lot of scribe and trim. Braces scribed and half lap half dovetail. Rafters were scribed off the deck. The aspect I did not like the most is the repetitive handling through bent line scribe, then post line scribe and then fitting in both directions. Anyhow our rookie making it up as we went was a model of confusion, but we got through it, three guys in the woods without a crane.

After two jobs, we fired the sawyer and lost one partner. Third house frame was a crane raising that went smoothly, we had better control and better material and more refined layout, still mapping and fitting, up to about 1995-96, when the cumulative effect of Guild workshops and class finally made inroads into my whole approach. So my critique of mapping has everything to do with me and my process and is not to be regarded as more general or specific comment on others work.

However, I find high bias and theorizing in your comments, David, that are just very far off the mark. Housings are not a definitive nor unique aspect of historical square rule. I have seen many historical square rule frames without any housings at all. I find gains that are well scaled to be graceful, flowing and even organic when performed with a shapely touch. Taking a housing out of the receiving member does not necessarily mean that the housed member is critically weakened. It is my view, that a housed beam is a much better supported beam with wide and even force distribution than a loaded tenon with a progressively distributed load.

So I ask you to try to think differently about gains. Considered the word ungainly meaning ugly, clumsy and unfit. Consider gainly meaning attractive, balanced and ready. If the carpenter is working with gainliness in mind then cutting gains becomes a matter of enhancement and preparation and not a matter of reduction and loss.

Hi DL, from my understanding the American framer performed a wonderful task. I would have to agree with Roger's last two paragraphs.

Roger I should clarify,

I am not trying to say I think of gains and housings as inferior,
I am trying to convey the totally different cultural approach between two lands that might explain the reasoning behind their choice of layout.

I personally Like the look of square rule joinery. It has a certain aesthetic that is pleasing.

However, in the context of a Swiss style frame it would strike me as out of place and not fitting with the architecture. Housed joints of any kind are exceedingly rare in Swiss frames.

Your experience certainly sounds interesting, and I completely understand your bias against mapping.
However, here we are comparing apples and oranges. The mapping in the numerical scribe approach is quite different, because you are not measuring and figuring out based off of inconsistent stock. You establish a super straight reference, often in Swiss archtiecture this is a matter of fact because of how the timber is treated. But if working outside this context or in roof joinery where irregular timbers may be more likely, you establish a reference with a chalk line. Having this reference, you can easily determine where things belong.

Now I should explain the nature of the timber here. Traditionally, Ständerbau is executed in hand hewn timber. It is hewn to very precise dimensions, and if it is for a roof or a barn somewhere, left at that (slight undulation, but generally very accurate timber) If it is for a house, very long (like 2 to 2 1/2 meters) planes are used to make the timber faces very very straight and smooth. So this is the place these carpenters are working from.

I don't mean to come off saying American carpentry is inferior, I was trying to express the totally different way these two cultures approach the idea of framing. Neither one is wrong, they are just different. And I am all for people loving what they are a part of, what they are connected to, attached to, etc.

And again to be clear, I am not saying square rule or the use of housings is inferior. It's just a different approach, one the other culture referenced would never have come to for the reasons cited. It's not an attempt to look down on American culture and framing, it's an attempt to explore the spirit behind two very different solutions to the same problem. Both of which are wonderful accomplishments, both of which have their place in the world. Both of which deserve our admiration and respect.

Just as there are a number of reasons I could not rectify the scribe rule system with Swiss style framing and architecture, neither would I attempt to impose the Swiss system on American architecture and framing. The way an American frame is designed, like Roger points out, a housing is a very very good idea. Not only that, the way these frames are organized the square rule system looks -right- and pleasing.

This isn't an attempt to look at the various methods mentioned -scribe rule, square rule, half scribe, numerical scribe- and decide which is better. It's an attempt to look deeply at what is going on behind the scenes, what the small factors are that affected their development, why it is done this way.

Look at the history of the two countries, one near neutral and the other forever at war or some kind of turmoil. It is know that buildings locally were taken down and moved for fear of raiding, plundering and just plain mayhem, one example I know of, a barn moved from the coast to a more inland site to avoid the threat from the British around 1812. On my property there is a story passed on about the family that settled here, there is still lilac, apple trees, house cellar and other stone remnants on my blueberry fields. The family wanted to get as far from the coast as possible, he was in the navy during the revolution. I can just see the coast from the top of my roof.

"In America, a frame is a thing of pure utility" Yes, I would agree. In addition they had a different setting to deal with and perhaps did not have the time to perform time consuming "....is hewn to very precise dimensions" type of joinery. I am suggesting they didn't have a choice, to make pretty, it was a utility thing and necessary.

Good observation, Tim,

This harsh reality of life certainly must have played a major role in developments along the east coast.

Then add on top of that as settlement moved further west, Indian raids. Some of my own ancestors were involved in the so-called 'Hochstetler Massacre' when Indians raided an Amish settlement in the 1750s

Indiana (the land of the Indians) had a pretty violent early history, right up until the time of the Civil War. Where I live, there was once something like 14 Indian villages within a few miles that were burned to the ground by the army (actually the Indian trouble here was a part of the war of 1812)
Like you can find remnants of the early settlements around you, we can still find remnants of the Indian cabins (oddly enough, built by the US government for them) in fields around us.

Your story reminded my of my travels in the Jura mountains in the northwest of the Canton of Bern. There, on top of the mountains, I could see many ruins of Mennonite and Amish farms that had been abandoned centuries earlier. There were stone foundations, old dry stone walls marking the old boundaries, and wild apple trees that had sprung up from the orchards kept by the Mennonites (In the Jura, Amish and Mennonites were known for their fruit and their good wine). These were all abandoned over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries when the people were given the opportunity to come to America. This was meaningful to me, because some of those ruins were the ruins of the places my own ancestors lived.

In Indiana, settlement was very -rugged- People had to do a lot of work to make a home. Forests needed to be cleared, swamps drained, and then houses and barns built.
Like you said, the crude nature of the timber they would use was necessary. They didn't have the time to make them nice, and it wasn't necessary. Thankfully for them, someone had devised a layout method that worked perfectly in this situation.
Also they didn't have tools. A Swiss carpenters shop might have had over 100 different planes for various tasks, a dozen or so axes, and a collection of chisels, augers, and other tools. Having been in an old carpenters shop, the sheer number of tools is astounding. But on the frontier, you just didn't have this. A guy might show up with 2 axes, a hammer, and a chisel, and that's it.

Buildings, settlers buildings in particular tend to reflect the environment in which they were built. Where I grew up in Saskatchewan the first houses and out buildings were very crude and hastilly built. Not a big surprise being that to get the 160 acre plot they also had to break and clear 10 acres of land, and probably even dig a well in that first summer. So, most of the abandoned buildings on farm sites of that era are poorly fitted spruce or poplar log buildings. Their second house was usually stick framed, insulated with wood chips. Houses from the Eatons Catalogue were a common thing in parts of the country.

On the eastern side of this continent there are many old barns. Mostly cut with square rule, and by carpenters this shows a more settled culture by comparison. Many of the traditional building styles in Europe(wood or otherwise) show another degree of this, but again with flair from their own culture and local materials incorporated.

Hi Leslie, interestingly, here I see old barns being scribed and very little square rule, it is the church and community buildings that are square ruled. This leads me to think builders from out of the area came in under contract to build town/public buildings. The farmer was still doing his way.

Or perhaps, Tim, similarly
The public buildings/town buildings were built by professional carpenters, based in town or a nearby city, While the barns and many houses may have been built by the farmers themselves.

That's a very common situation in Europe. You see, for example, drastically different building going on at the same time in the cities of Bern, Thun, etc. while just a stone's throw away out in the countryside farmers and rural carpenters build things in ways that had been abandoned sometimes centuries earlier in the cities. Then at the same time, the rural villages might hire a city carpenter to build a new roof for the church, or a granary, etc. and these often stand out as vastly different from other rural forms.
You actually still have this situation today, where sometimes the rural carpenters are still building things in very old ways, while some wealthy farmer might hire a crew from the city to build a sleek new engineered timber structure or steel building.