Hi Will,

I must have been writing when you posted...Hope the class goes great and don't worry about getting back to this conversation in a timely manner...We all understand and will be here in good order for more conversation... grin

I agree and do see a modern interpretation of Square Rule forming in today's North American timber framing culture...as more an interpretation than an actual learned, orally passed down or well understood approach to the craft from a distinct (and well understood) historic record. I would suggest that most (much??) is based only on very few literary examples and lay interpretation of what is left. It does not reflect a well executed cultural oral tradition and/or apprenticed approach to the craft as we find in some cultures still today. As an example, Japan where we still have timber framing families with lineages (unbroken) going back over 1000 years. This significantly reflects a different (and perhaps?) a deeper understanding to the craft within those cultural examples perhaps?

There is much innovation and new ideas trying to come into play here in North American timber framing. Many are good ones, yet many are just that..."interpretations" and not founded in craft but rather an...I think approach. Overall, they do not reflect the historic modalities and approaches to the methods as in their orgin and historical application/context root form overall, as I can find or ascertain in my research of the topic. Layout, being as critical as it is to our craft, has always fascinated me and I found early on its example to be a wonderful differentiator to not only culture but also regional variances within the craft.

If Edge Rule (aka Square Rule) was actually founded on any form of...Lining Method...with snapped lines of any form, as in Asian timber framing cultures we would find many examples still left on timbers today as..Tell Marks...to the system, just as we do today on historic Asian structures of this type. In China, Korea and Japan, especially in hidden locations like inner walls and the top of timbers the Timberwrights leave an extensive record of Lining and layout in their examples of the craft...Some even with notation. Since most of these cultures (still today) have extensive Blessing Ceremonies and other complex Ground Breaking and Ridge Raising ceremonies with all types of written notation of one form or another depending on region, age and local culture...we can see a distinct difference now in the craft as we can from the past examples compared to North America's examples of European timber framing examples still found here. Dr. R. Knapp's work in this area of Asian Timber Framing is extensive and covers a lifetime of just his research on this and related subjects, which offers many in depth views of their approaches to the craft.

Just in this conversation we see some habitual understanding that keeps coming back into reference like Centerline that only reflects the limited and poor understanding of Western Timber Framers (rightfully so because of lack of documentation and guidance) instead of the more accurate and contextual understanding of Line Rule...as these markings do not always represent (though they can and do at times) just the center of a beam or post. Very often there very well may be a Reference Face on a timber within the Asian approach, yet that face is only a superficial guide to what will come later in layout...just like the fact that wood is also (often) oriented the same way it grows or grew in the forest when finally in a frame, which seldom (if ever?) is considered in Western or European timber frames.