By Ralph Muldrow

Drayton Hall near Charleston, SC, continues to hold on to some of its secrets despite every sort of investigation. Two of those are hidden in plain sight but they raise interesting questions.  Festoons of flowers often graced the stately homes of England for parties and amusements;  swags of flowers intermingled with grape vines evocative of gracious pleasures.  They would be hung like drapery valences over windows, doors, under cornices and on garnished overmantles bountifully.  A family seat in the ‘wilderness’ would understandably emulate those niceties but as ‘frozen’ bowers.  That such meticulous wooden flowers had already been innovated in three dimensions in England at such later seventeenth century mansions as Petworth House and early eighteenth century mansions such as Blenheim Palace.  They are a testament to the innovative work of master carver Grinling Gibbons (1648- 1721), the Dutch born British artisan whose fantastic carved architectural elements graced London buildings, Cambridge buildings and great manor houses of the day that predate the construction of Drayton Hall (c. 1738).  While Gibbons carved his decorations in limewood, the floral carvings at Drayton Hall near Charleston, SC, appear to be mahogany, including the wafer-thin flower pedals.

At the same time, false doors placed in Drayton Hall rooms contain large yet off- center diamond- shaped patterns made of blackened glazed headers that are asymmetrical with the doorway surrounds in the rooms in which they appear.  Were they part of an abandoned project?  Were they practice brick masonry motifs for masons to train with?  They seem meant to be hidden or seldom shown ensembles.  The false doors have long been missing.  In the same rooms both the carved wooden flowers a-la Grinling Gibbons and the large diamond patterns co-exist…  but why?       

by David L. Ames

I retired from the University of Delaware and moved to Louisville, Kentucky, three years ago.  The city has great late nineteenth-century historic architecture, the cost of living is reasonable, and I have family here.

The best thing about being retired is being able to do what you want.  For me, it has meant spending more time on my own photography.  Specifically, that is large format architectural photography, which I have been shooting for several years for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and the Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS) of the National Park Service.  These programs still require black-and-white, large format film photographs at 4”x5”, 5x7”, and 8”x10”.  The archivally produced photos accompany drawings and histories and are transmitted to the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress, where they are available at the HABS/HAER/HALS Collection online.  Although I can shoot 5”x7”, I prefer 4”x5” basically because it is faster and allows for more documentation.

One of my current projects is photographically documenting four of Kentucky’s surviving twelve covered bridges, which once numbered more than 700.  I am doing these for Christopher Marston, project leader of the HAER National Covered Bridge Recording Project.  Although I had documented one covered bridge earlier in Maryland, I wanted to know more about the engineering and characteristics of covered bridges so I would be sure to capture their character-defining features.  Because there is a large amount of literature on covered bridges, I was able to give myself a crash course on them before heading out into the field.

 In researching a historic resource that’s new to me, I like to begin by developing an historic context to understand how it evolved and what its principal characteristics are.  The first thing I learned was that technologically, the covered bridge is the opposite of its popular romantic, nostalgic image of a quaint, obsolete, relic of the past as reflected in such novels as The Bridges of Madison County.  A recent book published by HAER, Covered Bridges and the Birth of American Engineering (2015), makes the case that the development of wooden truss bridges was significant in the early development of American civil engineering.¹ Since it was plentiful and a strong, durable, natural resource, wood was the ideal material for experimenting with bridge trusses.

Evolution of American Truss Bridges

American wooden truss bridges evolved in two broad periods—1790 to ca. 1840 and ca. 1840 to 1900.  The historic era of American covered bridge building continued into the mid-twentieth century.²

The major factor driving early American bridge development was the need to carry heavier loads over longer distances in a rapidly expanding young republic, with less expensive, lighter, but stronger and longer bridges.  Thus, the timber bridge evolved from a labor-intensive, hand-crafted, expensive structure to an engineered one assembled from manufactured components requiring lower skilled labor at less cost.  

In the nascent period of timber bridge evolution from 1790 to 1840, bridge builders would draw upon the ancient triangular-shaped truss types: kingpost, queenpost, and multiple kingpost, to create a number of empirically-tested, innovative wooden truss bridges.

Dating from medieval times, the kingpost truss is a triangular frame with a single center post—the kingpost—flanked by diagonal braces carrying the load to the end of the bottom chord, which in turn rest on abutments at either end. A queenpost is like a two half kingposts with a horizontal cross member or top chord in between, to allow the base of the bridge to be longer and to span wider streams. The multiple kingpost is a series of kingposts or posts with braces, to span even longer distances.³

The first long-span wooden truss bridge is thought to be a bridge across the Connecticut River between Walpole, New Hampshire, and Bellows Falls, Vermont, completed in 1785. The first documented covered bridge in the United States was the 1804 Schuylkill Permanent Bridge in Philadelphia. Supported by stone arches and carrying the King’s Highway, the 3-span, 600-foot, arched wooden bridge was seen as an engineering masterpiece. Costing an extraordinary $300,000, it was covered to protect the structural timber trusses from the weather.⁴

Although there was a great deal of experimentation in the early empirical period of truss development, the two most significant American trusses developed were the arched truss and the lattice truss. Although other builders developed arched trusses, the most widely used was by Theodore Burr, who patented his design in 1806. His arch-truss consisted of a segmental arch sandwiched between two multiple kingpost trusses. With his truss, he set a then-record for a single span of 360 feet and four inches over the Susquehanna River at McCall’s Ferry, Pennsylvania.⁵ Of the thousands of Burr arch-truss bridges built, about 185 examples have survived. In Kentucky, Lewis Wernwag, another prolific builder of arched covered bridges, constructed several arch-truss bridges for the Maysville-Lexington Turnpike Company in the 1830s.

Because arched trusses were labor-intensive, expensive, and time consuming to build, “builders began looking for ways to simplify construction so that substantial bridges could be built quickly and affordably in more locations.”⁶  The answer came in the form of the lattice truss bridge invented in 1821 by the influential American architect Ithiel Town. Relatively cheap, strong, and easy to build in spans up to 200 feet, the “Town truss design consisted of a lattice of overlapping planks fastened together with treenails (wood pins).”⁷ Several early railroad bridges used the Town lattice truss, and it would continue to be used for highways well into the twentieth century.⁸

The rapid growth of railroads in the 1830-40s fueled a demand for bridges that could be rapidly constructed. This in turn stimulated greater research to understand the dynamics of trusses and how the elements of a bridge functioned under loading.

The first bridge builder to apply mathematics to the design of trusses was West Point–trained Major Stephen H. Long, who patented his Long truss in 1830. It was a “traditionally framed truss with paired diagonal braces and single counter braces crossing within each panel.”⁹ Its engineering significance was that it created permanent stresses within a structure to improve its performance under loading.¹⁰

The next major step in the development of the engineered covered bridge was the introduction of metal by substituting wrought iron ties for wood posts and braces. With the seemingly simple improvement of substituting an iron tie bar for vertical wooden post, in 1840 William Howe brought about what has been called a revolution in bridge building. Using adjustable, wrought iron vertical tension rods and cast iron angle blocks, connecting between diagonal timber braces and counter braces, the Howe truss was a major transitional structure in the development of the all metal truss.¹¹ The Howe truss also lowered the cost of bridge construction because panels could be prefabricated and shipped to construction sites. Very popular on mid-nineteenth century railroads across the country, former Chief of HAER and bridge historian Eric DeLony claimed that “the Howe truss may be the closest wooden-bridge design that ever came to perfection.”¹²

The last two most significant wood trusses developed in the nineteenth century were the Pratt truss of 1844 and Smith trusses of 1867. Patented in 1844, the truss designed by Thomas W. Pratt was a variation on the Howe Truss. It was a combination panel truss that reversed the use of iron tie rods of the Howe truss, using the tie rod for the diagonal braces rather than vertical posts.¹³ Ironically, the Pratt truss was originally developed as a composite wood and iron truss that would evolve into the most widely used all-iron and later all-steel Pratt truss.

Robert W. Smith’s 1867 wood truss designs combined strength with lightness. “They had light elongated Xs with no verticals and no iron except [for] a few bolts.”¹⁴ His light truss has been called a “titanium” breakthrough in truss design. Smith’s factory production allowed him to build several thousand bridges by prefabricating all of their components in his factory and shipping them to construction sites. Smith’s major contribution was to perfect standardization and industrialization of bridge construction.¹⁵

Kentucky’s Covered Bridges¹⁶

It is unknown how many covered bridges were in Kentucky at their peak.  There may have been more than 700 at one time, but that number had dropped to 400 by 1900. Unfortunately, Kentucky started its efforts to evaluate and preserve covered bridges much later than neighboring Ohio (150 extant) and Indiana (94 extant), so today only 12 survive; many of which have been recently rehabilitated.¹⁷

Kentucky’s extant covered bridges were built with a variety of truss types: kingpost, queenpost, combination king- and queenpost, Burr-arch, Town lattice, Smith-variant, and a Wheeler truss.

HABS/HAER/HALS Documentation of Kentucky’s Covered Bridges

Two of Kentucky’s covered bridges were documented by HABS in the 1930s, as part of a state survey of historic buildings. The “Wood-Covered Bridge” over the Licking River at Butler, Pendleton County (HABS KY-20-11), was a three-span Burr-arch truss built in 1870 and recorded prior to its demolition. The roof and siding had already been removed when Theodore Webb photographed the 460’-long bridge in February 1934, a rare opportunity to reveal the timber truss. Webb and company recorded another Burr-arch over the South Branch of the Licking River at Cynthiana, Harrison County the same year (HABS KY-20-20).  

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) began administering the National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation (NHCBP) Program in 1998, a program that would go on to provide funds to rehabilitate nearly 250 bridges. With support from the NHCBP for research and education, HAER started a multi-year initiative: the HAER National Covered Bridge Recording Project. Led by project manager Christopher H. Marston, HAER would record nearly 100 covered bridges, designate seven as National Historic Landmarks, hold two national conferences, and publish two books. In addition to Covered Bridges and the Birth of American Engineering in 2015, Marston and Thomas Vitanza co-edited the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Covered Bridges in 2019.¹⁸

HAER studied two Kentucky bridges as part of the NHCBP. In 2003, Lola Bennett recorded the ca. 1874 Bennett’s Mill Bridge over Tygart’s Creek in Greenup County, which represented the last surviving example of the regional Wheeler truss in the country. The bridge was reconstructed in 2003. For the Guidelines, Marston and Vitanza included a case study on the rehabilitation of the Johnson Creek Covered Bridge, which was completed by Arnold Graton in 2009. In addition, the NHCBP provided funding to rehabilitate at least five Kentucky bridges. 

In 2018, I told Christopher Marston I was interested in documenting some Kentucky covered bridges to HAER photographic standards. He selected the bridges after consulting with Bill Caswell, President of the National Society for the Preservation of Covered Bridges, which recently had a tour of Kentucky.¹⁹ We agreed on the following four bridges:

• Beech Fork Bridge (HAER KY-54) ca. 1865 — 2 spans totaling 211 feet, longest extant covered bridge in state. Burr-arch truss; rehabilitated 2016-17.
• Johnson Creek Bridge (HAER KY-55) 1874 — 110 feet, variant of Smith truss; arch added early 1900s; rehabilitated 2007-09.
• Cabin Creek Bridge (HAER KY-56) ca. 1867-1875 — 114 feet, multiple kingpost truss with arches; rehabilitated 2013.
• Goddard Bridge (HAER KY-57) Unknown date, possibly 1864 — 63 feet, Town lattice truss; moved 1932; rehabilitated 2004-06.

The first step for photographing bridges is finding them, which seemed like a simple task.  While several maps are available online, actually getting to them presented some difficulties. First, their remoteness in valleys or hollows may partly explain why they survived. Second, Kentucky has a warren of back roads that are not always marked by signs or do not even appear on maps. Being a geographer, I still believe in paper maps, and I secured a large atlas of Kentucky plus a statewide road map. Although the atlas was my primary source, it was the GPS on my iPhone that actually and amazingly wove me to the bridges on some roads that weren’t even on the maps. The trick was to find origins and destinations in the atlas that the iPhone recognized close to the bridges. In some cases, the iPhone got me close and the atlas finally got me there. Successfully finding them was a collaboration between paper maps and digital GPS.

The photography requirements of HABS/HAER/HALS have two elements.  The most well-known one is that HABS/HAER/HALS requires the use a large-format camera (4x5, 5x7, or 8x10) for most documentation, and the second is a protocol for shooting a structure that provides comprehensive systematic coverage. Documentary photography creates a visual data collection for analysis by architectural and engineering historians and historic preservationists. Its purpose is to collect as much information in as few photographs as possible, and the rationale for the large format camera is that details can be enlarged from the large negative. But HABS and HAER photography have different priorities related to the different missions of the programs. HABS concentrates on documenting structure, while HAER concentrates more on documenting the process that takes place in a structure, if applicable.

Getting the most information in the fewest photographs also relates to the time required to photograph with a large format camera. Ten to fifteen exterior photographs a day is typical, while fewer can be done on interiors especially if lighting is required. Other than single photographs of the front and one side of the structure for a survey, HABS suggests that the minimum coverage of a building consists of four exterior photographs: perspectives of the front and one side; the rear and the other side; an elevation of the front—straight-on view; and an environmental view of the structure as part of the larger landscape. Additional photos would consist of major architectural elements and then details. My preferred sequence would be to move around the building counterclockwise. For interiors, the sequence would be from major to minor rooms by floor.

For determining the sequence of photographs for covered bridges, I followed the master list of features of covered bridges found in Appendix C of Guidelines for Rehabilitating Covered Bridges. There are four categories: superstructure features including the truss and its connections, floor structure, and lateral bracing; substructure features supporting the bridge, including abutments, piers, and wing walls; the exterior envelope, including siding, portal, roof, and wall openings; and finally, the environmental context of approach, site, and setting features. Below, I have established a list of ten basic views for all covered bridges. 

EXTERIOR ENVELOPE

1. Environmental shot, or what I call a “crossing” shot, which shows the entire bridge—perspective of portal and one side
2. Perspective of opposite portal and the other side of the bridge
3. Elevation of one portal
4. Abutments—on either end of covered bridges; they are often different because of different shore conditions and repairs

SUPERSTRUCTURE FEATURES

1. “Barrel shot” of trusses—a wide angle view down the middle showing     trusses on both sides
2. Perspective of entire truss on one side
3. Elevation of a typical truss panel
4. Floor/deck surface
5. Supporting floor structure from underneath
6. Details of truss joinery, connections such as tie bars, bracing, etc.

The four minimum essential views in order of importance are:

1. “Barrel shot” of trusses—a wide angle view down the middle showing trusses on both side
2. Perspective of entire truss on one side
3. Elevation of typical truss panel
4. Perspective of portal and one side

Before going into the field, I use secondary photographic sources to develop a “shoot list” based on my protocol, and type it up. Upon arrival at the site, I inspect the bridge and modify the shoot list based on the specifics of the bridge. I also shoot the list with a digital camera to test the perspectives to have photos to help ID the large format negatives later, as when shooting more than one bridge on a trip it is hard to tell the difference later between trusses. While shooting I use the shoot list to make notes on lens used and exposure. Having learned from experience, I now shoot the four minimum views first to be sure I have them and then complete the others.

This project has been more time-consuming to complete them than I thought it would be. I’ve been at it about a year. Getting to my last bridge—Goddard—is a good example of a fieldwork adventure. I had completed three bridges by early June and only had Goddard Bridge left before it started raining . . . and raining. I had my cameras packed and by the door, ready to head out on the first sunny day. That came on a sunny Sunday so off I went to find the Goddard Bridge—about a two-hour drive from Louisville. But with the sun came the heat in excess of 90 degrees. When I got there, I discovered that it was still an operating bridge, with its single lane busy with morning traffic. The three other bridges were preserved landmarks closed to traffic. Never assume anything! I couldn’t shoot the trusses from inside without stopping traffic. I took some basic exteriors but after about an hour in the 90-degree heat, and carrying the big 4x5 camera and tripod around, I was beginning to fade. I decided to call it a day and check out a couple of other bridges in the area. Fleming County has the most covered bridges in the state and is home to the Fleming County Covered Bridge Museum. I would have to come back to get the interiors. 

I returned the following Sunday morning with the temperature “only” in the 80s—just in time to find parishioners crossing the bridge for church! (There is a little white church on the other side of the bridge.) Actually, everything worked out.  While they went to church, I took my photos; they left after church while I took a break. After I finished the interiors I headed home, having finally completed the field work on this project.

After I’m done processing these large format photographs and submit them to HAER for transmittal to the Library of Congress, I plan to go on to document the other covered bridges in the state of Kentucky.

--David L. Ames is Professor Emeritus of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware

---

1. Justine Christianson and Christopher H. Marston, executive editors, Covered Bridges and the Birth of American Engineering (Washington, DC: Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, 2015).

2. Lola Bennett, “History of Covered Bridges in the United States, in Covered Bridges and the Birth of American Engineering, ed. Christianson and Marston (Washington, DC: Historic American Engineering Record, National Park Service, 2015), 68.

3. Robert A. Powell, Kentucky’s Covered Bridges & Water Kills (Danville, KY: Silverhawke Press, Rev 2017), 61.

4. Bennett in Christianson and Marston, 51-53.

5. Powell, 65.

6. Bennett, in Christianson and Marston, 57.

7. Bennett, in Christianson and Marston, 57.

8. Terry Miller and Ronald G. Knapp, America’s Covered Bridges: Practical Crossings – Nostalgic Icons, (Rutland, VT, Tuttle Publishing, 2013), 68-69.

9. Bennett, in Christianson and Marston, 59.

10. Bennett, in Christianson and Marston,59.

11. Powell, 66.

12. Eric DeLony, “The Golden Age of the Iron Bridge,” Invention & Technology 10, no. 2 (Fall 1994), 11.

13. Bennett, in Christianson and Marston, 61.

14. Joseph D. Conwill, Covered Bridges Across North America (St. Paul: MBI Publishing Company, 2004), 27.

15. Miller and Knapp, 76-77.

16. Much of my material on Kentucky’s wooden covered bridges is from Robert A. Powell, Kentucky’s Covered Bridges & Water Mills, (Danville: Silver Hawke Publications, 1985, rev. 2017) and Robert W. M. Laughlin and Melissa C. Jurgensen, Images of America: Kentucky’s Covered Bridges (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2007).  Another good source is Miriam F. Wood and David A. Simmons, Covered Bridges: Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia (Wooster, Ohio: Wooster Book Co., 2007).

17. “Kentucky’s Covered Bridges,” Society for Industrial Archeology Newsletter 8, nos. 1 & 2, January & March 1979, 10. David Wright, ed. World Guide to Covered Bridges. 7th ed. National Society for the Preservation of Covered Bridges, 2009.

18. Christopher H. Marston and Thomas A. Vitanza, Guidelines for Rehabilitating Covered Bridges (Washington, DC: Historic American Engineering Record, 2019).

19. Bill Caswell also started the useful web site that attempts to inventory every known covered bridge in North America: Covered Spans of Yesteryear, http://www.lostbridges.org/

Notes by Peter Michaud

The New England Chapter has perfect June weather for their field trip to Harrisville, NH.   The group tour included Historic Harrisville, a National Historic Landmarked textile mill village, and Aldworth Manor, a National Register listed stuccoed “villa” created from a Greek Revival Mansion trucked up from Worcester, MA.  Lunch at Aldworth Manor included commanding views of Mt Monadnock.   

The National Park Service is pleased to announce the publication of the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Covered Bridges, edited by Christopher H. Marston, Architect, Historic American Engineering Record (HAER), and Thomas A. Vitanza, Senior Historical Architect, Historic Preservation Training Center (HPTC). The book is one of the final products of the Federal Highway Administration’s National Historic Covered Bridges Preservation Program.

The Guidelines were prepared to illustrate best practices and provide technical examples that can be used in planning and executing projects for preserving and maintaining historic covered bridges, adapted from the principles of The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

Focusing on rehabilitation, the Guidelines are organized by function. Following general principles, chapters examine superstructure, substructure, exterior envelope, site features, and safety/protection systems. Each section discusses recommended and non-recommended treatments, with illustrated examples of retaining, protecting, maintaining, repairing, and replacing various elements of an historic covered bridge.

The book concludes with several case studies (written by the engineers, bridgewrights, and public officials who worked on them), comprised of various covered bridge truss types, locations, rehabilitation issues, and budgets. The Guidelines will be a useful resource for educating engineers, Department of Transportation officials, State Historic Preservation Officers, bridge owners, preservationists, students, and residents in maintaining these historic symbols of American engineering for future generations.

HAER is distributing the Guidelines to members of the historic bridge and preservation community nationwide. Additional copies may be requested by sending your mailing address to: christopher_marston@nps.gov.  An electronic 508-compliant PDF is also available for download at: https://www.nps.gov/hdp/project/coveredbridges/publications.htm

Please join our alumni, students, and friends as we gather for a symposium

Please join our alumni, students, and friends as we gather for a symposium featuring paper presentations in honor of Richard Guy Wilson’s scholarship, teaching, and mentorship, and as we celebrate the Department of Architectural History’s present and future.

Fri. 11.15.19
Paper Sessions presented by Architectural History alumni and students, followed by remarks by Richard Guy Wilson, Commonwealth Professor of Architectural History. Join friends and classmates for architectural history conviviality on Friday evening.

Sat. 11.16.19
Paper Sessions presented by Architectural History alumni and students, followed by a celebratory reception honoring Richard Guy Wilson at the newly restored Rotunda.

More information about the event and registration will be coming soon - For up to date information, visit www.arch.virginia.edu/events/rgw-symposium-fall-2019 

We look forward to seeing you all in Charlottesville in November!

Attention Student Architectural Historians!

Spend your summer conducting research on a nationally significant U.S. building or site and preparing a history to become part of the permanent HABS collection. The HABS/SAH Sally Kress Tompkins Fellowship, a joint program of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and the Society of Architectural Historians (SAH), permits a graduate student in architectural history or a related field to work on a 12-week HABS history project during summer 2020. The Fellow’s research interests and goals will inform the building or site selected for documentation by HABS staff. HABS is a program of the National Park Service and the Fellow is usually stationed at our Washington, DC office. 

The award consists of a $12,000 stipend, and SAH conference registration and travel expenses up to $1,000.

Applications accepted Sept. 1 – Dec. 31, 2019.

For more information visit:https://www.nps.gov/hdp/jobs/tompkins.htm

To honor founding member Orlando Ridout V, who died in 2013, the Vernacular Architecture Forum has established a fieldwork fellowship in his name. Orlando, a mentor to so many of us, asked that donations in his memory be made to the VAF to support students’ and VAF members’  fieldwork training and activities. To fulfill his request, the Orlando Ridout V Fieldwork Fellowship was created, combining contributions to the Ridout memorial fund with the former Fund for Fieldwork, established by a generous gift from long-time VAF member Thomas Carter in 2012.

The Orlando Ridout V Fieldwork Fellowship will support and encourage students and VAF members in their field-based research and documentation projects, and in their efforts to learn and conduct fieldwork through apprenticeships, field schools, and continuing education and training projects.

The guidelines for the Orlando Ridout V Fieldwork Fellowship allow all VAF members, as well as students participating in field school programs, to apply to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee for monies to support their field-based projects and training opportunities.

Support is available in five categories:

1. Field school directors (VAF members) may apply for grants of up to $1000 to support their programs and/or provide financial aid to participants;
2. Students participating in field schools or other training opportunities may apply for stipends of up to $500 to attend such programs (prior VAF membership not required);
3. VAF members may apply for grants of up to $500 to support continuing education and professional training activities.
4. VAF members may apply for grants of up to $1000 for support of fieldwork activities related to the pursuit of academic degrees;
5. VAF members may apply for grants of up to $1000 to support fieldwork activities not related to fulfillment of academic degree requirements;

Projects that explore and document cultural diversity are especially welcome.

Grants to Field School Directors   

Grants of up to $1000 are available to field schools organized and directed by VAF members.  These awards may be applied to program costs and/or stipends to participants at the discretion of the field school director.

Application Process 

Completed applications by field school directors should be submitted electronically to the Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee between January1 and September 1, 2019, to support programs that will be run during 2019 or over the winter intersession period of 2019-2020; a decision will be rendered in a timely manner after receipt of the request.  The application should define the scope, methodology, objectives, and expected outcomes of the field school. A final report will be submitted to the Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee within three months of the completion of the field school describing the outcomes and impacts of the field school; if the funds were used to provide scholarships to individual participants, a list of the students who received the scholarships and amounts awarded should be included.  In addition, individual field school participants who received scholarship awards from the Field School Director should submit a brief report (up to three written pages, images, video, etc.) directly to the Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee within three months of the completion of the field school discussing how the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship enabled them to obtain an understanding of fieldwork and how it will contribute to their future work/career. 

Grants to students participating in field schools or other training opportunities

Grants of up to $500 are available to students currently enrolled in undergraduate or graduate programs who will be participating in field schools or other training opportunities.  Prior membership in the VAF is not required.  A one-year student membership to the VAF will be provided to grantees if they are not already members. 

Application Process 

Applications should be submitted electronically to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee by the student applying to or accepted to a field school during 2019 or during the winter intersession of the 2019-2020 academic year.  Applications should be received by the Committee at least one month prior to the start of the field school.  The cut-off date for receiving applications is December 1, 2019.  The application must include a description of the field school/training program to which the applicant has applied (name and location of the program, director, dates); a description of what expenses the grant will cover; the applicant’s CV; a letter of recommendation from a faculty member, field school director, or employer; copy of the letter/email of admission to the field school; and a brief essay on what the applicant hopes to learn, why the particular training is important, and how it might influence the applicant’s later academic and professional career.  If the applicant applies to the VAF for support to attend a field school prior to receiving notification of admission, such notification must be submitted before the grant can be awarded.

The grantee will provide a brief, but substantive, report (up to three written pages, photo essay, video, or other presentation) to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee within three months of the completion of the field school about the field school experience and how it has benefitted the grantee and increased his/her understanding of the importance of fieldwork as a research activity.

Grants to VAF members to support continuing education and professional training activities.  

VAF members may apply for grants of up to $500 to support continuing education and professional training related to fieldwork.

Application Process 

Applications should be submitted electronically to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee by the applicant at least one month prior to the start of the program.  Applications will be accepted between January 1 and December 1, 2019.  The application must include a description of the program to which the applicant has applied (name and location of the program, director, dates); a description of what expenses the grant will cover; the applicant’s CV; copy of the letter/email of admission to the program; and a brief essay on what the applicant hopes to learn, why the particular training is important, and how it might influence and/or further the applicant’s career.  If the applicant applies to the VAF for support to attend an educational/training program prior to receiving notification of admission, such notification must be submitted before the grant can be awarded.

The grantee will provide a brief, but substantive, report (up to three written pages, photo essay, video, or other presentation) to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee within three months of the completion of the educational/training program describing how it has benefitted the grantee,  increased his/her understanding of the importance of fieldwork as a research activity or ability to conduct such work, and the future benefits that the acquired knowledge/experience will bring to their work.  If possible, be specific about how the new knowledge will be applied.

Grants to VAF members for support of fieldwork activities related to the pursuit of academic degrees    

VAF members may apply for grants of up to $1000 for support of fieldwork activities that are related to the achievement of an academic degree.

Application Process

Applications should be submitted electronically to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee by the applicant between January 1 and December 1, 2019, and at least one month prior to the start of the project.  The application must include a description of the fieldwork project to be undertaken (nature of the resource(s) to be studied, methodology, expected outcomes and impact, project timeline); a description of expenses the grant will cover; the applicant’s CV; and a letter of support from a faculty member or academic advisor.

The grantee will provide a brief, but substantive, report (up to three written pages, photo essay, video, or other presentation) to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee within three months of the completion of the project.  The report should describe the contributions made by the project with regard to fieldwork methods, deeper investigation of specific resources, and professional development of the participants.

Grants to VAF members for support of fieldwork not related to pursuit of an academic degree  

VAF members may apply for grants of up to $1000 for support of non-academic research projects involving fieldwork related to a publication, exhibition, etc., or for preservation-related fieldwork such as documentation of threatened resources. 

Application Process

Applications should be submitted electronically to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee by the applicant between January 1 and December 1, 2019, at least one month prior to the start of the fieldwork project.  The application must include a brief essay describing the resource(s) to be studied, the reasons for undertaking the fieldwork, methodology to be employed, expected outcomes and impacts; the applicant’s CV; if partnering with an organization, please describe the organization and include a letter from the organization describing their involvement and any contributions they might make (financial or otherwise); at least one letter of support for the project.

The grantee will provide a brief, but substantive, report (up to three written pages, photo essay, video, or other presentation) to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee within three months of the completion of the project describing the outcomes and impacts of the project on the resource, community, and/or their own understanding of and ability to conduct fieldwork.  The report should describe the contributions made by the project with regard to fieldwork methods, deeper investigation of specific resources, and professional development of the participants.

Reports submitted by grantees to the VAF Ridout Fieldwork Fellowship Committee maybe submitted at the discretion of the Committee Members for posting on the VAF web page, blog, or newsletter (VAN).

Member Andrew Dolkart, in his role as co-director of the LGBTQ Historic Sites Project, was quoted in a New York Times article "A Gay Theater and James Baldwin’s N.Y. Apartment May Get Landmark Protection" in May 2019.  

Kingston Heath has retired from U of Oregon and relocating to Bozeman, Montana (summer & fall) and Mendenhall, MS (winter & spring). In retirement he is staying engaged with VAF by assisting with organizing the VAF 2021 field trip component to New Bedford, MA.

He is also continuing to publish. His article “Toward a Humanist Approach to Historic Preservation” will appear in the summer issue of Journal of American Folklore (JAF).  Also, Chapter 5 of his Patina of Place book will be reprinted by Tagus Press at the end of the year. The working title is "Immigration and Millwork: Portuguese Communities in Industrial New England."

Michael Holleran has been named a Fitch Foundation Mid-Career Fellow, for his project The Urban Ditch: Landscape, Life and Afterlives, on the cultural landscapes of irrigation ditches in cities of the American West. The project has also been awarded Brigham Young University’s John Topham and Susan Redd Butler Off-Campus Faculty Research Award.