I’ve worked in construction and have a lifelong interest in carpentry. This is quite a find. Notice how well cut those timbers are. That’s more like dimensional lumber than logs. That type of work was common in the Colonial period. Boston, Salem, New York or Philadelphia. But to see a wilderness cabin built with this degree of precision is remarkable. I can’t imagine the work required to hand saw those timbers. It was done I’m sure with a pit saw. The logs were first squared byhand hewing with a broad ax.
A normal wilderness cabin was just a stack of logs with the bark knocked off. Mud was used to fill the gaps. Still a lot of work. But required less tools and men.
I guess the experts know their dates. If they say the Russian got to Oregon first then fine. A lot of the Louisiana Purchasewas settled long before the US bought it. (yes, I’m aware Oregon isn’t part of that land acquisition. )
The link to the jpg isn’t working. I posted a question in ATMB to see why.
meantime, its in the oregonlive dot com article’s slideshow. A side view of the wall showing the tight joinery. C clamps are holding it together.
I guess the Russians knew from experience that very tight fitting joinery keeps the cold out. Very useful in frigid climates before modern insulation became available…
The timbers in the one picture (where they’re being held by clamps) were hewn with a broad axe, at least on the side facing outward. You can see the characteristic marks about every six inches.
I would expect the adjoining faces to be the same. It would take a skilled axe man or woman to hew that straight, but it can be done.
On second thought, the adjoining faces could have also been smoothed with an adze. Remember, folks used to hew ship timbers with those. I still have two of my dad’s adzes. I am, however, not that skilled in their use.
“But the original builders made it easier: The logs were hand hewn to act like giant Lincoln Log that could be assembled, then disassemble. Pencil marks reveal an ingenious numbering system.”
I’d really like to know more detail about that “ingenious system”. Also, I wonder if there are characteristics of the numbers that indicate the probable country of origin, the way they’re formed. Maybe not but I’d love to see a photo since they considered it an important part of the process.
Look at a map. Do you see where Molalla is? To get there from the Pacific, you have to sail a good bit up the Columbia, then a stretch of the Williamette, then either overland for 15 miles or a mix of creek and portage for even more.
No one would have started a farm there in 1790. No one. You’re bypassing huge areas of far more easily reached, excellent farm land. Why?
The lower Columbia was the main trade and travel artery of the region. If you want a farm/trading post, the farthest you need to go is around Fort Vancouver. (Which is why that was settled so early.)
The early explorers were able to communicate with the locals. None of them ever mentioned a group of Russian settlers, especially a group large enough to establish a farm in such a location.
Maybe it was built by a much later, recent immigrant from Eastern Europe, or a hundred other more believable explanations.
(The fact that the Daily Mail is hyping it makes it just that less credible.)
I’m leaning on the “Bull” side too. With an average of 42.6 inches of rain yearly in the Molalla area, I would expect a lot more rot than is in evidence here. I don’t see any evidence of moss or lichen growth. Doesn’t appear to be much damage from insects either. Even in the Oregon Live picture of the cabin in its original spot, with the roof caved in, the walls look in remarkably good shape. I’d expect a lot of damage to logs nearest to the ground, especially.
This cabin looks as if it belongs 50 or more miles east, in the much, much drier part of the state.
The dating would have been done by dendrochronology, measuring the rings in the logs. The problem with that, though, is that it only tells you when the trees were felled, not when the dwelling was assembled. Maybe the builder (whoever and whenever it was) was using wood felled some time earlier.
