Ruth Barton wrote:

>You left the bark on because the Hessians left the bark on, but, would the
>Hessians have sprayed with borates?  Ruth
>
Ruth,

Hmmm... We did not have it in our contract to spray with borates.
The wood sprayed was mainly on the interior and likely pine.
It was in the contract of someone else working on the site and for City
Parks.
We were under a different contract and not working for City Parks.
They sprayed with the borates and we got sticky trying to get out of the
way.
The stuff was dripping from the ceiling onto the stone floor that we had
restored... pushed the stones around a bit and threw more dirt on them.
I'm not sure what impact the borates that we did not apply will have on
the stone floor or the dirt.
The "visual" effect of the bark being off the logs would be all wrong to
the desired interpretation.
What matters, I suspect, is not what the Hessians would have done.
What matters is if the structure fits the expectations of the story that
is told about the structure that was built in 1915 to tell a not quite
true story to begin with then.
The Hessian Huts were already annihilated by 1915.
The only trace remaining of them being remnants of tumbled stone walls.
I'm not aware if any Hessian HABS/HAER type sketches were undertaken in
the 18th century with it in mind that their huts would not survive.
I suspect that they were trying their damndest to survive themselves.
Besides, I'm curious if bark on cedar is any more uninviting to insects
than the wood of cedar.
If there are any Hessians on this list getting their feelings hurt at my
gross inaccuracies then please forgive me.

][<en

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>