construction history of the rocky mount historic site

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF THE ROCKY MOUNT HISTORIC SITE (40SL386),PINEY FLATS, TENNESSEE FROM TREE-RING ANDDOCUMENTARY EVIDENCEHenri D. Grissino-Mayer, Lisa B. LaForest,and Saskia L. van de GevelThe Rocky Mount Historic Site (40SL386) in Piney Flats,Tennessee, houses structures that many believe date to thefounding of the Tennessee territory, ca. 1770, when settlersfrom North Carolina and elsewhere traversed the southernAppalachian Mountains to establish new homes along thewestern frontier. Rocky Mount was purportedly built byWilliam Cobb between 1770 and 1772. We cored logs on theCobb House and adjacent Dining Room to date the tree ringsand determine when these trees were harvested. Our analysesyielded 88 measurement series from 69 logs (45 from theCobb House and 24 from the Dining Room), 39 of whichyielded cutting dates. The Cobb House contained logs cut asearly as spring 1826 and as late as 1828, while the DiningRoom contained logs cut between 1828 and 1830. Weconclude that the Cobb House and adjacent Dining Roomwere not built by William Cobb between 1770 and 1772 butwere instead built between 1826 and 1830 by MichaelMassengill, a grandson of William Cobb. Archaeological andarchitectural analyses performed previously provide corroboratingevidence of these later construction dates. Documentaryevidence supports the location of land owned by WilliamCobb south of the Watauga River between Carroll Creek andKnob Creek, just to the west of present-day Johnson City.IntroductionThe log structures at the Rocky Mount Historic Site(40SL386) in Piney Flats, Tennessee (Figures 1 and 2)play a significant role in the history of Tennessee. Thesite is located near the original Watauga Settlementnear the confluence of the Watauga and Holston Riversin northeastern Tennessee, where settlers from NorthCarolina, South Carolina, and Virginia settled in the1770s attracted by the desirable fertile farmland ofeastern Tennessee found along riparian corridors.Purportedly built between 1770 and 1772 by WilliamCobb (1723–1803), the Cobb House and its adjacentDining Room represent perhaps the earliest knownintact structures in Tennessee. Furthermore, the firstgovernor of the ‘‘Territory of the United States South ofthe River Ohio,’’ William Blount, arrived in theterritory after being appointed by President GeorgeWashington and governed the territory from the CobbHouse between 1790 to 1792. Thus Rocky Mount servedas the first capital of what would later become the stateof Tennessee (Cobb 1926).The history of the Rocky Mount site, however,remains clouded in mystery during its earliest decades.William Cobb relocated to Grainger County ca. 1795and the Rocky Mount site then passed to Henry ‘‘Hal’’Massengill Jr. (1758–1837), who had married WilliamCobb’s daughter, Penelope (1761–1810) (Edwards 1976;Massengill 1955). Hal Massengill was the son of HenryMassengill, Sr. (1730?–?), who was among the firstsettlers to arrive in the Watauga River region ca. 1770,and whose family had close ties to the Cobb family(Henry Sr. married Mary Cobb (1735?–?), William’ssister). No deed record exists in the Sullivan CountyDeed Books to verify the transfer of property fromWilliam Cobb to Hal and Penelope Massengill, however.Later, Henry Massengill, Sr., sold the RockyMount property to Michael Massengill (1792–1856), viadeed dated 20 March 1827 (page 322, Sullivan CountyDeed Book 10) (Massengill 1955: 10). The ‘‘HenryMassengill, Sr.’’ here is in fact Hal Massengill, Jr. who‘‘was frequently referred to as Senior after the death ofhis father’’ (Massengill 1931:263).The Cobb House and property remained in possessionof four generations of Massengills when, on 15September 1959, the State of Tennessee purchasedRocky Mount (DeFriece and Williams 1966). Today, thesite is managed jointly by the Tennessee HistoricalCommission and the Rocky Mount Historical Association,and serves as the state’s only living historymuseum.The primary objective of our research was to clarifythe history of site occupation by determining thecutting dates of oak trees used to construct the CobbHouse and Dining Room using dendrochronologicalcrossdating techniques that assigned precise calendaryears to all tree rings on the sampled logs. The cuttingdates of the trees essentially provide the constructiondates of the two structures. Of particular importancewere the outermost rings. Partial rings indicateharvesting during the growing season, or betweenMarch and October, while complete rings indicateharvesting during the dormant season, or betweenOctober and March. Each dated log supplied either: (1)64

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTFigure 1. North side of the Cobb House at the Rocky MountHistoric site.Figure 3. The Cobb House (right) and Dining Room (left) inthis photograph dated 1927 looking at the east walls (courtesyof the Tennessee Historical Commission).the actual year the tree was harvested, termed a‘‘cutting date’’; (2) an outermost ring a few years fromthe harvest date based on presence of sapwood, calleda ‘‘near cutting date’’; or, (3) an outermost ring that wasmany years from the actual harvest date, termed a‘‘non-cutting date.’’ We supplemented the tree-ringevidence by (1) comparing our results with those fromprevious architectural and archaeological analyses, and(2) collecting and evaluating archival and otherdocumentary evidence that lent support to the constructiondates obtained from our tree-ring analysis.Any type of renovation causes concern whenattempting to date the years of harvest for trees usedto construct a historic structure due to the replacement,restoration, and possible relocation of logs. The CobbHouse and Dining Room underwent renovation in twoFigure 2. Collecting cores from the Dining Room at the RockyMount Historic site. The chimney is today located on thesouth side but originally was located on the north side (seeFigure 3).separate phases, one in 1959–60 and another in 1979–80.However, only two logs were replaced during theearlier period of restoration (McGowen 1960). Duringthe second restoration phase, 16 logs were partially orentirely replaced. Blueprints obtained from the RockyMount Museum show that 14 logs were completely orpartially replaced in the Cobb House and adjacentDining Room. In the Cobb House, two logs on the east(chimney) side were completely replaced, while 12 logswere partially replaced on the other three sides, withreplacement sections ranging from approximately4 feet to 16 feet in length. Five of the total and partialreplacements were made on logs that were notaccessible for sampling. We sampled the remainingseven logs that were partially replaced on the originalportions of the logs, although some cores wereextracted from the replacement sections during earliersampling excursions to Rocky Mount before theblueprints were made available. Dates from cores takenfrom replacement sections were not included in thisstudy.No logs appear to have been replaced, eithercompletely or partially, in the Dining Room, althoughthe first restoration in 1959–60 made a major renovationstill considered controversial to this day. Photographsfrom the early 20th century show that the chimney onthe Dining Room was located on the north side of theroom, adjacent to the dogtrot that now separates theDining Room from the Cobb House (Figure 3). Thisoriginal position is easily confirmed by remnantbrickwork still underneath the Dining Room. Afterthe renovation, the chimney was placed on the southside of the Dining Room. This re-positioning of theDining Room chimney has led to speculations that thelogs on the north and south sides of this room must bereplacement logs.65

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009Field MethodsMethodsThe Cobb House was designated building ‘‘A’’ andthe Dining Room was designated building ‘‘B.’’ Weextracted at least one core from all accessible logs in bothstructures using a 10 inch hollow drill bit (similar to anelongated hole saw) attached to a 0.5’’ variable-speedhand drill. Cores were identified by building letter,cardinal direction, log number beginning with thebottom log 5 ‘‘001,’’ and core letter (e.g., ‘‘AN013B’’).Most cores were taken from the lower curved surfaces ofthe logs where the sapwood and the outermost ringswould likely be well-preserved due to the mud chinkingthat was placed between logs to help provide insulation.On a few logs, cores were taken from the hewn top of thehalf-dovetail notches because we encountered decayedsapwood elsewhere on the logs after repeated coringattempts. All core locations were marked on thedrawings of the logs of both structures on the furnishedblueprints for future reference.Of particular significance to the construction historyof the Cobb House was a stump located beneath and justinside the sill log on the south side of the house. Thisstump was well-rooted in the soil beneath Rocky Mount.To build the Cobb House, the original tree represented bythis stump was perhaps the very first tree that had to beharvested. The outermost ring on this stump would, onceand for all, determine if an original structure, built ca.1770, once existed on the property in the same location,soon after the arrival of the Cobb family to the WataugaRiver region. In July 2007, we used a chain saw to removethe complete stump from underneath the Cobb House.At the laboratory, the stump was further sectioned intothree pieces each about 2 inches in thickness to ensuremaneuverability underneath a microscope.Data ProcessingThe cores and stump cross-section first were sandeddown to 320-grit using progressively finer sandpaperon a 4-3-24-inch Makita belt sander (Orvis andGrissino-Mayer 2002). Under the microscope, theinnermost complete tree ring on each sample was thenassigned the relative year ‘‘1’’ and every subsequenttenth ring was marked with a dot (Stokes and Smiley1996). We then measured the widths of all tree rings to0.001 mm precision with a Velmex measuring stagecoupled with MEASURE J2X software.Internal and External CrossdatingWe used the computer program COFECHA toinitially crossdate the undated tree-ring sequences.COFECHA is a quality-control program that usessegmented time-series correlation techniques to confirmthe temporal placements of all tree rings (Grissino-Mayer 2001; Holmes 1983). Crossdating was verifiedwhen the correlation coefficient for the majority ofsegments on each series being tested exceeded 0.37 (p, 0.01), although coefficients were usually muchhigher (for example, r . 0.55, p , 0.0001).We used five white (Quercus alba L.) and chestnut(Quercus montana Willd.) oak tree-ring chronologiesobtained from the International Tree-Ring Data Bank(IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology)in Asheville, North Carolina to create a regionalcomposite chronology to date the undated series fromRocky Mount. The Kentucky and Virginia chronologieswere developed by Dr. Edward R. Cook and hiscolleagues at the Tree-Ring Laboratory of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University,while the Tennessee chronology was developed byDaniel Duvick of Oak Ridge National Laboratory:1. TN008, white oak from Norris Dam State Park(36u139 N, 84u059 W) in northeastern Tennessee,spanningA.D. 1633 to 1980, developed from 71crossdated series (interseries correlation of 0.61);2. KY003, white oak from the Lilley Cornett Tract(37u059 N, 83u009 W) in southeastern Kentucky,spanningA.D. 1660 to 1982, developed from 40crossdated series (interseries correlation of 0.63);3. VA009, chestnut oak from the Blue Ridge Parkway(37u339 N, 79u279 W) in Virginia, spanning A.D.1587 to 1982, developed from 35 crossdated series(interseries correlation of 0.49);4. VA016, chestnut oak from the Watch Dogsite,Massenhutten Mountain (38u309 N, 78u21 W) inVirginia, spanning A.D. 1642 to 1981, developedfrom 40 crossdated series (interseries correlation of0.53); and,5. VA017, white oak from Patty’s Oaks, Blue RidgeParkway (37u559 N, 79u489 W) in Virginia, spanningA.D. 1569 to 1982, developed from 23 crossdatedseries (interseries correlation of 0.53).Once a logical temporal placement was suggested byCOFECHA, we confirmed this placement using scatterplots of the series being tested compared with theregional composite. The final suggested placement forany series from Rocky Mount made by COFECHA hadto be convincing both graphically and statistically(Grissino-Mayer 2001). Once confirmed, we assignedcalendar years to all tree rings on each individualundated measurement series.To further ensure accuracy in the final temporalplacements of the individual series, we created amaster tree-ring chronology from the measured andcrossdated Rocky Mount series using ARSTAN (Cook1985), a computer program that standardizes tree-ring66

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTmeasurement data to a common mean (1.0) and createsa composite chronology that represents informationfrom all contributing series. Each ring measurement forall series is divided by a predicted annual value ofgrowth based on a trend line or curve fit to themeasurement data, resulting in a dimensionless indexof growth for that year. Once each individual serieswas standardized, a master chronology was created byARSTAN by averaging all indices of tree growth foreach year from all series. Only the portion of thechronology represented by two or more series wasevaluated for final absolute crossdating.This Rocky Mount master chronology was thentested as an undated series for crossdating accuracyagainst the regional composite with COFECHA usingthe techniques described above. In this analysis, correctcrossdating placement is indicated by COFECHA as asystematic dating adjustment of ‘‘0,’’ indicating that noshifts are needed for that particular segment. Mostsegments should show the same systematic ‘‘0’’adjustment (Grissino-Mayer 2001). Lastly, we usedCOFECHA to test the now-crossdated Rocky Mountmaster tree-ring chronology against each of theindividual regional chronologies from Kentucky, Virginia,and Tennessee. Crossdating was confirmed bycorrelation coefficients that were statistically significant(p , 0.001).Establishing Cutting DatesOnce all tree rings on all series from Rocky Mountwere crossdated and assigned calendar years, wecarefully examined the outermost dated ring on eachcore under high magnification to determine possiblecutting dates for trees used in the two Rocky Mountstructures. We assigned standard symbols to helpevaluate the possible year of cutting (Bannister 1962;Nash 1999):B: Bark was present, indicatingthe outer ringwas fullyintact 5 a cuttingdate.r: The outermost ringis continuous and intact around asmooth surface displayingpatination, but no bark ispresent 5 a cuttingdate. The evaluation of a smoothouter surface on the logwas made in the field. Patinationon wood occurs at the interface of xylem and phloem, justunderneath the bark, and was present on all logs.v: The date is within a few years of the cuttingdate, basedon presence of sapwood 5 a near-cuttingdate.vv: A cuttingdate is not possible because we cannotdetermine how far the outer ringis from the true outersurface 5 non-cuttingdate. Sapwood was not present andsome rings in the heartwood may be missing.++: A ringcount was necessary on the outermost ringsbecause these were located in a detached sapwood portionof the core and could not be crossdated.This latter symbol type provided increased accuracywhen determining possible cutting dates. Occasionally,a short segment that contained the outermost ringswould separate from the longer intact core, a commonsituation that occurs due to decay in the more fragilesapwood of oak wood. The few rings on this outermostdetached core segment could not be crossdated becausethey represented too few rings, but they were nonethelessquite valuable in helping determine the outermosttree-ring date. Rings in these detached segmentswere simply counted and added to the outermostcrossdated and measured ring on the intact core, andthe standard symbol ‘‘++’’ was used to indicate thisadditional ring count (Bannister 1962; Nash 1999).ResultsA total of 88 cores extracted from both structureswere confidently crossdated internally against eachother and against the regional composite chronology.The Cobb House provided 56 measured series, whilethe Dining Room provided 32 measured series. A totalof 7,872 tree rings were measured to 0.001 mmprecision for this project from those 88 series, althoughthe number of rings analyzed is slightly higher becauseall rings in the detached outer sections were countedand considered, but not measured. The 88 measuredseries represent the dating of 44 logs and 1 stump forthe Cobb house and 24 logs from the Dining Room, fora total of 69 dated logs from both structures.CrossdatingThe average interseries correlation for the entire dataset was 0.60, indicating exceptional internal crossdatingof all series, while the average mean sensitivity was0.24, a value above the 0.20 minimum consideredsuitable to ensure the required variability for crossdatingof hardwood tree species in the SoutheasternU.S. Of 394 40-year segments tested by COFECHA,only 30 (7.6%) were flagged due to low correlations(Table 1), but inspection of these segments indicatedcorrect temporal placements. As expected, we found nosystematic dating adjustments that would indicatemisdated series (Grissino-Mayer 2001). All alternateplacements suggested by COFECHA were carefullyinspected but found to be unreasonable, a commonsituation when conducting thousands of correlationtests on such extensive data sets.We next compared the standard chronology createdfrom the Rocky Mount measurement series graphicallyand statistically with a composite chronology createdfrom the five regional reference chronologies (Figure 4).The correlation coefficient between the Rocky Mount67

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009Table 1. Internal correlation testing conducted by COFECHA: Cobb House (first letter ‘‘A’’) and Dining Room (first letter ‘‘B’’)measurement series.Correlation for 40-year Tested Segment*Series Begin Year End Year 1700–1739 1720–1759 1740–1779 1760–1799 1780–1819 1800–1839AE002A 1729 1815 – 0.60 0.75 0.67 0.74 –AE003B 1754 1808 – – 0.70 0.78 0.82 –AE004A 1714 1827 0.43 0.43 0.56 0.73 0.72 0.66AE004B 1736 1827 – 0.54 0.55 0.57 0.74 0.74AE005A 1729 1827 – 0.29 0.33 0.63 0.80 0.73AE005B 1718 1816 0.57 0.58 0.68 0.77 0.81 –AE006A 1724 1810 – 0.68 0.75 0.78 0.85 –AE006B 1743 1815 – – 0.65 0.66 0.68 –AE007A 1712 1815 0.55 0.69 0.73 0.71 0.71 –AE008A 1750 1814 – – 0.69 0.57 0.70 –AE009A 1721 1818 – 0.61 0.67 0.48 0.57 –AE010A 1735 1824 – 0.39 0.42 0.31 0.50 0.41AE011A 1725 1815 – 0.75 0.76 0.69 0.60 –AE012A 1727 1811 – 0.41 0.51 0.67 0.61 –AN003A 1725 1782 – 0.20 0.37 0.41 – –AN004A 1722 1819 – 0.51 0.68 0.80 0.68 –AN005B 1719 1820 0.59 0.58 0.72 0.67 0.66 0.66AN005C 1736 1797 – 0.43 0.45 0.48 – –AN006A 1767 1826 – – – 0.80 0.74 0.64AN007A 1726 1802 – 0.54 0.61 0.77 0.80 –AN008A 1711 1808 0.61 0.60 0.78 0.72 0.70 –AN009A 1723 1827 – 0.62 0.63 0.50 0.71 0.71AN010A 1716 1826 0.49 0.52 0.71 0.59 0.52 0.39AN011A 1741 1822 – – 0.58 0.47 0.73 0.76AN012A 1716 1807 0.37 0.43 0.42 0.38 0.32 –AN013A 1731 1824 – 0.72 0.80 0.81 0.84 0.80AN013B 1733 1813 – 0.73 0.81 0.79 0.82 –AN014A 1730 1827 – 0.71 0.74 0.69 0.70 0.67AS003A 1740 1810 – – 0.65 0.67 0.75 –AS004A 1724 1813 – 0.70 0.79 0.65 0.75 –AS005B 1728 1827 – 0.51 0.74 0.75 0.65 0.60AS006A 1755 1826 – – 0.30 0.33 0.58 0.56AS007A 1730 1827 – 0.70 0.64 0.56 0.69 0.67AS007B 1730 1826 – 0.40 0.41 0.35 0.48 0.48AS008A 1742 1813 – – 0.66 0.46 0.56 –AS009B 1734 1810 – 0.60 0.70 0.76 0.72 –AS010A 1729 1827 – 0.51 0.62 0.74 0.80 0.78AS010B 1779 1827 – – – 0.62 0.62 0.65AS012A 1737 1827 – 0.77 0.77 0.69 0.76 0.66AS012B 1729 1821 – 0.65 0.78 0.69 0.74 0.73AS012C 1743 1815 – – 0.75 0.73 0.74 –AS013A 1731 1820 – 0.74 0.67 0.62 0.71 0.73AS014A 1729 1826 – 0.65 0.67 0.82 0.77 0.65AW002A 1729 1802 – 0.61 0.71 0.66 0.67 –AW003A 1697 1820 0.25 0.58 0.64 0.42 0.68 0.68AW003B 1711 1823 0.66 0.68 0.64 0.37 0.68 0.68AW004A 1705 1764 0.20 0.49 0.60 – – –AW004B 1703 1824 0.44 0.58 0.76 0.78 0.67 0.66AW005A 1723 1826 – 0.38 0.73 0.72 0.75 0.73AW006B 1741 1823 – – 0.52 0.78 0.79 0.78AW007A 1726 1826 – 0.66 0.80 0.84 0.51 0.39AW008A 1733 1813 – 0.44 0.51 0.57 0.64 –AW009A 1731 1803 – 0.81 0.88 0.84 0.84 –AW011A 1721 1808 – 0.38 0.57 0.63 0.65 –AW012A 1728 1816 – 0.53 0.87 0.83 0.72 –ASTUMP 1710 1825 0.43 0.62 0.82 0.64 0.73 0.54BE004A 1733 1828 – 0.60 0.72 0.59 0.74 0.66BE004B 1750 1828 – – 0.73 0.74 0.64 0.64BE005B 1733 1828 – 0.70 0.54 0.33 0.61 0.65BE006A 1726 1829 – 0.61 0.70 0.63 0.80 0.76BE006B 1726 1828 – 0.62 0.72 0.65 0.59 0.55BE006C 1757 1828 – – 0.45 0.43 0.66 0.66BE007A 1730 1829 – 0.62 0.68 0.76 0.83 0.71BN004B 1693 1801 0.05 0.38 0.56 0.53 0.57 –BN005A 1728 1808 – 0.41 0.62 0.64 0.69 –BN005B 1752 1829 – – 0.67 0.69 0.66 0.39BN006A 1720 1805 – 0.41 0.74 0.46 0.35 –BN007A 1732 1828 – 0.63 0.70 0.75 0.68 0.53BN008A 1728 1828 – 0.65 0.65 0.49 0.53 0.42BS002A 1667 1828 0.26 0.35 0.51 0.59 0.31 0.29BS002B 1701 1824 0.32 0.56 0.58 0.40 0.34 0.34BS003A 1735 1827 – 0.63 0.66 0.75 0.85 0.84BS004A 1734 1828 – 0.71 0.73 0.68 0.78 0.74BS006A 1735 1810 – 0.51 0.48 0.55 0.41 –BS007A 1734 1827 – 0.64 0.68 0.75 0.67 0.6168

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTTable 1. Continued.Correlation for 40-year Tested Segment*Series Begin Year End Year 1700–1739 1720–1759 1740–1779 1760–1799 1780–1819 1800–1839BW002A 1738 1816 – 0.55 0.55 0.64 0.78 –BW003B 1780 1827 – – – – 0.59 0.64BW004A 1760 1827 – – – 0.55 0.56 0.49BW004B 1731 1824 – 0.32 0.43 0.61 0.56 0.50BW006A 1730 1827 – 0.51 0.66 0.88 0.84 0.76BW007A 1732 1828 – 0.67 0.66 0.77 0.62 0.49BW008A 1736 1825 – 0.70 0.71 0.77 0.82 0.83BWin1A 1737 1813 – 0.65 0.68 0.72 0.57 –BB001A 1732 1817 – 0.54 0.70 0.76 0.54 –BB001B 1727 1806 – 0.53 0.66 0.64 0.54 –BB003A 1726 1803 – 0.52 0.65 0.60 0.62 –BB003B 1720 1808 – 0.68 0.83 0.63 0.65 –BB005A 1724 1810 – 0.60 0.60 0.70 0.55 –Averagecorrelation 0.42 0.57 0.65 0.64 0.67 0.63* If r . 0.47, p , 0.001; if r . 0.37, p , 0.01; if r . 0.27, p , 0.05.chronology and the regional composite chronology was0.49, which was highly significant (n 5 163, t 5 7.20, p ,0.0001). The Rocky Mount oak chronology is anchoredfrom 1667 to 1829. The strong visual agreement wasverified with the two additional tests using COFECHA,the first treating the Rocky Mount chronology as anundated series. This analysis revealed that 11 of the 1340-year segments tested needed no adjustment, with anaverage correlation value of 0.53 for these 11 segments.The second best dating adjustment was to adjust only 6of the 13 tested segments backwards 92 years, with anaverage correlation value of 0.40, but this datingadjustment was far inferior to the dating adjustment of‘‘0.’’ This dating adjustment would unrealisticallyanchor the Rocky Mount data from 1575 to 1737, andcutting dates in the 1730s are not possible for a site in aterritory that was not settled until the 1769–70 period.The second test showed statistically significantcorrelations between the Rocky Mount chronologyand all five individual chronologies from the region(Table 2). The average interseries correlation for thesesix series was exceptional at 0.47, indicating strongagreement in the regional climate signal that impartsthe common crossdating patterns in the tree ringsfrom these six sites. These correlations are better thanthose reported originally by Grissino-Mayer and vande Gevel (2007), using only three regional chronologies,none of which was from Virginia. The resultsfrom this analysis clearly corroborate the statisticalcrossdating of the Rocky Mount tree rings from all 88cores.Cutting DatesThe 69 logs dated for this study (Tables 3, 4, and 5)represent the most intensively sampled structuresanywhere in the eastern United States. For the CobbHouse, 21 logs provided precise cutting dates, anotherFigure 4. The master chronology developed from the 88 measured series for Rocky Mount (upper plot) compared with thecomposite chronology (lower plot) developed from five regional master tree-ring chronologies (r 5 0.49, n 5 163, t 5 7.20, p ,0.0001). The indices were converted to standard deviation units to facilitate a visual comparison.69

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009Table 2. Correlation tests conducted by COFECHA between the Rocky Mount chronology and the five individualregional chronologies.40-year Segment Tested*ChronologyBeginYearEndYear1640–16791660–16991680–17191700–17391720–17591740–17791760–17991780–18191800–1839Blue Ridge, VA 1587 1982 0.57 0.68 0.64 0.35 0.58 0.76 0.61 0.45 0.53Watch Dog, VA 1642 1981 0.28 0.53 0.32 0.02 0.39 0.66 0.60 0.40 0.37Patty’s Oaks, VA 1569 1982 0.32 0.54 0.71 0.57 0.68 0.56 0.39 0.47 0.42Lilley Cornett, KY 1660 1982 – 0.35 0.33 0.45 0.70 0.71 0.64 0.66 0.72Norris Dam, TN 1633 1980 0.10 0.47 0.48 0.44 0.36 0.43 0.50 0.37 0.51Rocky Mount, TN 1667 1829 – 0.63 0.54 0.22 0.44 0.61 0.47 0.25 0.23Average segment correlation 0.32 0.53 0.51 0.34 0.52 0.62 0.54 0.43 0.46* If r . 0.47, p , 0.001; if r . 0.37, p , 0.01; if r . 0.27, p , 0.05.16 logs provided near cutting dates based on thepresence of sapwood, while the remaining 8 logs hadoutermost rings that were far from the cutting dates.The cutting dates for logs in the Cobb House rangedfrom fall of 1825/spring of 1826 until fall of 1828(Tables 3 and 4), suggesting completion and possibleoccupation by early 1829. For the Dining Room, 15 logsprovided precise cutting dates, another 4 provided nearcutting dates, while the remaining five had outermostrings that were far from the cutting dates. The cuttingdates for logs from the Dining Room ranged from fallof 1828 until fall of 1830 (Table 5), suggesting completionand use by early 1831. Together, the two structuresprovided 36 logs with precise cutting dates, 20 logswith near cutting dates, and 13 logs with non-cuttingdates (Figure 5).The oak stump from the tree that had once grown onthe site, located just inside the south-side sill log of theCobb House, was particularly informative (Figure 6A).The outermost ring provided a cutting date of 1826. Inaddition, this was one of the rare wood samples wefound at Rocky Mount that still had intact bark. Theearlywood vessels had already formed in 1826, but nolatewood had formed (Figure 6B), indicating that thetree was cut in early spring of 1826 soon after thedormancy period had broken, as earlywood vessels inoak are the first cells formed in the xylem to facilitaterapid flush of leaves soon after. We believe the tree waslikely cut in March or possibly as late as April of 1826.This cutting date is not the earliest of the cuttingdates at the Cobb House, however. One other log,AN013 high up on the north side of the CobbHouse, has an outermost ring of 1825, which may becompletely formed, and thus could have been cutduring the dormant period of winter 1825–26. If so, thistree could have been cut in early spring 1826 before ithad broken dormancy, possibly at the same time as thetree that was cut that left the stump under the CobbTable 3. Cutting dates for logs sampled in the Cobb House, east and north sides.LogInnerDateMeasured OuterRingOutermost RingDateRingTypeCuttingDate?CommentsAE002 1727 1815 1816 vv Non-CD No sapwood, no outer ringsAE003 1750 1808 1810 vv Non-CD No sapwood, no outer ringsAE004 1713 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingAE005 1717 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingAE006 1723 1810 1824 v++ Near CD Add 14 rings not measured, sapwood presentAE007 1712 1815 1816 v Near CD 1816 ring partial, some sapwood presentAE008 1749 1814 1815 v Non-CD 1815 ring partial, no sapwoodAE009 1720 1818 1823 v++ Near CD Add 5 rings not measured, sapwood presentAE010 1734 1824 1825 v Near CD 1825 ring partial, outermost ring(s) not present, sapwood presentAE011 1717 1815 1820 v++ Near CD Add 5 rings not measured, sapwood presentAE012 1726 1811 1826 v++ Near CD Add 15 rings not measured, sapwood presentAN003 1723 1782 1784 vv Non-CD Far from pith, no sapwood presentAN004 1721 1819 1826 v++ Near CD Add 7 rings not measured, sapwood presentAN005 1718 1820 1821 v Near CD Sapwood present, outer rings decayedAN006 1766 1826 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAN007 1725 1802 1817 v++ Near CD Add 15 rings not measured, sapwood presentAN008 1710 1808 1809 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateAN009 1722 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingAN010 1715 1826 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAN011 1740 1822 1827 v++ CD Add 5 rings not measured, sapwood presentAN012 1715 1807 1819 v++ Near CD Add 12 rings not measured, sapwood present, outer rings badlydecayedAN013 1730 1824 1825 r CD 1825 LW present, cut in late summer 1825AN014 1729 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingNote: CD 5 Cutting date; Near CD 5 Near cutting date; Non-CD 5 Non-cutting date.70

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTTable 4. Cutting dates for logs sampled in the Cobb House, south and west sides.LogInnerDateMeasured OuterRingOutermost RingDateRingTypeCuttingDate?CommentsAS003 1738 1810 1811 v Non-CD No sapwood present, far from cutting dateAS004 1723 1813 1828 v++ CD Add 15 rings not measured, sapwood present, most likely a cuttingdateAS005 1727 1827 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAS006 1744 1826 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAS007 1728 1827 1828 r CD 1828 EW vessels formed, cut in spring 1828AS008 1741 1813 1827 v++ Near CD Add 14 rings not measured, sapwood presentAS009 1733 1810 1826 v++ Near CD Add 16 rings not measured, sapwood presentAS010 1728 1827 1828 r CD 1828 EW vessels present, no LW, cut in spring/summer 1828AS012 1728 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingAS013 1730 1820 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAS014 1728 1826 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAW002 1728 1802 1804 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateAW003 1696 1820 1827 v++ Near CD Add 7 rings not measured, sapwood presentAW004 1679 1824 1826 r CD 1826 could be complete, 1826/1827 dormant season cuttingAW005 1722 1826 1827 r CD 1827 could be complete 5 1827/1828 dormant season cuttingAW006 1740 1823 1824 v Near CD Sapwood present, outer rings decayed, near cutting dateAW007 1725 1826 1827 r CD 1827 EW vessels formed, cut in early spring 1827AW008 1731 1813 1828 v++ CD Add 15 rings not measured, sapwood present, most likely a cuttingdateAW009 1730 1803 1816 v++ Near CD Add 13 rings not measured, sapwood presentAW011 1720 1808 1824 v++ Near CD Add 16 rings not measured, sapwood presentAW012 1727 1816 1817 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateASTUMP 1710 1825 1826 B CD 1826 EW vessels present, no LW, cut spring 1826Note: CD 5 Cutting date; Near CD 5 Near cutting date; Non-CD 5 Non-cutting date.House. Trees do not necessarily break dormancy all atonce, which may be the case for these two trees withthe earliest cutting dates. In all likelihood, we believethe cutting of trees for the Cobb House began in earlyspring of 1826.Another interesting characteristic of this stump is thevery prominent fire scar that existed on the uphill sideof the stump (Figure 6A), facing north, or away fromthe crawl space underneath the Dining Room and CobbHouse. Fire scars are most often formed on the uphillside of trees because this is the location where littertends to accumulate, thus causing more intense flamesthat can easily kill the living cambium cells justunderneath the bark of the tree. This fire eventoccurred in the year 1775. The effects of this fire onlocal tree growth can be seen in numerous logs in boththe Cobb House and the Dining Room, shown as eithera fire scar on the log end or as a change to enhancedtree growth rates due to post-fire fertilization effects.This corroborates that many if not all trees used in theTable 5. Cutting dates for logs sampled in the Dining Room.LogInnerDateMeasured OuterRingOutermost RingDateRingTypeCuttingDate?CommentsBE004 1732 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBE005 1731 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBE006 1725 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBE007 1730 1829 1830 B CD 1830 could be complete, cut in late 1830BN004 1692 1801 1802 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateBN005 1727 1829 1830 r CD 1830 ring appears partial, cut in summer 1830BN006 1718 1805 1806 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateBN007 1731 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBN008 1727 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBS002 1662 1828 1829 r CD 1829 EW vessels present, no LW, cut in summer 1829BS003 1734 1827 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBS004 1733 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBS006 1734 1810 1810 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateBS007 1733 1827 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBW002 1737 1816 1817 v Non-CD No sapwood, far from cutting dateBW003 1769 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingBW004 1720 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingBW006 1729 1827 1828 r CD 1828 could be complete 5 1828/1829 dormant season cuttingBW007 1731 1828 1829 r CD 1829 could be complete, 1829/1830 dormant season cuttingBW008 1735 1825 1826 v Near CD Near cutting date, outer rings erodedBWin1 1736 1813 1825 v Near CD Add 12 rings not measured, sapwood present, very decayed outerringsBB001 1716 1817 1821 v Near CD Add 4 rings not measured, sapwood present, decayed outer ringsBB003 1719 1808 1813 vv++ Non-CD Add 5 rings not measured, no sapwoodBB005 1723 1810 1824 v++ Near CD Add 14 rings not measured, sapwood presentNote: CD 5 Cutting date; Near CD 5 Near cutting date; Non-CD 5 Non-cutting date.71

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009Figure 5. Frequency distribution of outermost ring date types for the two structures at Rocky Mount: white 5 non-cuttingdates, gray 5 near cutting dates, black 5 cutting dates.construction of these two structures came in closeproximity to Rocky Mount. A fire during this year isnot surprising because the years 1774 and 1775 werethe narrowest tree rings in the entire 163-year recordfrom Rocky Mount (Figure 4). These narrow ringslikely formed due to an intense drought, and wildfiresare most common and more intense during droughtconditions.Figure 6. (A) The sanded cross-section extracted from the stump from beneath the Cobb House; (B) Close-up of the outer ringsin the sapwood of the stump showing the earlywood vessels that formed in spring 1826, but no latewood.72

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTThe sequences of cutting dates for the two structuressuggest that the trees harvested for use in the DiningRoom were cut immediately after the logs wereharvested for construction of the Cobb House. Theoutermost dates for all 69 logs do not support theconstruction of Rocky Mount between 1770 and 1772because all logs had outermost tree rings that formedafter 1772.DiscussionThe harvest dates of trees used in the construction ofboth structures refute the belief that Rocky Mount wasbuilt between 1770 and 1772 by William Cobb. Morelikely, both structures were instead built by MichaelMassengill and his family beginning in 1826 andcompleted by 1831. Michael Massengill received thisproperty on 20 March 1827 from his father HenryMassengill, Sr. (i.e., Hal Massengill, Jr., who wasreferred to as ‘‘Senior’’ after his father’s death).Curiously, no transfer of deed records exists forRocky Mount prior to this date (1827). Because WilliamCobb served as a court magistrate beginning in 1777–78(Ray 1960), we can assume that he knew the importanceof legal land transfer via recorded deed in court,so the lack of a transfer of deed to his daughterPenelope and son-in-law, Hal Massengill, Jr. in 1795 isuntenable. Further, William Cobb had earlier in 1788granted land along the Watauga River to his sonPharoah (1752–1841) (Edwards 1976), so his failing tolegally transfer by signed deed the Rocky Mountproperty to his daughter and son-in-law is puzzling.Equally implausible is the receiving of the RockyMount property by Hal Massengill, Jr. without a legalland deed transfer. The Massengills were a foundingfamily of the State of Tennessee and knew theimportance of legal land transfer as shown by HenryMassengill, Sr. (the original Henry Sr.) being granted332 acres on and adjoining the south side of theWatauga River on 19 November 1775 (Keesee1997:47). Furthermore, Henry Massengill, Sr. receivedseven additional land grants between 1783 and 1792 inWashington County and all are recorded in the NorthCarolina State Land Office in Raleigh, North Carolina(Massengill 1931:190). Hal Massengill, Jr. (as HenryMassengill, Sr.) also is listed numerous times in theSullivan County Deed Books (Massengill 1931:263–264), so he knew the importance of having land deedsin hand.Equally curious is an apparent ‘‘lack of occupancy’’record for Rocky Mount between 1795 and 1827. Thepurported land ownership sequence of Rocky Mountis: (1) William Cobb, in residence from 1770 until 1795,to (2) his daughter Penelope and son-in-law HalMassengill, Jr., to (3) Hal’s son Michael Massengillbeginning in 1827. During the 33-year period from 1795until 1827, no one is sure who actually lived at the CobbHouse. Hal Massengill, Jr. and his wife Penelopeapparently never lived there. Instead, they lived onthe Massengill farm (Massengill 1955) where IsaacDevault later built a two-story brick house between1840 and 1842. The lack of ownership records andoccupancy of Rocky Mount by any Cobb familymember substantiates the claim that ‘‘this propertywas never owned by Cobb but has always been in thepossession of Massengills until 1959’’ (Johnson 1983).This observation echoes concerns expressed as early as1954: ‘‘I cannot find that William Cobb ever owned theland where the Piney Flats house now stands. . . I thinkthat Rocky Mount has always been a Massengill house’’(Price 1954).No one knows when William Cobb arrived in theWatauga River region, but evidence suggests it was notin 1770. The name of William Cobb is noticeably absentfrom the petition dated 19 March 1775 sent to theCongress of North Carolina to have the WashingtonDistrict be made into a county of North Carolina (Cobb1926; HTGS 1993:5–6). Seen on this petition, however,are the signatures of Benjamin Cobb (1702?–1794),William’s father, as well as Pharoah Cobb (likelyWilliam Cobb’s son). Further, the name of WilliamCobb is absent from the 1776–77 payroll of militia ofCaptain Womack’s Company sent to protect FincastleCounty, Virginia, against the Cherokees (HTGS 1993:8).Included on this list are Pharoah Cobb, HenryMassengall [sic] (likely Henry Massengill Sr.) andanother Henry Massengall (likely Hal Massengill Jr.).In fact, no record of William Cobb having lived in theWatauga River region exists until 1777. WashingtonCounty (North Carolina) was established in November1777 and a list of its first appointed court magistratescontains the name of William Cobb (Ray 1960). The firstcourt was held February 23, 1778 (Browning 1942; Ray1960), with William Cobb ‘‘present’’ (Ramsey 1853:181). The tax list for Washington County for 1778 alsolists William Cobb (Alderman 1970). Benjamin Cobb(William’s father) obtained land on 30 November 1778that was adjacent to land ‘‘… where said William Cobbnow lives’’ (Item 1727, North Carolina State LandOffice). If William Cobb had lived in this areabeginning in 1770, his name would surely have beenmentioned on the many significant documents between1770 and 1777. We believe that William Cobb likelyarrived in the Watauga River region around 1777.More evidence that William Cobb was not among thefirst settlers in the region focuses on land owned by theCobb family in South Carolina. Between 1759 and 1769,Benjamin Cobb, his son William, and other Cobbrelatives either bought land or received land grants inCraven County, South Carolina (Edwards 1976:65).Having decided to move to territory across the73

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009Appalachian Mountains, Benjamin Cobb in 1768deeded by gift the South Carolina land to ‘‘WilliamCobb, my son and heir apparent’’ (HTGS 1993:375).Benjamin Cobb’s deeding the South Carolina propertyto his son suggests William Cobb was not among theearliest settlers in the Watauga settlement, because onelikely would not deed property to a relative who wasalso making the same migration to a new territory atthe same time.The belief that William Cobb arrived in 1770 andbegan construction on Rocky Mount can be traced toCobb (1926), who stated: ‘‘Ramsay [sic] says WilliamCobb, William Bean, and Webb, came to Wataugaabout the same time. Bean’s cabin, the first houseerected in the state, was built 1769 on land adjoiningWilliam Cobb’s estate and on the other side of theWatauga River from William Cobb’s lands.’’ However,Ramsey (1853:142) did not say this. He stated, ‘‘Soonafter the arrival on the Watauga of the emigrants . . .came the Beans, the Cobbs and the Webbs, and,subsequently the Tiptons and Taylors.’’ When Ramseyrefers to the ‘‘Cobbs,’’ he is of course referring to thewell-documented arrival about 1769–70 of Benjaminand Pharoah Cobb from Craven County, SouthCarolina.The William Cobb house itself is an architecturalparadox for a structure built in 1770. New emigrants tothe Watauga River region would have contended withhostile Cherokee tribes, necessitating smaller andperhaps hastily-constructed hewn-log cabins (Patrick1981). Instead, the Cobb House and Dining Roomrepresent a lavish nine-room, two-story structure, witha paneled stairway leading to the top floor, handrailsthat were made from walnut, a large fireplacedecorated with a pine mantel, and glass windows, ararity in the frontier landscape (DeFriece and Williams1966). Further, the Cobb House measures 29 by 22 feet,dimensions that are large for an early frontier house(Glassie 1968; Morgan 1990) if the structure was indeedbuilt between 1770 and 1772. The largest dimensionsmeasured for log structures in eastern Tennessee are 26by 20 feet, 25 by 20 feet, and 20 by 18 feet (Morgan1990).In December 1980, an employee at the Rocky MountMuseum, Liz M. Johnson, completed a report titled‘‘Construction Analysis of Rocky Mount’’ (Johnson1981) and subsequently turned this report over to AlvinGerhardt, then Director of the Rocky Mount Museum,in January 1981. The study by Johnson (1981) usedtechniques that relied on analyses of architecturaldetails to provide information on the possible yearsof construction of Rocky Mount. Johnson concludedthat: (1) saw marks on lumber and paneling were madeby an up-and-down sash saw, which was not prominentuntil after 1790; (2) the machine-cut nails used inRocky Mount were made between 1815 and the 1830s;(3) door latches and hinges were made after 1820; (4)machine-cut screws used on the door hardware datedbetween 1820 and 1845; and, (5) an auger with leadscrew used to secure rafters in the Dining Room wasnot invented until 1808. As such, for the Cobb House,Johnson (1981:25) concluded, ‘‘The evidence of thedatable artifacts in the main house strongly indicate aconstruction date in the 1820’s or 1830’s. . . it seemsmost likely that this part of the building was not builtby William Cobb in 1770, but by Michael Massengillaround 1827.’’ After examining the evidence from theDining Room, Johnson (1981:31–32) concluded, ‘‘Fromall indications it appears that Rocky Mount was builtall at one time around the year 1827.’’ With considerableforesight, Johnson (1981:39) proposed furtherinvestigations: ‘‘Also, a dendrochronological study ofthe stump in the crawl space of Rocky Mount andstructural members of the building may pinpoint theconstruction date more precisely.’’At the time our first dendrochronological project wasbeing conducted in 2005, a concurrent archaeologicalstudy was being conducted by members of theUniversity of Tennessee’s Department of Anthropologyand East Tennessee State University’s Center forAppalachian Studies and Services. This research teamplaced three excavation test units measuring 3 by 3 feetin close proximity to the Cobb House and Dining Room(Ellerbusch et al. 2005:15), the closest being approximately3 feet from the dogtrot on the west side of theCobb House and Dining Room. From these three testunits, the researchers extracted 230 historical artifactsand concluded that the ‘‘The artifacts range temporallyfrom the early-nineteenth century to the late-twentiethcentury… No intact horizons pertaining to the eighteenthand nineteenth century occupation of the Cobbhouse were discovered.’’ The seven artifacts that couldbe dated to the 18th century attest to the use of theseobjects at the Rocky Mount site, but cannot ‘‘accountfor an occupation of the site earlier than approximatelythe mid-nineteenth century’’ (Ellerbusch et al. 2005).If William Cobb did not construct nor live at RockyMount, where then might his land have been situated?He clearly lived in the Watauga River region until 1795,but no one knows where. Edwards (1976:73) wrote thatthe son of William Cobb, Pharoah, on 11 July 1788‘‘received a grant of 640 acres on Knob Creek near hisfather’s land.’’ Knob Creek is nowhere near Piney Flats,and is instead located south of the Watauga River. KnobCreek begins just north of Jonesborough and flowsapproximately northeasterly about 12.5 miles until itreaches the Watauga River just east of Highway 11E,the highway that runs next to Rocky Mount. Interestingly,the creek just to the east of Knob Creek and southof the Watauga River is called Cobb Creek (Figure 7).Further supporting evidence that certainly placesWilliam Cobb’s land south of the Watauga River in and74

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTFigure 7. A portion of the Wataugah Land Purchase (WLP) map, showing Item 88, the northern boundary (shown with a boldline in lower left corner) of which adjoins land to the north owned by William Cobb in 1778 (original map by Charles A. ReevesJr., published by Troy R. Keesee 1997, used with permission). The location of the Rocky Mount historic site is indicated bythe star.near present-day Johnson City is provided by theoriginal Wataugah Land Purchases (WLP) (Keesee1997). The most informative plat description relevantto William Cobb is Item 88 in the WLP (Keesee 1997:57)which described a 340 acre land transfer to JohnMcMahen from Charles Robertson, dated 22 February1778:Land lying at two forks of KNOB CREEK and sinkholesincluding two sinking springs, costing 100 pounds, boundedas follows: Beginning at William COBBS corner go on COBBSline S65E, 13 chains to a red oak on said line; then go S10W,30 chains to a red oak; West 80 chains to a red oak; N31 chainsto a red oak on said McMAHENS line; N56E, 40 chains toWilliam COBBS line to four chestnuts; on said COBBS line toa chestnut S26E, 31 chains; S79E, 10 chains on said COBBSline to a white oak; then on said line N50E, 13 chains to thebeginning. Witnessed by Thomas HAUGHTON & ThomasTALBOT. (340 Acres)The plat map for Item 88 in the WLP places the parcelof land described above between Knob Creek to theeast and Carroll Creek to the west (Figure 7). Today,striking similarities can be seen between the shape ofthis southern boundary and a portion of the presentdayKnob Creek Road. This location suggests that at75

SOUTHEASTERN ARCHAEOLOGY 28(1) SUMMER 2009least this one parcel of land owned by William Cobblikely followed today’s Knob Creek Road to the south,Carroll Creek to the west, and Knob Creek to the east.The northern boundary of this land can not bedetermined with accuracy, although Item 18 in theWLP lies just to the north of the Cobb property (Keesee1997:34), land that was granted to George Russell on 18November 1775, but with no mention of William Cobbin the plat description.Curiously, evidence that William Cobb owned landsouth of the Watauga River was initially proposed over25 years ago by Johnson (1983) who stated in a letter tothe Tennessee Historical Commission: ‘‘I was able toobtain copies of apparently all of the land grants anddeeds issued to William Cobb and Henry MassengillSr. and Jr. from North Carolina…Cobb owned severalhundred acres on the south side of the Watauga Riveralong what is now called (interestingly enough) CobbCreek, north of Johnson City.’’ In fact, William Cobb,his father Benjamin Cobb, and his son Pharoah Cobbowned several tracts of land south of the Watauga Riverwithin the present-day city limits of Johnson City,Tennessee, as well as in areas just north of present-dayJohnson City (Mark C. Hicks, Jr. personal communication,23 January 2008, as shown in a map created byLucy Gump based on deed records and plat mapsfound in the North Carolina State Land Office): ‘‘1778,Nov 30; warrant for Benjamin Cobb; 600 a, on Knob Cr,adj Wm Cobb claim of land WHERE sd WILLIAMCOBB now liv; inc a sm field, race pathes & a blewspring.’’ These facts clearly place land owned byWilliam Cobb south of the Watauga River. In noinstance is the name William Cobb associated with landnorth of the Watauga River, much less in the Piney flatsregion where Rocky Mount exists today. We acknowledge,however, that it is possible that William Cobbmay have owned more than one parcel of land in theWatauga River area for which he had no clear title.The last item that needs to be addressed concerns theDining Room chimney that today exists on the southside of the room. Early photographs clearly show thischimney existing on the north side of the room. This repositioningof the Dining Room chimney led tospeculations that the logs on the north and south sidesmay be replacement logs, but closer examination of thelog ends on the Dining Room explain why no logs mayhave been replaced. During the first renovation periodin 1959–60, the architects likely knew that replacinglogs on two entire walls would be problematic. Webelieve that, rather than replacing these logs, thearchitects switched the north-end logs (which had beensplit for chimney placement) with the south end logs,and vice versa. This would ensure that logs of the samelength were retained on the north and south sides ofthe Dining Room, important in keeping the originalshape and size of the Dining Room. This strategy alsoFigure 8. Five logs on the north side of the Dining Room,showing how the upper ‘‘V’’ of the notch below (indicated byarrows) was cut off and repositioned to accommodate thenotch of the log above. This technique ensured the refitting oflogs that were likely switched from the north and south endsof the room.would keep the original split logs with the chimney.Further, this refitting would only necessitate renotchingof the log ends, and this is plainly visible on manylogs on the Dining Room. The renotching would onlyrequire cutting off the upper ‘‘V’’ of the notch on theunderside log and moving it into position beneath thenotch on the upper log (Figure 8).SummaryThe tree-ring evidence demonstrates that the CobbHouse and adjacent Dining Room at the Rocky MountHistoric Site were built between 1826 and 1830 byMichael Massengill, not between 1770 and 1772 byWilliam Cobb. The documentary evidence indicates thatthe Cobb family never owned Rocky Mount, but insteadWilliam Cobb and his relatives may have lived on landlocated south of the Watauga River to the west and northof present-day Johnson City, Tennessee. The RockyMount site and its museum have served the State ofTennessee well for nearly 50 years, and we see no reasonwhy this service should be disrupted. We echo thesentiments of Johnson (1983), who stated that ‘‘the site isvery valuable to its community and should continue tooperate.’’ We suggest, however, that the history ofRocky Mount as portrayed by the Rocky MountMuseum should acknowledge that this house wasinstead built by Michael Massengill in 1827. To be historicallyaccurate, the museum should no longer refer tothis house as the ‘‘Cobb House,’’ nor should the museumrefer to this house as the ‘‘U.S. Territorial Capital, 1790–1792’’ which it clearly could not have been.76

CONSTRUCTION HISTORY OF ROCKY MOUNTNoteAcknowledgments. Over the years, many individuals contributedtheir time and effort on this massive project and wethank you all: Steve Rogers, Jerry Wooten, and the rest of thestaff at the Tennessee Historical Commission; the RockyMount Historical Association and Rocky Mount Museum;Amy Steadman (currently Curator, Eudora Welty House);field assistants Ashley Heaton, Evan Larson, Daniel Lewis,David Mann, Alison Miller, Georgina DeWeese, DanicaPraza, Jessica Pollock, and Brian Parrish; professors JohnRehder, John Morgan, and Charles Faulkner, who helpedimprove our interpretations of log cabin construction; andAshley Heaton and Jessica Pollock, who painstakinglymeasured the widths on nearly 8,000 tree rings analyzed inthis project. All reference chronologies used in this study areavailable from the IGBP PAGES/World Data Center forPaleoclimatology, International Tree-Ring Data Bank, inAsheville, North Carolina, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/treering.html/. This research was funded by the TennesseeHistorical Commission.References CitedAlderman, Pat1970 The Overmountain Men: Early Tennessee History 1760–1795. Overmountain Press, Johnson City, TN.Bannister, Bryant1962 The Interpretation of Tree-ring Dates. American Antiquity27:508–514.Browning, Howard M.1942 The Washington County Court, 1778–1779: A Study in FrontierAdministration. Tennessee Historical Quarterly 1:328–343.Cobb, Pharaoh L.1926 William Cobb–Host of Gov. Wm. Blount: His Life andTimes. Tennessee Historical Magazine 9:241–263.Cook, Edward R.1985 A Time Series Analysis Approach to Tree-ring Standardization.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universityof Arizona, Tucson.DeFriece, Pauline M., and Frank B. Williams Jr.1966 Rocky Mount: The Cobb-Massengill Home. FirstCapitol of the Territory South of the River Ohio. TennesseeHistorical Quarterly 25:119–134.Edwards, Bruce M.1976 The Cobbs of the Tidewater. Montgomery Publishing,Knoxville, TN.Ellerbusch, Elijah C., Bradley A. Creswell, and Greta J. Gomez2005 Archaeological Inquiry at Rocky Mount (40SL386), anHistoric Frontier Homestead in Piney Flats, SullivanCounty, Tennessee. Final Report prepared for the RockyMount Museum and the Center for Appalachian Studiesand Services.Glassie, Henry1968 The Types of the Southern Mountain Cabin. In TheStudy of American Folklore: An Introduction, edited by JanH. Brunvand, pp. 338–370. W. W. Norton, New York.Grissino-Mayer, Henri D.2001 Evaluating Crossdating Accuracy: A Manual andTutorial for the Computer Program COFECHA. Tree-RingResearch 57:205–221.Grissino-Mayer, Henri D., and Saskia L. van de Gevel2007 Tell-tale Trees: Historical Dendroarchaeology of LogStructures at Rocky Mount, Piney Flats, Tennessee.Historical Archaeology 41(4):32–49.Holmes, Richard L.1983 Computer-assisted Quality Control in Tree-ring Datingand Measurement. Tree-Ring Bulletin 43:69–78.HTGS [Holston Territory Genealogical Society]1993 Families and History of Sullivan County, Tennessee:Volume 1, 1779–1992. Walsworth Publishing Company,Waynesville, NC.Johnson, Liz M.1981 Construction Analysis of Rocky Mount. Piney Flats,Tennessee: Rocky Mount Historical Association. Manuscripton file with the Tennessee Historical Commission,Nashville.1983 Letter to the Tennessee Historical Commission. March15. Tennessee Historical Commission, Nashville.Keesee, Troy R.1997 The Wataugah Land Purchases. T. R. Keesee (privatelyprinted), Knoxville, TN.Massengill, Charles1955 Manuscript. April 25. Tennessee Historical Commission,Nashville.Massengill, Samuel E.1931 The Massengills, Massengales and Variants, 1472–1931.King Printing, Bristol, TN.McGowen, Mary H.1960 Letter to Pauline DeFriece. July 18. Tennessee HistoricalCommission, Nashville.Morgan, John1990 The Log House in East Tennessee. University of TennesseePress, Knoxville.Nash, Steven E.1999 Time, Trees, and Prehistory: Tree-Ring Dating and theDevelopment of North American Archaeology, 1914–1950.University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Orvis, Kenneth H., and Henri D. Grissino-Mayer2002 Standardizing the reporting of abrasive papersused to surface tree-ring samples. Tree-Ring Research 58:47–50.Patrick, James1981 Architecture in Tennessee, 1768–1897. University ofTennessee Press, Knoxville.Price, Prentiss1954 Letter to Harold S. Fink. November 16. TennesseeHistorical Commission, Nashville.Ramsey, James G. M.1853 The Annals of Tennessee to the End of the EighteenthCentury. Walker and James Printers, Charleston, SC.Ray, Worth S.1960 Tennessee Cousins: A History of Tennessee People.Genealogical Publishing, Baltimore.Stokes, Martin A., and Terah L. Smiley1996 An Introduction to Tree-Ring Dating. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.77